MYSTERY HILL DEMYSTIFIED

By Wade Tarzia (Drafted in January 1986, expanded in 2002, preface written January 2007)

This draft document is not be quoted without the author's permission.

===========================================

Preface

Back in the early 1980s when I had some time on my hands, I wandered up to the tourist attraction called “America’s Stonehenge,” (formerly “Mystery Hill”) which lies in my childhood territory, and to which I had gone often as a child and teenager. The site has long been a “folk archaeology” mecca, and it certainly whetted my life-long interest in archaeology with the tourist-guide tales of preColumbian Celtic colonialism and druidic human sacrifices performed on the grooved stone “sacrificial table” that we could see right before us (probably a cider press or lye-making stone!). Unfortunately it also warped my sense of history, and it took part of my undergraduate education to get it right again.

During that post-graduate year I spent living with my father and seeking career jobs, I worked part-time as an adjunct professor in English, a fisherman’s mate aboard a “six-pack” (mired in fish guts, passenger vomit, and, when lucky enough, amidst the fearful tuna-harpoon line like the one mentioned in Moby Dick), a night watchman at a school for disturbed adolescent girls (I was supposed to stop their jilted drug dealer boyfriends and pimps from visiting; they kindly cut the phone lines on the other guy’s shift).... and as a volunteer at America’s Stonehenge in between the gaps of my varied life that year. For when I had wandered through that day, I learned that an “archaeologist” was at work on the site and would welcome help from someone with a BA in anthropology.

How exciting! The last time I had seen a “real archaeologist” at the site had been when I was around 14 years old. There ensconced in a corner of the tourist shop was a man holding 35mm slides up to the light, with megalithic diagrams on the table behind him, and in his inaccessible archaeological mystery his image had been burned into me as The Way I wanted Life to Be. Though I was now an English post-graduate, my work had continued to bring archaeology and anthropology into the study of medieval folklore. Yet I had never been field-trained in archaeology, a fearful lack to my admittedly romantic psyche -- my BA focus had been in the purely theoretical concerns of emergence of complex society in ancient Peru, and when my professor said they were now shooting at archaeologists there, I traded lost cities in the jungle for lost insights in medieval literature. Now though, I had a quick shot at my first-love-affair with “dirty” archaeology, and the right time in a liminal proto-career year

Mystery Hill -- 2

during which I dimly prophesied absorption into the banality of institutionalized life with little chance to ever lecture about Beowulf, potlatch ritual, and Iron Age archaeology.

Soon I was given an excavation square (just like that!) by the pretty young woman who sold the tickets and fried the hamburgers, and told I could get to work. I had a sketchbook, a brush, a trowel, plastic sample bags -- this was it! Perhaps I was distracted by the visits of the pretty young woman, who marveled that I could be so happy with an inch of excavated depth in 6 hours, because it took me a couple of days to wonder why I had been set out unsupervised except by the archaeologist’s assistant who finally came by -- an eccentric, friendly, unemployed middle-aged man who camped out in the attic of the tourist lodge and was proud of the archaeological certificate he had earned at SCRAP (still don’t know what that stands for) and sometimes gave me a few pointers about trowel technique (“Hold the trowel level so that you don’t shoot the artifacts off like a catapult.” Good advice).

Then, within a few days I discovered that the “archaeologist” who looked like one (khakis, short graying beard) was an adjunct English professor at another college, and was “self taught” in archaeology, and that indeed I could improve his “excavation” in many ways just from the book-learnin’ I’d had as an undergraduate (such as, keep track of what square’s dirt you are sifting -- the one actual native-ish potsherd found couldn’t be traced to the square from which it came, because they were dumping dirt in piles and sifting it later -- this is good if all you want is gold or the diamond eyes of idols). He was a worse fool than I was and a butcher of site information, and one who countenanced worser fools (at one point he let the site’s “trustees” in with shovels to dig for treasure, because they wanted to really, really find something fast!). Yet years later I saw his name as excavation director at an Irish monastic site! Draw what conclusions about Life from this as you can.

Thereafter I withdrew from “excavations” and confined myself to proposing low-impact studies such as surface scatter surveys and reasonable hypothesis testing -- by that I mean trying to teach people to avoid the improbable Celtic, Phoenician, etc. hypotheses that were fashionable and tourist worthy in favor of testing aboriginal and colonial-era hypotheses -- to stop expecting bronze axes, in other words. After all, under the stones of the “megalithic” chambers of this site nothing had ever been found but contemporary artifacts brought down by rodents such as bottle caps and colonial artifacts such as a musket ball. I allowed myself to entertain the “aboriginal hypothesis” but that had also faded by the end of 1986.

But what I had not recognized in micro-managing this social movement was that, uh, it was indeed a social movement, which cannot be managed. I was trying to resist a culture (or “microculture”), and a focus

Mystery Hill -- 3

on archaeology was predisposing me to think archaeologically about weak archaeological theories -- this was not as useful or interesting as the study of the social movement itself. It took an archaeologist, Prof. Dena F. Dincauze, with whom I had had a couple o courses as an undergraduate, to gently persuade me a few years later that this was the better tack, to remind me that my folklore specialization was just the approach to use.

In any event, over the course of that year at the site, I found my efforts were quite unwelcome. The man who owned the site, Robert Stone, treated me quite fairly I must say, which is why I will mention his name here, but a few of the site employees started pressuring me to desist: “We’ve had enough negativity around here.” I was experiencing being the outsider to a solid microculture first-hand.

I retreated to Connecticut where I had found a technical writing job, continued my PhD program, and started writing this document in a truly pious last attempt to convince the Mystery Hill people to change their line of thinking. I showed it to the assistant archaeologist (the primary personality who had been involved for some years at the site) -- he didn’t like this manuscript much but spent much energy nitpicking to death in a very long letter. (Cult archaeological trivia: I was subjected to this same behavior in 1994 after I reviewed the creationist archaeology book, Forbidden Archaeology, and the author Michael Cremo wrote a very long letter back to me, which later became a chapter in a book he published about that attacks Forbidden Archaeology had suffered.) Thereafter I became too involved in a job, marriage, dissertation, and children, in that order, and I dropped this project (ca. 1986) without ever really admitting to myself that I had dropped it. I guess I still have not admitted that or I would be here posting this to a website.

This manuscript, in its flawed forever-draft form (complete with as yet unfound typos, improperly formatted citations I haven’t the energy to fix now, a few weak analogies, and clear gaps in very useful backgrounds such as epistemology), may be of some interest to students of the cult/folk-archaeology movement (aka. alternative science movement). This record may provide that insider perspective into the personal and social issues of this site not mentioned elsewhere, although for the most part I have deleted personal names where their mention might seem gossipy rather than scholarly.

I think this ms. will also be useful for people who have heard of but not yet been able to visit the Mystery Hill/America’s Stonehenge site. The site is worth visiting because of its role in the folk archaeology movement and because the site is an interesting example of the eccentricity a colonial-era farm site can seemingly take on (though the stone chambers would not seem so unusual to the farmers of that era -- in fact they were so usual as to not bear mention in history: read Cole’s "Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory," Neudorfer’s Vermont

Mystery Hill -- 4

Stone Chambers, and Williams’ Fantastic Archaeology for more about that).

In homage to the archaeological over-focus that started me on this project, let me add that I believe my “random number grid” method for testing/debunking the “astronomical alignments” of the stones in the stone walls was a good idea, though rather clunky in its first manifestation here. I have not scanned in the old paste-up figures to demonstrate the method, but I hope the verbal description will make clear what I had intended. As many cult archaeological sites come with these astronomical alignment claims, I offer my method to future over-focused investigators.

The site continues its tourist operations but changes with the times. During a visit in summer 2002, I saw outdoor exhibits including a reconstructed wigwam, Native American agriculture, a Maypole, and others -- what theoretical or touristical goals these were meant to cater to might bear investigation. I also saw artifacts that looked like recent “offerings” of plastic flowers and other objects placed along one of the astronomical site lines. I also wandered off the tourist trail to show my friend the mostly untrodden back of the site, where a rockshelter once gave up native sherds (shown in the tourist lodge), and where the natural defoliation of the bedrock best shows the natural origin of the slabs used to make the “standing stones” -- out there I saw a small triangular slab recently tilted up (as evidenced by the flattened ground on which it had rested) to form a new “standing stone,” probably a category of tourist vandalism or shall we call it “interactive site design”? And so it all continues. Very interesting to the anthropologist and well worth a Master’s Thesis whose topic is the generation of new anti-establishment groups.

Adjuncts to this manuscript are available on this website in the form of my in-draft or published discussions of creationism issues (which can involve folklore and archaeology) and my unpublished review of the videotape “Remembering the End of the World,” a production of E. Velikovsky’s disciple, Donald Talbot.

-- Wade Tarzia, Waterbury, CT, January 2007).

========================================

Abstract

I review and critique alternative (or “sensational”) theories of the Mystery Hill Site in North Salem, NH. Possible builders are narrowed down to post-Columbian colonists and northeastern Native American tribes. To decide between the two most plausible builders, the paper analyzes 'standing stones' and 'astronomical alignments' that have been proposed by previous workers. These

Mystery Hill -- 5

topics lend the site most of its sensational aura, and confirming or falsifying astronomical claims is useful in deciding between the two most plausible builders. The standing stones are discussed in terms of provenance, form, and distribution. Of particular interest is the possibility that the standing stones exist in a quantity and distribution that allows researchers to 'discover' astronomical alignments while the stones themselves may have been placed in their matrix stonewalls randomly in regard to the azimuths of seasonal astronomical events. The report concludes by discussing the need for goal formulation and hypothesis testing methods.

Introduction to the Site and its Background

The Mystery Hill site in North Salem, New Hampshire (hereafter, MH;

named commercially “America’s Stonehenge”) has stimulated nearly a century of

speculation. To some, the jumble of unmortared fieldstone chambers and

"standing stones" existing amidst ordinary farm stone-walls and foundations finds

no precedent in the architectural history of New England. Amateur enthusiasts

have devised unusual hypotheses to explain the origins of the site, most posing

the theory that it was a religious site (later an astronomically aligned sacred site

such as some megalithic monuments of Europe), of medieval Irish anchoritic

monks, with later variant theories positing pagan Celtic, Bronze Age European, or

even Phoenician. Crudely scratched stones have been “translated” as Irish ogam

letters. In contrast, professional archaeologists have explained MH and other

sites like it as a relic of nineteenth century architectural adaptation (see

Cole:1982, Neudorfer:1980), and the ogam as being merely weathered and

glacially striated stones. I grew up a few miles from the site and visited it as a

child tourist, believing until early college years the alternative possibilities touted

by the site’s commercial tour-guides and “archaeologists.” When still later I

came to learn that the most-quoted “archaeologists” were most often amateurs

with nonprofessional background in archaeology, and when I finally considered

the data and theorizing about the site, I decided that the mainstream

Mystery Hill -- 6

archaeologists still had the best theory for the site -- that it was an early American

(post Columbian) farm site, somewhat unusual but by no means without its cousin

sites in New England, also datable to the post Columbian American settlement.

For me the story might have ended there except MH has continued as a

“Mecca” for alternative archaeological theorizing of an anti-establishment kind.

The site still survives as a tourist site called “America’s Stonehenge,” and site

owners and supporters still favor an Old World cultural origin of the site that

would place European or Mediterranean colonist of the Bronze Age to Iron age as

possible builders of this “religious” complex. Presumably, such ancient overseas

colonists would have co-existed with Native Americans for some time -- some

alternative theorists would even suggest that some Native Americans words

indeed have roots in European languages. So the story did not end, for neither

myself nor this school of archaeological thought. Still, when I wrote the great

majority of this essay over 15 years ago I didn’t imagine that in January 2002 I

would be sitting on the floor of my living room eating my salad and turning on

turn on the TV to relax only to find the nationally televised The History Channel

airing a show about megalithic monuments with an emphasis on Mystery Hill.

There I saw all the site owners and enthusiasts expounding all the old theories and

the professional archaeologists counter-expounding all the (established) counter

theories.

I originally wrote this essay to think through and set down my arguments

for myself, and then to present them to my alternative archaeologist

acquaintances whom I had met in 1983. They were cool to the ideas presented; in

the summer of 1984 as I spoke about this essay as I shaped it, the site manager

suggested my ideas were no longer welcome there: “We’ve had enough negativity

around here.” I was naively disappointed, having recently gained general training

in anthropology and folklore, where I had gotten the notion that colleagues

Mystery Hill -- 7

discussed ideas, happily using evidence to reject weak ideas and develop new

ones. I was naive because I was not thinking about what I was really doing:

telling one social group (a “folk group” in the anthropologist’s terms) that its

basic theories were probably weak but that mine were stronger.

In truth, scientists are not happy at being wrong, or being told they are

wrong, and they react to bad news in varying degrees of scientific calm. Further,

scientists all come from to differing ethnic groups and economic classes and

carry their origins with them everywhere (as humans do). As well, scientists

form cliques as rapidly as any schoolyard, neighborhood, and street gang. This

being said, the potential conflicts between mainstream scientists (those with

professional, usually institutional positions) and amateur scientists (those who

pursue some area of science --here archaeology -- outside of their training and

occupation) are increased because these two large groups carry an additional

potential for conflict -- the classifications of mainstream vs. amateur, enough to

define an ideological border between two groups that sometimes overshadow the

usual reasons groups of humans form opposing cliques.

The reasons and consequences for such a division I leave to others who have

deeply studied the profession (see XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX for the

basic discussions [Note 1/07: I probably meant the scholars of epistemology,

science movements, and microcultures: to them I would add the people who have

studied folk archaeology: John R. Cole, Ken Feder, Steve Williams, and others]).

I will speak about what I know -- my experience at Mystery Hill where the

conflict between mainstream and alternative theory has been ongoing, modified,

and negotiated for many years. This is a case study that will, however,

sometimes echo the larger theoretical and epistemological issues ongoing in

today’s co-existence of science, pseudoscience, Para-science, and occult beliefs

and practices.

