Finally some more information about Nipsachuck. JimP writes:
Interesting story on Dr. Meli's blog today. Have you read it?
Interesting story on Dr. Meli's blog today. Have you read it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
6 comments :
I am confused about the chronology.
First there were ATV's doing damage over several days. Next a hiker noticed the damage and contacted Dr. Meli. Next he contacted the town which contacted the police and medical exmainer. Then the town asked Meli to perform a "survey", which involved cleaning up a damaged site. Then bones were found.
The survey included "the collecting of all the disturbed soil and duff scattered around the hole...the other materials recovered from the debris field were during the screening process. Some small bone fragments were found..."
I don't understand. Who dug a hole and when during the chronology? And why would you call in medical examiners or police in order to declare the site not a crime scene before any bones are found? I don't get that. Also how did the hiker know the ATV damage occurred over "several days"? Also, are we saying the ATV riders got off and dug the hole?
The area in the debris field was next to a small depression in the ground, where the mound once stood. I referred to the depression as a hole. The ATV drivers were most likey the source for the disruption. Near the mound area there once was a series of trails, however a new development has pushed the trail riders on to other land near-by. The local hiker found one bone fragment and contacted me, I in turn contacted the acting state archaeologist, and the town and the land owners.
Possibly, I used the word hole howver, if you look at the images it does look like a small hole. I hope this helps.
Looking at the picture there is little doubt (for me anyway) that someone explicitly dug into that ground. It does not look like a slight depression but a cavity under an overhanging rock in the middle of the pile. I think it is reasonable to conclude someone dug up that rock pile and had a look. The question is: who? How can we follow this story and not want to know more about the who did that probably illegal act? I gather Dr. Meli was wrongly accused but, if not him, then who?
If I am getting it all wrong then please help me understand.
Post a Comment