I wrote this paper in late 1982 and early 1983 while
living near Washington DC. I utilized the Library of Congress and the
Smithsonian Anthropological Archives during research. The paper was privately
distributed in May 1983. Copies were sent to the national park in Chillicothe,
(then called Mound City National Monument), and also to the Ohio Historical
Society in Columbus. William Romain accessed this paper at the Chillicothe
location around 1990 according to the Mound City staff archaeologist. His
article [in Ohio Archaeologist 41(3)1991]
uses the data that I generated for the Hopeton earthworks but without
referencing my paper. Readers should compare his article to my maps herein.
Romain in his subsequent articles uses the same azimuths as generated from my
article and applies them to maps of other mound sites using an inscribed
plastic overlay. This method ignores intersite variation in horizon heights and
does not yield valid archaeoastronomical results.
An Astronomical Interpretation of the
Hopeton Earthworks
Christopher S.
Turner
Spring 1983
_____________________________________________________________
Introduction
Following
is a near-verbatim redraft of the original hand-typed paper. It is now in
Microsoft Word to facilitate its distribution. Only typographic errors and one
erroneous line from the data table have been corrected. For the sake of
authenticity, these changes are indicated in an errata sheet at the end of the
article. Though some of the footnotes have been restated as in-text references,
and a few overly-wordy sections have been rephrased, every effort was made to
adhere to the original text. This manuscript was never published. It has been
on file in the library of the Mound City unit of the Hopewell Culture National Historical
Park in Chillicothe, Ohio, and at the library of the Ohio Historical Society in
Columbus, Ohio. Those copies were distributed through the mail in May 1983.
Historical
View
Throughout southern Ohio, mainly in the
valleys of the Scioto, Muskingum, and Miami rivers, are large earthworks whose
dimensions in some cases exceed one-half mile. These “Indian Mounds” are, in
notable cases, laid out in nearly perfect geometrical shapes, most often being
squares, circles, and octagons.[1]
It has been suggested since as early as 1820 that these geometrical groups may
in some way be astronomical (Atwater 1820:144).
In the famous 1848 work by Squier and Davis the term “Sacred Enclosures” was
applied to these groupings for lack of a better term or interpretation.[2] Little published material
appeared attempting to better define the nature of these earthworks (Hagar
1933, Holmes 1892, Morgan 1881). Recently, John Eddy raised the issue of an
astronomical purpose behind their construction by prehistoric Eastern Woodlands
Indians (Eddy 1977). Hively and Horn of Earlham College Indiana have made the
first credible attempt in print to show that, in their case, the Newark Ohio
octagon and circle combination is an observatory, the grouping being designed
for lunar observation (Hively and Horn 1982). Here I will present data to show
that a circle and irregular square combination a few miles north of Chillicothe
Ohio can be used as an observatory for marking the rising and setting points of
the lunar extrema, as well as the solstices and equinoxes. This group is called
the Hopeton Earthworks (Figure 1).
Geographical Surroundings
The Hopeton site is directly accessible to
two major geographically separated river valleys: the
Paint and the Scioto. There is much evidence that in both of these river
valleys within a 15-mile radius of Chillicothe were Indian trails, habitation
sites, and areas monitored using signal fires on mountain peaks or passes
(Figure 2). It seems likely that signal fires were used for astronomical
purposes also. The horizons surrounding the Hopeton earthworks abound in known
mound or signal fire mound sites. To the west, one sees a low, rather even
horizon, the altitude ranging from about 0.4 to 1.0 degrees. To the east, the
horizon is marked with distinct and famous peaks. The Great Seal of the State
of Ohio is a scene depicting the sun rising over these very peaks, Mt.Logan
notably. The horizons are of sufficient height to function as astronomical
foresights, especially with the use of fires.
The earthworks themselves, as is typical of the
geometric groups, are located on a low section of the floodplain bordering a
river. These river bottoms provide fine views from horizon to horizon as one
looks up, down, or across the valley.
The Earthworks
The Hopeton Earthworks
are fairly typical of their class: there is a large circular embankment in
conjunction with a polygonal embankment, each roughly 1000 feet across. In
addition, several circles 250 feet across are accompanying the larger work. But
the similarity ends there. Whereas usually a walled avenue connects the two
large shapes, here they share a common wall, which is the south wall of the
circle. This as well as the overall shape itself render the polygon neither a
perfect square nor circle, though it has been called both.[3] Also, the small circle,
marked “C” in the Squier and Davis chart (Figure 1), actually intrudes into the large “square”, a feature
quite uncommon. The breaks in the wall of the “square” are not in typical
locations either, usually being located at the corners or the midline points of
the wall.
The “Sacred Enclosures”
of the Hopewell have fared very poorly at the hands of the white man. Seemingly
indicative of their astronomical nature, these groupings are located in the
fertile river bottoms, where low wide distinct horizons are afforded. The rich
earth in the river bottoms made them targets for the farmer’s plow, in marked
contrast to the hilltop forts, which have retained much of their original
integrity. The hillforts are among Ohio’s finest state parks. The geometrical
groups, however, have been very poorly preserved, with the exception of the two
sites in Newark, Ohio. Interestingly, the U.S. Department of the Interior has
shown some desire to purchase the Hopeton site and unite it with the nearby
Mound City National Monument (Brose 1976, the Secretary of the Interior 1979).[4] The partial or in some
cases total destruction of the geometric groups has made reliance on
pre-destruction survey data a must as concerns astronomical analysis.
