**Hopewell Archeology:**

**The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley**

**Volume 6, Number 2, March 2005**

# 

# 

# 

# 1. Newark Earthwork Cosmology: This Island Earth

# By William F. Romain, Ph.D.

Most descriptions of the Newark earthworks (e.g.,Squier and Davis
1848;Thomas 1894) consider the complex to include: the Octagon and
Observatory Circle, Wright Square, Great Circle, Large Oval, numerous
smaller circle earthworks along the parallel walkways, and perhaps an
outlier earthwork, such as the Salisbury Square. In addition to these
earthworks, I propose that another feature should be included in our
thinking of what comprises the Newark earthworks complex -- namely,
Geller Hill.

Geller Hill is a prominent feature located about 7,000 feet southwest of
the Newark Great Circle **(figure 1)**. The hill is the central feature
of Geller Park, in Heath, Ohio. The hill is roughly 35 feet in
elevation, 1,150 feet in length, and 700 feet wide at its base. In
Hopewell times (note 1), Geller Hill would have been the highest feature
on the flat Newark plain where the geometric earthworks were built.
Several lines of evidence suggest that Geller Hill was included in the
design and layout of the Newark earthworks.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="4.6875in"}

Figure 1. View of Geller Hill, Heath, Ohio. Photo by the author.

First, the geometric relationship between Geller Hill, the Newark
Octagon, and the Newark Great Circle describes a fairly accurate
isosceles triangle. An isosceles triangle has two equal sides and
consequently, two equal angles. In the case of the Geller
Hill-Octagon-Great Circle triangle, the two sides that are of near equal
length are the sides that extend from the apex of Geller Hill to the
centers of the Octagon and Great Circle, respectively. In **(figure
2)**, the triangle just described is labeled A-B-D, with point A at the
apex of Geller Hill.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.497222222222222in"
height="7.069444444444445in"}

Figure 2. Section of USGS 7.5 minute series map (Newark Quardrangle)
showing the triangular relationship between the Newark Octagon, Great
Circle, and Geller Hill.

In 1982, Hively and Horn (1982:S8) identified a unit of length, used by
the Hopewell. This unit of length is equal to the diameter of the Newark
Observatory Circle -- hence, they refer to the unit as 1 OCD.

One OCD is equal to 1,054 feet. Hively and Horn found this unit of
length expressed not only in the diameter of the Observatory Circle, but
also in the linear dimensions of the Newark Octagon.

With reference to the Geller Hill isosceles triangle, as mentioned,
sides A-B and A-D are nearly equal to each other. Of special interest is
that the lengths of these two sides are both, near-multiples of 7 OCDs.
The length of 7 OCDs is equal to 7378 feet. As measured by reference to
a digitized USGS 7.5-minute series topographic map for the area, the
distance from point A at the apex of Geller Hill to point B at the
center of the Octagon is 7,392 feet. This differs from the ideal 7 OCD
length by 14 feet, or 0.2 percent. Similarly, the map-measured distance
from point A on Geller Hill to point D at center of the Great Circle is
7,498 feet. This differs from the ideal 7 OCD length by 119.6 feet, or
1.6 percent. Thus the measured Geller Hill-Octagon-Great Circle triangle
varies from the geometric ideal by an average of less than 1 percent.
The magnitude of this linear deviation from the ideal falls well within
the range of similar analyses for other Hopewell earthworks -- e.g.,
Fort Ancient (Romain 2004a).

The statistical likelihood that the centers of two geometrically shaped
Hopewell earthworks would be situated about the same distance from
Geller Hill strictly due to chance is slim. The likelihood that both
distances would also be near multiples of the OCD strongly suggests that
the linear relationship between Geller Hill and the two geometric
earthworks was intentional.

Hively and Horn (1982:table II) showed that the major axis of the Newark
Octagon earthwork is closely aligned to the moon's maximum north rising
point. The same alignment appears represented in the Geller
Hill-Octagon-Great Circle triangle. In **(figure 2, above)**, point C is
the bisection point of line B-D. If a line is drawn from point A on
Geller Hill through bisection point C, that line is found to extend
along an azimuth of 53°.3. Given a date of A.D. 100 and apparent horizon
elevation of 0°.5 (corrected to 1°.34), the lower limb moonrise as
observed from the top of Geller Hill would have been at azimuth 52°.2.
The lunar alignment of the bisected triangle therefore, is to within
1°.1. Like the Newark Octagon, the symmetry axis of the Geller Hill
triangle is closely aligned to the moon's maximum north rise point. From
Geller Hill, the moon would have been observed to rise at a point on the
horizon about equi-distant between the Octagon and Great Circle and
balanced between the two.

The most significant archaeological feature of Geller Hill is the
existence of possible burial mounds located at the top of the hill
**(figure 3)**. Notably, the Salisbury map of 1862 shows several of
these possible mounds. Further, the Salisburys make the following
observations:

...about one and one half miles distant from the octagon, is

seen a little to the right, standing boldly out in the plain, an

irregular isolated hill about 75 ft. in height covering a surface

of perhaps ten acres. On this lonely hill in the midst of the

plain, are some 8 or 10 small mounds, generally situated on

the highest points. Whatever people selected this locality as

the last resting place of their dead, deserve some credit for

such a proof of their good taste (Salisbury and Salisbury 1862:28).

Review of the literature suggests that the features identified by the
Salisburys have not been excavated. Further investigation is needed to
determine if the features noted by the Salisburys are man-made. In
general appearance, however, the features look like Hopewell burial
mounds.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="2.375in"}

Figure 3. Panoramic composite showing several of the burial mounds
located at the top of Geller Hill. Photos by the author.

Parallel walls once extended between several of the Newark earthworks.
Long parallel walls extended, for example, between the Octagon and
Wright Square. Another set of parallel walls extended from the Octagon,
in a southwest direction, at least as far as Ramp Creek. By reference
toReeves (1936) it is possible to reconstruct the trajectory of the
parallel walls from the Octagon to Ramp Creek. From this analysis it is
found that the Octagon-Ramp Creek parallel walls passed within 400 - 500
feet of the base of Geller Hill. It may be that Geller Hill was a
destination option when transiting the walled pathway. If that is the
case, then the special status of Geller Hill is indicated.

In summary, geometric relationships, measurement data, astronomical
data, and archaeological evidence all strengthen the hypothesis that
Geller Hill was included in the design, layout, and possibly, ritual
functioning of the Newark earthworks complex. The question is, what made
Geller Hill important to the Hopewell? To help answer this, it is
necessary to view Geller Hill and the Newark complex as an integrated
whole.

