H2 has released the topic for the February 2 episode of America Unearthed, and it’s more of the same: Wolter will be trying to connect the mound builders to the Lost Tribes of Israel via the Bat Creek Stone. But one aspect of the show intrigues me because I’ve never heard of it. The show’s promotional material describes Wolter as looking for a mound shaped like a “Hanukkah Menorah” along the Little Miami River near Milford, Ohio, a formation supposedly made up of nine parallel earthen barrows and an oil-lamp-shaped mound beside them. This, it says, is evidence of the Lost Tribes and intrigued Thomas Jefferson. I’d never seen these mounds, and with good reason: They don’t apparently exist, and it would certainly be interesting if America Unearthed found geological evidence to confirm their existence and their shape. Since that kind of work costs money, I won’t be holding my breath.
The claim that the Ohio earthwork looks like a “Hanukkah Menorah” is best known from J. Huston McCulloch’s article “The Hanukkah Mound” from Ancient American magazine issue 14 (1996), though it originated eight years earlier in a newspaper story. This would be the same Ancient American magazine that used to be run by convicted pedophile ex-Neo-Nazi Frank Joseph and is still owned by Mormon hyper-diffusionist Wayne May. It’s also the same magazine that allowed Harry Hubbard to “guest-edit” (reportedly for a cash payment) an issue devoted to Burrows Cave and which also published Scott Wolter’s first investigation into the Bat Creek Stone a couple of years ago. America Unearthed takes a suspicious number of topics from Ancient American’s pages.
Anyway, McCulloch named the mound the “Hanukkiah Mound,” referring to a technical term for a Hanukkah menorah, but Ancient American’s erstwhile editor didn’t recognize the difference and labeled it the “Hanukkah” mound by mistake. McCulloch states this himself.
Technical glitches aside, the arguments for the mounds are strange and confusing.
McCulloch learned of the earthworks from Squier and Davis’s 1848 Smithsonian survey of Mississippi valley earthworks, in which they provide an image of a strangely shaped geometric earthwork. The two men, who believed in a lost race of mound builders, did not survey this site themselves, nor did they provide an exact geographic location for it. It was located somewhere between Fayetteville and Madisonville. They based their image on an 1823 map drawn by Lt. Col. Isaac Roberdeau, a civil engineer who had served as an assistant to Pierre L’Enfant in laying out Washington, D.C., but knew it from a reproduction in a later French book that they had not apparently read (they mangled the author’s name and several details). Roberdeau was interested in astronomy and advocated for astronomical research with various presidents; he and John Q. Adams observed the sun’s passage over the meridian in Washington, D.C. on November 19, 1825, as recorded in Adams’s diary. (Funny how America Unearthed neglects such clear examples of actual astronomy in Washington.)
Since Roberdeau served in Washington, D.C. for most of the time after 1820, the map must have been based on observations made sometime before 1823, or else was not by Roberdeau. McCulloch now believes it was drawn in Washington, and we’ll return to the question of when anon. The same earthwork was previously depicted on page 195 of Hugh Williamson’s Observations on the Climate in Different Parts of America (1811), from an 1803 survey by William Lytle, a friend of Andrew Jackson who was later the surveyor-general of the Northwest Territory. Williamson dutifully notes that the shape of the northernmost wall of the “fort” was determined by the shape of the Little Miami River, which it bordered.
Note: Lytle’s map has been lost, and McCulloch believes it was drawn by William Lytle’s father, the Revolutionary War officer also named William. However, this Lytle died before 1800, which seems to exclude him from drawing a map in 1803, if McCulloch’s date is correct.
Since Squier and Davis based their work on the so-called Roberdeau map, and the Roberdeau map is quite similar to what we can determine of the underlying Lytle map (meaning it may have been redrawn from it), it’s quite possible that no one other than Lytle, or someone in his employ, ever actually viewed the earthwork. McCulloch himself notes that the Roberdeau map contains unusual inaccuracies that are difficult to reconcile with Roberdeau’s surveying skill, as well as measurements that differ by as much as 50% from previous maps. In 1996 he dismissed some of these as artistic license on the part of the draftsman, but I wonder if it wasn’t an attempt to redraw the Lytle map against more recent geographical information. (The shape of the rounded wall differs between the two maps, for example.) McCulloch all but confirms this in an online article where he reports that Frank Otto proposed in 2006 that the Roberdeau map was drawn in Washington from written field notes which were misunderstood (the number 9 in measurements misread as a 2, for example). It’s not much of a stretch to suggest that the Roberdeau map used recent reports about the geography of Ohio to “correct” the 1803 map, accounting for the continuation of features no later visitor was able to find on the ground.
