THE MOUND BUILDERS FROM BOLIVIA TO OHIO USA.INTRODUCTION
IN text Ms5 the surveyors measurement which commenced in Mesopotamia as a FOOT of 10.888 statute inches, and was shown to be used by Megalithic Man in UK/Europe as 3 Feet of 10.888 inches or 2.722 Feet. It formed part of a 30/60/90 degree Triangle of 2.722/4.714/5.444 Feet. Then it was shown that the base measurements of 2.722 feet and 4.714 feet, called the Megalithic Yard and Megalithic Rod were present in Mesoamerica and the Mississippi River lands.
What that text omitted was any possible link of the East and West continents as there was insufficient evidence to determine how the same measurement occurred. It surmised possible contact, but, now papers were available discussing the Stature of the Mesoamericans and Mississippians.
That research carried out by various persons over 100 years was suddenly online and identified the “Body Measures” of various peoples. The 2.722 and 4.714 feet were strange lengths to find on the Human Body as they required a specific height to achieve them.
Then in 2022 a text discussed the Mounds built in Bolivia and Ecuador using the latest LiDAR survey techniques, and in Western Amazonia, the forest area, it exposed thousands of mounds built as townships with roads. And one of the basic measurements used was based upon 2.722 feet.
Not only was there a path for the expansion of Mound Building from South to North America, but also the metrology involved. Thus this text recommences the examination of the planning survey of layouts and metrology of the Mound Builders of the America’s.
It is not a complete survey of sites, there are thousands, but of sites with readily available data in the form of measurements and surveyed layouts.
THE CULTURES INVOLVED AND THEIR APPROXIMATE DATES
1) UPANO VALLEY, Morona-Santiago Province ECUADOR
c500BCE to c500AD. Mounds in the form of Townships, and linear.
2) TEOTIHUACAN MEXICO
600BCE – 200BCE small scattered villages.
100BCE-750CE, Urban Centre; City in Ruins by the time of the AZTECS.
3) BOLIVIA; CASARABE Culture, 500-1400CE
Bolivian Amazon, SW Amazonia, Llanos de Mojos savannah forest mosaic.
4) CENTRAL SOUTH AMERICA
OLMECS 1500BCE-400BCE, STONE HEADS AND STEPPED PYRAMIDS
MAYA 3000BCE-1511CE; GAUTEMALA TO YUCATAN
750-500BCE MONUM,ENTAL ARCHITECTURE
250-900CE, CLASSIC PERIOD
900-1511CE, POST CLASSIC WITH TOLTECS MOVING IN FROM THE NORTH
ZAPOTEC, 1500BCE-1500CE (MONTE ALBAN)
TOLTECS 9TH-12TH CENTURIES, CENTRAL AMERICA AFTER DEMISE OF TEOTIHUACAN
AZTECS PRE 1000CE TO 1521
PRE 1000CE MIGRATE TO MEXICO
PRE 1375 SETTLEMENT OF TENOCHTITLAN
1500CE GOLDEN AGE OF TENOCHTITLAN
5) NORTH AMERICA
800-600BCE, THE ADENA AND HOPEWELL CULTURES SETTLE THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY AND PARTS OF THE SOUTH EAST
FROM 400BCE PUEBLO AND HOHOKUUN CULTURES THRIVE IN THE SOUTH WEST
800-1500CE, THE MISSISSIPPIAN CULTURE BRINGS COMPLEX CIVILSATIONS TO THE MID-WEST AND SOUTH EAST.
6) THE WEST AND SOUTH WEST OF THE USA HAVE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CULTURES INCLUDING THE PLAINS INDIANS.
From that information it is possible to opine that the UPANO Valley Peoples moved south into Bolivia and north into the coastal region of South America, through the land link to North America, or by boat as they are considered adequate sailors, along with peoples of various South American dynasties when both War and Famine precluded their continuance of habitation. In fact Clark Wissler in his 1922 text “The American Indian” states (p105-106);
“First the pyramidal mound for burial seems to extend from Northern Mexico to the Isthmus and then to recur in Colombia, passing through Ecuador and down into the coast of Old Peru. At least in one part of the Inca domain we find buildings upon them. In fact, their general absence in Old Peru is accounted for by the rocky nature of the country, which affords sites of natural elevation to which buildings were frequently adjusted by terraces. It may be of interest to note that the pyramidal mound both for burial and building sites extends up into the Mississippi Valley as far as the famous Cahokia of Illinois, and that this distribution is continuous with the general mound area of the upper valley. In other words, the occurrence of mounds of this type has a generally continuous distribution from the Great Lakes of the North to the coast of OLD PERU of the South. Throughout, they are most numerous in level districts.”