Astronomical Interpretation of the Earthworks
The only valid extant
survey data available for the Hopeton Earthworks is that acquired by J.D.
Middleton and G. Fowke in the 1880s for the Bureau of American Ethnology
(Thomas 1889:23-25, plate VIII; 1894:472-474). Hively and horn treated the
validation of the Middleton/Fowke data concerning the octagon, and I will
assume that their work lends support to confirming the accuracy of the survey
data here (Hively and Horn 1982).[5] By using the
Middleton/Fowke data as published, and also their field notes, I was able to
portray the Hopeton Earthworks mathematically and geometrically, taking into
account the various gateway widths, thereby making alignment azimuths between
the various gateways ascertainable. [6]
There is an excellent series of aerial
photographs of many Ohio mound formations taken in the 1930s by US Air Force
pilot Dache Reeves, who was working independently on this archaeological
catalogue. These photographs are invaluable, as they allow for accurate map
placement of various mound features.[7]
Once the azimuths in question are
determined from the Middleton data, any backsight points are accurately
locatable using the Reeves photographs as projected onto the appropriate USGS
7.5”quadrangle.This in turn allows foresight points of the lines-of-sight to be
plotted on the surrounding horizon, and an easy computation allows values of
the horizon altitude, “h”, to be figured . Thus azimuth, “h”, and latitude
become available, and by insertion of values for parallax, semi-diameter, and
refraction, declination of celestial objects at certain rising and setting
points is obtained.[8]
Gateways
Figure 3 shows the nomenclature labeling the various gateways
and their edges. This is after Middleton/Fowke and their survey station
indexing. To their system I have added the designations a or b for gateway
edges. Three of the gateways lacked any survey station in the square, and were
hence labeled after the nearest circle survey station; these are gateways 6,
42, and 39. Also, one alignment is further refined by tangenting the large
circle, a situation like that at Newark as demonstrated by Hively and Horn
(1982:14). The tangent point in the circle is nearest survey station 16, which
for all purposes represents the tangent point.
To utilize the earthworks as an
observatory, one would stand in a particular gateway, thereby using it as a
backsight marker. The observer would then sight across the earthworks in the
direction of another chosen gateway, a foresight and an azimuth thus both being
defined (Figures 9 and 11). In no case, however, does the opposite wall of the
earthwork form the horizon as seen from a backsight location. Downrange
distances to the foresight gateways are as great as 1100 feet, and so
particular azimuths are amply pointed out. The definition of horizon features
may be achieved by map and on-site examination. It became apparent to the
writer early on in map plotting of the lines-of-sight that the many knobs and
valleys east of Chillicothe provide many potential foresight features.
Interestingly, the Ohio Great Seal depicts just this scene: the sun rising
amongst these very peaks and gaps, with harvested wheat in the foreground
(Figure 4). Such is the glory and demise of the Hopewell observatories.
The Small
Circles
As mentioned earlier, the small circle,
marked “C” on the Squier and Davis map (Figure 1), actually intrudes into the
main body of the earthwork, survey station 10 being in the center of the
gateway. This type of intrusion is uncommon for geometrical groups as a class,
and this peculiarity may indicate some special purpose for point 10. Indeed,
seven of the 26 proposed alignments (excepting the avenue) include point 10.
Only gateway 3-4 has more at eight.
Early maps show the gateway of the small
circle near point 8 to be just outside the main body of the square. It would
have been preferable to analyze alignments with reference to this gateway, but
I have been unable to locate survey data describing it. I settled on using 8
and 8a, the edges of gateway 8, as backsight and foresight boundaries. The
extreme width of gateway 8 so defined allows for a greater chance of alignments
being found, but fortunately this situation is not repeated at any of the other
gateways, these being much narrower. The edges
of gateway 10 were not considered or analyzed, as Middleton & Fowke in
their survey referred to the small circle’s gateway center as point 10, and this is the point that was used exclusively
when considering alignments here. Neither have I concerned myself with points
10N and 10S as labeled in figure 3.
The Avenue
Just across the river
from the Hopeton Earthworks is Mound City. The long avenue leading from Hopeton
away to the southwest has been suggested to be a road of sorts leading to Mound
City. The Scioto is quite narrow here (Hyde 1921). I agree with Brose
(1976:68-70): the avenue bearing crosses the small circle that is south of
Mound City I disagree with Snow in Brose
(1979:64) that this is a solstice alignment: if anything, the avenue was used
to mark the rising point of the north lunar maximum event.[9]
Also notable is apparent
alignment of the north and south walls of the Hopeton square with the north and
south walls of the enclosure around Mound City. According to Marshall in Brose
(1976:68-70), these sides are six degrees out of parallel. The Hopeton north
and south wall alignments 5-7 and 1-11 point to the sunrise when the solar
declination is +15.5 degrees. At the Fairground Circle in Newark, Ohio he sun
rises centrally through its singular gateway when the solar declination is
+15.7 degrees
(Turner 1982:9).[10]
If these alignments were
intended by the Hopewell, it would indicate dividing the calendar year into 8
parts, or at least the recognition of the center of the standard seasons. The
setting alignments 7-5 and 11-1 miss the miss the season mid-point by 1.1 and
1.5 degrees respectively. These lines-of-sight do, however, after crossing
Mound City extend near eight miles through a gap between the two plateaus to
the west of the Hopeton Earthworks. I believe that this was likely an important
link for signaling/communicating between the Paint Creek and the Scioto
valleys.
Foresight Signal Points
In February 1983, I
undertook an extensive systematic field search for burned stone piles along the
ridges forming the horizons as seen from the Hopeton Earthworks (Figure 6).
This expedition required 8 days and 15 miles of extensive surface scanning.
There are many known examples of these burned stone piles, believed to be
associated with the Hopewell/Adena signaling system, which is marvel unto
itself.
“Indeed, strong traces of fire are visible at
many places,…, particularly at the point commanding the broadest extent of the
country. Here are two or three small mounds of stone burned throughout.
Nothing can be more certain than
that powerful fires
have been maintained,
for considerable periods,
at numerous prominent points on the
hill; for what purpose,
unless as alarm signals, it is impossible to
conjecture.”
Squier
and Davis (1848:12)
“The apparent
dependence that exists between some of them [fire cairns] and the larger earthworks [geometrical groups]
would seem to favor the idea that they were lookouts. But whether signal
stations or otherwise, there can be no doubt that the ancient people selected
prominent and elevated positions upon which
to build large
fires, which were kept
burning for long
periods, or were renewed at
frequent intervals. For what purpose they were built, whether to communicate
intelligence, or to celebrate some religious rite, it is not under taken to
say. The traces of these fires are only observed upon the brows of the hills:
they appear to have been built generally upon heaps of stones, which are broken
up and sometimes partially vitrified. In all cases they exhibit the marks of
intense and protracted heat.”
Squier and Davis
(1848: 183)
The high hills to the east of Hopeton create many horizon
features that form natural foresights as seen from the earthwork (Figure 7).
The ridge runs approximately on a north-south axis, and constitutes much of
present Great Seal State Park. There I found many remnant fire cairns, burned
natural outcroppings, and even what seem to be artificial terraces on some
hillsides (Figure 8, see Appendix). What appeared to be fire-cracked rock was
found at these also. Some of these sites correspond with Hopeton alignments,
while others do not. Some areas that would be anticipated to have signal fire
evidence seem to be completely lacking such evidence. It is logical to assume
that the invention of the signaling system predated the creation of the
observatories, with the former lending its technology to the astronomical
problem, so that some of the burned stone piles in the Great Seal State Park
were only signal fires strictly used for
communication and to assist the traveler at night.
The area near
the western horizon of the Hopeton earthworks was the home of the famous Adena
mound. Adena is the name of the estate of an early governor of Ohio, Thomas
Worthington, who from there witnessed the image now on the state seal.
According to the map from Mills (1914),
there was a profusion of mounds in this area (Figure 5). Most are now destroyed. This
area, in contrast to the east side of the Scioto valley, is more of a plateau
than a ridge. It has therefore been subjected to farming. Also, the wider area
makes for a much larger zone of potential foresight locations. These conditions
suggest that the search for burned stone piles would be less fruitful, and this
was the case. Only one definite pile was found, and it does correspond with an
equinox set foresight locale.
To complete a definitive survey and mapping
of all burned stone piles (FCR concentrations) and signal mounds located on
ridges surrounding the Hopeton earthworks would require much expense, much
time, and a professional crew using modern techniques. I encourage
archaeologists to undertake this immense task. Considering the ongoing
destruction of sites in Ohio, the preservation of this ancient signaling system
would be a timely one.
Modern
Appreciation of the Earthworks
The geometrical earthworks are unique on
this planet, and it is their earthen structure which makes them both durable
and so extremely unique. The aboriginal Americans who built them were
fascinated with geometrical perfection with a reasoning apart from being wholly
astronomical.[11]
The earthworks are an extravagant way of marking key solar and lunar azimuths,
yet this seems to have been the motivating purpose in their construction,
grandly combining practical geometrical exercises and mound construction with a
calendric need. If this is indeed true, one would expect to find earthworks
lacking any geometrical perfection yet functioning especially as observatories.
The Hopeton earthworks is in fact such a group, being of the huge dimensions of
more perfect circles and squares, yet lacking the same accuracy. (Compare
Hopeton “square” to squares at Liberty, Baum, or Newark: they are far more
regular.) Fowke has cited this irregularity as evidence of poor workmanship by
their builders.
“Nearly all of the enclosures of Ohio
...have lately been very carefully surveyed, and not a single “exact square” or
“perfect circle” has been found amongst them, though some of the works approach
very closely to these forms. There is sufficient accuracy in some cases to make
one wonder that the builders could have done as well as they did, but no
evidence of any “calculation” beyond the mere sighting and measuring possible
to any one, The “square” at the Hopeton
Works, for instance, has eleven sides with as many different bearings and
angles, and not a right angle among them.”
Fowke (1889)(my
italitcs)
Hively and Horn (1982:12) demonstrated that
the Hopewell may have purposely distorted otherwise perfect geometrical shapes
to suit astronomical needs at the Newark Earthworks. As an example of the
accuracy the Hopewell did achieve, the sides of the Newark Square are 31 and 6
minutes of arc out of parallel. The Newark Observatory Circle, so-called since
pioneer times, varies only plus/minus four feet out of a diameter of 1054 feet
(Thomas 1889:17-19; 1894:464-466).
