top of page
Search

Fragments of Pilgrimage - Earthwork N

  • 3 minutes ago
  • 7 min read

Old Business


The following sites that I've documented have been verified by the Ohio Archaeological Inventory [OAI 2026]:


  • Mound west of Johnson Works - this is a new entry in the OAI.#33RO1231

  • Johnson Works - Whittlesey Plate VII, sketch #3. #33RO0048

  • Square Earthwork near Jackson, Ohio - Whittlesey Plate VII, sketch #1. #JA0008

  • Northeast Piketon Mound - looks like it has been opened. #PK0046

  • Circular hole on a hill south of Piketon -this is a new entry in the OAI. #PK0474


I went through ODOT aerials starting in 1952. The area was plowed, but the site had trees growing around it, missed by the plow. The trees hid the site, but a 1955 aerial with shadows running away from the site looks like it reveals a section of the hole.


Circular hole partially revealed [ODOT 1955]
Circular hole partially revealed [ODOT 1955]

I now have two possible alternate locations for Big Bottom, one of which I got from someone with knowledge of the area. I have a gap between Highby/Richmond Dale and Piketon that I can now explore now that I have downloaded the DEMs.


The search for 1930s aerials


There are two important sets of aerial photographs shot in the 1930s. One, by Major Dache Reeves in 1934. and another by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1938. Reeves' photographs were specifically about Ohio earthworks and mounds. I've seen images of both sets in various publications. I have an interest in both sets, as any fragments that survived at that time would help in my measurements. Timothy Price has shared one of Reeves' [Price 2007] and 8 images, and 1 negative exists in digital form at the Museum of the American Indian, with free access. [NMAI 2026] I believe that some may exist at the Ohio History Connection [OHC 2026], but there is nothing online. I would have to go to Columbus or hire a researcher. After much searching, I have found the source locations of both archives. The 1938 photos are at the National Archives. [National Archives 2026] The mosaic or index (an image of all the photos in a region) exists for Pike County, Ohio, and I was able to obtain a copy. The images themselves have not been digitized. Again, I would have to go to Washington myself or hire a researcher. The Reeves photographs are in the Smithsonian National Anthropological Archives. [Smithsonian 2026] There, I would have to first find the flight logs and the mosaics before finding the images I need.


On proper measurement


I was able to get William F. Romain's 2015 book, An Archaeology of the Sacred. [Romain 2015] In it, he documents most of Ohio's earthworks and, if extant, early LIDAR analysis, along with possible astronomical alignments. Of note is his study of Johnson Works (#33RO0048). He measures the enclosure. He takes a measure of the enclosure's width and shows that one diagonal points east across the Scioto River, through Salt Creek Valley, along the line of sight of the summer solstice sunrise.


I am interested in his measurements and how they may change by using a finer resolution than in 2015. I can't find the LIDAR resolution in this book, but a paper Romain published with Jarrod Burks on the Great Hopewell Road uses a LIDAR resolution of 2 meters (6.562 ft.). [Romain & Burks 2016] 2015 was an early year in LIDAR technology, yet still a breakthrough for archaeology. I am using a resolution of 1.25 ft. (.381 meters). [OGRIP 2023]


All measurements have an implied error. This is a random quantity and is unique to the person or instrument making the measurement. There are also biased errors; these can be human-related or arise from parts of the measurement process. Cyrus Thomas [Thomas 1889, p. 8] criticized how Squier & Davis [Squier & Davis 1847] measured, believing they rounded them to the nearest 10 feet. Also, it is sometimes unclear exactly where along the walls the measurements were taken, as the cross-section of a rounded wall has a beginning, middle, and end.


How does a coarser resolution bias the measurement? A pixel at 2-meter resolution contains around 5.25 pixels at 1.25-foot resolution. Depending on the start and end of the measurement, this could mean an estimated maximum error of up to 8 feet. This is especially critical for small earthworks rather than large ones.


Where the start and end points are located is also important, as the center of an embankment isn't always clear. If possible, comparisons to geophysical data are important. There is a great need for accurate measurements, especially given the contentions that the builders used sophisticated mathematical ideas and a standard of measure.