In fact the Rev’d PEET made this point (p84);
“The mound Builders of the Mississippi Valley, for instance may have been the same race with the Pueblo’s, or ancient village dwellers of the Rocky Mountain Region, and, they the same race with the ancient inhabitants of Mexico and Yucatan, and even Peru, yet their geographical surroundings were so different.”
STATURE OF PEOPLES; A BRIEF RESUME
W. Haviland in his 1967 paper “Stature at Tikal, Guatemala”, noted that in Pre-classic Tikal there is a marked sexual dimorphism, which fluctuates and then decreases. Female height remains relatively constant for all periods ( average 147cms) while in men the male height increases from 164.5 to 167cms and then drops to 157.4 cms.
The schedule of Average male height for various native American groups as per the diagram has the Maya of Guatemala average 5ft 1inch, with long arms. Scaled against the body the arm from shoulder to finger tips is probably 25.75 inches and the half distance of outstretched arms the equivalent of 2 x 830mm, 1660mm and 5 feet 5.33inches.
MsMO/9/D01
At Teotihuacan the basic measurement is 830mm which is also the Megalithic Measure of 2.722 feet, as clearly shown in the text Ms5
MsMO/9/D02
Given that the Maya of Guatemala were also 164.5 to 167cms, which using the “Vitruvian Man” and Leonardo DA Vinci’s excellent diagram of outstretched arms, fingertip to fingertip equals the height of a man, we can use that to indicate the basic measurement. MsMO/9/D03
In 1960 Francesco Guerra wrote that the measuring stick (rod) called “Tlacaxtlantli” was used by the Aztecs as the distance from the Navel to the Ground, and was very close to the yard or 3 Spanish Royal Feet. The Foot of “Burgos” is 10.958 inches or 278.33mm and the VARA is given as 835mm or 32.87 inches, when the 830mm measure is 32.667 inches.
At Chichen Itza/Uxmal/Kabah there are various ROD lengths surmised from the measurements taken of buildings. They vary as follows;
1409; 1417; 1426; 1431; 1470; 1515; &1520mm.
From the same Maya sites as the ROD, the Female height is given as ;
1418; 1420; 1432; 1450; 1470; 1475 & 1450-1480, with an average of the eight of 1450mm.
Thus it is quite easy to see that a ROD of 1436.83mm or 4.714 feet, given that the 830mm is attested, hence did they know of the relationship. That can only be assessed by testing them against surveys and structures that are found from South to North.
MsMO/9/D03
THE EARLY MOUND BUILDERS
The Mounds positions are split into two distinct areas; Soil & Savannah Forest, where there is no Limestone and the arc from Teotihuacan to the Yucatan and south to Guatemala where Limestone is abundant and readily worked by primitive tools.
Therefore it is the first group we should look to for the most likely ancestors/teachers who used the soil itself to form their various sized platform mounds.
THE UPANO VALLEY; MORONA-SANTIAGO PROVINCE, ECUADOR From c500BCE to c500CE.
MsMO/9/D04
Professor Stephen Rostain, CNRS, Paris, has been the leading figure in the Amazonian Region belief in and search for lost settlements, cities, and peoples. In the 1970’s evidence of pre-modern settlements was found in the UPANO Valley, but it was not until a LiDAR survey of 2015 that actual settlements and their extent were identified, showing earthen mounds, roads and very large conglomerations. These are shown on the attached Lidar photos.
