I was impressed with this very thoroughly written article by Karen Ellsworth. It is about events in 2017.
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.