How well would the Hopeton Earthworks
function in practice as an observatory? Today, a farm road crosses the
earthworks, passing through gateways 2 and 11. It forms an example of a
line-of-sight. Standing at gateway 2 in March 1983, looking to the east, I was
impressed by the azimuth selection capabilities of such a system. Unfortunately,
the wall of the Hopeton earthworks are much degraded from their original
stature, standing nowhere more than a few feet high. Squier and Davis in the
1840s reported a height of 12 feet. At the distance of 885, the average
distance from gateway to gateway of all the proposed alignments, the 12-foot
high walls would stand over ¾ degree in angular height. The apparent width of a
backsight in general varies from about 2 degrees to 5 or 6 when considering the
widest gateway, #8. During large scale leveling of the walls, Ms Louise
Stanhope reported seeing 30-35 cm. diameter ash or charcoal pits in the ground
in many of the gateways (Brose 1979:59). Perhaps small fires were set in the
gateways in order to illuminate them for observational use.
Certainly, the Hopeton earthwork gateways
are practical azimuth selectors. Further refining of this system is achievable
through the use of fires at horizon foresight locations. I have found a few
such points showing evidence of signal (burned stone) mounds. In addition,
especially as concerns rising points to the east, there are many gaps and
peaks, several of which show correlation with astronomical foresights as seen
from the Hopeton earthworks.
Who Were
the Hopewell?
Rather than being a American Indian tribal
name, Hopewell refers to a culture whose specific relics distinguish them from
other prehistoric groups. At the turn of the century a large cache of artifacts
was excavated by Warren K. Moorehead near Chillicothe, Ohio, from mounds on the
land of Capt. Mordecai Hopewell: hence the name. There is a great overlap in
the artifact type called Hopewell and Adena. Flint arrowheads, bone tools,
woven cloth, intricately carved stone pipes, granite hammers, drilled animal
teeth, river and sea shells, large quantities of mica, obsidian tools, beaten
copper sheets, engraved copper, copper ear spools, design cut copper and mica
sheeting, and some silver items are typical relics of the Hopewell. The
geometrical earthworks themselves are considered to be Hopewell “artifacts”.
The available radiocarbon dates for different geometrical
enclosures suggest a construction date of around AD 250. Hopeton itself has no
dated material.[12]
Its seeming connection with Mound City may have been temporal, pushing the date
to back before Christ. I settle on the date of AD 100 (for the construction of
Hopeton).
As a distinct culture, the Hopewell seems to have existed
between around 200 BC to AD 400.It is evident
that they had extensive mortuary practices, including dismemberment, possibly
open-air decay with bird scavenging, cremation within a charnel hut, finally
leading to mound burial. Whole skeletons are found, flexed or prone, with
attendant personal or possibly ritualistic objects. Vast quantities of material
have been found with certain burials, presumably these having been kings or
leaders,
The many Hopewell burial practices are as varied as their use of
earth. The simplest earthen constructions are the burial mounds, which serve a
very practical function. Also practical was the erection of earthen walls
around the tops of certain hills: these are the defensive enclosures or
hillforts. Signaling was aided, probably mostly by pinpointing the source, by
building a large mound on a ridge that already commanded an appreciable vista,
especially in a strategic direction. Some mounds, the so-called platform
variety, were actually dwelling sites, with huts built on them. The rare Ohio
effigy mounds seem to be wholly ritualistic, the Serpent Mound and the Opossum
Mound being the primary representatives. There are many examples of embankments
that lack geometric regularity: these are interpretable as having been used to
define a living space or area. Lastly are the geometrical groups, certainly the
most sophisticated of the Ohio earthworks, possibly the most sophisticated in
the world. Indeed, if these are observatories, they are the sole example of
their kind on the face of the planet.
Footnotes
[1] Squier and Davis (1848)
lists 15 earthworks that are geometrical groups and hence possibly
observatories. They are: Clark, High Bank, Hopeton, Liberty Twp., Baum, Seip,
East Chillicothe, Frankfort, Dunlap, Piketon, Newark, Marietta, Portsmouth,
plate XXIX n. 1, and plate XXXIV n. 1,. In addition, the Circleville earthworks
should be added to the list. This represents a total of 17 partial or complete
squares, 18 medium or large circles, and 2 octagons. It is often stated that
there are hundreds of potential observatories, but these counts erroneously
include hilltop enclosures or otherwise irregular shapes.
2 Squier
and Davis (1848), especially the introduction to the chapter on Sacred
Enclosures. Also see pages 61 and 66.
3Squier
and Davis (1848:51) “It was not regular in any sense, but was doubtless
intended for a square.” See also Thomas (1894:474).
4 In 2001,
Hopeton is one component of five sites in Ross County comprising Hopewell
Culture National Historical Park, including the former Mound City National
Monument.
5 If the
Middleton/Fowke data are plotted, there are residual errors where the shape
does not close back on itself. Some typical errors are as follows: Hopeton
Circle, 0.6 feet; Hopeton Square, 3.4 feet; Baum Square, 3.3 feet; High Bank
Octagon, 6.6 feet; High bank Circle, 4.3
feet; Newark Observatory Circle, 0.9´feet; and Newark Octagon, 0.8 feet.
6 The “x-y
grid basis” above specifically is this: assigning each survey station Cartesian
co:ordinates, a north-south component and an east-west component. Azimuths are
easily determined by y/x = tan q. ct2001] In the National Anthropological
Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., manuscript #2400 contains a
large volume of the field notes that went into making the 12th
annual report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology (Thomas 1894). Much of the actual survey data on many of the
geometrical earthworks can be found therein, but the field survey notes on
Hopeton seem to be missing. In the published version, there are gross discrepancies
between the written descriptions and the actual plat as concerns survey
stations. This is especially true of the survey stations that lie at the apex
of very obtuse angles, such as points 12, 13, and 2.