Bradley T. Lepper (2004:80) has argued that the Newark complex was not
merely a set of arcane symbols; but rather, functioned as a "gigantic
machine or factory in which energies from the three levels of the
Eastern Woodland Indian's cosmos ...were drawn together and circulated
through conduits of ritual to accomplish some sacred purpose." Lepper
(2004:80) compares the Newark complex to 'giant superconducting
supercollider.' Although thought provoking, the analogy Lepper draws is
not one I would use. Native Americans do not think of created things in
terms of machines, or factories -- terms that bring to mind images of
cold steel structures and dehumanized work places. While many Western
people may think of non-human and non-animal things as inanimate, Native
Americans, on the other hand, often consider such things to possess a
life essence, spirit, or soul. Among the seemingly non-living things
that Indians sometimes think of as having a life essence are smoking
pipes, effigy masks, weapons, and natural phenomena to include certain
rocks, sun, moon, rivers, and mountains (see e.g., Hallowell 1975
\[1960\]). Given this, it might be appropriate to think of the Newark
complex in more organic terms as might be the case if we consider the
complex as a functioning microcosm of the Eastern Woodland Indian
cosmos. By functional microcosm, I mean a smaller, dynamic
manifestation, or expression. A functional microcosm of the Eastern
Woodland Indian cosmos replicates on a reduced scale, mythic time and
space at the beginning. This alternative interpretation is presented
below.

In shamanic thought generally (e.g., Eliade1964; Furst1976) and among
Native American peoples in particular (e.g.,Lankford 1987; Hudson 1976),
the cosmos is often thought of as having three basic levels -- i.e.,
Upperworld, earth, and Lowerworld **(figure 4)**. These three levels are
vertically connected by an *axis mundi*. In Native American cosmology,
the Upperworld is the realm of the sky, sun, and stars, as well as
powerful celestial birds known as Thunderbirds. By contrast, the
Lowerworld is a watery world, located opposite to the Upperworld. It is
the realm of fishes, frogs, snakes, and related creatures.

Chief of the Lowerworld creatures is either the Great Horned Serpent or
Underwater Panther. The Upperworld and Lowerworld are antithetical to
each other.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.385416666666667in" height="6.25in"}

Figure 4. Idealized representation of the Eastern Woodlands cosmos.

Balanced between the Upperworld and Lowerworld, is the earth. In many
cosmologies, the earth is described as a flat, circular island floating
in a surrounding primordial sea. Associated with the belief that the
earth is a circular island floating in a surrounding sea are many
examples of the Earth-diver myth -- wherein a mythical creature, such as
the otter, is said to have dived to the bottom of the primordial sea to
bring back a piece of mud, which magically expanded, thereby creating
the earth.

Physical evidence indicates that the Great Circle was built in a prairie
setting(Lepper 2004:78). While the area extent of this prairie is
unknown, it is possible that a large part of the area occupied by the
Newark earthwork complex was likewise, covered by prairie. Human
activities may have further reduced any forest cover in the vicinity of
the earthworks. In this sort of setting, Geller Hill would likely have
been visible from the Octagon and Great Circle earthworks, located less
than two miles away. Certainly, the Octagon and Great Circle would have
been visible from Geller Hill.

The Newark earthworks are located at the confluence of three
watercourses. Less obvious is the extent to which watercourses surround
the Newark plain -- to include Geller Hill. The watercourses that
surround the Newark plain include Raccoon Creek, South Fork Licking
River, and Ramp Creek. As **(figure 5)**, shows, out of a 360-degree
circle perimeter around the entire complex, these watercourses enclose
about 320 degrees of that circle. By calculation therefore, water
surrounds approximately 90% of the Newark complex. Notably, the use of
water barriers to separate Hopewell earthworks from the surrounding
topography is known elsewhere -- e.g., at Fort Ancient (Connolly 1996;
Romain 2004a).

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="5.09375in"}

Figure 5. Relief map showing the Newark plain and location of Geller
Hill. Highlighting traces the course of Raccoon Creek, Ramp Creek, and
the South Fork Licking River.

If we apply the archetypal cosmological model discussed earlier to the
topographic observations just noted for Newark, we find some intriguing
correspondences. In this thought exercise, the Newark complex is
equivalent to the island earth, surrounded by the primordial sea. The
primordial sea is represented by the surrounding waterways of Ramp
Creek, Raccoon Creek, and the South Fork Licking River. Located in the
symbolic center of this island earth, Geller Hill serves as an *axis
mundi*, connecting the three cosmic realms.

In this view, consistent with Native American understandings of the
cosmos, the Newark complex was balanced between cosmic realms. As such,
the Newark complex was a cosmic center; and it was in this center that
the mound builders performed the most sacred of their rituals -- i.e.,
rituals intended to maintain cosmic balance, ensure plant and animal
abundance, maintain health, and facilitate in death, the transition of
the soul from the land of the living to the land of the dead. In this
view, the Newark complex was a functional microcosm of the Hopewell
universe. Indeed, it may be that many of the other Hopewell enclosures
that are surrounded by water -- particularly the hilltop enclosures --
were constructed with this cosmological idea in mind. Alternative
explanations for what we find in the archaeological record are always
possible. What is clear, however, is that, if we are to understand
phenomena as complex as the Newark earthworks, we need to expand our
thinking beyond the two-dimensional map limits depicted more than a
hundred years ago. We need to consider relationships between the
earthworks and surrounding environment to include earth, sky, and water
(Romain 2000, 2004b). Importantly too, we need to frame our
interpretations based not in Euro-centric views of the world; but
rather, in Native American terms.

As to Geller Hill, purchase and conservation of the section held in
private ownership and currently under plow would be desirable.
Additionally, I think it would be useful to initiate further
investigation. Magnetic survey, soil resistivity, and ground penetrating
radar studies, as well as emergency salvage work of the section
currently under plow - if purchase of that section is not an option -
might help answer questions not only about the nature of the possible
burial mounds discussed earlier; but also, broader questions relating to
the geometric earthworks.

We know, for example, from reports dating to the early 1800s, that some
Middle Woodland period people were buried in the now obliterated, Cherry
Valley Mound group, located within the Oval earthwork. According
toSalisbury and Salisbury (1862), no fewer than eleven mounds existed in
this group. Squier and Davis (1848:72) document the discovery of
fourteen individuals found in one of the Cherry Valley mounds. Newspaper
reports document one or two additional individuals recovered from the
area. What seems missing, however, are the significant numbers of
burials we might expect, given that Newark is the largest geometric
complex of its kind in the world. For a site this size, we might expect
to find at least scores, or even hundreds of burials, as reported for
other major Hopewell centers such as Mound City, Liberty, Seip, and
Tremper. Having said this, I would not be surprised if, one day, we find
the Newark shamans, chiefs, and Ancient Ones, buried near their
earthworks -- perhaps high on Geller Hill -- ever watchful over their
people, ever connected to their ancestral lands -- this island earth.

