By B.L. Freeborn © 2013
William Romain asserts in his article Newark Earthwork Cosmology: This Island Earth that Geller Hill is the center of the measurements for the earthworks. The hill is 1150 feet long by 700 feet wide by 35 feet high (later noted as 75 feet high) in the otherwise level terrain of Newark.
Romain determined that the Octagon center is 7392 feet and the Great Circle center is 7498 feet distant from Geller Hill. Using Hively and Horn’s OCD (Observatory Circle Diameter) of 1054 feet, this is 7.01 OCD and 7.11 OCD respectively. Oddly enough, or should we say not so very coincidentally, these distances are 7.000 fifths mile and 7.1 fifth mile. He further suggests that the direction of the midline of the angle formed is at 53.3 degrees which corrects to an azimuth of 52.2 degrees and this further correlates to the azimuth of the Octagon found by Hively and Horn of 52 degrees.
We need only observe that 7 x 52.2 = 365.4 or almost exactly the number of days in a year!
Hively and Horn further discovered that the Observatory Circle is 5.99 OCD’s from the Great Circle (aka Fairground Circle) and the Octagon is 6.02 OCD’s from Wright Square. A bit of math shows this is 6313 and 6345 feet respectively or 5.98 Fifth miles and exactly 6.00 Fifth miles.
The OCD is based on the diameter of the Observatory Circle. Because the circle is slightly distorted there is plenty of room to accommodate the diameter 1054 as well as 1056. The latter number indicates that the circle is the same size as Marshall’s measurement at the High Bank Works. The radius there is 528 feet or one tenth mile.
Returning to Romain’s findings we note that it is possible to find a spot on Geller Hill that gives an equal value of 7 fifth miles distance to each structure. Hively/Horn demonstrated that the circle-octagon translates across the plane a distance of 6 OCD units to the circle-square. By combining this conclusion with the 7 unit distance we find the number 76 reappears twice. (See diagram.) Indeed, it appears more often than that. Hively/Horn noted that the small circle adjoining the Octagon had a diameter of 1/7th OCD. Expressing the radius as 76 feet seems simpler. Further still, the angle between the lines projected from Geller Hill is 50 degrees which has a sin of .766. Similarly, the angle formed from the lines joining the Hill to the Great Circle and from there to the Observatory Circle is also 50 degrees with sin of .766 as shown. Turning and continuing to the Octagon forms an angle of 77.7 degrees which correlates with the distance between the two centers of 770 feet x 2 or 1540 feet.
There are four things to consider about this 1540′ distance:
- Referring back to the Thornborough Henge layout, the path distance between the two southern circles calculated to this same value 2 x 770 = 1540.
- Hively and Horn incorrectly state this distance is 2 OCD or 2108 feet.
- Romain in his geometric layout states the distance is 1½ OCD or 1581 feet or 2 x 790. A difference of 40 feet.
- Because neither the Octagon or Observatory are purely symmetrical there is no true center which allows for differing opinions as to where the center lies contributing to this appearance of error.
Further and unfortunately, Romain’s geometric reconstruction of the earthworks fails under the scrutiny of protractor and sharp pencil. However, his conclusion that they were precisely laid out is accurate and provable far beyond what he has demonstrated.
- Hively, Ray, and Horn, Robert, Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio, “Journal for the History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy,” Supplement, Vol. 13, p.S1; also Science History Publications, 1982. See: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu
- Romain, William F., Ph.D., Newark Earthwork Cosmology: This Island Earth, “Hopewell Archeology: The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley,” Vol.6 (2), March 2005. See: http://www.nps.gov/mwac/hopewell/v6n2/one.htm
- Romain, William F., Ph.D., Design and Layout of the Newark Earthwork Complex, “Hopewell Archeology: The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley,” Vol.6 (2), March 2005. See: http://www.nps.gov/mwac/hopewell/v6n2/two.htm