Thus in 2024 when the data was released it attracted an immense response. The paper “Two Thousand Years of Garden Urbanisation in the Upper Amazon”, SCIENCE, 383 (6679) pp 183-189 and its supplementary material exposed hundreds of sites and a general comment of around 6000 platforms discovered in groups of three to six. It appears that the usual size is c20 x 10metres, that is 66 x 33 feet and they are 2-3 metres high ( 6.6 to 9.8 feet)
MsMO/9/D05
At KILAMOPE, a platform measures c140m (460ft ) x 40 m (130ft)
Obviously 66 feet is 14 Rods of 4.714 feet and 33 feet is 7 Rods., where-as c460 feet is 97.5817 feet and 98 x 4.714 feet is 461.972 feet, with c130 feet = 27.577, and 28 x 4.714 = 131.992 feet, but more importantly 98 = 14 x 7 or 2 x 7 x7 and 28 is 4 x 7 or 2 x 2×7.
The height of the platforms are therefore probably 1.5 and 2 x 4.714 feet (7.071 & 9.428).
MsMO/9/D06
LiDAR reveals Pre-Hispanic low density urbanisation in the Bolivian Amazon; Nature, volume 606, 9/06/2022, pp325-330.
MsMO/9/D07
This is the CASARABE Culture area. The civic-ceremonial architecture of these large settlement sites includes stepped platforms on top of which lie “U” shaped structures; rectangular platform mounds and conical pyramids ( which are up to 22m tall).
The Llanos de Mojos area has extensive sites dated AD500-AD1400. With 189 large monumental sites and 273 smaller sites having some 957KM of canals and causeways.
Platforms are c25m x 20m and 2m high, which would give a credible 17.5 x 4.714 and 14 x 4.714.
Thus from the Isthmus along the western coast of S America the ROD can be shown to be in all probability 4.714 feet, corresponding to the 2.722 feet of a 30/60/90 degree Triangle.
STONE BUILDERS
Parallel to the Mound Builders are the Stone Builders. The Maya of the Yucatan and of Teotihuacan , Mexico. Text Ms5 clearly shows that the 830mm measurement is the mainstay of the construction measurements as proven by Professor Suburo Sugiyama and the Survey dimensions of the Pyramid Temple of Kukulkan at Chichen Itza.
Should we therefore be surprised to find the Mississippian Cultures, the Mound Builders using the Rod of 4.714 feet and the Yard of 2.722 feet.
MsMO/9/D08&D09
MsMO/9/D10
THE MISSISSIPPIAN PEOPLES AND THEIR BUILDING WORKS; TWO MAPS.
MsMO/9/D11
MsMO/9/D12
In the late 1800’s many erudite persons studied the “Ancient” works of the Eastern USA, which tended to be close to the rivers, both great and small, enabling crops to be grown, the three staples which followed from the south, as well as Fish and Shellfish to produce a balanced diet for the age.
A vast array of ancient Fish-traps created by the Mayan ancestors have been found in Belize with a network of canals and ponds to ais easy catches. This construction was no doubt in response to a “DRY” period, droughts, but continued from c2000BCE to 200CE. Thus the early settlers to the Mississippian areas arrived with adequate skills to start communities in a landscape of soil and water.
A SELECTION OF SITES FROM SOUTH TO NORTH USA.
These are selected from many sites mainly because of the level of data given which can be analysed.
1) POVERT POINT LOUISIANA; 32/38/12N & 91/24/41W.
2) MOUNDVILLE ALABAMA; 33.00467n & 87.63107W.
3) HARPETH ROVER SITES TENNESSE (VARIOUS)
4) CAHOKIA ILLINOIS; 38/39/14N & 90/03/52W
5) SERPENT MOUND OHIO; 39/01/33N & 83/25/51W
6) NEWARK EARTHWORKS OHIO; 40/03/7.87N & 82/26/55.54W
7) THERE ARE A VARIETY OF OTHER SITES IN OHIO, NOT DISCUSSED.
POVERTY POINT LOUISIANA, (16WC5)
MsMO/9/D13
This is a World Heritage Site comprising six concentric ?circular? ridges; six mounds, a plaza and various Timber circles, set to the west of the Bayou Macon and south of the Harlin Bayou.