On the other hand, the published
numerical survey data is in very good
agreement with the plat. Therefore, the data used for gateway edges were
obtained by direct measurement from the plat using a 1/64” ruler and a good
magnifier. The plat used was an original copy of the 10th bulletin
of the Bureau of Ethnology. These measurements were to establish co:ordinates
for gateway edges, with the original survey stations remaining unaffected.
There is an excellent series of
aerial photographs of many Ohio mound formations taken in the 1930s by US Air
Force pilot Dache Reeves, who was working independently on this archaeological
catalogue. These photographs are invaluable, as they allow for accurate map
placement of mound features
7 The Reeves photographs are in the National Anthropological
Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., manuscript # 4318.
8 The standard equation relating declination (d),
azimuth (A), latitude (j), and horizon altitude (h) is as follows:
sin
d = (sin j)(sin h)
+ (cos j)(cos h)(cos A)
For refinements of this equation, see Thom (1967, 1971).
9Brose
1976:68-70, lists azimuth of avenue bearing at 52.2 degrees.[Note: in 1983,
this azimuth value was the only such datum available for the Hopeton avenue.
This was superseded in the 1990s by James Marshall’s survey. His datum azimuth
indicates that the avenue was aligned to the summer solstice sunrise. Densitometer
and magnetometer mapping of the site by the National Park Service n the 1990s, conducted by Berle Clay, was
unable to detect any trace of the low parallel walls. Marshall’s figure stands
today as the accurate value. ][ct 2015]
10Spring
was 93 days 18 hours long in 1982. At the half way point in this period, on May
5th, 20 hours UT, the sun was in declination +16.33 degrees. The
geometrical halfway point with reference to right ascension (i.e. sun at 3
hours R.A.) does not occur till a few days later. But it seems unlikely that
primitive observers would relate to as longitudinal indexing system as opposed
to a temporal one, so that the May 5th date would be a more
practical one for dividing the seasons.
11Hively
and Horn (1982:8-9), state that the two large circles in Newark are 6 “OCD”
apart (an OCD equals 1054 feet), a situation that if intended by the Hopewell
indicates reasoning that is totally metrical, not only geometrical or
astronomical.
12 Brose
(1979:16, 36). [ Now, in 2001, we have the two C14 dates obtained by the
NPS/Bret Ruby in 1994:
·
1930 ±60 BP (AD 20)(Beta
96598) This was
from a charcoal lens lying atop a thin prepared burned surface of silt, sand,
and clay overlying the A-horizon paleosol.
·
1840±50 BP (AD110)
(Beta 109962)(Bret Ruby, personal communication, Jan. 2000) This
charcoal sample was from a redeposited midden feature located atop the final
major construction-episode layer.
[These are consistent with a construction time in the mid
first century AD. CST 2001]
13 [Hopeton
was purchased by the NPS in the 1990s and is now part of Hopewell Culture
National Historical Park. This allowed me to perform on-site observations of
the solar events at Hopeton in 1998-99. Some of those events are shown in “Ohio
Hopewell Archaeoastronomy: a Meeting of Earth, Mind, and Sky” in Time and Mind, 1991:4. cst 2015]
Appendix
Fire Cairn
Survey Map
Following is a list keying the numbered features on Figure 8 to their descriptions (See also figures 6 and 7).
1.
Terminus
of alignment 1a-10.
2.
Terminus
of alignment 3-8a.
3.
There is
an area about 40 feet long wherein is much
scattered burned rock. The southern end of this area is about 260 feet down
from the peak of Sugarloaf. There find up to head rocks in an area 15 feet in
diameter. The northern end of the 40 feet zone shows many small, reddened
chips. The whole area seems somewhat concentrated off the ridge slightly to the
west. The top of Sugarloaf has much scattered rock, a great portioned looking
burned.
4.
These are
cutaways into the normally sloping hillside. They are rectangular in shape. The
upper one is 130 feet down from the peak of Sugarloaf: it is 30 feet long by 12
feet deep by 5 feet high. The lower one
is 210 feet up from the path in the gap: it is 35 feet long by 15 feet deep by
6 feet high. Both, especially the upper one, exhibit burned rock. These areas should
be tested as foresights from the Hopeton earthworks.
5.
Terminus
of alignment 4-9a.
6.
Terminus
of alignment 2b-10.
7.
A 30 feet
wide depression with an area above it indicating the effect of fire.
8.
This area
suggested by Mr. Marion Waggoner of Chillicothe as a zone of burned stone. The
stones are now scattered, but the pile is still distinguishable, and is
focussed at the end of the peninsular ridge.
9.
The crest
of sand hill is covered with huge projecting sandstone boulders. The
outcroppings on the west side of the peak show extensive burned areas. Somewhat
down the ridge to the south, the last few boulders stand isolated, some having
flat, platform-like tops which have been thoroughly burned.
10.
Terminus
of alignment 6a-9a.
11.
Terminus
of alignment 4-10.
12.
Terminus
of alignment 2a-12a.
13.
These are
outcroppings similar to those on Sand Hill. Many here appear burned, though
with an irregular pattern of distribution.
14.
Terminus
of alignment 6b-10.
15.
Near the
low point of the local ridge there is a scattered area of rocks about 10 feet
by 20 feet. Tree roots have brought up many small chips. Bunker Hill is notably
void of scattered rock in general.
16.
