Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio

See Hawkins G. S. , “The New World”, in Beyond Stonehenge (New York, 1973), 173–92; Cowan T. M. , “Effigy mounds and stellar representation: A comparison of Old World and New World alignment schemes”, in Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America, ed. by Aveni A. F. (Austin, Texas, 1965), 217–35; Eddy J. A. , “Archaeoastronomy of North America: Cliffs, mounds and medicine wheels”, in In search of ancient astronomies, ed. by Krupp E. C. (Garden City, New York, 1977), 133–63; Sullivan W. , “Ancient mounds taken as clues to advanced cultures”, New York Times (19 June 1979); Hagar S. , “The Portsmouth works”, Popular astronomy, xli (1933), 2–21; Marshall J. (as told to J. B. Carlson), “Geometry of the Hopewell earthworks”, Early man (spring, 1979), 1–5; Peet S. D. , “The lunar cult and the calendar system”, American antiquarian (1896), 116–25.

Bernhardt J. E. , “A preliminary survey of Middle Woodland prehistory in Licking County, Ohio”, Pennsylvania archaeologist, xlvi (1976), 39–54. Newark has received surprisingly scant attention in the literature of professional archaeology. The Licking Valley and its tributary streams have not been examined systematically. Current study of the earthworks will not be fully satisfactory until much more is known about the prehistory of the region. Bernhardt's survey presents evidence that Newark was the distribution centre for highly-prized jewel-quality flint from nearby Flint Ridge.

Moorehead W. K. , “Report of field work in various portions of Ohio”, Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Publications, vii (1900), 110–203 (Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio).

See Seeman M. F. in Hopewell archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, ed. by Brose D. S. Greber N. (Kent, Ohio, 1979), 39–46, and M. F. Seeman, The Hopewell interaction sphere: The evidence for interregional trade and structural complexity (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1979). See also Prufer Olaf H. Caldwell J. R. Hall R. L. (eds), Hopewellian studies (Illinois State Museum scientific papers, xii (1964), 37–83; Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois).

Prufer , op. cit. 70.

Prufer , op. cit. 50. Most archaeologists place Newark in the late Hopewell period, for which radiocarbon dates suggest a range from a.d. 0 to 500.

None of the mounds within the works described has been systematically explored. The bird-effigy was opened under the direction of H. C. Shetrone in 1928, after earlier amateur digging may have destroyed some evidence. Shetrone's workers found two copper artefacts, a crescent and a small, three-dimensional figure of a beaver or manatee. (Unpublished field notes in the possession of the Archaeological Division of the Ohio Historical Society.).

Reeves D. M. , “A newly discovered extension of the Newark works”, Ohio archaeological and historical quarterly, xlv (1936), 189–93.

Morgan R. , “Ohio's prehistoric engineers”, Ohio state engineer, xx (1937), 2–5.

A blueprint in the possession of the Landscaping Division of the Ohio Historical Society, dated 19 November 1936 shows reconstruction at the Fairground Circle and Square as well as “cosmetic” work at the Observatory Mound and in the Octagon.

Squier E. G. Davis E. H. , Ancient monuments of the Mississippi Valley (Washington, D.C., 1847), 67–72.

Adjutant General, State of Ohio, Annual report, 1893 (Columbus, 1893).

Atwater C. , “Description of the antiquities discovered in the State of Ohio and other Western States”, American Antiquarian Society, Archaeologia Americana, Transactions and collections, i (1820), 109.

See Thomas C. , “The circular, square and octagonal earthworks of Ohio”, Smithsonian Institution Bureau of Ethnology, Bulletin, x (Washington, D.C., 1889); idem, “Report on mound explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology”, Smithsonian Institution Bureau of Ethnology, Twelfth annual report, 1890–91 (Washington, D.C., 1894), 1–730.

Fowke G. , Archaeological history of Ohio (Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio, 1902), 171.

Holmes W. H. , “Notes upon some geometric earthworks, with contour maps”, American anthropologist, v (1892), 363–73.

Field Notes of Middleton J. , National Anthropological Archives, MS. no. 2400, Box 5, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. (unpublished).

Reeves , op. cit., 189–93. See also the Reeves collection of aerial photographs (8 “× 10” neg.) of Newark taken in January and October, 1934: National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., negatives no. 124–41, 188–99.

Thomas , “The circular, square and octagonal earthworks of Ohio”, 22f.

Marshall , op. cit., has sought to understand the geometry of the Hopewellian earthworks in terms of a design composed of right triangles with integral sides and using a unit of measurement of 57 m. The evidence from Newark alone does not provide a conclusive case for this suggestion. The published data and analysis for other sites are as yet too meagre to allow an evaluation of the suggestion.

But the following coincident areas should be noted. The area of the Square differs from that of the Observatory Circle by 0$36 per cent. The area of the Fairground Circle differs from that of square ACEG within the Octagon by 0$22 per cent. The total area of the Octagon doubles the area of the Observatory Circle and the Circle-Octagon avenue with an error of 0$19 per cent.

Aveni A. F. , “Astronomical tables intended for use in astroarchaeological studies”, American antiquity, xxxvii (1972), 531–40.

Cf. Squier Davis , op. cit. 67ff.

Eddy , op. cit. 150.

See the works by Thomas cited in ref. 14.

Due to variations in the Moon's apparent speed and in the orientation of the Moon's orbit, the precise value of this azimuth varies by ±0°.3 about an average of 92′.0.

Hawkins , op. cit. 61.

Thom A. , Megalithic lunar observatories (London, 1973); Krupp E. C. , “The Stonehenge chronicles”, in In search of ancient astronomies, ed. by Krupp , 81–132.

Thomas , “The circular, square and octagonal earthworks of Ohio”, 32.

The authors are currently studying the geometry and astronomy of the sites noted.

Thomas , “Report on mound explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology”, 460.

Cf. Hagar , op. cit. 3f., and Peet , op. cit. 116ff.

Prufer O. H. , “Prehistoric Hopewell meteorite collecting: Context and implications”, Ohio journal of science, lxi (1961), 341–52.

Freeman P. R. Elmore W. , “A test for the significance of astronomical alignments”, Archaeoastronomy, Supplement to Journal for the history of astronomy, no. 1 (1979), S86–S96.