**Acknowledgments:**

This article is dedicated to my Native American friends in southern
Ohio, who welcomed me into their circle, gave me an Indian name, and
tried to teach me something about Indian ways. Thanks especially, to
Jean, Charla, and Doug.

Many thanks to Pat Mason and Bob Geller for background information on
Geller Hill. Special thanks to my mother, Frances Spania Rothenberg for
her thoughts and encouragement; and to my wife, Evie, for her patience
and support.

**References Cited:**

Connolly, Robert P.

1996\. Middle Woodland Hilltop Enclosures: The Built Environment,
Construction and Function. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.

Eliade, Mircea.

1964\. *Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy*. New York: Pantheon
Books.

Furst, Peter.

1976\. Shamanistic Survivals in Mesoamerican Religion. *Actas del XLI
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas* 3:149-157.

Hallowell, A. Irving.

1975 (1960). Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and World View. In *Teachings
from the American Earth*, edited by D. Tedlock and B. Tedlock. New York:
W.W. Norton.

Hively, Ray, and Robert Horn.

1982\. Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio. *Archaeoastronomy
(Supplement to Vol. 13, Journal for the History of Astronomy)* 4:S1-S20.

Hudson, Charles.

1976\. *The Southeastern Indians*. Knoxville: University of Tennessee
Press.

Lankford, George E., ed.

1987\. *Native American Legends. Southeastern Legends: Tales from the
Natchez, Caddo, Biloxi, Chicasaw, and Other Nations*. Little Rock:
August House.

Lepper, Bradley T. 2004.

The Newark Earthworks: Monumental Geometry and Astronomy at a
Hopewellian Pilgrimage Center. In *Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: Ancient
Indian Art of the Woodlands*, edited by R. F. Townsend and R. V. Sharp.
New Haven: The Art Institute of Chicago and Yale University Press.

National Park Service.

2001\. *Long Range Interpretive Plan for the Hopewell Culture National
Historic Park*. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Reeves, Dache M.

1936\. A Newly Discovered Extension of the Newark Works. *Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Quarterly* 45:187-193.

Romain, William F.

2000\. *Mysteries of the Hopewell : Astronomers, Geometers, and
Magicians of the Eastern Woodlands*. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron
Press.

2004a. Journey to the Center of the World: Astronomy, Geometry, and
Cosmology of the Fort Ancient Enclosure. In *The Fort Ancient Earthwork:
Prehistoric Lifeways of the Hopewell in Southwestern Ohio*, edited by R.
P. Connolly and B. T. Lepper. Columbus: The Ohio Historical Society.

2004b. *Hopewell Geometric Enclosures: Gatherings of the Fourfold.*
Ph.D. dissertation. University of Leicester.

Salisbury, James, and Charles Salisbury.

1862\. Accurate Surveys and Descriptions of the Ancient Earthworks at
Newark, Ohio. Transcribed from the original by B. T. Lepper and B. T.
Simmons: Manuscript on file, American Antiquarian Society, Worcester,
Massachusetts.

Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin H. Davis.

1848\. *Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian
Contributions to Knowledge Vol. 1*. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution.

Thomas, Cyrus.

1894\. Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology for
the Years 1890-1891. In *Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology*. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

**Hopewell Archeology:**

**The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley**

**Volume 6, Number 2, March 2005**

2\. Design and Layout of the Newark Earthwork Complex

By William F. Romain, Ph.D.

The Newark earthwork complex is the largest and most complicated
geometric complex of its kind in the world. **(Figure 1)** shows the
complex as represented by Squier and Davis (1848: Pl. XXV).

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.0in" height="4.489583333333333in"}

Figure 6. Squier and Davis's (1848: Pl. XXV) map showing the Newark
earthwork complex.

**(Figure 2)** shows what remains of the complex today -- i.e., the
restored Octagon and Observatory Circle and the Great Circle. Also shown
is Geller Hill. The likely location of the Great Hopewell Road (Lepper
1995) and Wright Square are also indicated, based on surviving remnants
and aerial photographs (Reeves 1936).

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="5.739583333333333in" height="6.25in"}

Figure 7. USGS 7.5-minute series topographic map showing part of the
Newark earthwork complex. Wright Square and Great Hopewell Road drawn by
the author based on information from aerial photographs and surviving
remnants. (The oval earthwork and most of the parallel walkways shown on
the Squier and Davis map are no longer visible.)

Looking at the Squier and Davis map, a casual observer might think that
the large geometrically shaped earthworks, such as the Octagon, Great
Circle, and Wright Square were arbitrarily located on the Newark
landscape. As demonstrated below, this was not the case. Each earthwork
is situated at precise coordinates and in a fashion that follows an
internally consistent logic.

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="3.6458333333333335in" height="4.375in"}

Figure 8. Schematic plan showing geometric and astronomic

relationships among various features of the Newark earthwork complex.

With reference to **(figure 3, above)**, the following exercise shows
how the Newark complex might have been designed and laid-out.

1\. Point A is the apex of Geller Hill. Draw line A-B at an azimuth of
52°.2, which is equal to the moon's maximum north rise position as
viewed from the top of Geller Hill (A.D. 100, lower limb tangency,
apparent horizon elevation of 0°.5, corrected to 1°.34.)

2\. Draw an arc having a radius of 7 OCD from point A. (One OCD is equal
to 1,054 feet -- which is the diameter of the Observatory Circle -- see
Hively and Horn 1982.)

3\. Construct a circle having a diameter of 1,178 feet - equal to the
size of the Great Circle. (Note that the diameter of 1,178 feet for the
Great Circle is equal to the hypotenuse of a right triangle whose sides
are equal to 1 OCD and ½ OCD, respectively.)

4\. Draw line, D-E. Make line D-E, 7 OCDs in length. Situate line D-E so
it is perpendicular to lunar azimuth line A-B, bisected by line A-B, and
589 feet from the 7 OCD radius line as measured along line A-B. The
distance of 589 feet is one-half of the Great Circle diameter -- which
in step 3, was shown to derive from the OCD unit of length.

5\. Position the center of the Great Circle on the 7 OCD radius line so
its circumference meets line D-E at D.

6\. At point E, construct a square having sides equal to 1 OCD. Orient
the square so its diagonal falls on line D-E.

7\. Construct an octagon around the square. Do this by drawing a series
of arcs, each having a radius equal in length to the diagonal of the
square. (Diagonal of square = 1,490 feet) Use each of the square's
corners as the center for each arc. Connect the intersection points of
the arcs by straight lines, thereby creating an octagon.