Mystery Hill -- 8

First, I will review popular thinking about site origin and work toward

narrowing the possibilities point by point through anthropological archaeology

(the discussion covers basic ideas for a general archaeological audience).

Following this analysis, I focus on anomalous site features -- the so-called

“standing stones” -- and evaluate them from the standpoint of provenance, form,

and distribution -- points that would-be astro-archaeologists must consider before

making claims about purposeful astronomical alignments at MH. In summary, I

show that the mystery of Mystery Hill can be at least reduced and that, indeed,

sensational hypotheses, however much they enliven 20th century living, must be

tempered with practicality if we identify more with science than the desire to see

what would most excite us.

One final pause -- I was once disappointed to find that the “authorities”

speaking about the site were no better informed than myself; I do not wish to

perpetuate such conditions so let me explain my own context. I took a BA in

anthropology with a focus in archaeology. My archaeology training was in the

survey and theoretical kind; I did not train in the specific techniques of field

archaeology. Indeed, the moment when I swiftly doubted alternative theorizing

about the site was when I cast my eye over an excavation there (1983-84) and

found ways to improve it even with my cursory knowledge of excavation and

data-collection methods. I went on to do doctoral work with a focus on medieval

folklore (through an English department), alongside of which I continued

research into anthropological and archaeological theory (through my former

anthropology department and my own studies) because that seemed the best way

to approach medieval customs and beliefs as preserved in its folklore. Between

these studies I have maintained my interest in phenomena akin to Mystery Hill --

I am what I am partly because I grew up near the site, and it instilled in me a

romantic wonder and curiosity in all things odd, historical, and cultural (I have

Mystery Hill -- 9

few regrets!). So in a sense I am an in-between-person -- trained in an

“establishment” sense, partly in areas that touch on archaeology, yet not an

archaeological specialist, nor a specialist in scientific epistemology. The reader

may judge my ideas with this background in mind.

Site Description and Background

Mystery Hill comprises five major features: 1) the stone walls common

throughout New England, commonly marking field boundaries and not usually by

themselves high enough to restrain livestock well, 2) somewhat abnormal stone

walls in which upright stone slabs (approximately 4 feet high and of widely

varying shape) occur sporadically, 3) several chambers constructed from small

boulders or large slabs of naturally formed stone, 4) ruins of what may have been

other walls or chambers, and 5) a house foundation dated from the nineteenth

century, and perhaps a second one slightly earlier in date. Most of the stone

chambers cluster to the north west side of the house foundation, although one

chamber exists about 240 feet downhill, east-south-east from the house. The

chambers resemble other sites like all around New England, which are usually

called root-cellars.

Historical records do not supply much information. A Seth Pattee appears

to have had a mill at the foot of the hill on Spicket River around 1769. His

grandson Jonathan is the first recorded owner of the site; he built his small house

there in 1832 (Vecelius:1). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the site was sold to

stone quarriers sometime in the latter half of the 18th century when, supposedly,

an unknown portion of the site was removed -- some people claim from 20 to 80

percent -- and used to build some of the curbstones and sewers of Lawrence,

Massachusetts. At the time of this writing I am not sure about the type and origin

Mystery Hill -- 10

of evidence for these “stone quarrying” claims. Holes drilled into some boulders

at the site suggest that quarrying tackle was anchored there.

Written speculation about MH extends at least as far back as 1907, when

Gilbert, Salem's town historian, wrote of the site, "about which the most weird

and fantastic tale might be woven" (Gilbert:1907:418). Curiosity continued

throughout the early twentieth century, evidenced by the activity of investigators

such as Goodwin (an amateur enthusiast) in 1933 and Bird and Hencken (trained

archaeologists) in 1945 (Vecelius:1955:2-3). Goodwin put forward the first of

many 'trans-Atlantic' theories by claiming medieval Irish monks built the

chambers (Goodwin:1946). He reconstructed some of the walls and chambers,

and we do not know how 'creative' his reconstructions are. Bird completed some

cursory testing and was unable to come to any conclusions about the site

(Vecelius:1955:3). Hencken, a specialist in Celtic archaeology, dismissed

Goodwin's claims; he thought the site was built in the 17th century (Vecelius:2).

Popular curiosity probably began in the late thirties, as newspapers got hold

of Goodwin's "Irish monk" theories:

The newspapers were quick to learn of Goodwin's hypotheses, and it was inevitable that the Boston press should feature stories about America's Irish discoverers...It was not to be expected that the appearance of Hencken's scholarly refutation could serve to stem the flow of incautious newspaper and magazine articles (Vecelius:3).

Gary Vecelius (a trained archaeologist) carried out field work at the site in

1954. His excavation, survey, and report have been by far the most rigorous

work completed at MH at the time of this writing (December, 1985). Vecelius

concludes that the site was a colonial-era farm, supporting his claims historically

and archaeologically (for example, he found a musket ball under stones that other

theorists claim are ‘druidic dolmens’ and the like).

Mystery Hill -- 11

Comparatively recent research at the site has involved surveys and minor

excavations by people with little anthropological or archaeological training.

Some restorative work has been done on teetering slabs and fallen walls; the

restoration that I have witnessed has been conservative -- mostly for ensuring

tourist safety (observed 1983, work by David Steward-Smith, a mason; his

restorations can be identified signed by his trademark stylistic symbol carved into

any site features he modified). Ravaging and 'souvenir collecting' has occurred at

all periods of the site. The combined effects of plundering and sincere -- but

untrained -- curiosity have resulted in a tangle of remains that is difficult to

approach archaeologically (Dincauze: personal communication, Fall 1984).

Trespassing is common, and vandalism occurs infrequently, but it is especially

prevalent during the pagan holidays when modern cultists attempt to 'revive' the

site for an evening’s duration. The current management discourages such activity

as much as possible -- which is an impossible task unless one lives at the site.

[ Note, June 2001: the commercial aspects of the site have changed over the years. The site now features simply reconstructed Native American dwellings, a small horticultural garden, and a stage area for performances; the theories offered tourists now combine both pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts as well as Native American origin -- a tendency that was just beginning when I was studying the site in 1983-1984. I am not certain to what extent, if at all, the site operators allow any modern ‘cult’ activity -- such as Wiccan -- to take place there. On one Halloween in 1983, a burned-down black candle was discovered on the grooved stone named the “sacrificial table” at the site. ]

Oral tradition supplies meager and varied information from the early part of

this century. My mother remembers MH as both "Pattee's Caves" and the "Indian

Caves" where she picnicked throughout the nineteen thirties and forties. Vecelius

indicates that one of the remaining Pattees remembers his father saying he did not

construct the chambers, but had improved them (Vecelius:1). Local memory

recalls the Pattees having orchards, and that cider pressing was done on the hill

Mystery Hill -- 12

(Ibid). Some recalled that Jonathan was a moonshiner, and a robber who had to

hide on the hill (Ibid). Similarly, Mrs. Stickney, my uncle’s mother, living

locally, in 1984 recalled the story that outlaws lived on the hill, and that a tunnel

extended from the ruins to the bottom of the hill. In this last belief we find that

MH has participated within the general bounds of folk-legend. “Tunnel” beliefs

are tradition folk motifs in European folklore; I collected several such beliefs

during 1980 fieldwork in Ireland (Tarzia, unpublished manuscript); with little

exception, ruins on hilltops generated stories of tunnels leading down from them

or across the countryside to other ruins. This motif also occurs in the folklore of

England (Balfour: 1904: 60), and it shows the similar workings of the human

mind across both time and ocean.

Schools of Thought on Mystery Hill

Like the oral accounts, written accounts of MH are varied. The lack of

detailed, consolidated, and authoritative research on the site (aside from

Vecelius's work) has formed an ideal basis for diverse speculations. As a result,

several schools of thought have crystallized around Mystery Hill. Most of these

rely upon the "trans-Atlantic migration" theory -- the idea that MH was built by

ancient pre-Columbian European or Mediterranean-area colonizers. But let us

examine each school of thought briefly. I should mention that these 'schools' are

manifest both in popular literature and in the conversations of visitors and

workers at the site with whom I had sporadic but instructive interaction over the

past two years.

The Phoenician School -- This school of thought does not have a great

following, but one finds it arising occasionally. It contends that ancient

Phoenician mariners discovered America and built MH at some point on

Mystery Hill -- 13

Phoenician history. Since the Phoenicians first pushed into the Mediterranean in

the 700s BC (Haywood:1968:106), the school must assume that MH dates after

this period and before the rise of the Assyrian Empire in the 600s BC, when the

Phoenicians came under their dominion.

The Viking School -- Archaeologists have proved that Norsemen reached

the shores of New Foundland and even set up a winter base there (Campbell and

Kidd:1980:69) [June 2001 note -- of course, much more evidence for Norse

occupation in Canada has been published since then] . Possibilities are not

stretched too far by assuming the Norsemen could have sailed further south to

New England. Since the Viking colonization began after the eighth century A.D.

(Campbell and Kidd:65), proponents of the school must date Mystery Hill after

this time.

The Celtic School -- By far the most popular school of thought concerning

Mystery Hill is the Celtic School. Popular authors (Fell:1976, Hitching:1977, for

example) have expounded the Celtic theory for years, and anyone who has visited

MH can speak of astronomical alignments "proven" to fall on ancient Celtic

holidays. The small tourist industry set up at the site has a set of paths, guide-

posts, maps, and an observing station that guide the tourist to upright slabs of

stone that point to the sky. [June 2001 note -- the commercial aspects of the site

have expanded slightly since 1985, as noted above. ] The sun can even be

photographed at the midwinter solstice, in line with the solstice stone and the

designated site center. In the popular imagination, these features point to

mystical druids, Stonehenge, and old pagan Celtic rites. The Celts arose as a

recognizable set of culture traits around 1200 BC in central Europe

(Lehman:1975:89). They spread from central Europe and reached Western

Europe by around 600 BC (Moody and Martin:1968:43, but there is debate over

exactly when Celts arrived in the British Isles, Lehman:93). If we allow for some

Mystery Hill -- 14

time for Celtic populations to establish themselves in new territory before finding

a reason to make distant sea voyages, the proposed Celtic builders must have

begun the site after 600 BC, the point of establishment of Celts in western

Europe. Of course, this date says nothing about the time needed for the inland

Celts to expand to the sea and develop a reliable maritime technology and

experience; so a date much later than 600 BC might be supposed.

The Bronze Age School -- This school can include the 'Phoenician School,'

though I specifically refer to the Bronze Age cultures of Europe who built some

of the megalithic structures there. The Bronze Age in Europe begins around 2000

BC and ends around 500 BC (see Coles and Harding:1979), and the school must

assume that MH's origin has roots between these dates.

The Neolithic School -- Neolithic cultures in Europe have produced most of

the megalithic structures there, and proponents of this school might assume that

MH extends as far back as 4000 BC, when Neolithic social patterns appear in

western Europe (see Clark:1968). The same comment applied the Celts above

apply here regarding development of reliable maritime experience.

The Aboriginal School -- A small but growing group of people rejects the

diffusionist theories and favors the idea that Native Americans built MH. There

certainly is some precedent for such behavior, since Indian sites in the south west

include some that are astronomically aligned (Cornell:1981:168). The school

must assume that the site was constructed after 1200 BC, when cultivated plants

are introduced into New England (Dincauze:1974:53) -- that is, when at least

partial sedentism and the rise of tribal life (thus increased opportunity for

corporate architectural projects) may begin to occur.

The Colonial School -- This is the school that is favored among the majority

of professional archaeologists. They hold that MH shares many traits with other

stone slab and corbelled structures of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth

Mystery Hill -- 15

century in New England (see Cole: 1982, Dincauze:1983, Neudorfer:1979), and

that such structures were practical adaptations to subsistence needs of that period

(root storage, dairy storage, etc.).

Let me add that an "ancient astronaut" school also exists, but its theories are

too tenuous to consider here. The commercial owners of the site do not nor ever

seem to have subscribed to it.

Analysis of the Schools of Thought

Each of the schools outlined above must be examined in light of certain key

points of argument. I list them here:

1) cultural parameters -- A) considering the customary architecture found in a culture's archaeological record; B) considering the way different cultures regulate themselves through ritual -- that is, whether certain societies would or would not have been inclined to build megalithic monuments for ritual purposes;

2) chronology -- correlating datable events at the site with the dates of the possible founding cultures;

3) architectural form -- taking into account the architectural requirements for ritual symboling and how they are best satisfied;

4) material evidence -- taking into account the artifacts that have been recovered from MH;

5) traditional conformance and continuity -- taking into account the way in which social patterns should show geographic and temporal distribution.

Culture-Type and Mystery Hill

Now let us temporarily set aside the problem of chronology and once again

evaluate the candidate cultures; this time, the discussion will center on cultural

Mystery Hill -- 16

parameters -- the behavioral requirements of designated social types that have

been studied the world over. Anthropologists have generally agreed upon certain

designations and definitions of human societies. The simplest form is band, or

'hunter-gatherer', society (see Lee and Devore:1976, Steward:1969,

Bettinger:1980 for discussion of this social type). The second type is 'tribal'

culture (see Sanders and Webster:1978, Fried:1967, Sahlins:1968). The third is

'ranked' culture, also called 'chiefdoms' (see Renfrew: 1984:203ff, Fried:1967,

Sanders and Webster:1978 for general discussion). The last, most complex

society, one sub-type of which we belong, is 'state' society (see

Flannery:1972:403 for discussion of states -- also, Flannery supplies a summary

definition of these social types and talks about general traits of their hierarchical

organization. Beginning with band society, each social type is generally

characterized by increasing sedentism, population density, production, socio-

political complexity, and technological development.

Band Society (pre-1000 A.D. Indians in New England)

Bands of hunter-gatherer consist of small groups of 10 to 25 individuals

who usually stay no longer than a week at any base camp before local depletion

of edible wild plants and animals forces them to move to new territories -- they

grow little or no food and are not able to remain sedentary for he long periods

required for architectural pursuits. In addition, the low population density of

band society generates lower levels of social stress relative to more complex

societies, with the result that hunter-gatherers need fewer, less complex rituals of

stress reduction. That is, ritual architecture may not have been requirements for

such people.

