Click for Mount Washington, New Hampshire Forecast

Mt. Washington Temp.
Click pic for forecast.

...More Topics...

 

 

Get Firefox!

Backcountry ski and snowboard gear, camping

Donate towards my web hosting bill!

Made with CSS

Validated by W3C

       
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:49 am



Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 Have university archaeologists researched NH's megaliths? 
Author Message
Flatfoot
Flatfoot
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 8
Reply with quote
 Have university archaeologists researched NH's megaliths?
New England has numerous standing monoliths/menhirs, dolmens perched on standing rocks, and subterranean and above-ground megalithic chambers. They can be exciting to find, either walking through parks randomly, or else going to sites in the woods like Gungywamp(CT) and Stonehenge USA (NH). Even though Stonehenge USA is a private open-air museum, it still reminds me a lot of previous hiking that I've done because it's in the woods with trails.

Have mainstream archeologists studied the major sites in depth to tell when they were made?

We can rule out their creation by Bronze Age European colonists, because we haven't found Bronze age objects like bronze shields at the sites. True, they could have left their bronze at home in Europe and mingled with the Amerindian natives, teaching them monolithic building, but that seems unlikely, as they should have left more behind to show this.

It's also unlikely that Paleolithic Europeans crossed the North Atlantic during the ice age. It's true that they could have fished, sailed, and walked or camped on the ice sheet, but that seems dangerous and not an easy way to keep food.

So we are left with thinking that the Native Americans were the most likely builders, at least before Columbus' time. The Algonquins are the most likely builders as well.
Image
Map of Algonquin peoples

The Crystal Links website talks about Stonehenge USA, claiming carbon dating of some relics there were from c.2000 BC:
Quote:
Image
America's Stonehenge, also known as Mystery Hill, is an archaeological site consisting of a number of large rocks and stone structures scattered around roughly 30 acres (120,000 m2) within the town of Salem, New Hampshire in the northeast United States. ... Proponents of a pre-Columbian, yet non-Native American, origin for the site argue that some stones are encased in trees that may have sprouted before the arrival of the first colonists...

Artifacts found on the site lead archaeologists to the conclusion that the stones were actually assembled for a variety of reasons by local farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries. For example, a much-discussed "sacrificial stone" which contains grooves that some say channeled blood closely resembles "lye-leaching stones" found on many old farms that were used to extract lye from wood ashes, the first step in the manufacture of soap. Carbon dating of charcoal pits at the site provided dates from 2000 BC to 173 BC, when the area was populated by ancestors of current Native Americans. In archaeological chronology, this places indigenous use of the site into either the Late Archaic or the Early Woodland time periods.

http://www.crystalinks.com/AmericasStonehenge.html

Actually, the sacrifice table really does look to me alot like a colonial lye leaching stone or apple press stone from what I've seen elsewhere, like this apple press stone here:
http://www.stonestructures.org/Grooved- ... er-2-L.jpg

Anyway, the website continues talking about researchers:
Quote:
In 1982, David Stewart-Smith, director of restoration at Mystery Hill, conducted an excavation of a megalith found in situ in a stone quarry to the north of the main site. His research team, under the supervision of the New Hampshire state archaeologist, excavated the quarry site, discovering hundreds of chips and flakes from the stone. Both the state archaeologist and Dr. Stewart-Smith concurred that this was evidence of indigenous tool manufacture, consistent with Native American lithic techniques, although no date could be ascertained. It is possible that in its original form the site may have been one of the ceremonial stone landscapes described by USET, United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc., in their resolution on sacred landscapes.
http://www.crystalinks.com/AmericasStonehenge.html

Do you find these conclusions reliable?

The website also talks about "Sunrise Stones" and other alignments:
Quote:
Image

Image
Found across the Mystery Hill site are huge monolithic standing stones (some now fallen) all of which line up to sun, moon or star alignments as seen from a central viewing slab located by one of the earlier researchers at the site. From this slab, monoliths align to the Midwinter solstice sunrise and sunset, the November one sunrise and sunset, the Spring and Fall Equinox sunrises and sunsets, the May one sunrise and sunset, the Midsummer solstice sunrise and sunset, the August one sunrise and sunset and true north. This stone is aligned to the star Thuban, the pole star of 2,000 B.C. On these days the sun will either rise or set above worked monolith stones. Exact alignments coincide, according to scholars and astronomers, with a date of 2499 B.C. - 1900 B.C.