8\. From Octagon point F, draw a line perpendicular to line D-E. Label
this new line F-G. Line F-G is parallel to line A-B. Thus the Octagon is
lunar-aligned. (See Hively and Horn \[1982\] for a further discussion of
this lunar alignment.)

9\. Locate the center of the Octagon and label it point H.

10\. Locate points on line F-G that are 1 and 2 OCDs, respectively, from
point H. Label these points, I and J.

11\. Construct a circle on line F-G, using points I and J to establish
its diameter. The diameter of the resulting circle will be 1 OCD - equal
to the diameter of the Observatory Circle.

12\. Establish the center of the Observatory Circle. Label the center of
the Observatory Circle, point K. From point K, draw an arc having a
radius of 7 OCDs.

13\. Likewise, from point E on the Octagon, draw an arc having a radius
of 7 OCDs. Mark the point where the two arcs intersect, point L.

14\. Construct the Wright Square, oriented to the cardinal directions,
using point L to situate the south corner of the Square. Note that each
side of the Wright Square is 925 feet in length. This length is related
to the OCD in the following manner. As mentioned, the diameter of the
Great Circle is equal to the hypotenuse of a right triangle whose sides
are 1 OCD and ½ OCD, respectively. The diameter of the Great Circle
therefore is 1,178 feet. From this it follows that the circumference of
the Great Circle is 3,700 feet. If the Great Circle circumference is
divided by 4, the result is 925 feet. Thus, the 925-foot length is
related to the OCD.

15\. The azimuth and location of the Great Hopewell Road are established
in the following way. From point A on Geller Hill, draw a line to point
N on the Octagon. The azimuth of this line is 26°.2. From point N, draw
a line 1 OCD in length perpendicular to line A-N. Mark the end of this
line, point O. The reciprocal of 26°.2 (the azimuth of line A-N) is
206°.2. From point O, extend a line for a distance of 13,040 feet. along
the azimuth of 206°.2. This line represents the length and azimuth of
the Great Hopewell Road as far as Ramp Creek.

The above representations are idealized geometric constructions. The
actual Newark earthworks vary in a few minor respects from the ideal --
see **(figure 4)**. The Great Circle earthwork, for example, is not
quite a perfect circle. Its diameter varies between 1,163 feet and 1,189
feet, for an average of 1,176 feet (Thomas 1894:462). So too, certain of
the actual Octagon's walls vary from the geometric ideal in both length
and azimuth - possibly to bring the walls in closer alignment with
significant lunar positions. The azimuth of the major axis through the
actual Octagon and Observatory Circle extends along an azimuth of 51°.8,
while the geometric ideal, based on the moon's calculated azimuth is
52°.2 - for a difference of 0°.4. Thomas (1894:466) gives the lengths of
the Wright Square walls as 926 and 928 feet -- which differs by 1-3 feet
from the geometric ideal of 925 feet. Also, the major axis of the Wright
Square is skewed about 2° from the ideal, perhaps taking into account
ground observations referenced to the distant horizon elevation.

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="5.739583333333333in" height="6.25in"}

Figure 9. Ideal geometric design shown in figure 3 overlaid onto USGS
7.5-minute series map for the Newark area.

As for the Great Hopewell Road, remnants are still visible today at
point O. These remnants are about 3 feet in height, extend for dozens of
feet, and are located near the northeast walls of the Octagon. Sections
of the south half of the Road can be identified in early aerial
photographs (Reeves 1936). Reeves's (1936:fig. 4) representation of the
Road, drawn based upon his aerial photographs, shows the Hopewell Road
intersecting a modern-day road just south of the Newark-Heath airport.
From these data, the azimuth of the actual Road can be plotted and is
found to be 206°.9. This differs from the azimuth of 206°.2 for the
geometrically plotted Road by 0°.7.

**Several conclusions derive from this exercise:**

1\. The location of each earthwork is geometrically and astronomically
related and dependent upon other earthwork components. Each earthwork is
an integral part of a larger design.

2\. The entire complex is, in effect, generated from Geller Hill -- the
suggested *axis mundi* for the Newark complex.

3\. The complex was laid-out based on the moon's maximum north rise
point and multiples of the OCD unit of length. The significance of the
lunar maximum north rise for the Hopewell may have been based in the
recognition that that event defines a temporal and spatial maximum in an
18.6-year cycle. Maximum nodes in any cycle imply a complementary
opposite -- to include, for example, a lunar maximum south rise. Notions
of complementary opposites, bilateral symmetry, and cosmic dualism
appear to have been important to the Hopewell and are expressed in a
wide range of scales, from the structure of their earthworks, to designs
incorporated in their artwork.

4\. The most commonly used multiple unit of length was 7 OCD. Seven is
considered an important number by many Native Americans. In Indian
belief systems, the number 7 derives from the 4 cardinal directions,
plus the center, zenith, and nadir.

#  References Cited:

Hively, Ray, and Robert Horn.

1982\. Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio. *Archaeoastronomy
(Supplement to Vol. 13, Journal for the History of Astronomy)* 4:S1-S20.

Lepper, Bradley T.

1995\. Tracking Ohio\'s Great Hopewell Road. *Archaeology* 48 (6):52-56.

Reeves, Dache M.

1936\. A Newly Discovered Extension of the Newark Works. *Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Quarterly* 45:187-193.

Squier, Ephraim G., and Edwin H. Davis.

1848\. *Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley; Comprising the
Results of Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations. Smithsonian
Contributions to Knowledge Vol. 1*. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution.

Thomas, Cyrus.

1894\. Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology for
the Years 1890-1891. In *Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology*. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

**Hopewell Archeology:**

**The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley**

**Volume 6, Number 2, March 2005**

**3. Number range CHAPTERThe 2004 Field Season at High Bank Works, Ross
County, Ohio**

by N'omi B. Greber Cleveland Museum of Natural History

**Introduction**

The High Bank Works (33Ro60) are located southeast of Chillicothe on a
glacial outwash terrace about 17 meters above the active flood plain of
the Scioto River. They are one of the more complexly designed sets of
enclosures among the numerous enclosure sites found in the central
Scioto region. The major sections include a relatively rare octagonal
enclosure, small and large circular features, and linear walls (Figure
1).

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="4.4375in" height="5.760416666666667in"}

Figure 10. Ground plan of High Bank Works as drawn by Squire and Davis

(1848:Plate XVI).

As recorded in the mid-nineteenth century, the walls of the Octagon were
about twelve feet (ca 3.7 meters) high and enclosed 18 acres (ca 7.3
hectares). The attached Great Circle walls surrounded a slightly larger
space but were only about five feet (ca 1.5 meters) high (Squire and
Davis 1848:Plate XVI ). By the end of the century the walls were much
degraded and the easterly side of the Great Circle was not easily
followed on the ground. Also, by this time, a farm lane was in use that
cut across portions of the octagon, circle, and the short neck that
joined them. This wagon path has been enlarged and is now used by modern
vehicles including trucks and large farm equipment (Figure 2).