Mystery Hill -- 17

The high degree of nomadism inherent in hunter gatherer life would not

allow them to remain in any one location long enough for extended architectural

endeavors. And if we acknowledge the recent work of archaeologists like

Renfrew (1984, 1984b), which suggests that megalithic monuments functioned to

support land-holding groups, then we must reject a hunter gatherer basis for MH

once again -- for hunter gatherers are little concerned with land rights or

ownership.

If we are to believe the oldest held date for MH, then Indians would not

have built the site. Once Indian populations grew large enough for them to

require sedentism and agriculture -- and evolve into a tribal social-system -- the

date is around 1000 AD. If AmerIndians built MH, it must have origins after this

date; yet, this goes against the popularly acknowledged dates of the site.

Tribal Society (certain spans of Bronze and Neolithic Age Societies)

Tribal societies, or largely those that may have cyclically occurred

throughout the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Europe (see Kristiansen:1982 for a

discussion of social fluctuation during the Neolithic and Bronze Age) are not

ranked in the sense that clear-cut offices for leadership exist. These societies are

egalitarian in nature -- leadership is constrained to a person's ability to offer wise

advice to the community, and no office exists to compete for, to hand over, or to

inherit (Flannery:1972:402). Also, the egalitarian nature of tribal society does not

allow too much accretion of wealth or differential access to wealth (such as land,

water rights, status symbols) that an individual could use to create subordinate

relationships and rise to power. Subsequently, many conflicts in the society can

not be regulated through powerful leaders or enforceable laws.

Mystery Hill -- 18

Instead, egalitarian cultures use community rituals which redistribute goods

and information to ensure everyone receives equal portions (Rappaport:1971:8-9).

These communal rituals also supply the social unity -- supplied in more complex

societies by a powerful, permanent leadership -- by allowing tribal members to

participate in group ritual. In effect, the community is exalted in a tribal society,

which may be evidenced in monuments that allow group burials. By contrast,

ranked societies exalt powerful individuals who may most often rest in single

graves (Renfrew:1984:181).

Among the socialization rituals of Neolithic Europe may have been the

megalithic monuments. Some of the larger monuments, such as Silbury Hill,

Stonehenge, and perhaps the passage grave complex in the Valley of the Boyne

are large enough to have probably required a higher level of social organization in

construction (Renfrew:1984:182). Other monuments, such as the smaller cairns

and other megaliths, were, however, most likely the products of "segmentary" or

unranked tribal groups (Ibid). If we are to fit MH into the European framework

for the sake of argument, its size and complexity falls into the class of

monuments made by the simpler, egalitarian cultures.

The construction of monumental architecture requires group cooperation --

which affirms group identity. After construction, rituals could be continually

held at the sites, which would serve as the focal point for a thinly scattered group

of people (Ibid:181ff). Structures such as those scattered about Rousay and the

Arrans may have allowed communal rituals as well as the opportunity to bury

people of the community as a group. Perhaps the use of grave complexes for

group burials may have served to legitimate a tribe's claim to the territory.

Perhaps megalithic monuments were the material proof for a tribe's strength,

unity, and ancient heritage -- proof of the right to inhabit the territory. The

psychology of megalithic monuments can be exemplified like this: "we have

Mystery Hill -- 19

buried our dead in the grave for many years and occupied the land for many ages

-- the monuments built by our fore-fathers, which we still hold in sacred trust, are

symbols of our rightful inheritance." The architecture also serves to continually

transmit such information in the absence of the builders, for symbolic artifacts

emit information in the absence of receivers or emitters (Wobst:1977:322).

Ranked Society (Celtic and Germanic People)

Ranked societies are agriculturally-based with populations large enough to

require regulation by a permanent leadership (Flannery:1972:403) -- the chiefs

and their small retinues of warrior/administrators, religious specialists (druids),

poets, and craftsmen. The need for a retinue and a permanent leader may reflect

the need for more powerful ways for decision making in complex societies (see

Johnson:1982:412). The maintenance of a retinue is allowed through the

production and distribution of surplus agricultural goods that can also be used to

assuage famine, or finance a warband (Sanders and Webster:1978:270-1). In a

ranked society individuals are allowed to create client/subordinate relationships,

such as those well discussed by O'Corrain (1972) in ancient Irish culture. For

example one who has accrued extra foodstuffs through luck or wise husbandry

can offer it to one who is not so wealthy, and he in turn owes the client loyalty

(for a discussion of how these "Big Man" systems may function and evolve, see

Binford: 1983: 218ff). Somewhat luckier or wiser people can offer several

people such favors -- this system of financed loyalty is the basis for a chiefdom.

Such societies regulate social conflicts through their rigid system of rank. In

other words, an individual's actions can be limited by his economic and political

standing.

Mystery Hill -- 20

Evidence indicates that many megalithic monuments found in Europe are

not the products of ranked society (Renfrew:1984:180ff). They may instead be

products of tribal society. Massive structures ascribed to ranked cultures --

Stonehenge, perhaps the Boyne complex, and Silbury Hill -- are certainly not

comparable to MH. The candidate Celtic and Germanic societies were "ranked"

societies. We must eliminate them as the site builders. Similarly, ranked society

may have arisen at some points of the Neolithic and Bronze Age, so we must

eliminate these people as well.

On the basis of these cultural parameters and their relation with material

technology, it becomes increasingly clear that, if Mystery Hill is a ritual complex

of some kind, it is highly probable that it was not built by Vikings, Celts, or

Phoenicians, which were not egalitarian societies (Phoenician society was a

highly complex state-type society with well attested technological development --

any theory that postulates a Phoenician basis for the crude chambers of MH is

unrealistic and not of primary importance). For diehard skeptics, further evidence

for this probability exists apart from archaeology. The evidence is based on the

records left behind by some of these cultures.

Textual Records of Europe

Manuscripts from the early middle ages preserve both Celtic and Germanic

folklore and provide some instructive insights into their conception of megalithic

structures. The epic Beowulf (7th century Anglo Saxon) depicts a passage grave

as a mystical place where a dragon guards its hoarded treasure. What follows is

the Old English poet's description of a passage grave (letters in parentheses are

where the manuscript has been damaged and the transliteration is weak; words in

square brackets are supplied in my translation where clarification may be required

Mystery Hill -- 21

or where inflected endings in the Old English require a preposition in English

translation):

deorcum nihtum draca ricsian[in the] dark nights [a] dragon [came] to rule

se the on hea(um) h(aeth)e hord beweotode,that which on the high heath watched a hoard

stanbeorh steapne; stig under laeg[a] high stone-barrow; [a] path lay under [it]

eldum uncuth...[to] men unknown... (Klaeber:1950, Beowulf, l. 2211A--2214A).

Later in the epic, the poet tells how the treasure hoard got in the grave; the last

survivor of a destroyed tribe vows to give the treasure of his kinfolk to the earth.

He has prepared a barrow for it:

Beorh eallgeara[the] Barrow, all-prepared,

wunode on wonge waeterythum neah,dwelled on [the] shore nigh [the] water-waves,

niwe be naesse, nearocraeftum faest;new by [the] headland, fast [with] hiding-craft,

thaer on innan baer eorlgestreonathere inside [he] bore [the] earl-treasure,

hringa hyrde hordwyrthne dael...[the] ring's guardian, [the] hoard-worthy portion...

(Klaeber:84, l. 2241B--2245B, see Raffel:1963, for translation.)

The Old Norse epic of Sigurth reflects a similar tradition, in that the

barrow/passage grave is mystical, holds treasure, and a guarding dragon (see

Terry:1969 translation, or Vigfusson and Powell:1963 for transliteration). In

general the later people of the 6th or 7th century A.D. did not build passage

graves and certainly had no idea what they had been used for -- thus imagination

filled in an otherwise missing function (see Tarzia:1986a in press, and

Mystery Hill -- 22

Creed:1986 in press, for a detailed discussion of these texts and their

archaeological context).

Tales from Old Ireland's Ulster cycle remember dolmens and standing

stones as several interesting things. The eroded remains of barrows and passage

graves, called variously "dolmens," and "cromlechs," often appear to be

suspiciously large "beds" -- of course, for a hero. This hero is always Diarmaid,

and he traveled Ireland with his mate Grainne, fleeing the jealous chief, Fion Mac

Cumhail (see The Pursuit of Diarmaid and Grainne, Cross and Slover:1936).

Dolmens all around Ireland, and some in Scotland, are called "Diarmaid and

Grainne's Bed" in folk traditions, where the couple was said to have spent a night

-- a context quite different from archaeological interpretations of their original

use. In addition standing stones are often used quite humorously in the Ulster

Cycle of Old Ireland. In the following examples we see how irreverently the Irish

Celts worked standing stones into their epics. In the first example, the enemies of

an Ulster hero, Cuchulainn, try to distract him from battle by disguising a camp

fool like a king, and sending a woman out with him as a peace offering. The hero

sees through the ruse:

...He (Cuchulainn) shot a sling stone from his hand and pierced the fool's head and knocked out his brains. Cuchulainn went up to the girl and cut off her two long tresses and thrust a pillar stone up through the fool's middle. Their two standing stones are there still, Finnabair's Pillar Stone and the Fool's Pillar Stone (Kinsella: 1969:141)

In the second example, the poet explains how a local standing stone was named.

Here the army from Connacht hear that a dread Ulster warrior is coming for

them, and they plan accordingly:

In their dread, they put Ailill's crown on top of a pillar-stone, and Cethern attacked the pillar-stone and drove his sword through it, and his fist after

Mystery Hill -- 23

the sword. This is the origin of the name Lia Toll, the Pierced Stone, in Crich Rois (Kinsella:212-3).

It is unlikely that people still using standing stones religiously would speak

of them in such mystical -- or irreverent -- ways. This is especially certain when

other practices mentioned in ancient folklore -- such as the burial rites depicted in

Beowulf -- find close parallels with archaeological recoveries of the periods

represented by the lore (see Klaeber:1950:229ff). In summary the traditional epic

oral/manuscript traditions of these peoples reflects both mystery and irreverence

attached to some megalith monuments. In the context of this essay we must note

the examples from the Old Irish texts; the stones and mounds were as 'enigmatic'

to them as they are to some 20th century people. Accordingly, a Celtic theory for

MH is weakened.

We do find some monumental structures in the above mentioned societies.

The Celts and Germans raised burial mounds, and sometimes lone standing stones

with either ogam or runic inscriptions (see Campbell and Kidd:1980:pl. 96, and

Moody and Martin:1967:pl. 21) -- although there is evidence that the Irish

inscribed runes over the standing stones of previous peoples. The Viking boat-

shaped graves are formed with standing stones, but are aligned according to

cardinal direction and not to astronomical event. And of course, both societies

sometimes constructed extensive fortifications. These monuments are all quite

different from astronomical complexes.

Chronology of the Site and Candidate Originators

The 1200 BC Date

Mystery Hill -- 24

One of the cornerstones of the 'trans-Atlantic' schools is the ca 1200 BC

radiocarbon date from a piece of charcoal claimed to have been deposited over

one of the structures; it is claimed that the structure should be dated prior to 1200

BC The charcoal appears to have been subjected to the proper analysis by the

laboratory; I do not question the age of the charcoal. However, the relationship

between the charcoal and the structure it supposedly dates should be questioned.

The existence of ancient charcoal on the site comes as no surprise. As mentioned

previously, AmerIndians have inhabited New England for millennia. No doubt

MH was as good as other hills for occasional cooking. Or the charcoal could be a

remnant of natural burn-off.

As for the dating of the structure with this small charcoal sample, we should

exercise restraint. The topsoil of the hill is very thin and the bedrock is exposed

in many places. It is quite possible that this sample of charcoal -- which was

discovered apart from further concentrations or even a recognizable hearth feature

-- is an unrelated remnant of an Indian camp fire or a natural burn-off that had

simply washed along the impermeable bedrock until it came to rest against the

structure (Hinton: personal communication 1983). This argument does not

provide an air-tight case against the site's supposedly ancient date, but it does

show that logical and probable alternatives to popularly held hypotheses do exist.

For the sake of further discussion, let us now assume that the charcoal

sample has been dated correctly, and that it does indeed date the structure it was

found against. This 1200 BC date excludes several of the candidate cultures

claimed to have built MH. Of course, it excludes post-Columbian colonials.

Further, 1200 BC is rather too early to include the Phoenicians as the builders,

and too late to include Neolithic people (unless we suppose a Neolithic settlement

lasted at MH for 3000 years or so -- a rather heavy theory to maintain). Likewise,

this date excludes the Celtic culture, with its diffusion to western Europe around

Mystery Hill -- 25

600 BC, and the Viking culture (and sea-worthy Norse ships) with its roots in the

fifth century A.D. (thus we must call into question all alignments claimed to

indicate the Celtic holidays Lugnasad, Samain, Imbolc, etc.). This leaves Bronze

and Neolithic age cultures and Amerindian culture as possible candidates. Of

course, Bronze and Neolithic Age seafaring technology has not been

demonstrated as sophisticated enough for trans-Atlantic crossings. Let us assume

that the technology was available so that this paper may proceed to other

discussions.

We have eliminated four candidate cultures by reason of a radiocarbon date

-- one whose applicability to the chronology of MH is in question but has been

assumed for the sake of argument. The remaining cultures are within the date

range specified by the site, assuming for Bronze and Neolithic Age Europeans a

well developed, sea-faring technology. What is left to decide is whether these

cultures were of a nature that could build and would benefit from an

astronomically-aligned, megalithic construction.

The 1200 BC Date not Considered

If we reject the 1200 BC date as undiagnostic of the structure it was found

against, then we are left with the post-Columbian colonial chronology first

expounded by Hencken, since we are left with mostly colonial artifacts to date the

site, as well as a few late, woodland period Indian potsherds found away from

the main site.