Stone walls throughout the site also provide over 200 astronomical alignments with the moon, 45 different stars and important geographic points. One long stone wall aligns with true south. ... Other impressive constructions on the site include a number of underground chambers with clear astronomical alignments including; a "south facing" chamber made of large quarried rock and covered by several multi-ton lintel slabs; a classic V-hut chamber, above ground, wedge shaped and adjacent to a large basin cut into the bedrock which was a starting point for a network of sophisticated drains that extends to the east. This chamber is oriented to the southwest like many similar European Neolithic structures and bears a striking resemblance to those found like it in the British Isles.

http://www.crystalinks.com/AmericasStonehenge.html

Notice that in the first photo there is an opening in the woods where the sun rises. I think that this was cut in the last century to make way for the supposed alignment and might not have been there in 2000 BC. Likewise, since it was in private hands for the last 200 years or so, I think many of the stones could have been placed to make these alignments in modern times.

Some people claim that there is a face cut into the mountain of Franconia Notch in NH, but I think that it can just be a natural formation that looks that way due to perceptions of the human eye to see faces in things:
Image
SEE: http://www.paradoxchronicle.com/2015/07/25/1097

There is a video of a grooved stone on Mt Shaw in NH, but I think until someone uses a spade and cuts away the grass on top, it will be hard to tell if that's what it really is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=turX7cxRFMw
(see about 16:00 in the link)

Mike Hathaway talked about how he was walking near the White Mountain Center for Creative Development in Madison, in the New Hampshire Magazine
Quote:
when he came upon what appears to be a partially carved head and an arrangement of large stones that appeared to align with Mt. Chocorua on the solstice. Hathaway looked to geologists, historians and archaeologists, trying to figure out what he'd found. .... "There may have been an ancient culture living in the area. They've found tool pits that go back 10,000 years in Ossipee and Littleton. We're not that far from Mt. Washington, which was the end of the Native American pilgrimage route called the Pequawket Trail. If this was a sacred site for Early Americans, then maybe they were brought here by Native American guides. "
http://www.nhmagazine.com/September-201 ... he-Stones/
As to stone chambers found in the state, one archaeologist named
Quote:
Leary is reluctant to even date them within the millennium. "Based on the way some of them have worn in the 30 years that I've been studying these things, freezing year in and year out then they couldn't have lasted thousands of years unattended. But could they have been attended? That's totally wide open," Leary declares.Boisvert explains that not only is there no writing to rely on but New England has few petroglyphs, the pictograms that help prehistoric archaeologists understand preliterate cultures.
http://www.nhmagazine.com/September-201 ... he-Stones/


Tara MacIsaac writes about Mystery Hill, NH:
Quote:
Image
The builders apparently used stone tools, not metal tools. ...New Hampshire state archaeologist Gary Hume, told Discovery the stone-on-stone workmanship is similar to that of Native Americans. He was hesitant to say the megaliths could be 4,000 years old, but he seemed to leave the possibility open. He said he wasn’t going to question “the two reputable surveyors who had vouched for the alignments,” wrote Wright.

Dennis Stone, Robert Stone’s son who is also currently owner and operator of the site, told Discovery that some of the structures were probably built by Pattee, but certainly not all. Others have also said the intricacies of construction and alignment were not likely carried out by the Pattee family, and the family would have used metal tools, not stone tools.

Goodby and other critics of the ancient-origin theory say archaeologists would have found signs of people living on or near the site, such as burial grounds. He said the sacrificial stone was probably actually a place for inhabitants in more recent history to make soap. Whatever the theories, as Goudsward and Stone write: “There has been so much damage in the last four millennia that no matter who you believe built the site, there is just enough physical evidence to warrant further investigation along that line. ..."
http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient- ... page=0%2C1

I agree, and I think that the stone was used to make soap (lye).


Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:32 pm
Profile
Flatfoot
Flatfoot
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 8
Reply with quote
 Re: Have university archaeologists researched NH's megaliths
Another site, one in Massachusetts, is called "Turtle Mount" in Andover, Ma:


Image

A report by the Andover Improvement Society givers some background, adding another photo of a different part of the site:
Quote:
Frank Glynn, who became the chief archaeologist for the New England Antiquities Research Association, investigated the Andover Turtle Mound in 1951. ... It refers to the site as a cairn burial site, and implies that it was an ancient, Western European neolithic burial site... The report states the site’s stones range from cobbles to three tons. Layers in his digging revealed artifacts including serrated points, a javelin, and what appeared to be bone fragments as well a layer of carbon.
Image
http://www.avisandover.org/turtle.html

http://www.avisandover.org/turtle.html

One of the main problems I have with accepting it as ancient is that the blocks look fairly crisply cut and square, like 19th or 20th c. AD ones might be, rather than weathered.