It doesn’t matter, however, since the existence of the earthworks doesn’t really change the myth of their connection to Jews. But first, we need to clear up Thomas Jefferson’s interest in the menorah mound.
Thomas Jefferson received the 1803 survey maps by William Lytle (produced, almost certainly, for the Northwest Territorial Survey) and was intrigued by Little Miami River earthworks. He requested more information about “those works of Antiquity,” but Anthony F. C. Wallace, writing in Jefferson and the Indians (1999), dutifully forestalls America Unearthed’s speculation by emphasizing that Jefferson’s correspondence makes plain that he considered the earthworks to be the work of Native Americans—not Aztecs or Vikings or Jews—and that this view did not change after he read Williamson’s book. Although Jefferson would confess to being shocked late in life to learn that the mounds of the Midwest were “so numerous,” he never wavered from his view, born of his own firsthand excavation of a burial mound near Monticello and reported in Notes on the State of Virginia, that the mounds were the work of Native Americans.
Cyrus Thomas, the great investigator of the mounds, sent an agent of the Smithsonian’s Bureau of Ethnology to the earthworks to investigate whether the maps on file were accurate. The agent reported back, and in 1894’s Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology Thomas summarized his findings as stating that one wing of a nearby “fort” in the same area (seen at left in the 1823 map) was “not only imaginary, but, according to the Bureau agent who visited the locality, was made impossible by the topography.” The “Hanukkiah” mound that concerns us Thomas included as “imaginary,” but he did not provide more specific details. Presumably he had direct testimony from his agent that these earthworks did not conform to the 1803 survey, but he did not present this evidence.
McCulloch reads from Thomas’s lack of detail that his criticism is therefore unfounded at best or dishonest at worst.
Sometime after this, the earthwork disappeared, probably plowed under by farmers, like far too many of the prehistoric earthworks of the United States. In 1882, Frederic Putnam of Harvard’s Peabody Museum visited and found many of the earthworks already obliterated due to farming. According to the University of Cincinnati, whatever remains of them was then lost beneath the growing city of Milford. Since neither Putnam nor Thomas’s agent—working for bitterly rival organizations (the Peabody and the Smithsonian respectively)—found traces of the unusual features of the nearby Milford mounds, I’m tempted to conclude that the maps simply built on one another without reference to the facts on the ground. With no particular reason to care about these specific earthworks, and no earthworks remaining to view, they passed into the academic twilight, a half-remembered moment from the past that concerned few. Academics attributed them to the Hopewell culture, dated from 100 BCE to 400 CE, because they were located among other known Hopewell sites and demonstrate typical Hopewell shapes—lines, angles, and curves—albeit in an unusual but not unprecedented combination.
The only truly unusual feature was the nine parallel barrows connected by a crosswise barrow. Their closest analog can be found, in fact, not far away at the other Milford mounds. As you can see from the other earthworks in the above images, the Milford earthworks were thought to have very similar parallel barrows connected by a crossbeam. Sadly, this was the same wing Thomas said his agent found to be imaginary, raising the specter of whether the parallel formation at the “Hanukkah” mound was similarly fictional—or misinterpreted topography. Squier and Davis recorded other parallel mounds in Ohio, in varying numbers, suggesting the “Hanukkah” mound was not unique. Indeed, even Lost Tribes theorists did not suggest a menorah connection in the 1800s.
And so things remained until the 1980s when a Columbus, Ohio man named David Berry looked at the map of the earthworks and speculated that the nine parallel barrows were meant to represent a Jewish menorah. He also thought the Christian chi-rho symbol could be seen in the earthwork’s shape, but this was an artifact of the poor copy of Squier and Davis he used.