  • All measurements need an error range. For instance, if Squier & Davis did round to 10', then a measure of 1050' would have an error of +- 5' or +-.48%.


Earthwork N (#33PK6)


Erathworks N appears on Plate XXIV of Squier & Davis as a small inset map. The earthwork is around a mile north of Seal. According to John Hancock, this earthwork was named "The Alembic" by Geoffrey Sea, a former owner of the Barnes house. [Hancock private correspondence] An alembic is an alchemist's glass used in distilling.


Different alembics [Libavius 1606]
Different alembics [Libavius 1606]

Notice that the name represents the double openings to the circle. Double openings to circles, I believe, are rare, but I don't have enough information. Burks claims that there are other examples of this shape, but he gives no references. [Burks 2011, p. 17] Each opening is connected to short parallel walls. The Observatory Circle once had a second opening with short parallel walls. One goes to the Octagon. At some time, the second was blocked by the Observatory Mound being built over it.


Looking at the relief visualization, nothing above ground seems to exist. A 1934 aerial does show a section of the earthwork.


1934 aerial over 1994 and 2007 maps [Burks 2011, fig. 9, p. 16]
1934 aerial over 1994 and 2007 maps [Burks 2011, fig. 9, p. 16]

Burks created the above composite from a 1934 Dache Reeves aerial and ODOT aerials from 1994 and 2007. I used this map to position and georeference the image. I used this georeference to create an outline model of the earthwork, assuming that the missing bottom half is a mirror image of the top. I created a point set along the circle and at each end of the visible parallel walls. I tried to set my points in the centers of the embankments, but this is, of course, a source of error. I used my circularity and squareness scripts to measure the accuracy. [Beaver 2026] See the table and discussion at the end of the article. For the moment, there is no way to tell how much of the error is mine and how much is in the earthwork. The complete estimated outline of the earthwrrk is below:


Figure 1: Derived outline of Earthwork N [Author image]
Figure 1: Derived outline of Earthwork N [Author image]

The outline of the earthwork is placed for now on a modern map and a modern elevation. There is a mound to the north of the earthwork and several other mounds between here and the Piketon Graded Way. Because these mounds are part of the landscape, and, in particular, they were part of the landscape when the earthwork was built, that they need to be included.


Burks comments on this earchwork in relation to a pilgrimage route going through Ohio from Portsmouth to Chilicothe to Newark. [Burks 2011, p. 17] In his critique, he makes the point that the ages of the different earthworks span hundreds of years, and this particular earthwork may have been abandoned long before it could be used for pilgrimage. Two points here:


  • Reuse is common with older structures becoming part of a sacred landscape.

  • Decommissioning these smaller earthworks often involves blocking the entrances, making the interior forbidden territory. [Henry 2020] [Wright 2020]

  • One tends to look at these structures as static, something in a field gradually fading away. It is important to see each of these structures as a process in a landscape, a landscape of use over hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.


In a future article, I intend to discuss the idea of 'infrastructure of pilgrimage.' Pilgrimage is a human condition. There is enough information, especially from Western North America, to change the question from whether it was done to how it was done.


Conclusion


It is not sufficient to create just an outline of these features; I believe a 3D rendering is also necessary. For analysis purposes, this can be done directly on the DEM. First, the terrace must be restored to erase the ravages of gravel mining, modern structures, and roads. Next, there is enough information on the physics of dirt packing to start a formal model. One major issue is the height of the walls. There are no measurements that I'm familiar with for this site, and information on other sites is scattered. Also, the diversity of forms at these sites is such that it is dangerous to make assumptions. I am suggesting an experimental approach of making models of different heights and testing them against the landscape. The size of a particular site and the nature of the terrace also put some constraints on the height.



Table


Notice that there are many empty cells in these tables. This is because of the extreme and early destruction of the earthworks. Also, Squier & Davis are unclear about where they made their measurements. Encoding these earthworks is an open problem, as there is considerable variation, and it is unclear which numbers are archaeologically important. Unless used as results, these tables from now on will remain in data table format.


Earthwork N


Table of measurements of Earthwork N
Table 1: Earthwork N


Comments

Drop Me a Line, Let Me Know What You Think

Thanks for submitting!

© 2023 by Train of Thoughts. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page