Saturday, January 23, 2010
"Boston Hikes"
A blog about hiking around the Boston area, with some photos of the conservation lands I haven't been to.
Rock pile pic from Flikr
Looking for a place to walk, Mt Wilson is a rocky place you pass on the highway. Found this while poking around.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Illegal Bulldozing and the Oxford Mound(s)
Norman Muller sends this link to an article in the Anniston Star. Apparently the Oxford hilltop stone mound may have been related to a earthen mound in the flatlands below. Someone bulldozed it for no apparent reason: maybe spite, maybe because of the rich artifact haul, or maybe because it was a different source of fill. Any hypotheses?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
An expert analyzes archeologists' incompetence
Norman Muller pointed me to this about Cupules By Robert G Bednarik. I think I can use the quote as part of "fair use".
"...In fact Clegg explicitly discounts the capacity of ‘experts’ to solve such matters, stating that ‘[t]hese respondent experts clearly knew much less than I remembered from physical geography courses in the 1950s’. I concur, and I would add that much the same applies throughout archaeology. I have noted before that ‘archaeologically untutored observers with a good understanding of natural processes, such as foresters, naturalists, indigenes leading traditional lives and peasants in remote regions’ are often much better qualified than formally educated archaeologists in discriminating between rock art and natural rock markings, or between stone artefacts and similar geofacts. It is well known that many graduate archaeologists are incapable of recognising stone tools effectively (and most archaeologists cannot fully master this in their entire lives), yet I have observed a four-year-old girl who made this distinction without hesitation, recognising stone tools on the ground up to several metres away with unfailing accuracy. I have made many such observations and have come to the conclusion that it is paradoxically a formal archaeological training that inhibits such abilities, and it is also this training that predisposes practitioners to searching for patterns and, having found them, interpreting them as signs of intentionality (Bednarik 1994a). Long-time collectors of stone tools, who typically lack formal archaeological training, are often much better judges of stone artefacts than are university-trained lithics experts and I have observed incredible discriminatory abilities in illiterate autodidacts. ..."
"...In fact Clegg explicitly discounts the capacity of ‘experts’ to solve such matters, stating that ‘[t]hese respondent experts clearly knew much less than I remembered from physical geography courses in the 1950s’. I concur, and I would add that much the same applies throughout archaeology. I have noted before that ‘archaeologically untutored observers with a good understanding of natural processes, such as foresters, naturalists, indigenes leading traditional lives and peasants in remote regions’ are often much better qualified than formally educated archaeologists in discriminating between rock art and natural rock markings, or between stone artefacts and similar geofacts. It is well known that many graduate archaeologists are incapable of recognising stone tools effectively (and most archaeologists cannot fully master this in their entire lives), yet I have observed a four-year-old girl who made this distinction without hesitation, recognising stone tools on the ground up to several metres away with unfailing accuracy. I have made many such observations and have come to the conclusion that it is paradoxically a formal archaeological training that inhibits such abilities, and it is also this training that predisposes practitioners to searching for patterns and, having found them, interpreting them as signs of intentionality (Bednarik 1994a). Long-time collectors of stone tools, who typically lack formal archaeological training, are often much better judges of stone artefacts than are university-trained lithics experts and I have observed incredible discriminatory abilities in illiterate autodidacts. ..."
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Western view over the pond at Middlesex School
A short stretch of wall: 
Just a few feet away, a smeared out rock pile: 
Here is a view in the opposite direction:
Just a few feet away, a smeared out rock pile: 
Here is a view in the opposite direction:
A village of blowdowns
Here nature is coming very close to creating a rock pile site. All the trees got blown down here at the same time, leaving a little "village" mounds made of earth and stone.
Monday, January 18, 2010
A couple of rock piles behind the new tennis courts at Middlesex School
Lovers of Estabrook woods put up a brave fight to make Middlesex School stick to to its non-expansion promises. But to no avail, and they did end up bulldozing several acres and putting in a tennis court. FFC led me back there and we saw a couple of rock piles just at the edge of the bulldozed "zone". Maybe there were other piles there before.