Technological Level of the Site and Candidate Originators

Mystery Hill -- 26

The discussions above support the idea that only Neolithic or bronze age

Europeans could have built the Mystery Hill structures if we are looking only for

a European origin. This presupposes that these people had the technical means to

cross the Atlantic and build a megalithic site. Tim Severin has proven the sea

worthiness of leather curraghs built on the medieval Irish design (see

Severin:1978). However, his voyage was hazardous enough with many of the

modern conveniences of ocean travel, including food/water storage technology, a

safe, reliable stove (important for efficient digestion as well as morale),

navigation equipment, and modern foul weather clothing, including full-emersion

survival suits sometimes worn by the sailors to keep warm. They also decked-

over the boat with leather skins and modern tarps for sea-worthiness -- a modern

convention for which we have no medieval evidence. Even with these

advantages, the voyage of the Brendan was interrupted by stormy winter weather;

the boat was housed in Iceland, while the sailors flew home in jets to live

comfortably until the fair season came around.

I do not question the courage and ingenuity of the Brendan crew, who

certainly showed how Irish Celts might have made trans-Atlantic crossings -- but

what about consistent travel across the Atlantic? The ability of the Vikings is

unquestioned as well. Rather, I question the probability that Bronze and

Neolithic Age people -- whose sea faring technology is undemonstrated -- could

have made the consistent crossings that some authors ascribe to them, or even a

single crossing. We must also think of subsistence technology for an unknown

land. Assuming our Neolithic, etc., Lief Ericsons make a crossing, they then

arrive, probably wasted and diseased, on a foreign shore whose edible flora and

fauna are unfamiliar, whose native inhabitants are strange and possibly hostile;

then they hike inland several miles, somehow subsist in the wilds long enough to

build a megalithic site. Assuming this is all possible, we are left with a question

Mystery Hill -- 27

-- if colonization have roots ultimately in a need for new territory for either

economic or ideological purposes, why would our ancient Europeans have

crossed the ocean? For example, Ireland in the second millennium BC was yet

heavily forested (Evans:1957:14), and therefore uninhabited by large settlements.

Why was not territory like this first exploited, rather than in investing time in

costly, high-risk, trans-Atlantic migration? Proponents of the trans-Atlantic

schools have not dealt seriously with this question.

Conformity of Alleged Model Sites and Mystery Hill

I have been plagued by a difficult question concerning 'appearance.' Why

would trans-Atlantic colonizers, who have participated in a long-standing cultural

tradition (including megalith construction), build a megalithic site that really has

no precedent in European tradition? I speak, of course, about the layout of the

MH site.

Visitors to the site sometimes remark on the chambers -- they 'look' like

megalithic chambers and therefore must be related to European megalithic

chambers. It should not be surprising that the chambers at MH resemble in

construction the chambers of many European sites -- there are only so many ways

in which to build a stone chamber from slabs (Dincauze:1983:10). The chambers

are built of large slabs, true, but when one finds a hill where natural slabs peel

from the bedrock, the best choice is to use them as the efficient building blocks

that they are. This concern of 'architectural familiarity' is not a practical approach

to the site. I think the interesting thing about Mystery Hill is that it does not look

like a European or American astronomical site.

Astronomically aligned sites in Europe, such as Stonehenge and Callanish,

are laid out in geometric patterns. Stonehenge and Callanish exhibit circles and

Mystery Hill -- 28

straight lines defined by well placed standing stones. Mystery Hill shows no such

arrangement; it is a jumble of stones where the 'diagnostic' standing stones are not

arranged around a symmetrical circumference or perimeter. Instead, stone walls

crisscross and outline the site, and the proposed astro markers seem to be

recruited whenever their position satisfies a researcher's need for a marker near

that position. In addition, if one is to align stones with astronomical events at

MH, such as solstice sun risings and settings, one must continually shift position

around the site, and stand, squat, or stretch on the toes to somehow align the sun

with the stone (assuming you are standing on the backsight line (see Figure 1 as

an example). Finally, to locate some site center from which the very alignments

must find their existence, the site operators had to propose an unusual double-

center arrangement -- one site center ten feet north of the other, with the

alignments divided asymmetrically between the two. It is difficult to understand

why our colonizers, who have the skill to make a great sea voyage and survive a

new land with close to no possessions or applicable subsistence technology,

would then cap the voyage off with a structure that bore little similarity to their

traditional ritual architecture -- and one that did not follow a logical design.

Finally, Spicket Hill, only a few miles from Mystery Hill, offers a better vantage

point from which to view an unobstructed horizon were our travelers concerned

with making an astronomical observation site. By 1985 the top of this hill was

still wooded; no one has discovered a “temple” site there I know of; I have

wandered the hill top myself and found nothing unusual.

A close examination of the MH site and its context in the European

megalithic tradition does not support the 'trans-Atlantic' school of thought. There

is a small circle of people who recognize this and favor the 'Aboriginal'

hypothesis. This hypothesis states that Northeastern American Indians

constructed the MH site for ritual purposes, and that this practice may be either an

Mystery Hill -- 29

extension of general Amerindian ritualistic, astronomically aligned constructions

or an independent, northeastern Amerindian development.

The layout of MH should also be considered in the 'Aboriginal' hypothesis.

Though North American Indians did not build astronomically aligned sites in the

form of European sites, archaeologists have identified some regularly laid out

sites, such as the 'medicine wheels' of the south west Cornell:1981:168ff). Even

these simple structures evidence a symmetry and design that has no relation to

MH. It may be that MH is as poorly planned for Indian rituals as it is for those

of the ancient Europeans.

The Material Evidence of the Originators

Once again, let us set aside the above discussions and evaluate our candidate

cultures against the point of 'material evidence.' As archaeological investigators

we must ask our selves this question: what are the consequences, in terms of

artifactual remains, of claiming Celtic, Viking, Phoenician, etc., origins for MH?

No doubt, if the builders stayed long enough to build and use the site, certain

kinds and quantities of remains should be evident.

Take, for example, pottery sherds. Pre-industrial cultures produce large

quantities of pottery for storage, cooking, and display. A ceramic pot is a fragile

object, and even when it is not broken, absorption of cooking oils necessitates its

frequent replacement. But if a pot is a fragile artifact, once it has been broken its

fragments are relatively indestructible and tend to accumulate rapidly near a site.

Secondly, we should expect to find broken or lost tools, personal ornaments,

and perhaps ritual ornaments at a site that has taken time to build. What of

funerary remains? Most societies generate corpses, and in complex societies

Mystery Hill -- 30

(Phoenician, Celtic, Viking, for instance), these corpses are ritually interred and

marked off.

All arguments contrary to a transatlantic or ritual basis for MH would be

easily falsified if sound material evidence existed. But no matter how hard we

look, there are no bronze axes, Celtic torcs, or even shreds of ancient pottery that

surely would have accompanied any lengthy occupation of Indians or ancient

Europeans. If such have been found at the site, the evidence has not been

described and analyzed professionally.

Of course, we may say that these people did not live at the site, just carried

out ritual there, and they may not have buried their dead there. These are valid

claims, although megalithic monuments in Europe are often associated with some

form of ritual interment -- for those who compare MH with European

monuments. And I am surprised that, if a sizable settlement once existed near the

site, a few artifacts have not surfaced over the years, or references to them.

Certainly Indian artifacts find their way into private collections; often they find

their way to flea markets like the beautifully chipped, obsidian lance heads I once

saw at a Pennsylvania market. If New England was host to a thriving, pre-

Columbian, trans-Atlantic population, which some authors appear to claim, then

private and public collections of their diagnostic artifacts are interestingly absent.

Alleged Textual Artifacts at the Site

Textual artifacts are related to material artifacts. Perhaps the most

sensationalized aspects of New England's 'enigmatic' ruins are claims that Celtic

'ogam' inscriptions have been found. Former marine biologist and self-

proclaimed ‘epigraphic’ expert Barry Fell has ‘translated’ some of these

inscriptions and claims they refer to personal names and gods. Let us examine

Mystery Hill -- 31

the 1) media, 2) graphemes, and 3) content of the texts and compare them against

European inscriptions.

[Note: June 2001 -- the late Celticist, Professor Brendan O’Hehir, has extensively critiqued Fell’s work in an unpublished manuscript (possibly dated between 1989 and 1991), “Barry Fell’s West Virginia Fraud.” Hopefully this valuable study will become publicly accessible. but after the author’s death in 1991, the manuscript has ‘fallen between the cracks’. In 1995 I contacted the author’s close colleagues to make them aware of the ms. (I sent them a copy), but I am unaware of any effort to publish the work. By chance I found his son’s address in June 2001 and also mailed him a copy of the study with the hope he might see the ms. to print. ]

Ogam Graphemes

As shown in Figure 2, the ogam consonant graphemes were generally

formed of linear components, probably for ease of chiseling. The vowels were

represented by either pecked out 'dots' or short bars carved along a centerline.

Ogam was normally carved on the edges of squared stone pillars, with the sharp

edges serving as the centerline along which the alphabet was carved. Because

erosion first affects such sharp, exposed surfaces, and because the ogam vowels

are carved on the centerline -- the corner of the pillar stone -- vowels are often

blurred in surviving ogam stones (Lehman:1975:116). One will note that the

ogam letters were named after various trees, perhaps as a way of mneumonicizing

the alphabet.

Ogam Inscription Contents

Ogam inscriptions in Europe are mostly inscriptions of ownership. Most of

them read like the following example: “Dofeti Maqqi Cattini,” or "(the stone of)

Mystery Hill -- 32

Dofet the son of Cattin" (Lehman:1975:17). As such they may serve as territorial

markers since graves are unassociated with them.

The oral/literary tradition of Ireland supplies some information as well. The

heroes in the sagas often carve ogam on a hobbling device (a hoop of wood) or on

a stick and leave them at boundary demarcators like fords (Kinsella: 1969: 263).

The animal hobble is used as a symbolic restriction of human movement. An

example follows; Queen Medb of Connacht has just come upon her warriors, who

are waiting at a ford in the river -- one of the borders of the tribe she is attacking:

"Why are you waiting here?" [says Medb]"We are waiting here because of this spancel-hoop," Fergus said.

"There is an ogam message on the peg. It says: 'Come no further unless you have a man who can make a hoop like this with one hand out of one piece. I exclude my friend Fergus.' It is clear Cuchulainn did this," said Fergus...If you ignore this challenge and pass by, the fury of the man who cut that ogam will reach you even if you are under protection, or locked in your homes" (Kinsella: 1969: 70-1).

And later in the epic, the hero performs a similar ritual:

Cuchulainn went around the armies until he reached Ath Gabla. There he cut out a tree-fork with a single stroke of his sword and stuck it in the middle of the stream, so that a chariot would have no room to pass it on either side...[the attacking army comes to the ford and]...One of their men read out the ogam on the side of the fork: that it was single man who had thrown the fork, using one hand, and that they mustn't go past until one of them -- not Fergus -- did the same, single-handed (Kinsella: 1969: 73).

We also see the ogam being used in the familiar way that it exists in the

archaeological record. A warrior has just been killed by Cuchulainn:

Cladair a fert iarum; satir a liae; scribthair a ainm n-oguim; agair a gubae (Strachan:1944:33).

His grave is dug afterward; his stone is fixed; his name is written in ogam; his lamentation is celebrated. (My translation).

Mystery Hill -- 33

Thus we can see how folklore depicts the use of ogam, both practically and

fancifully. However, both depictions of the use ogam are shown in their border-

demarcation function (see Tarzia:1984 [now 1987], for a more complete

discussion of boundary definition in Celtic society). This leads to an interesting

point undiscussed, as far as I know, by scholars. Recall that ogam script was

named after species of trees. Consider also that tradition and translation assigns a

territorial/ownership function to ogam. The historical tracts mention the use of

"trees/shrubs of various species" as being used to mark tribal borders

(O'Rian:1972). Perhaps we can tenuously relate this fact to the tree-names of the

script and to its evident function in Celtic society.

New England Ogam

The ogam carvings claimed to be of New World origin show a very vague

resemblance to traditional ogam: usually we must stretch the imagination to “see”

this ogam. Also, most cases of claimed New World ‘ogam’ is not constrained

along an upright stone pillar but rather is carved on a flat surface of a stone. For

example, Figure 3 is a reproduction of rock striations that Barry Fell claims to be

ogam*, Fell translates them as "alas--guy, son of h". Presumably, the dash

represents some missing component of the proper name 'Alas--guy'? A

transcription of this might roughly be "Alas--guy Maqq H." The word 'maqq'

might be alternatively spelled 'macc, maqq' according to the spelling system used

by the scribe, or 'mapp/mabb,' according to the form of Celtic used: P or Q-Celtic.

P-Celtic was predominantly a continental dialect or British dialect

(Lehman:1975:98). See Lehman's text for a transliteration of this example into

the original ogam. Variants are supplied since vowels are spelled differently in

old Celtic languages according to the date and other linguistic circumstances.

Mystery Hill -- 34

[ June 2001 note to replace the pasted-in hand-drawing-- from memory, the stone is flat and oblong, looks to be naturally eroded into a smooth rounded shape, is about an inch thick, 6 to 8 inches wide, and 9 to 12 inches long. The ‘ogam’ appears as dull, shallow scratches or abrasions in the flat surface, difficult to see without the white chalk or paint outlining them ].