At this point we can categorically rule out the Lost Tribes of Israel. The Lost Tribes vanished in the 500s BCE, centuries too early to have anything to do with the Hanukkah menorah, which commemorates an event that occurred c. 165 BCE, when the Jewish Temple was rededicated. The event is described in the two books of the Maccabees as well as in Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (12.7.7). Because Hanukkah is a festival of eight days’ duration, its special menorah has eight branches with a central light. The Lost Tribes would have known only the Temple menorah, which had but six branches and a central light, as described in Exodus 25:31-40. Therefore, the Ohio earthworks cannot be the work of the Lost Tribes; nor, for that matter, might such tribes, had they lived in Ohio, have remained in contact with Israel down to 165 BCE since the Jews would not otherwise have considered them lost and some record would have existed back in the Old World.
So that leaves more recent Jews. I’m frankly at a loss as to why the Jews would come all the way to Ohio to build a monument to a minor Jewish holiday rather than something more closely associated with Yahweh. While Hanukkah is a popular celebration today, it was (and is) not considered one of Judaism’s most important holidays. It would be roughly like Americans colonizing the Moon and setting up a giant earthwork in honor of Labor Day. Obviously, without the actual earthwork we cannot categorically rule out Hellenistic Jews, but no period Jewish artifacts have ever been recovered from the region, nor does the earthwork resemble menorahs in use at the time of its supposed construction (which typically had rounded branches, not rectangular ones).
1/22/2014 07:02:26 am
...and is there any history of Jews building extensive earthworks - anywhere?
The Other J.
1/22/2014 10:22:23 am
That was my question. From what I know, Jews have been more into building temples than earthen mounds.
1/23/2014 02:24:40 am
Ireland has way cool Mesolithic and/or Neolithic
The Other J.
1/23/2014 07:45:45 am
Heh. Not that I mind, but why bring the Ireland mounds in? I've been to a few, and they're interesting -- they keep finding more out by Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth.
1/22/2014 07:24:00 am
Scott Wolter Gir Håp Til Det Amerikansk Folk
1/22/2014 07:40:05 am
1/22/2014 08:18:23 am
- Giver håb til det amerikanske folk. - is the correct (Danish) spelling/grammar
1/22/2014 11:49:54 am
1/22/2014 09:25:44 pm
I lige måde Tara
Ken R. Stone
1/22/2014 10:07:39 am
Wolter loves jokes
1/22/2014 07:38:46 am
This may be an obvious question, but did it never occur to them that the shape was entirely coincidental? As result of the topography?
1/22/2014 07:45:08 am
It doesn't even have to be as a result of topography. In my hometown there is a Horseshoe mound. Built by people who never saw a horseshoe - or a horse. It's just a shape that may, or may not, have any meaning.
1/22/2014 07:51:25 am
I have to agree with your point, many times we hear from fringe historians about how an item resembles something else so it must mean they are related. But rarely do they examine the origins of these structures. Instead of taking time to study the Mississippian mound culture how they built these structures and the possible meaning of the build design they have to jump to conclusions that it kind of resembles a menorah.
1/22/2014 11:55:03 am
True, although the mounds in question were likely of the Woodland period, not Mississippian.
1/22/2014 12:06:08 pm
Thanks for the heads up on the difference
1/22/2014 07:53:07 am
" the swastika was considered a symbol of good luck/fortune by the Chinese before it was usurped by the Nazis"
1/22/2014 08:01:43 am
I thought that the swastika was previously used in various Indian religions and parts of western China
1/22/2014 08:46:55 am
It was. I unintentionally confused the Chinese meaning of the symbol (eternity), with the Sanskrit meaning of "lucky" or "auspicious".
1/22/2014 09:07:13 pm
Note the word adopted
8/20/2022 03:54:31 pm
well there are also Decologue ston that have in Newark Ohio that have the 10 commandments engrave on them with the carving of Moses, that were found in the mounds in Ohio. so I would say that Yes this hold some weight to the People the dwelt in these places.
8/20/2022 10:37:08 pm
Yes, I believe the Newark Decalogue stones are legitimate. So are the Michigan Artifacts and Burrows Cave Artifacts.
1/22/2014 07:43:54 am
1/22/2014 10:05:17 am
Yep, you passed
Sort of Anon
1/22/2014 10:36:33 am
Not gonna post my name, though Jason can tell who I am and that I'm a regular reader/commentor. I don't particularly want to come to a convicted pedophile's defense but the man served his time for it, and it is irrelevant to his (ludicrous) claims. It just seems an unnecessary ad hominem (really Google chrome, you want to replace hominem with Eminem?) attack and a bit crass to bring up every time you mention him.