Another webpage claims about it:
Quote:
In 1951, Yale archaeologist Frank Glynn studied the massive stone turtle mound in Andover, Mass. The stone mound has two chambers in it and Glynn found charcoal and human bone remains in them that were carbon dated to 2000 B.C. Glynn also found tools and artifacts that he dated to 3000 B.C.

http://www.barbaradelong.com/special-pr ... england-2/

Certainly Yale is a mainstream university, so normally we could trust their findings. It's just that this is a rather contentious issue it seems to me.

Another website claims it could have been made by Amerindians:
Quote:
On a small hill in West Andover, not far from Haggetts Pond on private property, sits a structure, the provenance of which remains hotly debated. It is a 92-foot-long collection of rocks, clearly collected and arranged by human hand to create a structure with subterranean features. Rough steps lead up 15 feet to a main platform, which suggests the site of a wooden construction above. The periphery is flanked by alcoves.

Turtle Mound is so named because of its resemblance to a snapping turtle if viewed from the air. Effigy mounds, constructed by tribes to resemble an animal or human, are common throughout the Americas. The snapping turtle is a particularly important symbol in the culture of the Algonquin tribe that populated the Merrimack Valley. A team of researchers conducting a dig in the 1950s claims to have found human bones, stone chips and a stone javelin point in the main room. The suggested dating of the site is 300 to 400 years old.
http://www.andovertownsman.com/news/loc ... 6b9a2.html


But then it adds:
Quote:
In the early 1800s a man named Paul Follensbee and a seafaring partner claim to have constructed the mound.

Follensbee and his unnamed friend were a remarkable pair - in their appearance, if nothing else. The former, who owned the property in question, was a small man, measuring 5'2". By contrast, his partner, a giant at 6'8", was known to have traveled far and wide, reportedly returning with rare and exotic plants intended to establish a nursery or botanical garden. Follensbee claimed to have built the mound with his partner around 1832 as a homage to his Scottish heritage - the cairn reminded him of his homeland ... As credible as this claim might be, there are holes in this story. ... The stones, particularly the flat stone that forms the roof of the mound, are massive. It is questionable that the two could move the stones themselves.
http://www.andovertownsman.com/news/loc ... 6b9a2.html


What do you think?


Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:36 pm
Profile
Sovereign Woodsman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:21 am
Posts: 1820
Location: Lynn MA
Reply with quote
 Re: Have university archaeologists researched NH's megaliths
Not sure if a bot or BrianL.


Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:42 pm
Profile
Flatfoot
Flatfoot
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 8
Reply with quote
 Re: Have university archaeologists researched NH's megaliths
Sorry, I am really not a bot or BrianL.
I think that the topic New Hampshire's megaliths in the woods is quite interesting, and the hiking forum seems to me a good place to discuss it.
I've been interested in the topic for a long time - back when I was a teenager I made a special trip to it. I still don't know what to make of Stonehenge USA. And there are a couple other sites like it in New England.


Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:39 pm
Profile
Sovereign Woodsman

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:40 pm
Posts: 1663
Reply with quote
 Re: Have university archaeologists researched NH's megaliths
Hi Rako, I think you're for real! I don't think a bot would mention Andover Village Improvement Society (AVIS - a great source for hikes and explorations if you want to stay closer to home; they've been around for ages). Welcome to the forum!


Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:06 pm
Profile
Flatfoot
Flatfoot
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 8
Reply with quote
 Re: Have university archaeologists researched NH's megaliths
Beckie and Prema wrote:
Hi Rako, I think you're for real! I don't think a bot would mention Andover Village Improvement Society (AVIS - a great source for hikes and explorations if you want to stay closer to home; they've been around for ages). Welcome to the forum!

Thanks a lot for your greeting, Beckie!


Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:28 pm
Profile
Flatfoot
Flatfoot
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 8
Reply with quote
 Re: Have university archaeologists researched NH's megaliths
The two main supposed megalithic sites in NH I know of are:



Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:17 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Hike-NH.com based on STSoftware.