Now let us observe Barry Fell's carving. Of course, it is difficult to know

from which end the carving is meant to read since it does not come from an

upright stone. If the carving was very regular, we might divine the bottom of the

carving by noting the form of the characters (much like we would know how to

position words carved in modern English characters). However, the rough form

of the characters makes this difficult. Moreover, the graphemes themselves do

not differentiate very well between what might be shorter vowel symbols and the

longer consonant symbols. Using the ogam guide provided above, and assuming

Mystery Hill -- 35

the 'bottom' of the carving is at the two longest components, we can transliterate

to the following phonemes -- and to be fair to the possibilities, I will provide

several possible permutations that the roughness of the graphemes necessitates

(see Figure 4 for ogam transliteration):

Perspective 1: long notches assumed to be bottom

1) g h a b h --- 2) g h m b h --- 3) g h h a b h --- 4) m m h m b h

Perspective 2: long notches assumed to be top:

1) b h a b d --- 2) b h m b h h --- 3) b h a b g --- 4) b h a b h h --- 5) b h m b g

As shown, the attempt to translate Fell's ogam text results in a confusing

conglomeration of phonemes. Perspective 1:2, g h m b h, or grouping them, gh

mb h, does result in a butchered, near unintelligible rendition of perhaps "Guy

son of H" -- if we attempt to transliterate without vowels and if we group the

graphemes together conveniently. We must also ignore the two scratches off to

the side of the carving, since they are not constrained to a centerline. Note that

Celtic ogam does not usually omit vowels except where weathering has eroded

the corner of the pillar stone. Even this version results only if we stretch to the

breaking point our transliteration of the striations.

In this case I think we have glacial striations or other natural features of

erosion or fracturing. We might search through the forest and translate many

boulders, all the time stretching our definition of what ogam might look like until

we have discovered a Celtic Declaration of Independence strewn across New

England. More seriously, if the above ogam carving is similar to its fellows in

other collections and publications, then we need not make the possibility of New

England ogam a primary concern.

Mystery Hill -- 36

Indian Artifacts

Aside from artifacts of Europe, we might expect to find aboriginal evidence

at MH. The few Indian artifacts found at the site -- a woodland style pot, a

possible few fragments of stone tools (nothing diagnostic) -- cannot argue for a

strong Indian occupation. The existence of Indian artifacts on the site comes as

no surprise, since Indians have lived in the Eastern Hemisphere for possibly as

long as 20,000 years (see Adovasio and Carlisle:1984, and Adovasio, et al:1983).

Colonial-Era Artifacts

It is also not surprising to find a profusion of colonial-era artifacts at MH

that attest to the origins of at least the chambers and walls of the site. And oddly

enough, the most obvious explanation for these components of MH is the least

expounded. Gary Vecelius's archaeological report on MH (1955) is not often

quoted by those who support a trans-Atlantic theory of the site -- though the fact

that he once did good, detailed work at the site is a fact often brought up by these

same people. This is understandable, since the attention invested in the site by

this professional archaeologist tends to legitimize its importance. However, much

argument would be saved if close attention was invested into his site report. I

speak in particular of Vecelius's important findings in conjunction with the odd

"Y" cavern:

...as we took up the rocks, one by one, a considerable number of artifacts were found in situ (Fig. 7; Plate IV, C [author's note: not supplied in this report]). In our opinion, these artifacts, by virtue of their position within the wall, constitute incontrovertible evidence of its age, and, in view of the fact that the wall itself seems to form an integral part of the Cavern as a

Mystery Hill -- 37

whole, we feel that they date the entire structure. These objects -- brick fragments, potsherds, nails, and chunks of a plaster-like substance -- can in every case be matched with other specimens from Pattee's cellar. There can be no question but that they date from the early nineteenth or very late eighteenth century (Vecelius:30).

More recently, I was present during the summer of 1984 when some minor

restorative work was being done to one of the chambers. Since several large

stones had to be put back into place, it was agreed that the work allowed a rare

chance to sift the fill behind the careening wall for artifacts that might have fallen

there during the construction of the site. This proceeded with open expectations

-- and produced a small array of colonial-period sherds and a more modern

bottlecap! This minor work only confirms Vecelius's findings. So too do the

large number of colonial-to-recent artifacts that were surface-scatters and still

remain largely unstudied in the site’s storage boxes and on the ground.

Material and Historical Evidence from Other Sites

John R. Cole, of the 1980 University of Massachusetts Archaeological field

school, conducted a survey of stone chambers in Massachusetts. He reports:

No evidence was found to suggest that [Massachusetts megalithic] structures preceded historic settlement. The popular assertion that they are stylistically similar to pre-Columbian Old World structures may be true, but they are also stylistically and technologically similar to unquestioned 19th century constructions which employed mortarless masonry, slab and cobble raw materials, and corbelled vaults in foundations, mill works, pounds, drains, canals, and bridges (Cole:1982:53).

Giovanna Neudorfer of Vermont's State Historical Society conducted a

detailed, three-year study of similar sites in Vermont. In her book, Vermont

Stone Chambers, she states "[The] stone chambers in Vermont are a local

response to local environmental conditions (Neudorfer:1979:61)." This

Mystery Hill -- 38

conclusion is in keeping with Cole's findings, which see the Massachusetts

chambers as "artifacts of a short-lived adaptational experiment...their technology

did not persist, and one must conclude that these stone chambers represent a

truncated adaptive style, technology and lifeway" (Cole:54). This lifeway may

have been the "regional expression of the root crop revolution of the later

eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries" (Dincauze:1983:5). The chambers

could well serve as temperature regulated storage cells for such vegetables (Ibid).

Clearly, the material evidence from these sites suggests nothing to support a

sensational origin. Yet "every archaeologist who has worked on American

'Megalith' claims has probably been accused of perfidy at one time or another,

when results turned out not to support exotic claims" (Cole:38). Such an

approach to science would not benefit Mystery Hill.

Summary of the Chronological and Artifactual Evidence

All of the cultures can be eliminated as candidates if we make use of the

1200 BC date and if we insist MH is a ritual site. For the purposes of argument I

included the 1200 BC radiocarbon date as a factor -- mainly to show that this

date, upon which many enthusiasts hang their arguments, invalidates some of the

cultures they like to claim as MH builders. Without this factor -- and I think we

may safely eliminate the charcoal sample as being important -- we are left with

aboriginal culture and post-Columbian culture (post-Columbian colonial culture

must be eliminated if we still insist MH is ritualistic). These are the only cultures

that cannot be entirely eliminated on the basis of social structure or artifactual

remains. And the Indian connection is itself tenuous.

In closing, the work of Vecelius and of others working within a modern

anthropological framework do not support the idea that the main site (the

Mystery Hill -- 39

chambers) are of an unusual origin or explainable through sensational hypotheses

such as Druidic or Phoenician involvement. True, they are anomalous in regard

to the run-of-the-mill colonial and post-colonial architecture of New England --

and the chambers continue to remain as potent reminders of the range of

individual behavior in the archaeological record and its affect on broad

archaeological interpretations. Thus the owners are correct -- even obliged -- to

continue to present the site to the public as a noteworthy feature of New

England's historical culture-scape.

However, I have not discussed the most talked-about feature of the site --

the so-called 'standing stones.' The parameters of this analysis still apply to them;

in other words a European, Old World, or 'ancient astronaut' basis for the

standing stones is not supportable at this time. But we are still left with colonials

and Indians as the likely builders for these seemingly odd features. The

remainder of this paper will focus on these two possibilities. I begin by asking

whether the standing stones mean anything at all.

The Problem of the Standing Stones

It is the burden of anyone who supports a ritual basis for MH to prove that

the standing stones are not features which, among the other stones of the walls,

meant to keep in the sheep rather than keeping out evil spirits! If the site was

configured along the lines of proven astronomical monuments, such as

Stonehenge, Callanish, etc., I would not need to say this. Such sites immediately

strike one's eye -- they are not functional habitation or subsistence features, yet

their builders expended inordinate amounts of energy to set them up impressively.

They were constructed to be evident astronomical and ritualistic markers.

Mystery Hill -- 40

Mystery Hill, on the other hand, has stimulated so much controversy that it

is evident that it is not evidently anything! Perhaps this controversy would have

been less had the site's stones been larger and more regular, not low and irregular,

and if they had been part of precise site geometries, not uneven ones. The fact is,

most ritual sites bear marks of evident rituality. Size, method of construction,

geometry, and decoration are some of the markers of rituality; serious researchers

must ask themselves why MH shares in few of these definitions. The following

sections of this report examines each of these factors.

The Form of the Standing Stones

A study of the form of the standing stones addresses one of the major points

cited by interested laypeople. What sets MH apart from the usual stone walls and

root cellars of New England is the degree to which large slabs are incorporated

into the constructions. It is often stoutly expounded that New England farmers

simply did not construct stone walls of this kind. The "odd" stone walls also

incorporate some slabs that, in many people's eyes, evidence purposeful shaping

by human hands.

I might devise a hypothesis to test the ritual/nonritual bases of the site by

examining the consequences of each possibility. For example: If colonial or

post-colonial farmers built Mystery Hill, then we will not find evidence of

purposeful shaping of stone slabs -- they would save time and energy by using

natural, stable slabs as uprights, and laying all others within the stone walls. I

could also state this in the reverse: If ancient Europeans or Indians built Mystery

Hill for ritual purposes, then the components of the site should evidence

regularity and symmetry to signal the rituality of the site -- thus the builders

would be inclined to choose natural slabs of close dimensions, or to fashion

Mystery Hill -- 41

natural slabs into regular components. Since it is unlikely to find regularized

natural slabs, the fabrication of slabs into site components is the most likely

consequence of rituality.

We can test either of these hypotheses by examining slabs in a natural state

and comparing them with the form of the uprights to see if the uprights are

natural or fabricated. I will discuss below how the shapes of the standing stones

come as no surprise; similarly, we may find that a farmer could have a good

reason to incorporate heavy slabs in his walls.

Availability and Form of Materials

Slabs are a naturally occurring building material at MH. The hill is like a

laminated dome. Layers of metamorphic rock exfoliate from the surface like the

layers of an onion. As a result, the builder has a quantity of large slabs with

which to build. Thus it comes as no surprise that there are dozens of slabs within

the stone walls, as well as the more familiar glacially shaped and deposited

boulders.

Given the fact that slabs are abundant natural features of the hill, we must

ask, "Are the slabs that form the cultural component of the hill in a natural or

fabricated form?" Since many of the slabs incorporated into the chambers and

stone walls are relatively square at their base-- and thus somewhat stable when set

upright -- and since many of the standing stones are 'pointy' at the top, it is

sometimes claimed that someone dressed the stones. The conclusion that is

implied is this: a farmer would not spend time shaping slabs of stone for his stone

walls, and, therefore, the constructions must have been made by other builders for

another, perhaps ritualistic, function -- the hypothesis we must test.

Mystery Hill -- 42

A survey of naturally occurring slabs that lie on the site's eastern slope

helps test the hypothesis. Here, many slabs of stone are breaking from the

bedrock and are sliding downslope, often hastened by the growth of trees whose

roots exploit the cracks and drive a wedge between slabs and bedrock. There is

general tendency for the slabs to break off from the bedrock along their long axis

(i.e., they appear to move "sideways" down slope). The fractures on the uphill

(or fresh) side tend to be thick and often "square edged" (i.e., could form a stable

base as a "standing stone"). The downhill, "leading" edges tend to be wedge-

shaped and often fractured. The fractures are often characterized by 'cupped'

depressions that mimic the concavities of small stone tools. In addition the

concavities often alternate sides along the edge of the slab, i.e., a foot or so of the

edge is slanted toward one side of the slab, and then a foot or so is slanted toward

the other side.

These characteristics arise from erosion. The leading edges of the slabs are

often thinner (and perhaps more susceptible to fracturing) because downhill

erosion has smoothed the bedrock (see Figure 5). The trailing edges are thicker

and straighter by comparison because of the relative freshness of the breaks.

Slabs that have moved a distance from their fracture points are difficult to

comment upon. Gravity and weather have shifted them from their positions, and

the relationships between their thicker, straighter sides with their fracture points

has been lost. We can assume that these slabs originated in a way similar to their

relatives, which are still in the process of breakage and downslope travel. See

Figure 6 for some diagrams of the slabs from this part of the hill.

Mystery Hill -- 43

Many slabs have about four or five sides. Notably so, many of the slabs are

elongated and often 'pointy' towards one end (see Figure 6 above). It becomes

increasingly clear that the standing stones on the site resemble the natural slabs

laying close to their provenance. The ideally square, stable bases that supposedly

characterize the standing stones are natural features. If it is found that a higher

percentage of the standing stones have stable bases, it is simply probable that the

builder of the walls selected the stablest natural slabs in the vicinity of his

construction.

The features noted above are notable only because similar features at the

site are sometimes cited as the work of human hands. All such features result

probably from the unequal structural characteristics that arise from erosional

variations. Even a cursory observation of the natural slabs shows similar features

already in existence or in the process of appearing; the possibility of purposeful

shaping by humans is not likely.

We may also examine ritual/nonritual possibilities by noting the unequal

forms of the standing stones. Some of them, the "February 1 sun set stone," for

example, are barely tall enough to form a recognizable astronomical marker.

Others, such as the "winter solstice stone," are ideal markers because they are

“pointier” at the top and stand out better from the fieldstone walls. If the builders

Mystery Hill -- 44

were concerned with astronomical alignments, why did they not select/fabricate

equally impressive and functional markers for their rituals?

The slabs incorporated into the stone walls offer additional evidence. One

may hear that New England farmers did not use slabs within their stone walls.

The fact that MH offers somewhat divergent building material -- natural slabs --

is often not considered in these claims. Also never considered is the form of the

slabs that are laid horizontally -- a great many -- in the walls. I performed a

simple survey of one wall on the site.

Approximately 50 percent of the large, horizontal slabs (the sample

included only those of a minimum 4 inch thickness and 3 foot length) in the walls

were characterized by "sharp" edges -- edges that could not possibly have offered

a stable base, even if propped upon other stones. The remaining horizontal stones

have either one significant side with a 90 plus/minus degree base (optimally

stable) or a base with a roughly 70 degree angle -- one which I considered stable

when matched with a slope in the ground or when propped upon "filler" stones.

If one does not include the latter type within the "stable" definition, then, at a

conservative estimate, only thirty percent or less of the horizontal slabs can form

a stable, upright component of a stone wall.