1/22/2014 11:02:29 am
You're right that it's ad hominem and not always appropriate. I think, though, that given his Eurocentric advocacy the neo-Nazi part is relevant to understanding his views. The pedophile part is more human interest than relevant, although his imprisonment for that crime is what turned him on to fringe history when he encountered Richard Burrows, one of his guards, while in prison. I probably shouldn't mention it as much as I do.
1/23/2014 03:42:45 am
Jason, I admit I was a little uncomfortable with your continued reference to the man as a pedophile, and I brought that up to my husband, who also reads your blog regularly. He, however, thought it was very relevant to the discussion. Given that a pedophile has improperly working brain chemistry, it calls suspicion on his logic and his ability to think rationally and speak truthfully. Had the man done time for fraud, we would also consider him to be less than an ideal witness. Pedophilia is the act of a diseased mind and it would seem the nature of that disease might call a person's credibility into question.
1/23/2014 07:56:41 am
Jason, could you briefly talk more about the Burrows/Joseph connection? I know Joseph spent time in the prison where Burrows worked, but did the two actually know each other? Is it known that Joseph became interested in alternate history because of conversations he had with Burrows regarding Burrows' Cave? Or, is this an educated guess on your part based on right time and right place?
1/23/2014 12:17:25 pm
Rick Flavin laid out the evidence for the Burrows-Joseph connection on his website, having obtained prison records showing they were there at the same time and correlating Joseph's release date with events in the Burrows' cave "discovery." It's circumstantial but compelling. The timeline is here: http://www.flavinscorner.com/2013bc.htm
The Other J.
1/22/2014 10:50:16 am
Jason, you're committing the sin of research prior to the airing of the show. Prepare to be severely scolded by Steve if you bring any of this up in your recap, since anything that wasn't thought up between commercials will show your true hateful agenda.
1/22/2014 11:08:15 am
I'm actually writing a book about Jefferson and the Mound Builder myth, and have a stack of material on this. My manuscript chapter (which I wrote a while back) says the following:
The Other J.
1/22/2014 11:50:57 am
Yep! That's where the subdivision and the Baja Bean are now. Maybe we'll take a trip out there to see if the mound has a memorial marker or anything -- it's been a few years since we've been out that way.
1/22/2014 11:56:11 am
I was checking my notes, and apparently when David I. Bushnell went to look for it on behalf of the Smithsonian in 1911, it had eroded away to nearly nothing due to river flooding. There was apparently some recent work done at the site, but I don't have the references on hand.
The Other J.
1/22/2014 02:31:50 pm
I just saw another account of it from 1901 saying in 1735 a Thomas Moorman was "granted six hundred and fifty acres, extending from the branches of Meadow Creek to the south fork of the Rivanna,
1/22/2014 12:56:14 pm
Another snarky personal attack against Steve Majestic St Clair.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
1/22/2014 10:59:52 am
The "menorah" was an important symbol in First Century C.E. Judaism … NOT just in modern time ...
1/22/2014 11:04:17 am
Of course; but the question is which menorah--the 7 candle or 9 candle version? The Lost Tribes are ruled out because they wouldn't have known about the 9-candle version when they left Israel in the 500s BCE.
1/22/2014 11:34:06 am
The 7 branch menorah, Dr. Phil, not the 9 branch.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
1/22/2014 12:39:36 pm
Prof. Gary --
1/22/2014 12:55:14 pm
Relax, Dr. Phil, it's okay to admit that you didn't understand that the 9 branched menorah (which the article was about) is not the important symbol to the Jews, but the 7 branch is. The nine branched one is very minor.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
1/22/2014 01:07:44 pm
I do wonder how a "convicted pedophile neo-nazi" (above) figures in this …
1/22/2014 11:34:44 pm
That's typical of you, Dr. Phil, to change the topic as if you are responding. I was expecting your usual snark, though. Don't forget to get a screen shot.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
1/23/2014 02:24:57 am
1/22/2014 03:05:46 pm
I agree with your basic points about the Ten Lost Tribes and the menorah, but I would like to add some addenda and nuances (as a matter of full disclosure, I am Jewish). First, the Lost Ten Tribes were inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel, which fell to the Assyrians in 722 BCE (not in the Sixth Century BCE when the southern Kingdom of Judah fell to the Babylonians). The Assyrians exiled the Israelite elite to another part of their empire, from whence they did not return. However, it is likely that all or most commoners remained, some of whom became Jews and others became Samaritans (a religion closely related to Judaism). It is the exiled part of the population that became known as the Lost Tribes. The Samaritans, however, were still a sizable group in Roman time.