Practically all of the data available with regard to the layout comes from LiDAR images of the various layers. The site is dated c1700BCE to c1100BCE and studying the LiDAR images of the site and the Bayou Macon it is evident scouring of the eastern perimeter has removed probably half the width of the Bayou as the soil is Loess , easily washed off and hence the many fissures and gullies
formed. This was confirmed by the site director who pointed out that the dredging of the Bayou spoils could be seen as a continuous pile on the eastern bank. At the same time as that work, the Army Engineers stabilised the western bank to protect the site from further losses.
MsMO/9/D14
MsMO/9/D15
Within the site plaza area many post holes have been found which in the text “Southeastern Archaeology, Poverty Point, previous research section”, details them with the largest being “restored” by concrete blocks to indicate original holes and its size. It comprises 33 posts set in a circle of 63.13m diameter, but their spacing is not consistent as can be readily seen on the image. The perimeter is thus c198 metres which would provide for a simple spacing of 6 metres per section. That is 19.7 feet and not in keeping with previous metrology.
MsMO/9/D16
However, the site with its 6 concentric features gives the distinct impression as being set out so as to have a “Focal Point”. One Illustrator even posed an Obelisk in the centre of the Plaza, which certainly does not fulfil the idea of a focal point from the curved sections.
Thus the focal point can be geometrically ascertained from the LiDAR image. The three areas of the concentric “rings” having the outer pair curved completely and the central section a combination of straightish length and curved ends, thus by using the outer limits of the three sections and projecting their perpendicular, a focal point is achieved. MsMO/9/D17
The resultant curves and focal point are shown on the diagram, but, is the focal point actually just on the bank of the Bayou Macon or has it already fallen into the Bayou before the stabilisation?
From the focal point the first “ring” is c320 metres and the 6th “ring” is c570 metres radius, which gives a mean spacing of 50 metres centre to centre “rings” 1 to 6.
The 50 metres is c164 feet which in turn is 60.26 x 2.722 or 60 x 2.722 = 163.32 feet which is a very easy survey distance for Man.
It is thus open to opine that the actual measurements were 323.57m it would be 6.5 x 60 x 2.722, i.e. 390 x 2.722 and 690 x 2.722, or 572.47m
MsMO/9/D17
ANOTHER PERSONS WORK
I had reason to look at a text by John E Clark, published by the University of Alabama Press which discusses a triangle at the Caney Mounds Complex and gives measurements as follows;
Equilateral Triangle, sides 364.5m (page 164) and is divided by 208 units of 1.666m which he considers the outstretched arms of a man and thus the basic standard measurement.
From this text as you will have read it is more likely to have been 1.66m or 2 x 830mm, this measure being attested many times. Thus the figure is more likely not 346.5 but 345.28 and when on page 173 is drawn the Caney Mounds principal triangle at twice scale and superimposed on the Poverty Point layout, it is shown to be positioned from my putative focal point to the base of Mound A. The height of his triangle is given as 600.2m, which on the LiDAR image is c620m and 622.25m = 750 x 2.722 or 12.5 x60 units.
MsMO/9/D18
Each page of this book has a harsh note about copyright. However being in the public domain and used by other researchers, the usage of a small section has always been permissible.
SETTING OUT POVERTY POINT.
MsMO/9/D19
Thus the setting out measures for Poverty Point is based upon the “Human Body” measure of 1.66m or 2 x 830mm, used as 60 units. But that is actually only 30 men fingertip to fingertip, and a length of 49.8 metres, an easy rope length to manipulate.
The document published on this monument gives the following detail;
Ridges = 15 to 25 metres wide
Swales = 20 to 30 metres wide
And hence from ridge 1 to ridge 6 we have five sections of Ridge/Swale widths. That is five sections totalling 300 x 2.722 feet, 60 x 2.722 feet per section and thus 49.8 metres. And, 50 metres
is a rather excellent average of the Ridge/Swale widths and can be read as 20 ridge and 30 swale or 25/25 ridge/swale.
Hence, Focal Point to Ridge 1 centre is 323.6m or 195 x 1.66m. That is 13 x 15 men and a rope of 24.9 metres used 13 times.
Then the ridge width and swale widths are both 5 x 15 men + 5 x 15 men, 150 men = c250m, ridge =30 x 2.722 and swale =30 x 2.722, the half-height /spread of a human of 1.66m stature.