We are left with the conclusion that the builder of the walls selected the

stablest slabs for upright placement. Slabs of doubtful stability were laid

horizontally, and when the walls headed down slope, the slabs were cambered

horizontally, relative to the slope, to prevent slippage. Thus the slabs were used

quite sensibly, and, quite to the contrary of popular belief, a farmer may well

have chosen to set upright slabs in his wall -- to save himself time and energy by

using one large slab to take the place of many small boulders. A large, stable slab

may offer enhanced stability throughout seasonal temperature changes. As

anyone knows who has skinned an ankle while walking on stone walls, the

Mystery Hill -- 45

boulders are often precariously balanced. Frost heaves can and do tumble

portions of a stone wall -- an event common enough for Robert Frost to

immortalize in a poem. Using a stable slab in place of many small boulders is

simply capitalizing on simplifying a construction, which makes it more reliable.

Perhaps it is surprising that more slabs were not given the chance of having

a squared-off edge or that uniformity among the standing stones was not

maintained, since the slabs actually modify quite readily with the aid of a 40 or so

pound boulder thrown from overhead. Yet, this is not evident at the site. In fact,

the slab forming a wall for the "chamber of the lost souls" (not my designation)

has an uneven edge made more stable with small "filler" stones. One might

expect that this component, which supports a quite heavy roof slab, would have

been treated with more care if the builders had tended to fashion the stones -- but

evidently the time and energy involved in such shaping was not considered

useful. The builders of the site have saved time and energy whenever possible --

this fact extends to the use of reasonably stable, natural building materials that are

peculiar to Mystery Hill.

For proponents of Mystery Hill's possible ritual function, the 'least energy

investment' hypothesis is important. The relative ease with which slab material

can be found and processed at MH is at odds with the site's generally random lay

out. The extra time and energy expenditure required to 1) lay out the site

symmetrically and 2) choose or fabricate equally impressive/

symmetrical/functional standing stones would not have been extraordinary. If

ancient Indians or Europeans built the site, they sacrificed a feasible site-

symmetry that characterizes astronomical sites the world over; a ritual basis for

MH is not supported.

In closing this section, some mention must be made of a 'quarry site' that

researchers have examined away from the main site. A large slab rests upon a

Mystery Hill -- 46

smaller stone, presumably for the purpose of making the shaping of the stone

easier (Stewart-Smith:1982:2). At first glance this feature does look conspicuous,

especially since several flakes lay before and under the slab as if thy had been

knocked off. However, a tree appears to have sent its root to lever the stone

upward, and the appearance of purposeful lifting upon the base stone may be a

deceptive one. In addition the edge-wear of the slab appears to be natural, i.e., it

is far too sharp, as if the 'quarriers' were fashioning a stone knife ten feet long!

My experience with slab-bashing makes me uneasy -- modification of slabs with a

heavy 'throwing hammer' proposed by the quarry site researcher does not tend to

produce such a uniform, sharp edge. My assessment is that this 'quarry site' is a

‘trick’ by nature on sincerely curious humans. Other quarry sites are claimed to

exist at MH. I have not seen them, although descriptions make me believe these

others are simply zones where natural slabs have been pulled from exfoliating

bedrock by gravity, freeze-thaw action, and root action.

The Distribution of the Standing Stones

I have examined naturally and 'culturally' occurring slabs and have found no

evidence of purposeful modification. Now it is time to consider the larger picture

-- the distribution of individual standing stones throughout the site. As noted

earlier, the standing stones are components of rather ordinary stone walls. The

stone walls themselves delineate 1) a large area around the top of the hill, 2)

several smaller fields within the larger boundary, and 3) what appears to be a lane

or wide path across the hill top. These features are in keeping with other

stonewalls in the New England region, except for the number of slabs used.

The site is often thought of as once having been used for astronomical

rituals, stripped of the stone walls, with the lone upright slabs and chambers

Mystery Hill -- 47

remaining on a bare, grassy hilltop (a 3D model reconstruction in the tourist

lodge suggests the effect). Presumably the later colonials built the house

foundation and the stone walls. I wish to stress again two points: 1) the roads and

fields delineated at MH appear completely logical -- or at least in keeping with

other features that do not conjure any mention or ‘alternative’ theories, and 2) the

standing stones of note are components in these walls. Thus if we are to assume

that colonials built the walls between the standing stones, then we must assume

the farmer(s) delineated property by constraining themselves to lines drawn

between standing stones. The farmers were, then, very lucky fellows to have

found a hill where someone had set up standing stones that corresponded to the

field layout the farmers required for property demarcation and subsistence! It

must have saved them time to take the ancient advice and simply string

troublesome stones between the standing stones.

This picture appears ludicrous, and it does not support a ritual basis very

well. Of course, we may stretch our imaginations to devise explanations for the

apparently silly formulation -- but this is scientifically inefficient. The simplest

explanation is this: postColumbian colonials built MH from scratch. The natural

building materials -- slabs and boulders -- were moved into the stone walls. And

when the slabs were stable enough, they were used as uprights as described

above.

But there are those alignments. How do we explain them? I do so by

remaining with the simplest hypothesis and assuming the standing stones were set

there by colonials. More importantly any alignments we find do certainly exist --

but they are meaningless in regard to ritual function.

Therefore my hypothesis is this: that alignments between standing stones

and astronomical events are quite real but exist only because upright stones

roughly distributed along a north south axis -- that is, perpendicular to the ecliptic

Mystery Hill -- 48

-- will naturally align to the events and appear to define an astronomically aligned

'site.' If you chose the backsight to these upright stones, you can also “choose”

your alignments. I outline a method for testing this hypothesis below.

The Case for Random Alignments

Here I address the chance for random astronomical alignments. Previous

researchers in Britain have also been plagued by possibilities of error and random

alignments (see Hitching:1977:158, Cornell:1981:57ff), and I think this is the

most important question that can be asked about Mystery Hill. This part of my

research may dismay those who have devoted large amounts of time to the

astronomical theories of the site. But we must not use devotion and investment of

resources as an excuse to avoid a fundamental question: why does Mystery Hill

not look like an astronomical site? -- that is, why must we use our imagination to

'see' the site?

If Mystery Hill were a regularly dimensioned site of 1) standard-sized

standing stones, 2) 'filled' alignment positions, and 3) consistently distanced

features (from a center), then many scholars would be less inclined to picture the

site as a random scatter of slabs set in mundane stone walls. Instead, the site is 1)

composed of various-sized 'markers' -- a mix of slabs and boulders of various

sizes, 2) composed of some tentative alignments, some of which are not really

marked by an obvious stone (such as the 'November 1/Lunar Minor North'

alignment), and 3) composed of so-called astronomical markers that, if their

matrix stone walls were stripped from them, along with tourist trails, signs, and

the observation tower, they would appear to be an asymmetric scatter of slabs and

boulders. This is in contrast with less questionable astronomical sites whose

design is regular and purposeful relative to natural features.

Mystery Hill -- 49

The Requirements of Ritual

For perspective let us discuss aspects of human ritual behavior before

returning to the subject of the form of the site. Rituals are defined by Rappaport

(1971:62) as behavior composed of conventional moves or postures, performed at

regular intervals (calendrically, or on specific occasions), affective value, and are

non-instrumental. Rappaport sees rituals as "transducers" which transmit, among

other things, information from one cultural subsystem to another (Rappaport:61).

If a communication is to be effective, it must be distinguishable from ordinary

communication -- instrumental communication that serves practical, 'every day'

needs but not ritual needs. Thus, the more "bizarre" the ritual posturing is, the

more easily it is recognized as ritual (Rappaport:63). This aspect of ritual

communication shares fundamental requirements with information transfer in the

most basic sense as defined by the Theory of Information (see Campbell:1982).

Now let us apply this definition to monumental structures.

The "bizarreness" to which Rappaport refers is a fundamental in symbolic

behavior, of which some megalithic sites are a part. Rappaport speaks of ritual in

its human context: particularly, of its manifestation in tribal courting dances. But

ritual posturing is in effect permanently solidified in megalithic 'temples', which

are unusual, impressive features relative to natural features or instrumental

cultural features (practical structures like houses, barns, and kilns). Further, the

characteristics of other ritualistic artifacts defined by anthropologists -- status

paraphernalia -- are useful in identifying rituality in monuments. To be symbolic,

to be impressive, to function as an object of religious beliefs and rituals, an

artifact should be characterized by A) an impressive investment of time and

resources and/or B) an impressive, peculiar form (Binford:1983:228, and

Mystery Hill -- 50

Haselgrove:1982:82). Such things as headdresses made from feathers of exotic

birds, 'voodoo' masks, the Egyptian and South American pyramids, and

megalithic monuments are all symbolic artifacts and all share in one or both

aspects of the 'bizarre' definition.

Ritual Requirements and Mystery Hill

We are constrained by theory and by precedence to define a ritual

monument as one recognizable from natural features and from cultural features,

that, however, do not function directly toward supporting basic life functions

according to Rappaport's definition (a 'voodoo' mask does not directly support a

life function: it is ritualistic; a scythe, however, allows food to be efficiently

harvested to fuel the human body and is non-ritualistic). In addition a ritual

monument must be characterized by bizarreness in form and/or energy

investment. Were we to test a hypothesis stating that MH was a ritual

construction we would have to test it against the consequences of rituality defined

above -- and we would have to falsify that hypothesis, for Mystery Hill does not

readily fall into the definition.

MH does not look like a ritual site possibly because its diagnostic features,

the standing slabs, were placed in their positions randomly in relation to

important azimuths. For example, assume that the hill-top was once littered with

naturally occurring slabs; assume further that a farmer needed to clear the field as

farmers all over New England had to do. This farmer was a practical fellow -- he

didn't want to work more than he had to -- so as he cleared his fields and built his

walls from the troublesome debris, he stood many slabs upright as a way to save

himself time, as discussed earlier.

Mystery Hill -- 51

Since so many upright slabs exist, we can arrive at the site and draw

astronomical-event-lines (azimuth lines) through the slab and into the center of

the field. Thus a random scatter of slabs around the perimeter of the farmer's

property would offer curious observers the chance to 'discover' astronomical

alignments if they stood at a certain point in the field from which he could

observe the primary astro-events (sun rising and setting) over several of the tall

stones along the fields perimeter. In this case we have no obvious backsight or

observation platform where we would know where to stand to observe these

events (as at MH). Let me stress again that the observer must find that point in

the field where she can view, ideally, many or all of the primary solstice or lunar

events. A person might, if he were very lucky, accidentally discover this point

while wandering the field during the midwinter sun rise, let us say. Curiosity

piqued, he might remain at that spot until sunset and view the setting of the sun

over another stone on the other side of the field. Of course, this is unlikely.

What is more likely to happen is that the observer would become curious seeing

the odd standing stones in the stone walls, then go home, draw a map of the field,

and use a compass to calculate field alignment, then solve an alignment equation

(see Aveni:1980:120ff). Then she would find that azimuth lines drawn between

events and standing stones sometimes cross in close proximity -- and close to that

point one could view several of the astro events taking place over the stones. As

at MH, not all of the lines from all of the stones converge at a convenient central

point -- but the fact that many of them do is enough, and he is excited at having

discovered an astronomical site.

Figure 7 schematizes this possibility in a simple way. In the drawing I have

delineated a generic field site as a simple rectangle with the longest sides directed

to north and south -- an approximation of Mystery Hill. I distributed 11 points

randomly around the perimeter that represent standing stones in a stone wall

Mystery Hill -- 52

matrix. I used a computer graphics program to create 'azimuth' lines for a

hypothetical winter solstice sunset and sunrise at that latitude. The computer

duplicated these lines precisely (i.e., at precise angles) and I could move them

around the field area and line them up with the standing stones. In this simple

model there are already some random alignments between two stones: line A.

Line C and B come close to aligning. Thus it could seem to a worker who has

solstice azimuths for that latitude at hand that these stones are markers and

backsights -- when they are nothing more than random alignments.

As a better comparison to MH, assume we are made curious by these

possibilities, and since no clear 'site center' exists, we look for a point near the

center of the field where several alignments might culminate (of course, the

center of the field is a definition biased by the placement of the colonial-era

stonewalls, which may make us find a center to a 'later version' of the site). We

are also assuming that an observation platform might have been destroyed over

the years (i.e., the site’s “stone robber” argument stemming from supposed

quarrying activity). After plotting all the stones on sunset and sunrise azimuths,

we find several places where one can stand and view both events marked by

Mystery Hill -- 53

separate stones. These points are where the azimuth lines cross in the drawing.

We are faced by many site centers, certainly. To narrow down the possibilities,

we might find that point which also aligns to a standing stone in the north of the

site -- assuming that the ancients 'calibrated' their site to true north. A point

exists, labeled point C, where both solstice events can be viewed over separate

markers, and where the point also aligns to a true north stone.

In this example not all of the stones fall on convenient azimuth/site center

lines. What of these? Perhaps they are alignments that we have not yet

calculated. Perhaps they are nonaligned stones with some other mysterious ritual

function. Perhaps the farmer who owned this land took them from other aligned

positions in order to build his stone wall. ‘Of course,’ says our theorist, ‘there is

a lack of symmetry to the solstice-observation site, but so what? Colonials

certainly did not set up slabs in their walls, so this site must be ritualistic. No

doubt ancient Europeans built the site for solstice observations!’ In the end we

can rationalize site anomalies in several ways and leave ourselves the possibility

that we have 'discovered' an astronomically aligned site. I think that this situation

can arise from a random distribution of upright slabs in a stone wall.

The above example is a quick, simple demonstration. It is a scheme of what

may be happening at MH, where there are 1) many standing stones, some which

align nicely between events and an observation point that has been inferred, 2)

curious asymmetries in site layout, and 3) stones that do not align with events.

To test the 'random' possibility we must simply make the above situation simulate

more closely the scope of the MH site.

What we do when we examine MH for alignments is try to define

backsights or site centers since no material site center exists. We can discover

astronomical alignments by 1) first finding possible markers in sight of the

horizon where an astro-event would occur and 2) if the horizon does not offer a

Mystery Hill -- 54

notch or peak on the horizon as a marker, we must look 'backwards' for an

observation point or 'back sight' (see Figure 8).