It is kind of an interesting spot. You are pretty high up and you can see Wachusett from one angle - faint and purple in the distance.
You could definately have seen it from where these piles are, if there trees were not in the way. Here is a closeup of that last pile.
Couldn't quite convince myself these piles were ancient, clearly there is some recent debris scattered around.
But the view is nice and this would have been a good place for rock piles. Site destruction is sad but at least there are more where that came from east, inside the Estabrook woods.
It is kind of an interesting spot. You are pretty high up and you can see Wachusett from one angle - faint and purple in the distance.
You could definately have seen it from where these piles are, if there trees were not in the way. Here is a closeup of that last pile.
Couldn't quite convince myself these piles were ancient, clearly there is some recent debris scattered around.
But the view is nice and this would have been a good place for rock piles. Site destruction is sad but at least there are more where that came from east, inside the Estabrook woods.
Suspicious spalling of a roc
FFC thought this was an obviously artifact:
From behind Middlesex School in Concord, MA.
From behind Middlesex School in Concord, MA.
Isolated rock pile
On my way back from the disappointments of Horse Hill in the snow, I wanted to poke around in a smidgen of conservation land I spotted on the map:
I was not sure where the entrance was to the conservation land, so found myself driving to the end of each of several small residential roads to see if there was trail head and parking. I was about to give up and decided to check out one more little road and went to the end of it. At the last moment I noticed this a few feet beyond the end of the road, in somebodies backyard.
Determined to not pass up a sure thing, I actually went to knock on the door (usually I am too shy), found the people in a car in their driveway, watching me. So I asked if I could park and go into the conservation land and they more or less said: no. The lack of hospitality is more interesting than the rock pile. I parked somewhere else and snuck back to grab this photo but I could not get up close. And there was nothing else in the woods - just sand and white pines.
I was not sure where the entrance was to the conservation land, so found myself driving to the end of each of several small residential roads to see if there was trail head and parking. I was about to give up and decided to check out one more little road and went to the end of it. At the last moment I noticed this a few feet beyond the end of the road, in somebodies backyard.
Determined to not pass up a sure thing, I actually went to knock on the door (usually I am too shy), found the people in a car in their driveway, watching me. So I asked if I could park and go into the conservation land and they more or less said: no. The lack of hospitality is more interesting than the rock pile. I parked somewhere else and snuck back to grab this photo but I could not get up close. And there was nothing else in the woods - just sand and white pines.
Horse Hill, Groton
I have a rule that I break at my own peril: don't waste time exploring Groton or Dunstable. I know there is supposed to be a stone chamber somewhere in Groton [if anyone knows where it is, please let me know] but all I find there is sand and granite quarries. It is as though these towns (and I can name others like them) had very harsh land use in the 18- and 19- hundreds and no Indians ever came back afterwards to restore the woods.
So I broke my rule because, once upon a time, I found material at Horse Hill in Groton and wanted to go out and explore the fringes of that location, thinking I might find other things. Instead I pretty much concluded that my original find was not ceremonial. But still, in the midst of things - a split wedged rock. So what to conclude?
The wall to the right is on the western edge of the dirt road that goes up towards the hill from Martin Pond Rd.
Closer:
So somebody was fooling around there.
In this same area there were some very short stretches of wall and some loose rocks piled on boulders. But then the house foundations right nearby confuse me.
So I broke my rule because, once upon a time, I found material at Horse Hill in Groton and wanted to go out and explore the fringes of that location, thinking I might find other things. Instead I pretty much concluded that my original find was not ceremonial. But still, in the midst of things - a split wedged rock. So what to conclude?
The wall to the right is on the western edge of the dirt road that goes up towards the hill from Martin Pond Rd.Closer:
So somebody was fooling around there.In this same area there were some very short stretches of wall and some loose rocks piled on boulders. But then the house foundations right nearby confuse me.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Franklin MA "Indian Fort" lost and found?