THE SIX MOUNDS AT POVERTY POINT
MsMO/9/D20
These mounds vary in shape and size and appear not to be “original” shape or form, hence the recourse to analysing why they may be so positioned in the Landscape.
Mounds A to F distances given in a clockwise manner.
A to B; 630m, 2067 feet and 760 x 2.722 = 630.545m or 12 2/3rds x 60 x 2.722 feet.
B to F ; 815m, 2674 feet and 990 x 2.722 = 821.37M or 16.5 x 60 units
F to C; 520m, 1706 feet and 630 x 2.722 = 522.69m or 10.5 x 60 units
C to D; 500m, 1640.5 feet, 602.652 x 2.722 & 600 or 10 x 60 = 497.8m
D to E; 930m, 3051 feet, 1121 x 2.722, with 1120 = 18 2/3rds x 60 units
E to A; 415m 1361 feet= 500.2 x 2.722 feet or 8 1/3rd x 60 units
E to B; 1045m, 3428.5 feet & `1260 x 2.722 = 3429.72 Feet or 21 x 60 units.
There are LiDAR scans for mounds A to E and mound F is omitted. But, as it is noted as an integral item for the site, its measurements are included.
Thus it is evident that the “Surveyor” for the site had a simple plan and measurement system to build this spectacular edifice out of the Loess soil.
MOUNDVILLE ALABAMA; c1100CE – 1600CE.
In 1980 a Doctoral Thesis was written concerning several sites for evidence of common astronomical alignments. Unfortunately on the first page are the words “Because their altered states, the mounds at Moundville provide no clear man-made markers to use”.
MsMO/9/D21
Then, “The size and number of mounds at Moundville posed a problem; many alignments are possible, but only those to the cardinal directions can be accepted as intentional”.
“The site south of the Black Warrior River appears originally to have had 21 mounds, but only 20 were located, one mound being lost to the river”. And finally;
“There are uncertainties associated with the data. In the photograph of Moundville, the mounds appear well-formed. The map drawn in 1907, figure 5, shows different shapes for the mounds, so they have definitely been modified. Because of these modifications therefore uncertainties as to where the mound centres are located.”
MsMO/9/D22
Thus figures 5 and 6 from the dissertation of the 1905 survey are replaced by 1971 and 1977 maps, but, only the metrological analysis available is one of possible alignments on the site. That analysis gives possibly three alignments; 25 degrees; 5 degrees and east/west.. The sunrise and sunset positions for the Solstice are shown.
The plot used for this exercise is from the 1971, Society for American Archaeology paper, shown as at 33.00467N and 87.63107W.
Given the positions and heights existing, Mound B at 17 metres and the central mound A at 6.4 metres are both capable of being the main mound of the site , but for differing reasons.
MsMO/9/D23
Mound A, main habitation; Mound B, main ceremonial centre connected to mound V. Although measurements were checked using the scalebar, the uncertainty of the “loci” precluded an investigation , although similar measurements do occur. What can be clearly stated is that it appears to be a designed layout in the west, which in the east declines to a somewhat haphazard layout.
MsMO/9/D24
HARPETH RIVER SITES, TENNESSEE.
There are many sites around the town of Franklin, with two 40wm2 and 40wm4 being similar in form and content. Both are surrounded by a line of Earthworks/Palisades and are situate on Bluffs above
the River Harpeth, with “Springs” for water supply.
Site 40wm2 is known as “OLD TOWN”, a 12 acre site containing two pyramidal mounds, burial mounds and a large number of stone lined graves. Unfortunately it is now a series of house plots as the Google Earth photograph illustrates, with much of it under cultivation.
MsMO/9/D25
Site 40wm4 known as the “De Graffenreid Site” was used for Potash Mining and is a 20 acre site surrounded by housing developments as the photo illustrates.
MsMO/9/D26
Both are now indeterminate, but in the “Antiquities of Tennessee” by Gates P Thruston, I think there is a misprint on the 40wm4 plan which indicates 300 feet to the Inch scale. This and others in the text are from the Dr Jones text where he uses 330 ft to one Inch (see 40wm2) and for the mound works on the West Harpeth River, he uses 165 feet to one Inch.
