Facts About Destruction of Sacred Lands in Shutesbury, MA

Lake Street "Development" and Cinda Jones Ignore Science and Decency in Rape
of Burial and Sacred Site

Using a pay-for-service report from a development service company based in the

distant Southwest, a pair of Midwest extraction capitalists have come to the East to
tear down a forest in the name of "green energy." The sham report of the hired
surveyors, SWCA, ignores basic scientific standards, fails to apply tests of any kind,
and whitewashes the desecration of sacred lands.

Several very critical reviews of the hired report found deep flaws and lapses in
ethics. Those who hope to profit here also ignored objections from several
professional archaeologists as well as anthropologists and tribal representatives.

1 - Three lettered archaeologists visited the suspected burial and ceremonial site, called
Woscheke Winohket, and all three stated that the site deserves careful inspection for
human remains and tribal evaluation for ceremonial use. Two federally recognized tribes
requested to review the site. Nonetheless, the banker duo who wish to cut down the
forest and demolish sacred relics refuse to allow any Native Americans to review the site,
and refuse to perform any tests whatsoever for human remains.

2 - The secondary report submitted by SWCA to shore up their first, very substandard
report is no more than that - a shoring up of a bad report. There is a great deal wrong with
SWCA's rehashed report. To begin with, there is no science within. No tests capable of
differentiating a natural mound from a human burial are offered. Not even a conjectural
test to differentiate between natural and manmade features is offered. Only the
presumption of absence of human remains and sacred relics is offered.

3 - On pages 3-4 (7-8 SWCA) the Towns own reviewing archaeologist,

Johnson states: I was surprised by the limited number of photographs
in the report and the limited extent to which they illustrate the mound
features that the report discusses. This is especially important given the
restrictions on access to the property . . . . I also found that the
photographs that were included do not clearly illustrate the point that
the authors are trying to make." The Town reviewer then cites a host of
further missing evidence and information.

The town reviewer concludes: I recommend that these features be

reviewed by an individual who is part of a [Northeastern Algonquian]
Native American community and is qualified to assess TCPs. The
Special Permit conditions stipulate that this is the responsibility of the
applicant.
4 - None of the archaeological reports showing that the mounds at Woscheke Winohket
are similar to known burials of Contact-period Algonquian peoples are discussed by
SWCA - again. Heye's archaeological report and other reports cited to the SWCA by
myself and others are left ignored in this report. In simple words, SWCA is ducking valid
arguments and hiding from the truth. By failing to respond to contradictory studies,
SWCA is engaging openly in falsehood and cover-up.

5 - At no point did SWCA put any of their claims to any scientific test, whether physical
examination, chemical analysis, comparison of data for significant correlations, or any
form of systematic science acceptable to modern definitions of "science."

SWCA's report is based entirely on assumptions. SWCA has failed in two rounds to
perform any test to determine the nature of mounds and stone relics at Woscheke
Winohket, but nonetheless, they wish to give the green light to destruction of suspected
burials and sacred stone relics without any responsible testing.

6 - The SWCA report is chock full of factual errors, major omissions of fact and historic
record, citations abused by taking them entirely out of context and perverting the authors'
intended meanings, and attempts to obscure obvious facts by use of "smoke and mirrors."
SWCA cherry-picked outdated and disproven conjectures, presenting them here as
current and accepted. SWCA so abuses citations of researchers that they entirely reverse
the point the author was making.

SWCA even states openly that the prejudiced intent of their present report is to shore up
their first report. Because the "investigation" begins with a prejudiced intent, it is not
science; it is not an "investigation." Any scientific endeavor must not be engaged under
bias and pre-conclusion. A fundamental standard of science is that investigation must be
conducted without bias.

7 - Regarding bias, we should all keep at the forefront of understanding the fact that
SWCA is a service-for-hire group that rubber-stamps the needs of developers, who have a
selfish interest in circumventing restrictions on their desire for cash.

SWCA takes statements by Dr. Bruchac severely out of context and poses these as
evidence that there is little known about our people, the various Algonquians. To do this,
SWCA has reduced lengthy expositions by Dr. Bruchac to one sentence and even partial
sentences, in order to pervert her meaning. This is an abuse of the author and entirely
dishonest.

Margaret Bruchac would resent this abuse of her writing. Dr. Bruchac is indigenous and
has written extensively on the denialist attacks on Native history by revisionist
Euroamericans. One point of Dr. Bruchac's writing is that European revisionists have at
every turn attempted to minimize and even erase all record of indigenous persons in this
region. Dr. Bruchac's career has been based partly on recovery of suppressed heritage
and history.
If you read Dr. Bruchacs writing, she makes strong statements that Algonquian heritage
is under attack by biased denialism. Paula Steeves has addressed this issue as well, as
erasure.