Terminus
of alignment azimuth lying between 4-12a and 4-12b.
17.
Here is a
taper or a rather level area in the slope. It is 170 feet from the crest of
south Bunker Hill peak, heading a few degrees west of south. This flattened
area is uncharacteristic of these slopes in general. In addition, there is much
is much loose red rock on the ground, apparently burned and chipped. It is
possible that this was a foresight fire cairn point. It could certainly serve
no other purpose than signaling at its precarious location on the hillside
where it is found.
18.
Terminus
of alignment 39a-9.
19.
Terminus
of alignment 42a-10.
20.
Terminus
of alignment 5b-11b. This last group of alignments terminates in or near the
Bunker Hill-Mt.Ives gap. There is some
ambiguity in map interpretation when considering the appearance of the gap as
seen from the earthworks, and I would encourage on-site observations from
Hopeton as the only solution. Unfortunately, the Hopeton site is extensively
farmed and hence there is little chance of completing such an undertaking
currently. It is hoped that the National Park Service and the Department of the
Interior buy the entire site In Fee Absolute, it is of high archaeological
value in the overall comprehension of the Hopewell life and mind.[13]
21.
One
hundred thirty feet west of east Mt. Ives peak there is a 10 foot square area
of up to fist sized rocks with a profusion of small chips, notable only in
contrast to the rest of Mt. Ives, which is notably lacking in scattered surface
rock.
22.
A very
small area of rock chips brought to the surface by growing tree roots. This is
about 100 feet west of the low point of the local ridge
23.
Terminus
of alignment azimuth lying between 6b-11a and 6b-11b.
24.
Terminus
of alignment azimuth lying between 5b-12a and 5b-12b.
25.
Sugarloaf,
Sand Hill, and especially Bald Hill have much scattered rock in general
covering them. Bunker Hill and Mt. Ives are notably void of such cover.
Therefore this area of rock located on Mt. Ives is especially notable. It is at
the backsight locale of alignments 6-11 and 5-12. The area itself is just south
of the western peak of Mt. Ives and exhibits many imbedded scattered rocks,
some up to head sized in diameter. Excavation of this area and actual sighting
from Hopeton would be in order to verify its use as a foresight signal point.
Extending westward from Bunker Hill is a
terrace lying at the 800’ to 850’ elevation level. It approaches within 1 mile
of the Hopeton site, and the trees thereon partially obscure Mt. Ives as seen
from Hopeton. Using U.S.G.S. topo maps, I determined that the terrace is 0.4° lower than Mt.
Ives as viewed from the earthworks. I consider it likely that the Hopewell had
cleared the terrace of trees so that Mt Ives would be visible from Hopeton.. It
has been noted that cutting of trees on
a large scale would be necessary to establish lines-of-sight suggested
elsewhere (Brose 1976:68-70). Areas may
have been burned off selectively. The top of Sugarloaf must have been devoid of
trees in Hopewell times in order to render it functional as a signal station.
26.
There is
a high concentration of background scattered rock tending to piles on southwest
Mt. Ives peak.
27.
This is
the large earthen mound referred to in Squier and Davis’ Ancient Monuments. (See page 92, #3; plate XXXIII, #3; and page
181, bottom.) The mound, pock-marked from scavenging, is too far south to be
used as a foresight from Hopeton, but still commands a beautiful vista.
28.
Terminus
of avenue alignment.
29.
Terminus
of alignment 3-8. The last two alignments end on a hill about 1.5 km from the
Hopeton site, as suggested by Brose (1976:68-70). Today, a water tower stands
on the hill.
Western Horizon:
It
should be noted that the setting alignments could not except in one case be
correlated with a signal mound. The description of that single case is as
follows:
There
is a peninsula or extension of the table land bearing to the east from Egypt
Pike. The peninsula is just south of the road accessing Egypt Pike to the V.A.
Hospital and is the property of the hospital. The land is overgrown and
undeveloped, and there is an abandoned house on it. Fifty feet from the brow of
the peninsula there is a stone pile. A direct line from the stone pile to the
brow is on a bearing of 25 degrees east of north. This is a definite artificial
heap, some 10 feet in diameter and about 2 feet high. Its base is extended into
the soil to an unknown depth. The rocks are of all sizes, from hand sized to
head sized. There is much evidence of the action of fire: some of the rocks are
wholly burned. The equinox setting alignment 5b-9 ends here.
In
general, the setting alignments terminate on plateau land (as opposed to distinct
ridges as there are to the east). These plateaus represent a much larger
potential foresight area, and being plateaus, they have been subjected to
farming.
The lunar and solar north set phenomena
alignments all terminate on the spur of the table land that lies between Egypt
Pike and old Stone Road.
The lunar and solar south set phenomena
alignments terminate on the plateau north of the Adena estate toward Larrick
Lane and Clinton Road. The map from Mills shows a profusion of mounds in this
area. Long term farming over much of the plateau and wanton or professional
destruction of any mounds that were once extant has reduced the integrity of
the site.
Key to
Tables (see also figures 9 and 10)
Gates: Defines
foresight and backsight gateway numbers per Middleton survey.
Phenomenon:
EQ = equinox, MD = May cross-quarter, SS = summer solstice, WS =
winter solstice, LN = lunar minimum, LX = lunar maximum.
Distance: This
is the average of the distances from the backsight gateway edges to the
foresight gateway edges. It is thus effectively the distance from center to
center of the gateways.
Azimuth: This
is the average azimuth of the backsight gateways edge to foresight gateway
edges, implicitly the center-to-center azimuth.
