I was impressed with this very thoroughly written article by Karen Ellsworth. It is about events in 2017.
A Mystery at Canonchet: Who Built the Stone Piles in...
But to me, reading it, there is an elephant in the room: Most of the people commenting on rock piles and the social impact of one or another interpretation, have seen maybe 1/20th of the data available in a short, couple-hour's drive. And they pay the price, I'll explain.
The writer is discussing how to "identify" a rock pile as Native American. And I come off as a bit of a scoundrel because I'm quoted saying that the Indians did not really know about these things a few years ago. But that doesn't mean the Indians aren't right. It also doesn't mean that "Indian-vs-European" is a valid dichotomy in discussing piles that are often from that post-colonial, historic period.
The point I want to make is that if commenters on rock piles knew these things, and had seen 20x what they had already seen, they would know: You recognize an old friend when you see them. It's not complicated. It helps if you have a clue as to a place's function. I'm sorry, but making the ethnic authorship issue the highest priority, just shows your amateurishness. What is important is site design. I think it is the direction to look for answers.
I try to be supportive of alternate views, but the characters quoted in the article are mostly the worst proponents of a complex subject - they are front and center, making a lot of noise, making money doing it, and speaking as experts when they are not.
4 comments :
And frankly, if any of those people ever gave this blog a proper citation, I might be more polite.
There is much I could say on this subject, but “I agree with you” will have to suffice. BTW, I hope all is well with you.
I have never bought into the Gage's assertion that the Lawtons and Fosters were of indigenous origin. The evidence in the article strongly corroborates their English ancestry. However, having visited the site (along with hundreds of others) I also cannot accept Tim Ives' conclusions about the origin of the structures either. It seems to me more likely that the Lawtons and Fosters were sympathetic to indigenous traditional claims to the area and permitted Narragansetts (and maybe others) to practice their ceremonies there, without necessarily adopting them or taking part in them. I do agree that many of the structures we see are of post-Contact origin, but this correlates well with what little the indigenous people have been willing to reveal to us about their function: the rebalancing of Earth energies in the wake of disruptions. I cannot think of a greater "disruption" than the incidence of Contact, with its enforced social and religious restrictions and especially the spread of Virgin Soil Epidemics. The flourishing of stone mound construction may have been a desperate attempt to rebalance the Earth as a result of these disruptions.
Thanks for sharing this article and your thoughts, Peter. And Curt, as well, here in the comments. I've been digging into some of this a little after visiting Manitou Hassannash Preserve earlier this year. Doing my research, making my videos and such. I read the Gage's book a bit after my visit and couldn't agree with their conclusions. But I appreciate their cataloguing of the structures. Rather, what Curt proposes here seems more likely. Personally, I'm still struck by the Open End/Closed End Cairns, as the Gages called them at MHP, having seen, prior to my visit, an example of one from a Virgina mountain shared by Dan Pezzoni. Curt pointed out the Gage's term at the time (thank you!). I was reminded of Cairn-like structures in Jericho, Vermont by my visit to MHP. Upon returning to that Jericho site after, I realized, under the debris (which I didn't remove...) one of these was also, likely, an Open End/Closed End structure. So, Vermont, Rhode Island and Virginia, at the least... BTW, I've started doing short videos on individual features in my ongoing attempt to engage the public on the stonework. Probably still too long for today's attention spans, but we'll see...
Post a Comment