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="5.4375in" height="5.4375in"}

Figure 11. Aerial view of the High Bank Great Circle and Octagon. View
taken in 1938.

Note the farm lane that crosses the walls.

Field work this past season continued studies that are part of long term
research aimed at placing enclosure sites into the context of both other
types of structural remains such as buildings and mounds, and the well
known artifacts. Since 1994 a combination of geophysical surveys and
limited excavation and coring has produced details of the design and
construction of the Great Circle wall (Greber 1998, 1999, 2002).

**Field Work**

During June and July 2004 geophysical survey was undertaken over the
segments of the Octagon walls north of the farm lane, a portion of the
site currently part of Hopewell Culture National Historical Park (Figure
2). A goal for the short season was to obtain geophysical data from the
Octagon walls for comparison with geophysical and excavation records of
the Great Circle wall and 1972 excavation profiles of the Octagon
(Greber and Shane 2003).

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="6.010416666666667in"
height="5.020833333333333in"}

Figure 12. A stylized circle wall superimposed on the location of
geophysical study areas, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 1994-2004.

The geophysical survey blocks were located in the CMNH site grid and
labeled S through X in a continuation of the practice of previous
surveys (Figure 3, above). In each sub-block (i.e. S1, S2,\...)
transects were set at one meter intervals. Magnetic readings were taken
in zig-zag fashion using a FM 36 gradiometer **(Figure 4)**.

![](media/image13.jpeg){width="4.322916666666667in" height="2.875in"}

Figure 13. The FM 36 gradiometer owned by the University of Akron and

used in the 2004 survey. Held here by CMNH Kirtlandia Intern Stuart
Neilis.

**Figure 5**, based on data from the recent survey, a magnetic map of
portions of the remnant walls north of the lane. As a control, Block S
was set to overlap portions of Block H recorded in the1999 magnetic
survey. The 2004 results completely reproduce the earlier data.

![](media/image14.jpeg){width="2.7291666666666665in"
height="4.302083333333333in"}

Figure 14. Geoplot map of 2004 survey area.

John Weymouth combined data from 1999, 2001, and 2004 (Figure 6) that
show the distinctive usual trace of the Great Circle wall. The signals
from the outer edges of the wall are more pronounced than those from the
inner side. This contrast apparently represents the contrast in the
composition of the inner and outer lowest strata that extend along major
sections of the Great Circle wall. These strata were identified in small
scale test trenches (Greber 1999, 2002). The easterly side of the two
short parallel walls that join the Great Circle and portions of two
segments of the Octagon are also visible. The pattern seen in the data
from the Octagon walls differs from that of the major portion of the
Great Circle.

![](media/image15.jpeg){width="5.552083333333333in"
height="3.6979166666666665in"}

Figure 15. Compilation of 1999, 2001, and 2004 magnetic survey data
prepared by Dr. John Weymouth, University of Nebraska.

There is not as great a contrast in the signals from the outer and inner
sides of the segments and the internal signals are more "jumbled". This
pattern is consistent with the wall profiles recorded in the three test
trenches excavated in 1972 across two separate wall sections of the
Octagon south of the lane (Greber and Shane 2003). An anomaly, located
between the ends of the two wall segments, is at the point where lines
extending from the ends of the wall segments would cross. Thus, the
anomaly may indicate a corner point of a regular octagonal shape marked
by the original builders as part of the original design and possibly
used in planning the construction of the Octagon walls.

**Comments**

This season's field work continues to demonstrate the usefulness of
intertwining the results of geophysical surveys and the ground truth
obtained in small scale excavations. The new geophysical maps appear to
be consistent with the results of the early 1972 excavations. They also
provide new information suggesting a direction for possible future work.
The apparent existence of an anomaly between the ends of the Octagon
walls should be corroborated by additional geophysical surveys. This is
a significant point in the ground plan design. Future studies of the
area might answer questions concerning the original construction methods
and possibly reveal features that would be of particular interest in
astronomical research such as that Ray Hively and Robert Horn have begun
at High Bank (1984).

**Acknowledgments:**

Dean Alexander, Superintendent of Hopewell Culture National Historical
Park, gave access to Park land at High Bank. As always the entire Park
staff welcomed and supported our work. In particular, Jennifer Pederson
arranged for living accommodations and helped with other practical
matters, Kathy Brady-Rawlins gave instructions in the use of a total
station, Dawn Walters was a gracious and hard working addition to the
field crew. The total station, FM 36 gradiometer and lap top computer
used by CMNH Kirtlandia Intern Stuart Nealis for the magnetic survey
were loaned to the project by Dr. Timothy Matney, University of Akron.
Dr. John Weymouth, University of Nebraska, continues to share his
expertise in explaining theoretical geophysics to archaeologists and his
time in putting together data from separate surveys. I thank them all.

**References Cited:**

Greber, N'omi B.

1998\. Geophysics and Archaeology: A Case Study from the High Bank
Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. Invited paper presented at the Fryxell
Symposium, Annual Meeting of Society for American Archaeology, Seattle,
March 1998

1999\. Combining Geophysics and Ground Truth at High Bank Earthworks,
Ross County, Ohio. *The Ohio Archaeological Council
Newsletter,*11(1):8-11.

2002\. A Preliminary Comparison of 1997 and 2002 Limited Excavations in
the Great Circle Wall, High Bank Works, Ross County, Ohio. *Hopewell
Archeology: The Newsletter of Hopewell Archaeology in the Ohio River
Valley,* Volume 5, Number 2:1-6.

Greber, N'omi B. and Orrin Shane III

2003\. Studies of the Octagon and Great Circle, High Bank Works. Paper
presented at 68^th^ Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin April 2003.

Hively, Ray and Robert Horn

1984\. Hopewellian Geometry and Astronomy at High Bank. Supplement to
Volume 15, *Journal for the History of Astronomy*: S85-S100.

Squier, Ephraim and Edwin Davis

1848\. *Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley: Comprising the
Results of*

*Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations*. Smithsonian Contributions
to Knowledge 1. Washington, D.C.