MsMO/9/D27
These scales are quite enlightening as 330 and 165 feet are part of the English Statute Mile of 5280 feet. Hence Dr Jones has used the half and quarter furlong measurement, a furlong being 1/8th of a mile and 660 feet.
But 5280 feet is also 1120 x 4.714 feet, the ROD, and thus 660 feet is 140 x 4.714, with 330 feet being 70 and 165 being 35 x 4.714 feet.
The Old Town line of works is given as 2470 feet , which is 524 x 4.714 and the “De Graffenreid” site, 3800 feet is 806 x 4.714 feet and it is possible DR Jones is surmising this was the measurement used on the sites, knowing about the “Human Frame” of 1.66M.
Curiously using 525 x 4.714 and 805 x 4.714 we have 75 x 7 and 115 x 7 units of 33/7 feet with the simple mathematics to resolve the two sets of figures as 7 x 33/7 = 33feet and 33 x75 and 33x 115 are 2475 and 3795 feet.
These early Americans could only use the simplest basic mathematics and hence their measurements or metrology; No Calculators.
MOUND BOTTOM TENNESSEE 40ch8
In “Tennessee Archaeology 9 (2) Summer 2018 is a section on the “Mound Bottom” site in a lop of the Harpeth River. Quote, P106,”The LiDAR returns revealed a series of both poorly documented and previously unrevealed above ground features throughout the Mound Bottom Site area and surrounding landscape. These included a possible unrecorded mound group in the western periphery (Fig 2a), further documentation of mounds and bluffs and ridge lines east, north and west of the site core (Figs 2b,c and d) and a grid work of low raised embankments throughout the main site area. LiDAR data also revealed the absence of two previously recorded mounds on the eastern periphery of the main plaza.
MsMO/9/D28
Positioned at 360 8’ 23.3”N and 870 6’ 4.93”W, figures 2 and 3 from the text and figure 5, the 1923 map are included here-in.
Obviously a work in progress to be followed up later.
MsMO/9/D29
CAHOKIA ILLINOIS
There is already a full analysis of the site within the text Ms5 and thus to illustrate in the simplest way the metrology, the Murdoch Mound is again used.
MsMO/9/D30
The mound was the subject of an Archaeological Survey by Harriet H Smith of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, and the findings were published within the text, “Explorations into Cahokia Archaeology”, edited by M L Fowler and published by the University of Illinois. There-in, pages 49-87 detail the Murdoch Mound and its reconstructed measurements. The basic unit is 16.5 feet with ½ and ¼ units used, but importantly it is set out using a 3:4:5 triangle to form the sloping sides. Diagram Ms5/D14 illustrates those measurements and angles. That is the same methodology as found at Chichen Itza and Mesopotamia.
However, 16.5 feet is also 3 ½ megalithic canes/rods of 4.714 feet and thus the sides of the triangle are actually 9.9:13.2:16.5 feet, or 2.1:2.8:3.5 Rods, which of course brings the number 7 into the equation and the mound is 7 Rods high at 33 feet.
The Timber circles and other features are detailed in Ms5.
THE SERPENT MOUND, OHIO: A BRIEF DESCRIPTION.
MsMO/9/D31
Located as follows, by the editor, American Antiquarian; “The series of effigy works known under the name of “The Great Serpent Mound”, is located on the land of J J Lovett, entry 1010, Brattain township, Adams county, Ohio”
Geographic co-ordinates are; 39° 01’ 33”N and 83°25’ 51”W.
Fortuitously William F Romain and John E Daley produced a survey plan of the whole effigy between February and April 1987, and noted that the true astronomical North and Magnetic North varied by 0.9 degrees west.
It has been variously depicted in many “survey” drawings over 1 1/2 centuries and the site is now a State Memorial as indicated on the Google Earth map attached here.
The site has been thoroughly investigated both geometrically and metrologically by this author and basically two facts arose;
1) There is an obvious setting out for the coils but in this analysis an error is shown in the actual constructed positions of the coils, which can be easily corrected as shown.