Random Alignments

I oversimplified the situation outlined above in order to introduce this new

method of studying Mystery Hill. Obviously, the case for random alignments

must rest on an important factor -- the relationship between the perimeter of the

site and the number of suitable slabs that could function as astronomical markers.

The more densely packed is the area, the more of a chance exists for random

alignments to delineate a site center or to provide individual backsights. What we

must do is look at the site to decide if enough standing stones exists to provide

coincidental alignments.

We may analyze the case for random alignments best by 1) simulating the

general configuration of the site's stone walls and 2) superimposing it with a grid

system for plotting random points. The random points will be the standing stones

in the quantity that is presently existent at the site. For example, about 100 large

or standing-type stones are marked on the site map. Let us assume that these are

peculiar stones out of place in the standard New England stone-wall type and

possibly of a ritual purpose. We must then randomly plot a hundred points in a

grid composed of blank points equally spaced that correspond to the stone wall

layout -- for standing stones at MH are predominantly found in the stone walls.

The points must be numbered, and a hundred random numbers corresponding to

100 standing stones must be generated. The random numbers are then matched

with the grid points to form a MH with 'new' standing stone arrangements.

The invariable factors in this study are, of course, the azimuths of certain

astronomical events for a given epoch. Let us assume for the moment that the

Mystery Hill -- 55

azimuths calculated for MH are correct for an epoch (i.e., “1200 BC”) that has

been selected with sound archaeological reasoning. If we can draw lines through

the azimuths of the astronomical events and the standing stones, and if these lines

all culminate at some central point or if single alignments culminate at a second

marker (a platform or second standing stone), then we can justify the site as an

astronomical one.

Results of the Total Point Scatter: 100 Points

A colleague generated 100 random numbers on a computer. They are

presented in Appendix A. I chose 100 points for this first experiment because the

published site map of MH marks about 100 major slabs and boulders; I took this

number as the quantity of stones likely to have been dragged from the field and

set up as markers. Possibly these represent the best (in form and stability) of the

stones for upright placement. There is a fault in this approach, which I discuss in

the next section.

I used graph paper to set up a coordinate system and placed the random

points as shown in Figure 9. Figure 10 shows these points connected for the two

solstices, and I indicate 28 paired or tripled alignments. In other words, the

azimuths for both solstices (rise and set) passed through two or more simulated

standing stones for a total of 28 possible alignments. In several places one can

notice where the symbols of each alignment overlap -- this means that some

points that function as backsights for one alignment azimuth are also backsights

for other astronomical events. We might think of such points as possible 'site

centers.' The point that is a backsight for the most events could be the most likely

site center (but what to do with the other less likely “alignments” would remain a

problem!). If this center falls near some other site feature, such as a foundation

Mystery Hill -- 56

or slab chamber, we might be further willing to claim this point as the center of

an astronomically aligned site -- as has been done as MH. In addition, some of

these centers have standing stones due north of them or due east -- for true north

or equinox alignments. Such evidence might add further to our definition of the

center.

Though these results are interesting, the scatter field does not adequately

represent an MH-type site. For the standing stones at MH are predominantly

features of matrix stones walls; since the uprights are constrained linearly, (thus,

to a small overall area) this probably changes the chance for alignments in some

way. I used the square grid discussed below as a better model.

Figure A [note 1/2007: seems to be damaged after transferring between various

systems over the years; I believe it once was a MacDraw file] -- Simple

illustration of a random-scatter experiment. The square box symbolizes a field

defined by a stone wall. The grid marks represent the average width of “standing

stones.” The black circles are stones randomly inserted into the grid through

Mystery Hill -- 57

some random-number method. Thus the schematic represents a thought-

experiment: “What if a patch of land had a number of unusually sized stones

among all the other stones, and a farmer used both typical and unusual stones

when making the stone-wall around his property. Let us assume he inserted the

unusual stones without knowing or caring that they might or might NOT align

with astronomical events if he stood somewhere in the center of his field and

sighted over the stones. Given this situation, what is the chance that I could

“discover” by wandering the field that some point existed in the field that could

form a back sight from which one or more astronomical events could be viewed?”

If I found one point where several astronomical events could be viewed from over

the standing stones, then we might be tempted to say the stones were part of an

ritual astronomically aligned site. Or we might say that enough large stones

existed in the area that it is highly probable that we could find such points in any

field built with that kind of material, and that the alignments are a chance. Such a

possibility is enhanced when we find that some, even many, of the unusually

large stones do not seem to align with any known, culturally significant,

astronomical event. In a nutshell, this is my test for the significance of the

alignments at Mystery Hill.

Random Scatter Constrained to Simulated Walls: 65 Points

An example of the 'book keeping' grids is supplied in Figure 11. These

were computer-generated, then cut-and-pasted over the lines representing the

stone walls. This is an 'idealized model' of Mystery Hill -- a rectangular

perimeter crossed by internal 'walls' perpendicularly (see a reduced configuration

of the square grid in Figure 11). Such a grid serves as a generic site-layout and

aids a researcher in quickly finding and plotting points to test this method.

Mystery Hill -- 58

To accommodate my eyesight and my simple tools, I selected grid

increments of about 1/8 of an inch. The schematized layout of the stone walls on

which the increments are placed approximates the scale of the site: about 50 feet

to the inch. Thus my grid allows me to place a standing stone every 1/8 inch, that

is, about every 6 feet. A more precise study of this kind would use a closer

increment. However, since I am using these points for drawing backsight lines

and not as targets for simulated transit sightings, the large scale does not greatly

affect this experiment. I discuss a more precise method later in the paper.

The 'generic grid' is an attempt to conveniently simulate a site that is

defined by a stone wall perimeter and crisscrossed by internal walls. This

approximates the situation of MH, though MH is considerably more asymmetric.

I chose 65 points for this and following simulations because in several

walks around the site I could not identify more than 65 major slabs that are

standing upright in, leaning from, or fallen out of the stone wall matrix. I used

this definition for a 'standing stone': slabs 1) with at least one stable base, 2) at

least two feet wide, 3) at least three feet tall, and 4) with only their broad side

parallel with the matrix wall (maximally visible to an observer standing roughly

in the center of the site). In addition there are about 45 stones slabs that are lying

horizontally on top of the stone walls; others are buried within them. [Note

1/2007: I have digital photos I can e-mail on request] I did not consider such

stones. Former MH researchers include some large boulders as markers, and in

one instance include a boulder that is overlain by smaller stones in a wall (feature

"E5" in the 1985-current tourist map); I do not define such stones as markers no

matter how they may align. I assigned random points to the grid by using the

table of random numbers supplied in Thomas (1976:428ff, Table A.2).

Since it is difficult to plot clearly at this level of detail, I plotted each

alignment separately on the square grid. In other words, I made one plot for each

Mystery Hill -- 59

astronomical event. I correlated all the plots by overlaying each plot with a

transparent grid on which I could mark where each backsight line extended. I

completed two such plots: one in which the grid extended downward (south) from

a 'true north' standing stone (as has been done at MH), and one to the left (west)

of this area, but unmarked by a north stone for an alternate sample. I could use

this record on following grids. The result is a record of the zones where each

backsight line crossed. The incremented zones represent about 100 square feet,

or a square ten feet to a side -- which is similar to the accuracy of the MH plot in

which two observation points are defined, one falling ten feet north of the other.

Of course, this is only a small sample of the possible 'site centers' that could exist

in the middle of the grid. Thus the results are conservative.

The results (Figure 12) show that a point of 5 or 6 possible alignments

existed for one column of plots, and two 4-alignment zones also existed.

Numerous 0, 1, 2, and 3-alignment zones also existed. For the column beneath

the north standing stone there was a possibility of 7 possible alignments

(including the north stone); two 4-alignment zones exist, and numerous 0, 1, 2,

and 3-alignment zones exist (Since the medium is cumbersome, only a sample

plotting grid is provided in Appendix B; the others may be viewed upon request.

The refined random-study method outlined below is directed at improving the

reproduction of primary test results from original data sheets).

Discussion of the Random Point Model

What does it all mean? The several plots, representing various ways of

representing an astronomically aligned site, show that standing stones randomly

placed throughout a small field or throughout the walls defining a small field can

appear to define an astronomically aligned site. It means that we must be very

Mystery Hill -- 60

careful in claiming that a peculiar feature of a site represents a purposeful, ritual

arrangement. This is especially true when little other supporting evidence exists.

It would be difficult to reproduce a Stonehenge, or Callanish, or medicine wheel

arrangement by the random-point method used here. However, I have come near

to reproducing Mystery-Hill-like alignments with the random method. Certainly

this is an important point.

It is important to realize that certain weaknesses in the site's features allow

such comparisons to be made. In particular the fact that former researchers had to

rely on an awkward twin-site-center arrangement in order to find their alignments

throws doubt on the site. If the site was laid out with a central observation point,

why must we move ten feet between centers to find alignments? It seems here

that the site was made to fit the hypothesis. One hears at times that this had to be

done since the terrain did not suit all the alignments. But builders of astro-sites

usually find good terrain for their sites -- and there are other hills within a few

miles of MH that are either higher or provide a good view of the horizon.

Additionally the alignment markers for both centers appear both around the main

perimeter and in walls that cross the main site relatively close to the centers -- and

in no observable pattern. Some markers are not there, some alignments fall

amidst a small grouping of slabs, and some markers are not slabs, but are

boulders and in one case a corbelled chamber. My point is that there is little

system to this arrangement.

Astronomical sites less questionable than MH also have many stones and

can suffer from a random alignment problem. But such sites are at least

recognizable as purposeful, ritual structures because of A) their 'bizarre' and/or

systematic form and B) energy investment in relation to instrumental

constructions like fortresses, livestock enclosures, and smaller habitations. They

are recognizable as such because of an evident symmetry. Even if you had the

Mystery Hill -- 61

permission and resources to string New England-type stonewalls around and

between features in Callanish, Stonehenge, and the medicine wheels, you could

probably easily disentangle the ritual structures from the mundane ones. But this

is simply not true for Mystery Hill and other 'enigmatic' structures in New

England. The difficulty and emotion we experience in trying to prove these NE

sites to be ritual -- let alone astronomically aligned -- is a measure of how

plausible such ideas really are.

I conclude this experiment conservatively: my results do throw into question

the claimed astronomical alignments at Mystery Hill. However, my method must

be honed sharper and replicated before doubts can be seen to be proven facts.

The method needs to be more precise, more easily replicable, and closer to the

specific circumstances. In particular I would like to account for the size of the

standing stones. For example, if the stones that mark the alignments appear to be

larger than the so far unaligned stones, then the possibility for randomness in the

claimed alignments is reduced. With this refinement should come a recheck of

the claimed alignments by a professional surveyor. A new set of alignment

azimuths should also be computer-calculated to complement a survey. These are

important aspects for astronomical theories and require repeatable results and

insurance against errors by previous workers. What I have so far presented is a

method and some tentative results that demand further substantiation and support.

I discuss ways to improve accuracy below in more detail.

Improved Random Grid Analysis

[ June 2001 note -- many of the problems I note below are today solvable by advanced computer-graphics packages not available to me in 1985. ]

Mystery Hill -- 62

The goal of an improved random grid analysis is tripartite: 1) to improve the

precision of scale, 2) to facilitate replicability, and 3) to facilitate reproducibility

in report form. These points are explained below.

The current level of precision is hampered by the need to use easily visible

grids for placing the points generated from a computer or taken from a random

number table. The large grids present a confusing array of useless information

after plotting. This problem can be remedied with a percentile-based plotting

system. The percent-chance for a standing stone to occupy a given 'slot' in a

stone wall is calculated, and a series of random numbers is generated on a

computer that will correspond to a 'binary' system of standing stone generation.

For example, let us use the 65 stone arrangement. Assume a standing stone

is at least two feet wide. Assume the perimeter of MH is 4000 feet. Thus there

are 2000 'slots' in the stone wall matrix that a typical standing stone could occupy

-- assuming, of course, that we do not allow standing stones to exist directly

behind each other (within touching distance) relative to an azimuth line drawn

from the approximate center of the simulated field. If 65 stones are to be

distributed throughout a possible 2000 slots, then there is a 3.2 percent chance a

stone would be dragged to that position by a farmer (for example) and set upright

(It would be desirable to account for nonrandom processes here, such as slab

availability plotted for designated zones over the hill top. Thus wall 'A' might be

expected to have more standing stones if the adjacent area produced more natural

slabs -- perhaps because of increased erosion in that zone -- than other areas. I do

not know whether this kind of precision is possible at the site).

Summary and Conclusion

Mystery Hill -- 63

I have examined Mystery Hill and falsified several of the more sensational

of the hypotheses that have been applied toward its origin. The slab and

corbelled chambers, although peculiar, probably represent 1) the sharing of a

general 18th agricultural/architectural innovation of New England, 2) the more

localized manifestation of the latter phenomenon through the local building

materials that occur naturally at MH, and 3) finally, the individual 'flavor' of the

person or family who built the site. Secondly, recent and not so recent

investigators collected a variety of colonial-era artifacts in direct relation to the

chambers -- these results serve to date the chambers most probably to the

postColumbian colonial period even without analogies to other sites.

For those theories that rely on direct analogy to European megalithic sites, I

have reviewed the consequences of rituals in ranked and egalitarian societies; I

found that a site of Mystery Hill's configuration simply does not fit what

European societies were accustomed to producing. Thus I falsified the European

basis for MH according to cultural parameters. Furthermore, the more specific

we get in our analogies, the more we can falsify -- if we review what the Celts,

Vikings, Phoenicians, etc., had built throughout their individual histories, the

picture of MH as a temple for any of these people becomes evermore unlikely.

I left the chambers of MH as colonial artifacts -- interesting in their own

right -- and considered the as yet undated 'standing stones.' I found that they do

not appear to have been shaped by humans -- only moved by humans.