Chris Pittman writes:
I wanted to share these photos with you of a site in Franklin, MA. This is the Franklin "Indian Fort" described in "Manitou". Derek Gunn showed me this place last year and I have been visiting often, after many hours at this large site I still am not sure I have seen it all. There are probably miles of stone rows and the size and quantity of propped and pedestaled boulders and slabs is really extraordinary. Here are the photos: http://stoneruins.cellarwalls.com/#30.0 There are 50 photos, please look at all of them. The photos by no means show all of what is there, only highlights. There are rows on berms and what appear to possibly be other earthworks as well. In Manitou, the authors indicate that this place is known locally as an Indian Fort. I can tell you, this place is not mentioned in any of the histories of Franklin, the town Historical Society had never heard of it, and long-time residents in the area that I spoke with had never heard of it, including a woman who has lived less than a mile away for the past 90+ years. A couple of the stones in one part of the "Fort" have marks from steel drills, I did notice. Peter, the photos of the archaeological dig I sent you this week are from this site. I spoke with an archaeologist who told me that the flags I saw were from an archaeological survey, the type of survey routinely done when federally funded construction projects threaten to damage a site. The person I spoke with indicated that he believed that the notations on the flags indicate prehistoric artifacts or features were found. I fear that there may be some kind of construction planned for this area. Next week I am going to find out who owns this land, I have assumed it is town property but I am not sure. I am also going to try to learn more about the findings of the archaeological survey. I live in Franklin close to this site and would be happy to show anybody where it is. I would like to hear your impressions based on these photos. There are an incredible number of ticks at this site so it is best to avoid the place in the warmer months.
Norman Muller writes:
Larry Harrop went to this site in November or early December and photographed the stone rows. He was unimpressed, thinking that the boulders looked like they had been moved around with a bulldozer. As he was leaving, a local told him the rows were constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1930s for managing wetlands. Someone should get to the truth of the matter by contacting the local historical society. Or, if that doesn’t work, there must be some way of determining just what the Corps of Engineers or the CCC did in Franklin during the Depression.
I write:
I am about 85% sure this is ceremonial - primarily because of one photo (last picture of the 2nd group of 18 photos)of a boulder on a nest of smaller rocks, not connected to a wall. Otherwise it is hardto say - a lot of boulders pulled from one place and put on top of[older?] walls made from smaller rocks. Not too much debris buildup suggests recent times but, again, that is variable.
Also, if it is a ceremonial complex, there are other types of features I would expect to see; and I do not. Where are the piles, wedged rocks, pieces of quartz, etc? It is not that those things must be there but their absence raises the level of uncertainty.
Chris replies:
Thanks for the reply. Norman e-mailed me and said that Larry Harrop was there in November and felt the rocks had been moved around with bulldozers. As he was leaving a local told him the walls had been built by the CCC in the 1930s to manage wetlands. This is a possibility. However, nearby there are some big concrete structures (cisterns) and modern berms and walls that I do believe were built during the 1930s according to other local residents. And close to that there is another site with piles and rows of boulders that were definitely made with bulldozers, although this appeared more recent, to me. When I was first looking for this site with the map from Derek, I looked in this area first and for a time I believed that the "Indian Fort" had been destroyed. There are also a couple places where these big rows of boulders taper off and become regular stone walls. I am going to e-mail Larry with the link to the photos to see if he was looking at the same structures. The tantalizing thing is that Mavor and Dix alluded to historical records that called this an Indian Fort. I have searched but have been unable to identify any such references. There are some piles at the site but none of the small well-built piles you usually find. I didn't see any split or wedged rocks but it is possible that these features are there but escaped my noticed. There is some quartz but not a lot. For me the number of instances where large boulders are balanced on small stones is remarkable and this appears to me to be deliberate. The apparent prehistoric nature of what was found in the archaeological survey interests me as well. The survey was conducted near the biggest boulders in the complex, right at the edge of the swamp. Please feel free to post the text and links on your blog. I'm not making any claims as to the age or origin of this site but I do think it is interesting and deserves attention, at least until further research clears up the question of whether these walls were in fact built by the CCC or not. If you are ever down this way I think this place is worth a look.
Update: so the sense is there is modern material here. Perhaps it is sitting over some older ceremonial material and perhaps the archeologists are finding even more ancient material there under the soil.
I wanted to share these photos with you of a site in Franklin, MA. This is the Franklin "Indian Fort" described in "Manitou". Derek Gunn showed me this place last year and I have been visiting often, after many hours at this large site I still am not sure I have seen it all. There are probably miles of stone rows and the size and quantity of propped and pedestaled boulders and slabs is really extraordinary. Here are the photos: http://stoneruins.cellarwalls.com/#30.0 There are 50 photos, please look at all of them. The photos by no means show all of what is there, only highlights. There are rows on berms and what appear to possibly be other earthworks as well. In Manitou, the authors indicate that this place is known locally as an Indian Fort. I can tell you, this place is not mentioned in any of the histories of Franklin, the town Historical Society had never heard of it, and long-time residents in the area that I spoke with had never heard of it, including a woman who has lived less than a mile away for the past 90+ years. A couple of the stones in one part of the "Fort" have marks from steel drills, I did notice. Peter, the photos of the archaeological dig I sent you this week are from this site. I spoke with an archaeologist who told me that the flags I saw were from an archaeological survey, the type of survey routinely done when federally funded construction projects threaten to damage a site. The person I spoke with indicated that he believed that the notations on the flags indicate prehistoric artifacts or features were found. I fear that there may be some kind of construction planned for this area. Next week I am going to find out who owns this land, I have assumed it is town property but I am not sure. I am also going to try to learn more about the findings of the archaeological survey. I live in Franklin close to this site and would be happy to show anybody where it is. I would like to hear your impressions based on these photos. There are an incredible number of ticks at this site so it is best to avoid the place in the warmer months.
Norman Muller writes:
Larry Harrop went to this site in November or early December and photographed the stone rows. He was unimpressed, thinking that the boulders looked like they had been moved around with a bulldozer. As he was leaving, a local told him the rows were constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1930s for managing wetlands. Someone should get to the truth of the matter by contacting the local historical society. Or, if that doesn’t work, there must be some way of determining just what the Corps of Engineers or the CCC did in Franklin during the Depression.
I write:
I am about 85% sure this is ceremonial - primarily because of one photo (last picture of the 2nd group of 18 photos)of a boulder on a nest of smaller rocks, not connected to a wall. Otherwise it is hardto say - a lot of boulders pulled from one place and put on top of[older?] walls made from smaller rocks. Not too much debris buildup suggests recent times but, again, that is variable.
Also, if it is a ceremonial complex, there are other types of features I would expect to see; and I do not. Where are the piles, wedged rocks, pieces of quartz, etc? It is not that those things must be there but their absence raises the level of uncertainty.
Chris replies:
Thanks for the reply. Norman e-mailed me and said that Larry Harrop was there in November and felt the rocks had been moved around with bulldozers. As he was leaving a local told him the walls had been built by the CCC in the 1930s to manage wetlands. This is a possibility. However, nearby there are some big concrete structures (cisterns) and modern berms and walls that I do believe were built during the 1930s according to other local residents. And close to that there is another site with piles and rows of boulders that were definitely made with bulldozers, although this appeared more recent, to me. When I was first looking for this site with the map from Derek, I looked in this area first and for a time I believed that the "Indian Fort" had been destroyed. There are also a couple places where these big rows of boulders taper off and become regular stone walls. I am going to e-mail Larry with the link to the photos to see if he was looking at the same structures. The tantalizing thing is that Mavor and Dix alluded to historical records that called this an Indian Fort. I have searched but have been unable to identify any such references. There are some piles at the site but none of the small well-built piles you usually find. I didn't see any split or wedged rocks but it is possible that these features are there but escaped my noticed. There is some quartz but not a lot. For me the number of instances where large boulders are balanced on small stones is remarkable and this appears to me to be deliberate. The apparent prehistoric nature of what was found in the archaeological survey interests me as well. The survey was conducted near the biggest boulders in the complex, right at the edge of the swamp. Please feel free to post the text and links on your blog. I'm not making any claims as to the age or origin of this site but I do think it is interesting and deserves attention, at least until further research clears up the question of whether these walls were in fact built by the CCC or not. If you are ever down this way I think this place is worth a look.