**Hopewell Archeology:**

**The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley**

**Volume 6, Number 2, March 2005**

**4. Geophysical Investigations of the Hopewell Earthworks (33RO27),
Ross County, Ohio**

By Arlo McKee

**Abstract**

The Hopewell site in southern Ohio is one of the most important and
famous prehistoric sites in North America. Built about AD 100, it
consists of more than 3 miles of earthworks and over 40 mounds. The
earthworks of the Ohio Hopewell suggest a substantial investment of
human labor and cultural organization that is still poorly understood
after more than 150 years of study. Geophysical survey techniques can
provide the means to study these earthworks in a rapid and
nondestructive manor. For the past 200 years, these earthworks have been
subject to the degradation of agriculture. A study comparing multiple
geophysical survey techniques on the Mound 23 area of the Hopewell site
was conducted in 2004. The results of magnetic, resistance and
conductivity surveys were compared.

**Introduction**

Throughout the Ohio River valley, during the period between 200 BC and
AD 400, inhabitants of this region built hundreds of earthen mounds and
dozens of earthen enclosures. Most of the mounds appear to be associated
with mortuary activities, and often contain elaborate and artistic
objects made from a wide range of exotic raw materials. The earthen
enclosures are typically geometric in form, and range in size from a few
acres to more than one hundred acres. Archeologists have named the
archeological record associated with these mounds and earthworks the
Hopewell Culture, after a site located about 6 miles northwest of
Chillicothe, Ohio.

![](media/image16.jpeg){width="4.46875in" height="3.3854166666666665in"}

Figure 16. 1846 map of the Hopewell Earthworks (Squier and Davis, 1848).

**Site Background**

The Hopewell mound group was first documented in 1820 by Caleb Atwater.
At that time, the land was owned by W. C. Clark, so the site was named
Clark's Fort. Since that time there have been only three major
investigations into the archeological remains of the site. These major
investigations focused primarily on the burial mounds associated with
the earthworks. The site was first excavated by Ephraim G. Squire and
Edwin H. Davis in 1845. During their investigation, they estimated that
the embankments cover over three miles in length and the earthworks
contain three million cubic feet of placed earth (Squire and Davis,
1847). A structure of this size suggests a substantial investment of
human labor and social organization. This is truly remarkable
considering the land surrounding the Scioto river valley is littered
with dozens of these earthworks.

The next excavation was led by Warren K. Moorehead in 1891. At that
time, Moorehead renamed the site after the landowner, M. C. Hopewell.
His work, too, focused almost exclusively on the burial mounds. Among
the mounds he excavated, one of the largest included mound 23, which was
surveyed during this project. More than 50 burials were found within the
mound and hundreds of exotic burial goods were recovered. At the base of
the mound, Moorehead (1922) noted a floor of varied sized gravels.

![](media/image17.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in" height="3.93125in"}

Figure 17. 1891 plan-view map of mound 23 (Moorehead, 1922).

It is important to note the method Moorehead's team employed for
excavation. Moorhead's team used horse drawn scrapers to reduce the
mound to about four feet above the modern surface. The team then hand
excavated the remainder. The team excavated a trench to the base floor
of the cultural remains and placed the backfill behind them. They then
stripped mostly vertical layers from the wall of the trench, thus moving
their excavation perpendicular to the minor axis of the mound. This
excavation strategy that means that, excepting artifacts, nearly all of
the original materials of the interior portion of the mound are still
more or less in situ. The soil may be moved, but it was moved uniformly
and only by a distance of ten feet or so.

In 1922 the last major excavation of the Hopewell site was conducted by
Henry C. Shetrone. The excavation was conducted to reexamine all of the
previously excavated mounds (Greber and Ruhl 1989, Shetrone 2004).
Shetrone found that the western third of the mound had not been
adequately examined. Again, Shetrone found the gravel base floor and
noted that it contained a great degree of burned soils.

**Geophysical Survey Methods in Archeology**

Geophysical surveys in archeology can be a very useful tool to guide
excavations and to examine variation in subsurface features and soils
over large areas. The use of geophysical survey techniques can supply an
excavation with a "road map" to subsurface features without disturbing
the site. There are many different types of surveys, each with its own
sensitivities and drawbacks. As Weymouth (1986) notes, there are two
general types of geophysical methods: *active* and *passive*. The vast
majority of methods employed for archeological purposes fall under the
active category. The active survey methods used for this research
include electromagnetic conductivity and electric resistance. In each of
these methods, a signal is sent from the measuring instrument into the
ground. Depending upon the electrical properties of the soils, the
signal will then be altered from its original state and sent back to the
instrument to be measured.

*Resistivity.* Of all the geophysical methods currently utilized for
archeological purposes, resistivity surveys were the first to gain
popularity. This method sends an electric current into the soil via two
conducting probes placed a few centimeters in the ground. Two other
probes measure the voltage that is transferred through the ground. The
ratio of the voltage to the current that is applied yields the
resistance according to Ohm's Law (*R=V/I* where *R=*resistance,
*V=*volts, and *I=*current). The principal factor that determines soil
resistance is its water content and distribution (Weymouth, 1986; Clark,
1990). When the ground is completely saturated, soil resistance will be
at a minimum because water is a good conductor of electricity.
Conversely, when the ground is completely devoid of moisture, electrical
resistance will be at a maximum. Optimally, a survey would be conducted
when the ground is moderately saturated. In this case, the water
distribution between soil horizons, and buried cultural remains, would
be uneven. For example, the soil in a buried ditch or pit tends to be
less dense than the surrounding earth. This would allow for a greater
accumulation of moisture within the fill than in the surrounding area.
Hence, the ditch would appear as a low resistance area compared to the
surrounding soils.

The depth the current will travel through the soil depends on the
spacing of the probes and the physical characteristics of the soil
itself. In a uniform matrix, the voltage will travel in regular
hemispheres between the current probes. Generally, the depth of
penetration will equal the horizontal spacing of the current probes
(Clark, 1990; Kvamme, 2001). This survey used the Geoscan Research RM-15
parallel twin configuration and a 0.5-meter probe separation. This
allowed for roughly a 0.5-meter maximum penetration.

*Conductivity.* Conductivity is the theoretical inverse of resistivity.
However, because of the way in which a conductivity meter senses
information, it can yield differing results. Conductivity meters employ
non-contact transmitting and receiving coils. An electromagnetic signal
is sent out by the transmitter and induces a current in the soil. This
current creates a secondary magnetic field which is then sensed and
measured by the receiving coil. Introducing a new magnetic field in the
soil makes this method sensitive to metals which will appear as extreme
values. This survey, however, still retains sensitivity to the same
types of features as a resistance method. The Geonics EM-38 was used for
the conductivity portion of this survey. This instrument operates on a
frequency of 14.6 kHz and houses a 1 m coil separation, it is capable of
delivering four measurements per second. The EM-38 also has two settings
for depth. The vertical dipole mode, which measures a depth up to 1.5 m,
was used in this survey.

