**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/image1.jpeg){width="4.4375in" height="5.760416666666667in"}

Figure 1. 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/image2.jpeg){width="5.4375in" height="5.4375in"}

Figure 2. 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/image3.jpeg){width="6.010416666666667in"
height="5.020833333333333in"}

Figure 3. 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/image4.jpeg){width="4.322916666666667in" height="2.875in"}

Figure 4. 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/image5.jpeg){width="2.7291666666666665in"
height="4.302083333333333in"}

Figure 5. 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/image6.jpeg){width="5.552083333333333in"
height="3.6979166666666665in"}

Figure 6. 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.