Update: so the sense is there is modern material here. Perhaps it is sitting over some older ceremonial material and perhaps the archeologists are finding even more ancient material there under the soil.
Similar structures in old photos - NY
by theseventhgeneration
The recent post at Ceremonial Landscapes had me looking back at photos of rocks on their haunches. But then I noticed a similarity in rock piles with niches at the base and found two that are strikingly similar.
This first photo is a recent find, and I posted about it here. Note the boulder on boulder, with the top boulder turned to create a space under it where the niche is located. Also, the rock pile on top is off to one side, in other words, there is not a rock pile covering the entire top of the boulder.
The second photo is a rock pile from a site I previously posted here. These are smaller boulders. They are also turned so that a niche is created below the top boulder. In this case, the upright rock in front of the niche does not completely enclose it, but it still gives the sense of recognition of the space. I hadn't posted this photo before because the lens had a little blur, but it gives a decent view of the rock pile only on one side of the top boulder, similar to the first photo, although much smaller.
I'm calling the top boulder "turned", but I'm not sure if that's natural or man-made. At any rate, the similarity overall in these structures enhances the notion that something more than "field clearing" is going on here.
The recent post at Ceremonial Landscapes had me looking back at photos of rocks on their haunches. But then I noticed a similarity in rock piles with niches at the base and found two that are strikingly similar.
This first photo is a recent find, and I posted about it here. Note the boulder on boulder, with the top boulder turned to create a space under it where the niche is located. Also, the rock pile on top is off to one side, in other words, there is not a rock pile covering the entire top of the boulder.
The second photo is a rock pile from a site I previously posted here. These are smaller boulders. They are also turned so that a niche is created below the top boulder. In this case, the upright rock in front of the niche does not completely enclose it, but it still gives the sense of recognition of the space. I hadn't posted this photo before because the lens had a little blur, but it gives a decent view of the rock pile only on one side of the top boulder, similar to the first photo, although much smaller.
I'm calling the top boulder "turned", but I'm not sure if that's natural or man-made. At any rate, the similarity overall in these structures enhances the notion that something more than "field clearing" is going on here.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
"Of Pipelines and rock pile excavations"
Here is a sad story from the Society for Georgia Archaeology. [Click here]. I say "sad" because the piles are equidistant from each other and the rock in the background of the picture. That is an unexplained structure. How did they miss it? Also, there is a bit of: if you don't understand something, make up a quick answer and dismiss it.
Alabama Digs
This blog, a local archeology blog, mentions a stone pile (scroll down a ways). They don't say much about it but it should look familiar to readers of this blog. There's a video!
Update: maybe I should just say it looks familiar; and I wonder what they mean by "cut stone". Aah! It is Civil War related.
Update: maybe I should just say it looks familiar; and I wonder what they mean by "cut stone". Aah! It is Civil War related.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Hard Time...Starvation Times
A rock pile in a wall corner.
Little enough to show for a drive out to Stirling.
Little enough to show for a drive out to Stirling.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Concord Water Tower
Not (very) rock pile related: Went out walking in the snow in Concord west of Fairhaven Bay (off of Lawrence Dr.) and saw little. This water tower caught my eye:
Woods in there have that harshly-used-in-the-nineteenth-century look.
Today it is cold out, but I am going back out in the snow. Maybe I'll get lucky.
Woods in there have that harshly-used-in-the-nineteenth-century look.Today it is cold out, but I am going back out in the snow. Maybe I'll get lucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)