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.
skip to main
|
skip to sidebar
This is about rock piles and stone mound sites in New England. A balance is needed between keeping them secret and making them public. Also arrowheads, stone tools and other surface archaeology.
statcounter
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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete