The HENGES of North America (was something about X mt DNA)

[E.P. Grondine]

Regarding whether there are sites in the Northeast where Native Americans built in stone, well, archaeologist Dr. Curtiss Hoffman of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society favors an interpretation that does assign much of the stonework to prehistoric native peoples.. and has completed an inventory of such sites for the east coast of the United States. On the opposite side of the debate, archaeologists such as Rhode Island State Archaeologist Timothy Ives favors an interpretation that sees the numerous stone cairn sites that are common in New England backcountry hillsides as the product of field clearing by sheep farmers. In Vol. 43, 2015 edition of "Archaeology of Eastern North America", he outlined that viewpoint in an article entitled "Cairnfields in New England's Forgotten Pastures". Interestingly, Narragansett Doug Harris, of the Narragansett Historic Preservation Office, whom I also discussed offshore underwater sites with at the Neara meeting(the Narragansett have oral traditions locating village sites in Block Island and Rhode Island Sounds when those areas were above water), as well as many other New England tribal members do identify many of these stone structure sites in the Northeast with their ancestors, and not colonial and Post colonial sheep farmers.

I suppose that at some point Dr. Hoffman will run into myself or Fletcher and our work on the Andaste [Adena] monoliths.
It is likely that he already is aware of the Adena stone burial cairns, at least those along he East Coast.
My opinion, for whatever it is worth, is that it is likely that multiple North America Native American peoples used stone for construction.

Recently, the town of Hopkington, RI, together with the Narragansett Nation, preserved and dedicated an interesting site contained some 1000+ cairns, as a Narragansett Sacred Landscape Site. At the least interesting, that in the absence of firm archaeological data one way or another, that such sites are being preserved. It's sort of a "better safe then sorry" approach.
Here is that newly dedicated RI site, the Manitou Hassannash Preserve:

http://www.neara.org/images/pdf/Hopkint ... rogram.pdf

Preserving such sites has been ongoing for quite a few years now. Prior to the preservation of the Hopkington, RI, site, the most successful effort was getting the Turner Falls(Ma.) Sacred Hill Ceremonial Site protected and added to the National Register of Historic Places:

http://nolumbekaproject.blogspot.com/p/ ... ed-by.html

I know nothing about Glenn Kreisberg and his book about "megaliths" in the Northeast, nor what Hancock has planned. I hope it is not just a rehash of the older view that there was a connection between megalithic cultures on opposite sides of the Atlantic....

I'd go with that option. But the problem we have here is X mt DNA on both side of the Atlantic Ocean. I have to be explicit:
https://youtu.be/PQm8AC66bSE

[Tiompan]

I suppose that at some point Dr. Hoffman will run into myself or Fletcher and our work on the Andaste [Adena] monoliths.

There are major differences between the monuments Hoffman is interpreting and your "work" .
Hoffman is talking about actual monuments , some of which are claimed by the Narragansett as being ancestral , nobody would disagree about their their presence ,the questions are about when they were built and who built them.
Your "monoliths " are not monuments ,they are simply rocks that you have ascribed as being associated with the Adena , there is no reason or evidence for that ascription and no one ,
either Indian or archaeologist or both , would agree .

[E.P. Grondine]

Tiompan -

Two items which may be proved:
the stones have been worked,
the stones have been moved

You confusing yourself with "everyone" is a clear sign of mental illness.

[Tiompan]

Tiompan -

Two items which may be proved:
the stones have been worked,
the stones have been moved

If you believe that is evidence for an Adena ascription then that is yet another indication of your fantasy world .
You used "everyone" in quotes as if I had used the term .Look again , it's only a few sentences , but even more insight into the fantasy world where you make stuff up .

[E.P. Grondine]

tiompan, if this was my fantasy world you would not be in it, along with a few other people.

The fact that you can not handle hard data when it is presented to you
indicates that something is wrong.
Do you have any idea what that might be?

[Tiompan]

If you believe that "Two items which may be proved:the stones have been worked ,the stones have been moved " is hard data for evidence for rocks being "Adena monoliths ",
then your problem ,as in all the other cases where you manage to get it wrong or confused , is obvious .

Similarly , to quote another very recent example ; if you believe that by putting quotes around a word and attempting to suggest I had used it ,
when it can easily demonstrated that you are are wrong , your are only further highlighting your problem(s) .
The more you add the worse it gets .

[shawomet]

Ahhh the old "oh look " problem .Same as the "gawp 'n guess " one for rock "interpretation" .
It's no doubt an interesting site but bedevilled by over eggers who want to turn it into something to suit their fancies .
The archaeoacoustic properties of the site will no doubt be next on the list to show that "entrainment" was part of it's purpose ,or an echo was similar to the sound of some totemic species .

Well, I see no reason to wax sarcastic or make suggestions along those lines.

As a geologic feature, it's a very impressive glacial boulder dump. Has to be seen to appreciate just how impressive it is in that respect.