2) The head of the serpent suddenly leaves the coils at virtually a right angle, which is not a normal serpent feature. This with the inclusion of a possible “Wishbone” at the head of the serpent points to a probable original setting down of the coils on the ground too far north, and thus the head which is directed towards the Summer Solstice Setting Sun has been adjusted to fit.
The complete text for this “Serpent Mound” is to be found in text MsOHIO/10, which is the sequential following text in the series and is part therefore of MsMO/9.
OHIO- MOUNDS AND EARTH WORKS ABOUND.
One set of Earthworks has been described by J H Salisbury and Mr D & C B Salisbury in a hand written document titled; “Ancient Monuments and Inscriptions of and near the Summit between the Head Waters of the Hocking and Licking Rivers, Ohio.”
MsMO/9/D32
They are to be found in Fairfields, Licking and Perry Counties, Ohio on the western border of the Ohio Coal Fields. The text contains 127 pages , 79 of text and 53 figures of the various Sites given in the text.
MsMO/9/D33
In Hamilton County are the Turner Group of Earthworks above the Little Miamai River, which were surveyed in 1887 for the Peabody Museum. Go to, http://www.seanchaney.com and check out “Earthworks”.
The Scioto Vally at Chillicothe has a large number of sites ranging along the Scioto River and a survey by E G Squier, 1847, produced a map of over a dozen earthworks, also covered by the above.
Probably the most important earthworks are those at Newark, Licking County. In 1837-47 Messrs C Whittlesey, E G Squier and E H Davis surveyed the complete site which is bounded by the Racoon Fork and South Fork of the Licking River.
However, the Salisbury’s also surveyed the site with bearings for each wall length and it poses many questions when analysed.
MsMO/9/D34
It consists of a Great Circle, an Octagon and Circle, connecting avenues, a small circle, a Square and also the Cherry Valley Ellipse. A plan of the works is attached , but the full description and metrology is the subject of another paper with the Serpent Mound included.
The complete earth work is the subject of a full analysis in text MsOHIO/10.
FINAL WORDS
The purpose of this text and the following text MsOHIO/10 is to investigate just how Mound Builders worked, where they learnt their skills and their geometrical and metrological knowledge.
In Europe, the Mesopotamian Measures appear to have led to the Megalithic Measures derived from the FOOT of 10.888 Statute Inches which given the old “adage” 6 feet maketh a man, produces a height of 1660mm or 6 x 276,5552mm = 1659.3312mm, thus 1.66M
Then this was used by Ancient Man as the metrological unit by using a geometrical figure, a 30/60/90 triangle formed in out terms by units of 2.722/4.714/5,444|Statute FEET. These measurements are now found in Megalithic Sites throughout the UK and Europe.
Then investigating the text “The Archaeology of Measurement” published in 2010, the same unit of 830mm or 2.722 feet was established as the design measurement of Teotihuacan, Mexico. That text finally led to my text Ms5 being written and now this text MsMO/9 builds on the findings and because of the latest LiDAR reports, identified the measurements throughout the Mesoamerican and Mississippian Cultures.
Again it was founded upon the Stature of the Mayan Peoples being 1660mm and the 830mm being also expressly an AZTEC Measure with the same ROD of 4.714 feet being found.
There are forms of Parallelism, but depend on either, Shared Ancestry; Similar Environments and Convergent Evolution.
However, Cultural Parallelism, even two extremely different cultures over the centuries can come up with the same inventions and decisions for the problems.
Thus basically there are two probabilities;
1) A shared ancestry in that the Mesoamerican and East/Western group met and coalesced. That is a fact that the DNA of the Mesoamericans has the genes found in the Australasian and Andaman Isles.
Did some of the very earliest “sailors” venture across the Atlantic Ocean, too small a number to affect the DNA profile, but with enough skill and knowledge to impart it to the indigenous peoples.
Not as far-fetched as one may think as serious researchers are writing about the possibility, or more certainly the probability.
2) Cultural Parallelism in that the Stature of Mesoamericans was so very similar to that of Mesopotamia and Europe 5000 years ago and thus gave the impetus for the natural measurements derived from the Foot, Hand, Arm and height to be used.
Either answer is an entirely plausible probability and perhaps future researchers may arrive at an acceptable answer.