(57) The dimensions of this figure vary. Mr. MacLean’s survey makes the entire length of the serpent part eleven hundred and sixteen feet; the distance between the extended jaws, one hundred feet. The oval figure is one hundred and thirteen feet long by fifty feet wide. The frog or head portion is fifty-five feet. Mr. Squier says, “The entire length, if extended, would be not less than one thousand feet.” Mr. Putnam’s measurements make it fourteen hundred and fifteen feet. The writer would state that he visited this effigy in the summer of 1884. Though there but a very short time, and not prepared to make careful measurements, he did notice some points in which the illustrations, previously given, are certainly wrong. The oval is not at the very extremity of the cliff. The little projections generally called ears of the serpent are not at right angles to the body, but incline backwards. The convolutions of the serpent’s body bend back and forth quite across the surface of the ridge. (58) Schmuckers. (59) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 47. (60) Foster’s “Prehistoric Races,” p. 175. (61) “Contributions North American Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 210. A cut of this “restored” pueblo is there given. (62) See discussion of this subject in “Proceedings of Am. Antiq. Society,” Oct., 1883. (63) “Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 205. (64) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 47. (65) Peet: “The Mound Builders.” (66) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 53. (67) Force: “Some Considerations on the Mound Builders,” p. 64. (68) “Archæologia Americana,” Vol. I, p. 129. (69) For words at Newark, consult “Ancient Monuments,” p. 67, _et seq. “American Antiquarian,”_ July, 1882. (70) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 74. (71) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 88. (72) Mr. Putnam visited the work a few years since, and came to the conclusion that the larger and old openings were part of the original design, and that they were places where it was easier to put up log structures than earthen walls. Just such openings occur in the massive stone wall around Fort Hill, in Highland County. A few of the openings at Fort Ancient he thinks are unquestionably of recent origin, in order to drain the holes inside the embankments. (73) _Cincinnati Quart. Journal Science,_ 1874, p. 294. (74) Peet: “The Mound Builders.”