1/22/2014 09:41:54 pm
There's also a post-exile political and religious polemic involved "lost" to God, "lost" to the nation, not necessarily "lost in space".
The Other J.
1/23/2014 07:56:54 am
Good background, cheers.
1/22/2014 08:26:28 pm
Scott Wolter & America Unearthed are facing tough competition.
1/22/2014 09:13:25 pm
Kent established Creation Science Evangelism in 1991
1/23/2014 04:17:58 am
poor Gov.Beshear(D) of KY recently got a ton of political
1/23/2014 12:11:49 am
1/23/2014 05:14:24 am
I grew up in blanchester Ohio ,20 mins from Milford IV checked out all of our states mounds over the years and I have never heard of this one
1/24/2014 01:37:38 am
I hope they bring up this guys (Reinoud de Jonge) take on the serpent mound next week. He's all over the place with his wacky theories,
1/26/2014 04:32:04 am
Birds of a feather flock together - I also live very close to Milford and have studied many of the sites in Ohio. In 2006 I co-hosted a conference in Wilmington Ohio with Ancient American Artifact Preservation Foundation. At this conference were Scott Wolter, Frank Joseph, Wayne May, Zena Hapbern, and 28 other presenters of pre-Columbian presence. These same players were on the Atlantic Conference held by Steve Sinclair. (Get the picture?) Their is no cave in ILL., their is no Jewish mound in Milford Ohio.
2/9/2014 04:28:03 pm
Watched the show and was intrigued because I grew up so close to the area in question in the Milford area. For giggles I took a look at the satellite view in that area and sure enough spotted what appears to be a rather very geometric partial square located just to the right / east of 275 and Milford pkwy near the bank of the little Miami east fork region
12/16/2018 09:18:15 pm
There is a square corner at Latitude: 39° 9'42.36"N Longtitude: 84°15'34.59"W about .4 miles east of I-275 and .2 miles north of the Milford Parkway (about 2 miles southeast of Milford, OH).
12/18/2018 04:18:24 pm
The square corner is intriguing, but since it's down on the floodplain of the EFLM, I doubt that it's Hopewell. I could be wrong, but I'd guess it's a treeline bordering an old farm field. The site isn't very accessible, as it's bounded by the EFLM on one side and I-275 on the other. It might be possible to pass under I-275 from the Rave Motion Picture site to check it out, however. Happy hunting!
12/20/2018 12:11:56 am
You are right. The intriguing corner is in the floodplain of the EFLM. On Google Earth, I can see other fields in the floodplain. When I mouse over the tree line or mound/berm, I don't see a big change in elevation at the bottom of the screen. It does seem more logical that fortifications would be built on higher ground. I'm 2000 miles away from the site so I can't inspect it to see for myself. Does anyone live near Milford that could take a closer look?
2/13/2014 03:40:59 am
I am fairly certain i know the location of your jewish mound . My mother told me of it in the 60's . She collected legends of the area from the elders and lived above it at one time. It has been turned over but once pointed out is visible I belive it is a bird with a native spring summer symbol in it , not a lampstand ! It is set for the solstice. , and sits in a sound basin . 6'6 is the length of the mounds , not distance. Between 200 ft base correct . Its interesting that the lytle homesead has artifacts built in to its fireplace . Take what you will from this info ! As a child i knew of massive amounts of artifacts located there . Could it be possibe where he wrote spring meant that solstice , not actual spring . I belive they were paleo to early archaic, not hopewell and this area was revered by later groups.also in evidece are mass amounts of bright red iron oxide , lavender quartz ? Reg.quartz ,several types metalic rocks and fossils galore, not to mention flint everywhere .native heaven . Trust me,its a bird !
5/26/2014 06:26:40 pm
2/19/2016 06:47:30 pm
2/19/2016 06:53:05 pm
2/21/2016 01:28:47 pm
I am not an expert on mounds or mound builder, so I will not attempt to insert my opinions on the matter, but I am pretty good at finding things. I believe that I have possibly found the site of the complex. It may be located in the vicinity of Hisey Park, with a couple small remnants still barely visible in aerial maps west of the "medicine wheel" shaped structure. I believe the "valley" referenced on the Warden map to be what is now the Caesar Creek State Nature Preserve. Any comments on my theory would be welcomed.