Declination-
Here
listed are five columns of numbers. The middle three will be considered first. These
were computed for central bisection of the solar or lunar disk, i.e. with q =
0. The foresight and backsight gateways were analyzed from their respective
gateway edges, with four different azimuths being thus defined. The two
declinations corresponding with the most northerly and southerly azimuths are
listed in the columns marked north and south. The
column labeled d lists the declination for the mean sightline
generated by each gateway pair.
The first/last gleam events are
indicated in the q < 0 column.
The first/last tangent events are listed in the q > 0.
Horizon Feature:
Topographic feature at horizon foresight point.
Error:
This is the
difference between the proposed lunar or solar phenomenon and the nearest value
to it. When an event just clears a gateway edge, a value of 0.0 is listed. All
errors listed throughout are declination errors. The following values of declination for the
different solar and lunar phenomena are computed for A.D. 100.
Equinox 0.0
degrees
Solstice +/-
23.7 degrees
Lunar Minimum +/-
18.5 degrees
Lunar Maximum +/-
28.8 degrees
Table 1
Rise Phenomena (see figure 9)
Gates Phen Dist Azi q<0 south d
north q>0 Horizon Feature Error
2-12 EQ 675 93.2° - -2.3° -1.2° -0.2° 0.0° Sand Hill Peak 0.0
3-10 EQ 980 88.7 0.0 +0.2 +2.0 +3.7 - Sand Hill Ridge 0.0
6-9 EQ 719 94.0 - -3.5 -1.8 -0.3 -0.1 Sand Hill Ridge 0.1
5-7 MD 241 70.5 +15.4 - +15.6 - +15.7 N.Ridge Bald Hill -
1-11 MD 251 70.9 +15.5 - +15.6 - +15.8 N.Ridge Bald Hill -
3-8 SS 938 57.8 - +21.9 +24.9 +28.2 - NW
Slope Sugarloaf -
39-9 WS 303 125.1 - -26.6
-24.7 -22.4 - Bunker Hill-MtIves gap -
5-11 WS 1183 121.9 - -24.1
-22.4 -20.6 - Bunker Hill-MtIves gap -
42-10 WS 729 123.8 - -25.1
-24.5 -24.0 -23.9 Bunker Hill-MtIves
gap 0.2
3-9 LN 935 66.6 - +17.2 +19.4 +21.7 - Sugarloaf-BaldHill
gap -
2-10 LN 952 67.1 - +18.3 +18.8 +19.3 - Sugarloaf-BaldHill
gap -
3-12 LN 867 116.3 - -19.1
-17.5 -15.9 - South Ridge, Bunker Hill -
6-10 LN 929 116.9 -18.1
-17.9 -16.8 -15.7 - Bunker
Hill Ridge 0.4
1-10 LX 986 53.2 - +28.2 +28.5 +28.9 - NW
Slope Sugarloaf -
3-8 LX 938 57.8 - +22.5 +25.6 +28.9 - “Water
Tower” Hill -
5-12 LX 1091 131.1 - -29.3
-28.1 -27.1 - W. Mt. Ives Peak -
6-11 LX 1086 131.1 - -30.1
-28.0 -26.1 - W. Mt. Ives Peak -
Set Phenomena (see figure 10)
Gates Phen Dist Azi q<0 south d north q>0 Horizon Feature Error
9-5 EQ 904 267.6° - -3.1° -1.4° +0.2° - Ridge
(page:13) -
11-2 EQ 858 268.6 - -4.2 -2.4 -0.7 -0.5 Ridge, Egypt Pike 0.5
10-3 EQ 980 268.7 - -1.9 -0.7 +0.6 - Ridge, Egypt Pike -
11-5 SS 1183 301.9 - +22.7 +24.3 +25.8 - Near
Cattail Road -
8-3 WS 938 237.8 - -27.2 -24.0 -20.6 - Adena/Larrick Lane -
13-2 LN 379 292.9 - +16.8 +18.4 +19.9 - Egypt
Pike Plateau -
10-6 LN 929 293.9 +19.0 +19.1 +20.2 +21.3 - Egypt Pike Plateau 0.5
9-3 LN 935 246.6 - -18.7
-17.1 -15.4 - Clinton Rd/LarrickLane -
9-39 LX 303 305.1 - +25.2 +27.2 +29.0 - Rt
207/Old Stone Rd -
11-6 LX 1086 308.2 +29.1 +29.3 +31.1 +33.0 - Rt 207/Old Stone Rd 0.3
7-4 LX 912 229.4 - -31.0 -30.1 –29.1 –28.9 North of Adena Estate 0.1
References
Anonymous (J.S.), 1809,
“Remains of an Ancient Work Found on the Sciota, District of
Chillicothe”, The Portfolio, new series, 2
(1):419-420. (Ed)Oliver Oldschool, Esq., Bradford and Inskeep, Philadelphia.
Atwater,
Caleb, 1820, “Descriptions of the
Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and Other Western States”. American
Antiquarian Society, Archaeologia Americana, Transactions and Collections, i
.
Brose,
David, 1976, An Historical and Archaeological Evaluation of the Hopeton Earthworks,
Ross Co, Ohio, Cleveland, Ohio. National Park Service Contract
#PX-6115-6-0141, Midwest Archaeological Center, Lincoln, NE.
Brose, David and N’omi Greber,
editors,1979, The Chillicothe Conference,
Kent, Ohio.