Furthermore, the roughness of their form and distribution argues for a nonritual

use for them. More importantly, a random-point analysis produces a simulated

site-map from which -- if we did not know better -- we could 'discover' an

astronomically aligned site and justify it in a way similar to the process that has

been occurring at MH. More than anything else, this analysis sheds doubt on

Mystery Hill -- 64

alignment claims for the standing stones. This doubt demands that further

evaluations of this nature be made.

In the end we are left with a site with very little sensational basis. Even if

the standing stones remain 'enigmatic,' we are still left with a far simpler

hypotheses -- such as the aboriginal hypothesis. So far the popular literature has

stressed that only ancient Europeans -- read that as ancient whitefolk -- could

have produced MH. Yet such a view ignores entirely the culturally rich, native

Indian inhabitants of this continent; thus the transatlantic views have a faint odor

of racism about them.

I suggest that the following options remain: 1) that MH is a peculiar

colonial farmstead (highly likely), or 2) the site is colonial farmstead with an

aboriginal component -- the standing stones (not too likely). And either way, a

basic research strategy should apply:

1) Research at the site should be coordinated and focused: realistic

scientific goals must be formulated, a strategy for reaching them defined, and all

efforts focused on completing and professionally publishing the results. (See

Dincauze 1984 on the problems of inadequate hypothesis testing methods in

archaeology [note to self; work in this article don’t just mention it!]).

2) Further research should continue without the aid of excavation for the

present time. Until a professionally trained archaeologist with realistic time

and/or funding studies the site, amateur excavation can only lose evidence and

continue to earn MH a poor scientific reputation. This is not to say that all

research must cease. But research may be nondestructive and still provide

valuable insights.

Focusing the Goals

Mystery Hill -- 65

During my own experience at the site I have observed a fundamental

inefficiency: 1) the lack of well-thought hypothesis testing and 2) a lack of

focused cooperation for reaching research goals.

1) As for the importance of hypothesis testing, I shall quote Hole and Heizer

(1971:17):

The central idea behind "new" archeology was that one should establish and test hypotheses and that to do so requires the explicit statement of relationships between theory and archaeological data; that is, the setting up of an appropriate research design so that the results, like those from any good experiment, give definitive answers.

2) As for a lack of cooperation toward research goals, this is a guilt that I

have shared in -- and so I am well qualified to identify it and its effects. For

example, in my zeal to demonstrate a surface-scatter survey method on a portion

of the site, I defined an unrealistic time-frame in which to complete the work, and

considered myself able to complete the work alone. The only thing I

demonstrated was that even a scatter survey demands a considerable effort.

Furthermore, I required help in the project, which was unavailable, partially

because I did not ask in time, and partially because other researchers were off

doing their own projects -- for the most part single-handed like I was.

Time spent in formulating research goals and a research design to meet

them will in the long run be extremely beneficial for the site. So far the strategy

of "we're sure this is a Bronze Age site and we must dig up a bronze axe to show

it" is too shallow to be useful -- and it alienates the scientific community. A basic

goal should be the formulation and testing of reasonable hypotheses. When a

theory requires more imagination, fact interpretation, and emotion than another

theory, it is too complex, i.e., transatlantic theories. So far the most reasonable

hypothesis is the 'colonial' one, and it is the logical starting point. With the

Mystery Hill -- 66

burden of evidence on the colonial side, it makes far better sense to define in

great detail the colonial-era presence at the site before doing other work.

Testing the colonial hypothesis first need not exclude the evaluation of other

possibilities. Indeed, if results of research turn up material evidence or

deductions that do not support a colonial basis for the site, then the hypothesis is

at least partially falsifiable, which should lead to the next most plausible

hypothesis, such as the aboriginal one. The most important point here is that

reasonable research does not exclude any possibilities for MH -- it just

approaches the question of origins from the most reasonable standpoint.

A focused effort might logically begin with studying the surface-scatters

that have accumulated over the years and are yet to be found. Reconstructing

formally where these artifacts were found, what they are, and publishing the

results can go a long way to defining the cultural presence. And performing a

surface scatter survey (as that defined in Moir:1983:15ff) does not destroy the

site, does not require a huge work force, and requires minimal financial

investment. Yet the results of a nondestructive survey can help answer many

questions.

And even nondestructive tests must be reasonable to save time and money.

In 1986 I heard of plans to perform aerial infrared photography to survey the site

features nondestructively. However, I also heard mentioned the possibility of

"finding new chambers" with the infra-red photographs. Therefore it is possible

to use otherwise fine research methods along with an old 'research' philosophy.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the employees and part-owners of Mystery Hill (now called 'America's Stonehenge') for allowing me free rein in investigating the site -- even when many of my ideas went against their own. Thanks also goes to

Mystery Hill -- 67

Professors Dena Dincauze and John W. Cole (not to be confused with John R. Cole) for supplying information about modern surface-scatter survey techniques and for answering my questions about recent work in historical archaeology. However, let me stress that formulations in this paper are solely my responsibility. [ June 2001 note -- thanks to John R. Cole (not to be confused with John W. Cole!) who from 1988 onward has taught me much about pseudoscience movements and useful ways to think about them. ]

Bibliography

(Note: A few of the reference below were not cited in the discussion above; I inserted some over the years in anticipation of continuing this project.)

Adovasio, J.M., and Carlisle, R.C., "An Indian Hunters Camp for 20,000 Years," Scientific American, 250:5, pp. 130-136

Adovasio, J.M., Cushman, K., Stuckenrath, R., Gunn, J.D., Johnson, W.C., "Evidence from Meadowcroft Rockshelter," Early Man in the New World, edited by Richard Shotler Jr., Sage Publishing, Inc., 1983

Aveni, Anthony F., Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980

Balfour, M. C., County Folklore, edited by Northcote W. Thomas, London: David Nutt, 1904

Binford, Lewis R., In Pursuit of the Past, New York: Thames and Hudson, 1983

Campbell, James Graham, and Kidd, Dafydd, The Vikings, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1980

Campbell, Jeremy, Grammatical Man, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982

Cole, John R. (1978). "Barry Fell, America B.C., and a Cargo Cult in Archaeology." The Bulletin: The New York State Archaeological Association. Number 74 November. 1-10.

--- (1980). "Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory." Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 1-23.

--- (1982). "Western Massachusetts 'Monks Caves': 1979 University of Massachusetts Field Research." Man in the Northeast Number. 24, Fall. 37-70.

Cornell, James, The First Stargazers, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981

Mystery Hill -- 68

Creed, Robert P., "Beowulf as a Resource for Archaeologists: Hoarding Behavior and the Language of Hoarding," Medieval Archaeology Today, edited by Charles Redman, in press, 1986. [ June 2001 note -- now: "Beowulf and the Language of Hoarding." Medieval Archaeology. Ed. Charles L. Redman. Binghampton, NY: State University of New York at Binghampton. 1989:155-167.

Cross, T.P., and Slover, C.H., Ancient Irish Tales, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1936

Dincauze, Dena F., "An Introduction to the Archaeology in the Greater Boston Area," Archaeology of Eastern North America, 2:1, Spring 1974, pp. 39-67

---- (Neudorfer book review), XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

--- (1984). “An Archaeo-Logical Evaluation of the Case for Pre-Clovis Occupations.” Advances in World Archaeology. 3. Eds. F. Wendorf and A. E. Close. London: Academic Press. 275-323.

Evans, E. Estyn, Irish Folkways, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1957

Feder, Kenneth L. (1995). Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. Mountainview, CA: Mayfield. 2nd edition.

Fell, Barry, America BC, New York: Quadrangle, 1976

Flannery, Kent, "The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 3: 399-426, 1972

Fried, Morton, "On the Evolution of Social Stratification and the State," Culture in History, edited by Stanley Diamond, 1960, pp 713-731

--The Evolution of Political Society, New York: Random House, 1967

Friedman, Jonathan, "Tribes, States, and Transformations," Marxis Analysis and Social Anthropology, edited by M. Bloch, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1975, pp. 161-202

Gilbert, ??? (19??). [A History of North Salem, NH]

Godfrey, Laurie R., and John R. Cole. (1989?). "Picking a Bone with Philosophers of Science." Creation/Evolution XXV. 50-53.

Mystery Hill -- 69

Goodwin, William B., The Ruins of Greater Ireland in New England, Boston: Meador Press, 1946

Harold, F.B., and R.A. Eve, eds. (1987). Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudo-scientific Beliefs about the Past. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press

Hawkins, Gerald, Stonehenge Decoded, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1965

Haselgrove, Colin, "Wealth, Prestige, and Power: the Dynamics of the Late Iron Age Political Centralization in Southeast England," Ranking, Resource, and Exchange, Edited by Colin Renfrew and Stephen Shennan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 79-88

Haywood, Richard M., Ancient Greece and the Near East, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1968

Hitching, Francis, Earth Magic, New York: William Morrow & Co., 1977

Hole, Frank, and Heizer, Robert F., Prehistoric Archaeology, New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, 1977

Johnson, Gregory, "Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress," Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Colin Renfrew and Michael Rowlands, New York: Academic, 1982

Kinsella, Thomas, The Tain, Dublin: Dolmen Press, 1969

Klaeber, FR., editor and translator, Beowulf, Lexington: D. C. Heath & Co., 1950

Kristiansen, Kristian, "Formation of Tribal Systems in Later European Prehistory: Northern Europe, 4000-500 BC," Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Colin Renfrew and Michael J. Rowlands, New York: Academic, 1982

Lee, R. B., and Devore, I., editors, Khalahari Hunter Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976

Lee, R. B., The !Kung San: Men and Women in a Foraging Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979

Lehman, W. P., and R. P. M., An Introduction to Old Irish, New York: Modern Language Association, 1975

Mystery Hill -- 70

Moir, Randall W., "Method and Theory in the Study of Sheet Refuse," (Chapter 2 of:) Season 2: (1983) Mitigation of Historical Properties in the Richland Chambers Reservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties, Texas, Interim Report, Archeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, SMU

Moody, T. W., and Martin, F. X., editors, The Course of Irish History, Cork: The Mercier Press, 1967

Neudorfer, Giovanna, Vermont's Stonechambers: an Inquiry into Their Past, Montpelier: Vermont Historical Society, 1980

O’Hehir, Brendan. [nd: possibly between 1989 and 1991]. “Barry Fell’s West Virginia Fraud.” unpublished manuscript.

Raffel, Burton, translator, Beowulf, New York: Mentor, 1963

Rappaport, Roy, "Ritual, Sanctity, and Cybernetics," American Anthropologist, 73: 59-76, 1971

39) Renfrew, Colin, Approaches to Social Archaeology, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984

Renfrew, Colin, (Scientific American article), summary of his late 1970s work on “social archaeology.”

Sanders, William T., and Webster, David, "Unilinealism, Multilinealism, and the Evolution of Complex States," Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited by Charles Redman, New York: Academic Press, 1978

Severin, Timothy, The Brendan Voyage, New York: Avon, 1978

Stewart-Smith, David R., "Report on the Stone Quarry at Mystery Hill, North Salem, N.H.," Mystery Hill Research Department Files, September 1982

Strachan, John, editor, Stories from the Tain, Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1944

Tarzia, Wade, A Survey of Extra-Ghaeltacht Folklore, unpublished manuscript submitted as partial requirements toward M.A. degree during an independent study under Prof. George G. Carey, 1981; [ Note June 2001 -- constantly updated over the years, now titled: “Field Notes from Ireland: A Record and Annotation of Folklore Items Collected by the Author in Ireland during 1980, 1988, 1993, and 2004, including 1984 Collections of Richard J. Senghas.” Unpublished manuscript. 2007].

--- "Buried Treasure and Adaptive Mechanisms," Medieval Archaeology Today, edited by Charles Redman, in press, 1986a (June 2001 note -- ended up

Mystery Hill -- 71

being published as: "The Hoarding Ritual in Germanic Epic Tradition." The Journal of Folklore Research 26:2, 1989, 99-121.)

--- "The Lore of Ardkill and Around: The Nature of a Tradition," Keltica, in press, 1986b [ note June 2001: the journal folded before publication. ]

--- “Border Ritual in Irish Saga.” Unpublished ms. 1984. [ June 2001 note -- later published as: "No Trespassing: Border Defense in Táin Bó Cúailnge." Emania 3, 1987, 28-33.

Terry, Patricia, Poems of the Vikings, New York: Bobbs-Merril Co., 1969

Thomas, David H., Figuring Anthropology, New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, 1976

Thurneysen, Rudolph, A Grammar of Old Irish, Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1980

Vecelius, Gary, Mystery Hill Site Report Submitted to the Early Sites Association, 1955

Vigfusson, and Powell, Corpus Poeticum Boreale, New York:Russel and Russel, 1963

Williams, Stephen (1991). Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wobst, H. Martin, "Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange," University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers, 61: 317-342, 1977

Figure 1 -- Awkward sighting lines at Mystery Hill throw doubt on its astronomical purpose.

Figure 2 -- The Ogam alphabet (after Lehman:1975).

Figure 3 -- Purported New England ogam carvings translated by Barry Fell

Figure 4 -- Suggested ogam transliteration of Barry Fell's ogam text.

Figure 5 -- Downhill erosion is an ideal mechanism for making slabs.

Figure 6 -- Typical natural slabs found at Mystery Hill (off main site).

Figure 7 -- Demonstration of a random point analysis.

Figure 8 -- Typical kinds of backsights for astronomical complexes.

Mystery Hill -- 72

Figure 9 -- First Experiment: random scatter of 100 points, unconstrained.

Figure 10 -- Random 100 point scatter of 'standing stones' with sample 'azimuth' lines shows 28 paired alignments of stones.

Figure 11 -- Computer generated grid segment for random point book-keeping and the 'generic' site layout around which they were placed.

Figure 12 -- Results of the 65 point, linearly-constrained, scatter experiment shows areas of multiple alignment centers.

APPENDIX A -- Tables of Random Numbers

APPENDIX B -- PLOTS