2/22/2016 09:04:24 pm
5/19/2016 11:00:46 am
Maybe they weren't Jewish. The Mormons weren't the first to investigate these types of findings or have these theories. Just the first to openly embrace them. According to one of the groups I research with, the Black Nobility, who are orthodox Catholic, there were advanced civilizations all over the world and we're traders. Some were cannibals and slavers and they were who the Romans and later the Church were hunting down. The archeology that the people of the Mormon faith are embracing is the same stuff that the mainstream are denying or obscuring the existence of. While interpretation may be slightly skewif in places, Jesus and the the Bible were not Jewish, the Mormon archeology might be on the right track. Plus they are funded and organized and have an eager and focused audience. We other researchers have to wade through crazies and other researcher-entertainers who will say anything to get on youtube or get a ris in a discussion group. The Mormon folk are polite and collaborative. Where as if we other researchers publish a picture of a line on a google map or a theory on facebook we are accused by said crazies of all kinds of nasty. I am beginning to actually prefer the Mormons and the way they work. All you other pop star history channel wannabes can keep doing your own thing and stay in the dark. Rock on Battlestar Galactica lol... if you don't get the joke, you have a lot more research to do.
7/11/2017 01:25:23 pm
I'm surprised that you would think it interesting or important to debunk the idea that a Native American earthwork in Ohio was built to look like a Hanukkah menorah. Sure, crackpots say all sorts of things -- some say that a face on Mars was an Egyptian temple -- but these are hardly worth refuting scientifically.
7/11/2017 09:55:39 pm
Also, I'm afraid that you badly misunderstand and mischaracterize Squier and Davis. You say that they believed in a "lost race" of mound-builders. That is 180-degrees wrong, as Squier (the principal author) was completely convinced that the earthworks were Native American and his researches were aimed entirely at deciding whether they had been built by Algonquians or Iroquois, a question significantly more advanced than the way that today's archaeologists discuss the Ohio mounds. Indeed, Squier was the first and greatest fighter against the "lost race" idea, and he also vehemently opposed the "Tribes of Israel" hypothesis, which is precisely why he held comment about what the "Menorah Mound" obviously depicted.
12/18/2018 04:59:24 pm
12/8/2018 02:51:18 pm
There were also mounds shaped like birds, elephants, bears, numerous other examples of animals, and geometric patterns including an equilateral triangle circumscribed by a circle.
4/15/2019 10:17:54 pm
I find this very interesting as we now have had three professors contact my father who owns property on McKeever outside of Williamsburg with the theory of the lost tribes. I have to admit there is a mound on the property and I have always wondered about this.
4/16/2019 11:37:51 am
Susan - Take notice of the comments from Hu McCulloch, He has the best information about the mounds in Ohio and their connection to the native Americans that constructed them. I live in Ohio and have studied many sites in research of a large stone found on my farm in Adams County.
4/16/2019 03:21:03 pm
William I agree with you. My parents property is right down from Crane Run where they just surveyed the land there for a Menorah Mound in December 2018. My parents property at one time use to be the largest dairy farm in Clermont County. The mound on my parents property appears to be similar to mounds found at Fort Ancient. We have found relics that were used from Indians including hundreds of arrow heads. The 13 Lost Tribe of the Israelites seemed way too far fetchede to me.
4/16/2019 03:32:16 pm
Hi Susan - Attached is a paper which explains much of my research which covers a lot of Ohio artifacts, especially the Ohio rock. Are you connected to any research groups that deal with Ohio history? I recommend the Ohio Historical Society which includes Martha Otto and Brad Lepper. With todays technology the 5 W.s for many sites can be established. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1J3-qRHybkSY4bEnFb-eYlrQRnm3zhJ-B
4/6/2020 07:23:04 pm
The study of this earthwork is fascinating! It's been mentioned at least several times of the possibility that the earthworks were mere natural formations and/or that their shape was simply coincidental. I personally think that is highly unlikely given their deliberate shape and form. Would it be impossible for them to be natural? No, but highly improbable.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.