*Magnetic.* Magnetometry was the only passive geophysical method
employed in this study. This method measures the relative strength of
the earth's magnetic field. The magnetic properties of a soil depend on
the concentration of iron compounds like hematite, magnetite, and
maghaemite (Weymouth 1986). Undisturbed earth will yield a uniform
magnetic field, whereas buried ditches, etc., will tend to be more or
less magnetic than the surrounding matrix. Magnetometers are generally
most sensitive to metals and fired materials. Metals will appear in
magnetic data as paired strong positive and negative values which is
referred to as a dipole. When a material is heated to a certain point
the heat will "reset" the material's magnetic clock. This process is
called *thermoremanent magnetism* (Weymouth 1986). The atoms of the
substance will align themselves to magnetic north at the time of
cooling. For this reason burned features, such as hearths, kilns, fired
bricks, and burned house floors, are readily visible in magnetic data.
Typically, most anomalies will range between ± 5 nanotesla (nT). It is
not uncommon, however, for a feature to fall within .1 nT of the
background magnetic strength.

The Geometrics G-858 cesium gradiometer was used for the magnetic
portion of the survey. The sensors were mounted on a vertical shaft at a
1-meter probe separation with the lower sensor measuring the magnetic
field of the soils. The upper sensor measures the background magnetic
field. The bottom reading was then subtracted from the top to cancel out
the magnetic variance not related to soil conditions.

**Survey area**

The survey area was a rectangular block 60 meters north-south and 120
meters east-west. The western portion of the block was positioned to
cover roughly two-thirds of mound 23. The eastern half of the block
covered the east wall and associated ditch of the large enclosure.
Additionally, the eastern portion of the block was thought to cover the
approximate location of the south wall of the small square enclosure.

At the time of Moorehead's excavation in 1891, mound 23 stood 3-4 meters
high and was roughly 46 meters in its greatest diameter. Since that
time, the site has been seriously degraded from agriculture. At the time
of the survey, mound 23 and the large earth wall stood no more than one
meter above the normal ground surface. Nothing could be seen of the
earthen ditch or the wall of the small square.

![](media/image18.jpeg){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="3.1680555555555556in"}

Figure 18. 1891 photograph of mound 23 (Moorehead, 1922).

The survey area was situated to answer three main questions. First, what
archeological remains, if any, were left in mound 23? Second, what can
be detected within the earthen wall and ditch of the large enclosure?
Finally, what is the preservation quality and exact location of the
small square enclosure?

![](media/image19.jpeg){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="3.986111111111111in"}

Figure 19. 2004 photograph of mound 23.

**Survey and interpretation methods**

The base lines of eighteen 20 by 20-meter grids were first laid out with
a transit. Wooden stakes were then placed in the corners of each survey
grid. One hundred meter tapes were then stretched between the east-west
running baselines to place the remaining corner stakes. During the
survey two 20-meter ropes were placed along the east-west lines of each
grid to form a boundary. A third rope was moved along the ground at one
meter intervals to serve as a guide. The guide ropes were marked with
colored electrical tape every half meter and flagging tape every 5
meters. At the end of data collection, the instruments were then
downloaded into a portable laptop computer for processing. Data
manipulation was carried out using Geoplot, Surfer 7, and ArcGIS 8. For
final presentation, the data was transferred into Surfer7. The grids
were set up in Surfer using the Krigging method.

The interpretation process was designed to answer the survey design
goals stated previously. Additionally, the survey was intended to
provide a means to compare multiple data sets. The goal was to produce
an easily interpretable map of the differing data sets that would
clearly show the anomalous areas of each survey. To this end, the
conductivity and resistance data were filtered and smoothed using
Geoplot. The datasets were then exported into Surfer 7 for
interpretation. Two differing contour plots were created to highlight
the anomalies of each data set. The first contour plot depicted the
typical value range of the anomalies present. The second plot reflected
a range of standard deviations from the mean of the data set. The
contour plots were then exported to ArcGIS 8.3. Each of the three
contours were assigned a different color and displayed in partially
transparent fashion. The resulting image served as the finished product
of this attempt at correlation.

**Results**

*Resistance.* Resistance data was collected at one meter traverses with
a half-meter sampling interval. A total of 14,400 readings were
collected for the survey area. The data ranged in values from 27.2 to
95.0 Ohms. The mean of the data was 44.4 Ohms with a standard deviation
of 5.75 Ohms.

![](media/image20.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="2.7083333333333335in"}

Figure 20. Resistance Data.

Mound 23 is displayed clearly in the resistance data. The highest values
in the data set mark the limits of the mound. This ring is probably the
result of large gravels that were placed during the construction of the
mound. The resistance data also revealed weaker anomalies in the
interior portion of the mound. The anomalies probably result from
gravels that were associated with the floor of the mound structures.

![](media/image21.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="2.703472222222222in"}

Figure 21. Anomalous areas of the resistance data.

The large earth wall to the east of the mound is displayed as a linear
anomaly that runs slightly northwest to southeast. This linear anomaly
could also be the result of gravels that were placed during the
construction of the earthwork. Near the data point E4885 N5060, there is
a boundary that follows the same direction. This boundary separates a
zone of high resistance in the east from the lower resistance of the
rest of the map. This boundary marks the edge of the earth wall.

*Conductivity.* Conductivity data was collected at one meter traverses
with a quarter-meter sampling interval. A total of 28,800 readings were
collected for the survey area. The data ranged in values from -4.70 to
11.39 milisemens per meter (mS/m). The mean of the data was 6.26 mS/m
with a standard deviation of 1.64 mS/m.

![](media/image22.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="2.7131944444444445in"}

Figure 22. Conductivity Data.

As expected, the conductivity data showed the near inverse of the
resistance data. The exception was that the anomalies were not nearly as
strong. The anomalies associated with mound 23 appeared as a light halo
compared to the background area. Curiously, these values fell within one
standard deviation from the mean. This could have been due to the
general poor overall conductivity of the soil.

![](media/image23.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="2.7131944444444445in"}

Figure 23. Anomalous areas of the conductivity data.

The same boundary associated with the eastern edge of the large
enclosure is also present in the conductivity data. Here, the boundary
is marked by values of high conductivity to the west and low values to
the east. The values associated with this boundary fall within the same
range as the anomalies of the mound.

*Magnetic.* Magnetic data was collected at one meter traverses. The
instrument was set to take readings every 0.2 seconds which allowed for
roughly 5 samples per meter to be taken. A total of 36,918 readings were
collected for the survey area. The background magnetic field strength
averaged at 53,3341.58 nT. The vertical gradient ranged in values from
-25.5 to 69.4 nanotesla per meter (nT/m). The mean of the data was 1.91
nT/m with a standard deviation of 3.21 nT/m.

![](media/image24.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="2.7222222222222223in"}

Figure 24. Magnetic Data.

