3. Reply to Mark Lynott’s Review of Mysteries of the Hopewell

In the previous issue of Hopewell Archeology (Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 8-9) Dr. Mark Lynott reviewed Mysteries of the Hopewell: Astronomers, Geometers, and Magicians of the Eastern Woodlands by William F. Romain. Mr. Romain’s response to the review is presented here.

Dear Mr. Lynott,

Thank you for your recent review of my book, “Mysteries of the Hopewell: Astronomers, Geometers, and Magicians of the Eastern Woodlands” (University of Akron, 2000). In the interests of scientific inquiry, I hope you will print this letter in your newsletter. Given the abbreviated format of the newsletter, I will keep my comments brief.

Perhaps the most serious criticism you raise is that “One of the most notable shortcomings of this book ... is that it fails to satisfactorily address time.” You go on to say, “This is most evident in the author’s effort to relate Hopewell earthworks to … events in the year A.D. 250.” I am sorry I was not clear enough in my explanation on pages 106 and 107, that the date of A.D. 250 simply represents a convenient date for calculation purposes, near in time to the mid-point of Hopewell florescence from about 100 B.C. to A.D. 500. The change in the sun’s rising and setting azimuths over time is caused by a slowly decreasing change in the obliquity of the ecliptic. This change is equal to about 40 seconds of arc per century. Given this rate of change, it is a simple matter to establish that in 100 B.C., with all other values held the same, at Hopeton or Mound City, the sun would have set at an azimuth of 299.39 degrees. In A.D. 500, the sun would have set at an azimuth of 299.48 degrees. The difference of 0.09 degrees is negligible. For all practical purposes, a person viewing the sunset in A.D. 500, would have seen the sun set in virtually the same place on the horizon as it did in 100 B.C.

I am not proposing that these earthworks were built in the year A.D. 250, or used only in that year; but rather, based on the calculations just discussed, the A.D. 250 date is simply a good reference point to use when making these sorts of calculations.

A second criticism raised by reference to Marshall, is that “archaeoastronomers are selective in the potential azimuths they choose to emphasize.” And further, “dozens of potential azimuths at the Hopeton Earthworks ... are ignored ... ”.

While it is true that many potential alignments are ignored, it is an error in logic to think that all possible azimuths necessarily need to be accounted for. Let me provide an analogy.

Let’s say I’m building a simple, rectangular-shaped house. I decide to orient the house so that the front door and living room window face a nearby mountain peak. Stated another way, the minor axis of the structure is now in alignment with the mountain. By design, what matters here is only the one sightline or azimuth to the mountain. The fact that other azimuths can be drawn through the corners, or parallel to the back wall of the house, is not relevant to why the house was oriented in the direction we established. So too, although other sightlines or azimuths can be drawn through all of the Hopewell earthworks, most were probably not used for astronomical purposes.

One way we ascertain the intentionality of a proposed alignment is by checking to see if the same alignment occurs at other sites. In the case of the Hopewell, solstice sightlines are found at several sites (having accurate surveys) — thus demonstrating the likelihood that the Mound City and/or Hopeton solstice alignments were also deliberate.

In connection with my proposed Hopewell unit of length, Mr. Lynott correctly takes me to task for not sufficiently quantifying the distances between post holes. I appreciate that criticism and will correct that oversight in my Ph.D. dissertation, and in my second book, “Lost Worlds of the Hopewell.”

I note that Mr. Lynott does not offer any criticism relevant to Part Two of the book, wherein I propose that the Hopewell earthworks were perhaps meant as symbols of the earth and sky, or earth, upperworld, and underworld — and that they were likely used for ceremonies relating to passage from this world to the next, death and rebirth, and world renewal. In this regard, it is interesting to note that in their book, “Indian Mounds of Wisconsin” (University of Wisconsin Press, 2000), Robert Birmingham and Leslie Eisenberg recently proposed a similar explanation for the effigy mounds in Wisconsin, based in part on the work of Robert Hall and R. Clark Mallam.

If what Mallam, Hall, Birmingham, Eisenberg, and myself are proposing is accurate, then it may be that we will soon be in a position to demonstrate a continuity in belief systems extending from historic Native American groups, back through time, to the ancient Hopewell and perhaps, even beyond. I hope this brief note has helped clarify a couple of issues. Thank you for your interest in my work.

Sincerely,

William F. Romain