Eddy, John,
1977, “Archaeoastronomy of North
American: Cliffs, Mounds, and Medicine Wheels”, In Search of Ancient Astronomies, (Ed) E.C. Krupp, Garden City, New
York. 133-163.
Fowke, Gerard, 1889, “Popular Errors in Regard to the Mound
Builders”, Ohio Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly, Columbus, Ohio, V3:380-387.
Hagar, S., 1933, “The Portsmouth Works”, Popular Astronomy, xli:2-21.
Hively,
Ray and Robert Horn, 1982, “Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio”,
Archaeoastronomy, supplement to the
Journal for the History of Astronomy, Bucks, England, 13(4):1-20.
Holmes, W.H., 1892, “Notes Upon Some Geometric Earthworks, with
Contour Maps”, American Anthropologist, v:363-373.
Hyde, John,
1921, “Geology of the Camp Sherman Quadrangle”, Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Ohio, Fourth
Series, #23, Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio.
Mills, W.C., 1914, Archaeological Atlas of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio.
Morgan, Lewis, 1881,
“Houses and House Life of the American Aborigines”, Contributions to North American Ethnology, v9,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Robertson,T.H., 1983, “ The Reliability of
Historical Maps of Earthworks in the Ohio Valley”, Archaeoastronomy,
6(1-4):75-79, College Park, Maryland.
Shepard, H.A., 1890, Antiquities of the State of Ohio,
Columbus, Ohio.
Squier, Ephraim and Edwin Davis, 1847,
“Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley”,
Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge, v. 1, 1847, Washington D.C..
Thom, Alexander, 1967, Megalithic Sites in Britain, Cambridge, England.
1971, Megalithic Lunar Observatories, Cambridge, England.
Thomas, Cyrus, 1894, “Report on the Mound
Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology”, Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, (1890-91), Washington D.C.
1899, “The Circular, Square, and Octagonal
Earthworks of Ohio”, Bureau of AmericanEthnology,
Bulletin # 10, Washington D.C.
Turner, Christopher, 1982, “Hopewell
Archaeoastronomy”, Archaeoastronomy,
v5,#3:9, College Park, Md.
1983,
An Astronomical Interpretation of the
Hopeton Earthworks, manuscript on file at Hopewell Culture National
Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio and at Ohio Historical Society, Columbus,
Ohio.
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979, Communication
from the Secretary of the Interior, “Proposed Addition of the Hopeton Earthworks to the Mound City
Group National Monument”, House Document
# 96-202,part X, 96th Congress, first session, U.S.Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Figures
Figure 1. The Hopeton Earthworks (Squier and Davis 1848).
Figure 2. The Scioto River valley at Chillicothe. The Paint
Creek enters at the lower left (Squier and Davis 1848). Hopeton is upper center
in map.
Figure 2 (supplemental). Draft version of Figure 2 from
Smithsonian Anthropological Archives.
Figure 3. Hopeton earthworks plat from Thomas Mound Explorations, with gateway edges numbered.
These designations follow those used by Middleton and Fowke in their 1880s
survey, with “a” or “b” added for each gateway edge. This figure is from the
original 1983 article.
Figure 4. The Great Seal of the State of Ohio. The hills
shown are those that lie to the east of the Hopeton Earthworks, and which, at
sunrise, index the annual motion of the sun as seen from the earthwork.
Figure 5. Detail from Mills Archaeological Atlas of Ohio of central Ross County. Note number of mounds in upper center of image near Adena Mound. Mound City is upper center rectangle with interior mounds. Hopeton is upper right center. Sugarloaf Mountain, Bald Hill, Sand Hill, and Mt. Logan are also shown at right. Township squares on right are one mile across for scale.
Figure 6. USGS map showing the location of some of the FCR
concentrations found in the Great Seal Range in 1982 and 1983.
Figure 7. Schematic diagram of horizon profile to east of
Hopeton earthworks.
Figure 8. This is a copy of the original map from the 1983
article, showing the location of the FCR features found during the 1982/83 field
survey as referenced in the appendix.
Figure 9. Hopeton rise lines, from 1983 article. See Table
1.
Figure 10. Setting event lines at Hopeton, coded as per
figure 9.
See Table 2.
Errata
Ø
Squier and
Davis all (1848), original article read (1847).
Ø
Page 2,
“separated” was “isolated”.
Ø
“foresight”
in all cases was “backsight”.
Ø
“backsight”
was “foresight”: I had these terms mistakenly reversed in 1983.
Ø
Page 6
“area near” was “ridge forming”.
Ø
Page 8,
“200 BC to AD 400” was “500 BC to AD 500”. This is not so much an error as an
update.
Ø
Page 10,
“40 feet “ was “140 feet”.
Ø
“Mt.
Ives” was “Mt. Eyes”. Older versions of USGS maps listed the hill or small
mountain as “Mt. Eyes” instead of the more recent “Mt.Ives”. It is in the Great
Seal Range just north of Mt. Logan..
Ø
Robertson
(1983) was not in the original reference list.
The author grants permission to reproduce text,
tables, maps, or images included herein, provided that the author is cited as
Turner, Christopher S., year of article,
name of article, conference event and date if applicable to paper, page, and
source, and provided that use of any text, tables, maps, or images included
herein is for non-commercial, academic purposes.
yay!
ReplyDeletegood work turner, not the bs of romain, thanx
ReplyDeleteChris, I need you to contact me. Rick Mooney, rmooney25g@gmail.com
ReplyDelete