The magnetometer clearly displayed the northern edge of the mound as a
strong negative linear anomaly. The interior of the mound is displayed
as strong positive values in the south and slightly lesser positive
values in the north. These boundaries could mark the walls of burned
structures where the walls burned longer or with more intense heat.

The large enclosure is marked by two parallel lines running through the
length of the survey area. The east line is of much greater intensity.
Additionally, there is a third line to the east which marks the eastern
boundary of the ditch.

![](media/image25.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="2.7222222222222223in"}

Figure 25. Anomalous areas of the magnetic data.

*Overlay.* The comparison of the three geophysical survey types proved
to be quite informative. The plot of the anomalous areas of the surveys
showed the exact relationship between the data sets. The anomalies
associated with mound 23 showed a close approximation of the physical
boundary of the mound. The conductivity and resistance data highlighted
the margins of the mound while the magnetometer sensed the interior. The
earth wall was displayed in a similar manner to the mound. The outer
extremities were displayed by resistance and conductivity, while the
magnetometer displayed the interior of the wall.

![](media/image26.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="3.303472222222222in"}

Figure 26. Image of the overlapped data sets. Resistance is displayed
from blue to white, conductivity is displayed from white to blue,
magnetic data is displayed from red to white.

![](media/image27.jpeg){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="3.0555555555555554in"}

Figure 27. Image of the anomalous areas of the data sets overlapped.
Resistance is displayed as blue, conductivity is displayed as green,
magnetic data is displayed as red.

**Conclusions**

As archeological investigation techniques improve, it can often become
quite useful to reexamine previous studies. Mound 23 in this survey had
been previously excavated twice. Thus, it would be natural to assume
that most, if not all, of the cultural remains were removed. However,
this study proved that there may still be features of archeological
significance left in the mound. Magnetic data pointed to burned surfaces
associated with the floors of the pre-mound funeral structures. Based on
this evidence, we can now see that the previous excavation strategies
were not focused on recovering anything below the floor. Many of the
mound's base features may still be intact.

The results from the magnetic data also suggested that the large
enclosure is still present below the surface. Resistance and
conductivity showed an area of higher conductivity/lower resistance to
the east of the large wall. Magnetic data pointed to internal anomalies
possibly resulting from ritual burning or a stone lining. The data
clearly showed that although the earthworks may not be visible on the
ground surface, much of the core of the wall still remains below
surface.

**Acknowledgments:**

The author would like to thank Steven De Vore, Rinita Dalan, Bruce
Bevan, and all of the instructors of the National Parks Service 2004
Prospection Workshop for their guidance and encouragement. Also thanks
to N'omi Greber, Jennifer Pederson and the staff of Hopewell Culture
National Historic Park for their cooperation and help with this project.
A special thanks should go to William Volf, MWAC and the UNL field
school for assistance with data collection and imaging. Finally, thanks
to Mark Lynott, and the UNL McNair program, for without their guidance
and support this work would not have been possible.

**References:**

Bevan, B. W.

1998\. *Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to
Geophysical Exploration.* Midwest Archeological Center. Copies available
from Special Report No. 1.

Clark, A.

1990\. *Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospection Methods in Archaeology.*
2nd ed. B.T. Batsford, London.

Conyers, L. B., and Goodman, D.

1997\. *Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists.*
Alta Mira Press, Walnut

Creek, CA.

Greber, N'omi B., and Katharine C. Ruhl

2000\. *The Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis Based on the Work of
Charles C.*

*Willoughby.* Eastern National, Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania. Reprint.
Originally

published in 1989 by Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Kvamme, K. L.

2001\. Current Practices in Archaeogeophysics. In *Earth Sciences and
Archaeology*, edited by V. T. H. Paul Goldberg, and C. Reid Ferring, pp.
353-384. Kluwer Academic/Plenum

Publishers, New York.

Moorehead, W. K.

1922\. *Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio.* Field Museum of Natural History -
Anthropological Series 6(5).

Shetrone, H. C.

1927\. *Explorations of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks.*
Ohio Archaeological and Historical Publications. Volume 35.

2004\. *The Mound-Builders.* The University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Reprint. Originally published in 1930 by D.
Appleton and Company.

Squier, E. G., and Edwin H. Davis

1998\. *Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley.* Smithsonian
Institute Press, Washington,

D.C. Reprint. Originally published in 1848.

Weymouth, J. W.

1986\. Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying. *Advances
in Archaeological*

*Method and Theory* 9:311-395.

**5. Notes and News**

Hopeton research continues in 2005 -- Archeologists, geophysicists and
geo-archeologists plan to continue research at the Hopeton Earthworks in
2005. Fieldwork is tentatively scheduled for June, with students from
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln expected to participate. The focus of
the June fieldwork will be additional study of a building on the west
side of the large rectangular enclosure at Hopeton. Three walls of this
building were partially exposed by previous investigations. Visits to
the site to view the excavations may be arranged by contacting Hopewell
Culture National Historical Park.

Arizona State University to begin work at Seip -- Dr. Katherine
Spielmann is making plans for explore the remains of a house floor at
Seip. Excavations under the direction of Raymond Baby in the 1970s
produced evidence of structures that may been built to shelter craft
specialists engaged in making objects for Hopewell rituals. The 2005
project is designed to evaluate whether these structures were workshops.
Dr. Spielmann will be assisted by students from Arizona State University
as part of a field school in archeological methods and research
strategies.

Research at High Bank continues in 2005 - Archaeologists from the

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, including Dr. N'omi Greber and a
Kirtlandia Society Intern, plan to be at the site in June. Several types
of geophysical instruments will be used to confirm the location and
character of an anomaly found between two wall segments of the Octagon
last season. Additional surveys to compare the apparent difference in
the magnetic maps of the Great Circle walls and those of the Octagon
will be added as time allows.

Lecture Series -- Hopewell Culture National Historical Park is making
plans for its annual summer lecture series. Lectures will be given on
Thursday evenings at 7:30 pm during the month of June. Contact the park
to receive more information. These lectures are free to the public and
have been very well attended in recent years.

Geophysics Workshop -- The National Park Service will be offering its
annual workshop on geophysical prospection methods in Chillicothe, Ohio
from May 16-20, 2005. The workshop is titled Current Archeological
Prospection Advances for Non-Destructive Investigations in the 21^st^
Century is an excellent opportunity to learn how the latest methods in
geophysical research are being used in archeological research,
particularly the study of mounds and earthworks. Information about the
workshop is available at (website).

The Midwest Archeological Conference will be held in Dayton, Ohio,
October 20-23, 2005. Dr. Robert Riordan, Wright State University, and
Lynn Simonelli and William Kennedy, Dayton Society of Natural History
are conference organizers.