14 GEOMETRICAL EARTHWORKS OF OHIO. 
however, and has been the basis of so much speculation, that it is time an aceurate 
map and a careful description should be placed before the public. Such a map and 
such a description it is here aimed to present. 
The map they give, according to a note, is drawn from a survey made 
by Col. Whittlesey, in 1837. Yet, according to their text, the area of 
the larger square is 40 acres and that of the smaller 20, while on the 
inap that of the former is placed at 50 and that of the latter at 27 acres. 
Near the close of their description of these interesting works! is this 
Statement: 
The absolute identity in size between the smaller inclosure (which varies a little 
from a true square) and several of those which occur in the Scioto Valley, should not 
be overlooked in any attempt to educe the character and design of the group. That 
there is some significance in the fact is obvious. (See pls. xvi and xvu.) 
As the authors fail to give us measurements of this smaller inclosure 
by which we may judge of “this absolute identity in size,” we have only 
the area as a means of comparison. There is an octagon but no square 
on pl. XVI, which represents the ** High Bank works;” the authors’ ref- 
erence to this is, therefore, erroneous. The sides of the square on pl. 
XV, which represents the Hopeton works, are marked 900 feet each. 
It we assume the area of the smaller Marietta square to be ‘‘ 27 acres,” 
as indicated on the plat, the sides will be abort 1,084 feet, agreeing 
very nearly with those in Paint Creek Valley, but differing widely from 
the Hopeton square, pl. xvi. If we assume the area to be ‘20 acres,” 
as given in the text, the sides wiil measure about 933 feet, but little more 
than the Hopeton square. 
In their description of the ancient works of Montgomery County,’ 
figured as No. 1, pl. Xx1x, speaking of the large inclosure, they say: 
The diameter of this circle is 100 feet greater than that of the corresponding large 
circle of the Scioto works [pl]. Xx], and the same proportionate increase in size is to 
be observed in the square and lower circle. 
By reference to the plates it will be seen that the diameter of the 
large circle of the Montgomery County works is 1,950 feet and that of 
the Scioto (Liberty Township) works is 1,720 feet, a difference of 230 
feet instead of 100 as stated by the authors. 
The area of the octagon at the High Bank works, pl. Xv1, as indi- 
cated on the plat, is “18 acres,” while the average diameter as given 
in the text is 950 feet (which agrees, as will be shown hereafter, almost 
exactly with the result of the Bureau surveys). This gives an area 
lacking but afew rods of 21 acres. On the other hand, they give to 
the Hopeton square, 900 by 950 feet, an area of 20 acres, which is as 
nearly correct as can be stated without the introduction of fractions. 
SEAL TOWNSHIP WORKS. 
The attention of the reader is called next to the “Seal (now Scioto) 
Township works” shown on pl. xxiv. The errors made by Squier 
‘Ancient Monuments, page 73. 2 Tbid., page 83. 
