From the Providence Business News [Click here].
From the beginning the emphasis on "burial" has been problematic. It is unfortunate that this is so closely linked, in the story, to the reason for protecting the rock piles. It would have been better if some other reason had been promoted because, now, if the "burial" claim does not hold water there is nothing to fall back on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
3 comments :
Unfortunate indeed! You are correct in stating that if the burial hypothesis is negated, then we have nothing to fall back on, such as the mounds being ceremonial. That's too nebulous a term for most, unfortunately, but it needs to be put out there and explained.
It actually has been put out there and explained -- by Doug Harris. They're just not listening. This Donald Gagnon fellow seems to be all gung-ho about the burial thing, so its the Conservation Commission that's putting all this pressure on the burial hypothesis.
Post a Comment