Not everyone is perfectly rational about places that are "shrouded in mystery", to borrow a phrase. And there's nothing really wrong with that either.

It's entirely possible nothing else will ever be established, beyond the fact that it exists. You may not doubt, but I do doubt archaeoacoustic properties are next. Yeah, I know how these things go, but I have no reason to be sarcastic. Mavor and Dix thought they established a Winter Solstice marker. Big deal, the Narragansett believe that as well. Whom am I to tell them "hey, prove it". Stories can attach to places that have no basis in fact. Or the Narragansett may know exactly what they're talking about where Queen's Fort is concerned. And maybe they keep what they really believe entirely to themselves.

In this Post Truth era, maybe it's whatever you want it to be. There are far more dangerous falsehoods, if falsehood it actually is.

[Simon21]

These are just two stones, they are hard data for little or nothing. Did native americans occasionally use stones for construction. Possibly, Koories built stone fish traps, fire places etc. But neither they or the Native Americans would have seen much point in erecting monoliths, if they wanted markers wood was available. Though why they would want such markers since they saw the night sky fairly clearly each evening is of course a moot point.

[Tiompan]

I see no reason to be so touchy .
Fwiw I was sympathising with your first hand experience of being confronted with over interpretation .

How would the Narragansett "prove it" ?
Was the belief prior to Mavor & Dix's "discovery" ?
Are there other examples of Narraganset alignments ?

The Post Truth era started a long time ago when it came to this kind of stuff .
I wouldn't be surprised if dowsers , had also "discovered" the reason for building the site or placing the alignment .
Archaeoastronomy has the benefit of confusing the unwary with science and math (if the calc is accurate ) , but the interpretation can be as illogical as dowsing reports .
Much the same applies to archaeoacoustics , whether it ever gets used at the site remains to be seen , it's early days .
The more publicity the site gets the more likely it will be .

[E.P. Grondine]

well, tiompan, is this a woodhenge, or another misuse of language?:

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/an ... -1-8930717

[E.P. Grondine]

Did native americans occasionally use stones for construction. Possibly,

Actually with certainty yes, and that was regularly.

Besides "Adena" forts and burial cairns, you have multiple Native American fish weirs.

[E.P. Grondine]

If you believe that "Two items which may be proved:the stones have been worked ,the stones have been moved " is hard data for evidence for rocks being "Adena monoliths ",
then your problem ,as in all the other cases where you manage to get it wrong or confused , is obvious .

Similarly , to quote another very recent example ; if you believe that by putting quotes around a word and attempting to suggest I had used it ,
when it can easily demonstrated that you are are wrong , your are only further highlighting your problem(s) .
The more you add the worse it gets .

The monliths have been worked and moved.
They are found at "Adena" (Andaste) sites.
Once the weather breaks, Fletcher and I will be documenting some more examples.

[Tiompan]

The link doesn't work .
Try http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018 ... rst-sauna/
We shouldn't necessarily expect the press to get the terminology right , in this case they describe the site as a henge and also a woodhenge ,as well as a sauna .

This has been explained to you previously .
For a start there is only one woodhenge , it's a site not far from Stonehenge and it is a henge that also held timber posts and some megaliths .
And just as there is only one Stonehenge , to describe a circle of stones even when found within a henge as "another "stonehenge" is another misuse of language .
But if that is typical of the source of your archaeological terminology , info and understanding , then much is explained by the huge number of gaffes.
The site in Yorkshire maybe a henge , if it was and it also held timber posts in a circular arrangement , that were not a building , it would be a henge that contained a timber circle .
Both are found together and also as separate monuments . Similarly if the stones were shown to have been burnt the site may also have had a burnt mound ,whcuh may have been used for cooking or steaming as in a sauna .
Do you really need to see the list of links that refute your ignorant beliefs ,yet again .

[Tiompan]

You find lots of material at ancient sites ,including rocks that have been worked or moved ,it does not mean that the rocks and the site are contemporaneous .

To be more specific , where is the evidence for working and transportation ?
Where are the nearest Adena sites that can be confirmed by a reliable arcaheologist ?

Show that the working was from the same period when Adena were likely to have been present and you might have the start of a case . But on your previous form I doubt that very much .

[E.P. Grondine]

You find lots of material at ancient sites ,including rocks that have been worked or moved ,it does not mean that the rocks and the site are contemporaneous .

To be more specific , where is the evidence for working and transportation ?
Where are the nearest Adena sites that can be confirmed by a reliable arcaheologist ?

Show that the working was from the same period when Adena were likely to have been present and you might have the start of a case . But on your previous form I doubt that very much .

Fletcher points those facts our in the video, the same place the nearby Adena monds are shown.
By the way, the experts say that "Andaste" mean "Black Pole" in their language,
which appears to have been an Iroquoian variant at the time of European contact.