8 GEOMETRICAL EARTHWORKS OF OHIO. 
side of the walls, rendered it necessary to make a resurvey in order to 
substitute a eritical comparison of the works, one with another, as to 
form and size. This disregard of details and the failure to give a copy 
of their ‘‘ field-notes ” in any instance (the supposed exception on page 
57 will be noticed hereafter) are somewhat surprising in view of the claim 
made of the accuracy of their surveys, and the following passage in the 
preface to their memoir : 
At the outset, as indispensable to independent judgment, all preconceived notions 
were abandoned and the work of research commenced de novo, as if nothing had 
been known or said concerning the remains to which attention was directed; * * 
care was exercised to note down on the spot every fact which was thought to be 
of value in the solution of the problems of the origin and purposes of the remains 
under notice, and particular attention was bestowed in observing the dependencies 
of the position, structure, and contents of the various works in respect to each other 
and the general features of the country. Indeed no exertion was spared to insure 
entire accuracy, and the compass, line, and rule were alone relied upon in all matters 
where an approximate estimate might lead to erroneous conclusions. The ancient 
inclosures and groups of works personally examined or surveyed are upwards of one 
hundred in number. 
It is certainly strange, in view of this statement, to find all their 
measurements of lines and areas given in such round numbers as 250, 
300, 800, 900, 1,000, 1,059, and 1,080 feet, and 15, 30, and 50 acres; and 
not to find in any instance (except one which will be noticed further 
on) any statement as to where the survey commenced, how it was con- 
ducted, or what were the courses and distances run in making it. 
As is shown hereafter some of the figures among these monuments 
approach very closely to geometrical regularity, in fact present some- 
what difficult puzzles to those who claim that they were built by In- 
dians; yet these are few, and pertain to a limited locality and to what 
may be classified as one type of works. However, the exact regularity 
in form and ‘coincidence in size,” claimed by Messrs. Squier and 
Davis, applies only to some two or three circles and two or three 
squares, while some of those of which they make special mention and 
which they rely upon as furnishing evidence of the truth of their as- 
Sertions in this respect, and claim to have carefully surveyed in person, 
not only fail to make good their claim, but prove exactly the opposite. 
Turning to pl. Xx, representing the ancient works in Liberty Town- 
ship, Ross County, we find, in a ‘supplementary plan A,” a diagram 
showing the method of surveying circles, of which an explanation is 
given in a foot-note on page 57. In this note the authors say : 
To put at once all skepticism at rest which might otherwise arise as to the regu- 
larity of these works, it should be stated that they were all carefully surveyed by 
the authors in person. Of course no difficulty existed in determining the perfect 
regularity of the squares. The method of procedure, in respect to the circles, was 
as follows: Flags were raised at regular and convenient intervals, upon the embank- 
ments, representing stations. The compass was then placed alternately at these 
stations, and the bearing of the flag next beyond ascertained. 
If the angles thus determined proved to be coincident, the regularity of the work 
was placed beyond doubt. The supplementary plan A indicates the method of sur- 