[Notes: The DEDIC site, at South Sugarloaf, in ancient, and effectively erased from the
awareness of even the people who live next door to the site. This is just one of dozens of
such cases of "erasure" by the MHC and European propagandists. No public
interpretation is offered by MA, and no protection of the site was effected by MA, nor
has any body other than a private researcher published anything to the public about the
DEDIC site. Yet, as one of the earliest sites in the region (10,000+ years old), the
DEDIC site is enormously important. Such is the state of MA on Native culture and
heritage. The same is true across MA.]

8 - Cowls and the Joneses erased several groups of sacred stone works on Quaquatchu
(Brushy Mountain), and erased two rare plant populations in the same stroke. Then
they collected several millions in federal, state and private funds for conservation on
the same land. SWCA greases the wheels of such end-runs around legislation intended to
preserve historic heritage items and to protect threatened and endangered species.

9 - Section 2 of the SWCA report supports the case for THPO inspection and the claim
that the SWCA reports are both substandard. Pages 3-4 (7-8 of the report) Eric Johnsons
review discusses soil type at Woscheke Winohket. However, both cited surveys (1967
and 2006) are large-scale surveys that do not describe soil types specific to any particular
acreage, but are only general references for the predominant soil type on an intended
scale of interpretation in terms of miles, not acres. The maps used simply do not describe
soil specific to the site in question.

As well, recorded cemeteries of tribes that occupied various parts of Western

Massachusetts and their immediate neighbors are mostly located on soils that are
anomalous to those given by USGS surveys for their locations. For example,
Wissatinnewag (Wissatinoag) cemetery is located on a perched localized sand deposit
atop an otherwise bare basalt promontory. The surrounding areas are basalt and eroded
basalt with sand deposits. This is a recorded Pacomtuck/Nipmuck site, located some
miles from the villages that it served.

[Notes: Senasqua cemetery is also recorded at Croton Point, NY, in Maheakanneuk

territory, which tribe is recorded as occupying parts of Western MA, and of whom the
Stockbridge Mohican Nations official historic territorial map includes much of Berkshire
and parts of Western Franklin County. This cemetery is also located on soils anomalous
to the USGS soil type given for its location, which is confirmed on the ground by casual
observation.

Minisink cemetery in Montague, NJ, lies a couple of miles to the SW of the historic
Monsi capitol of Minisink, on a sand deposit hypothesized by Heye to have been
carted in from a nearby creek called Bena Kill. The soil in this cemetery, as noted, is
anomalous to its location and USGS survey soil maps for the location, and probably
anthropogenic, but in any case, anomalous and not knowable from USGS soil surveys.

Pelhams Neck cemetery, in SE Westchester County, NY, is recorded by early Dutch

officials and an archaeological site of record. Two burial mounds for Sanchemanuog are
recorded here, along with the names of the buried officials. The nearby cemetery is also
recorded, which lies again on soils anomalous to the surrounding area and which do not
appear of USGS soil maps for that location. Again, the soil used at the cemetery may be
the result of human hands.

Fort Pond, NY in the Corchaug territory, whose language is closely related to Nipmuck
and Narragansett, is a recorded location of 2 more burial mounds for Sanchemanuog,
recorded by both Dutch and English. Here, the nearby cemetery lies again on soil that
does not match its surroundings.]

10 - On Page 12 of SWCAs attempt to obscure the truth, there are misleading and
irrelevant statements about expected indigenous sites north of Lake Wyola. This area is
misstated at 4.5 miles from the proposed project, when it is actually closer, and such a
distance would not be unusually far for dead to be buried in any case. However, at the
south end of Wyola, Native American artifacts are recorded, which is considerably closer
to the proposal site than the north end, about half as far, and on the edge of the claimed 2-
mile no historic properties zone in SWCAs first report.

SWCA makes another false statement that there are no bodies of water near Woscheke
Winohket. There are several large streams nearby the proposal site. Several towns named
in the same originating Land Deeds of Hampshire County are located on streams no
larger than these, including Pacquoag and Pomptucksett, both within 10 miles
Sanakkamak (Shutesbury).

Villages and cemeteries are not normally located in the same place. Most recorded
cemeteries above are located at some distance from their villages.

[Notes: Several other cemeteries have been recorded in Westchester and Putnam
Counties, which are also located several miles from their respective historically recorded
villages, such as Kestabuinck and its cemetery, Canopus and its cemetery. The burial site
of Sachem Katonah and his wife Cantito is located several miles from their historic
village. The Pelhams Neck cemetery is several miles from the historic town of
Quarropas and the former town at Pelham.

Sacred stone sites, such a Wawanaquassik, recorded by the Dutch and whose name is
borne on the deed for the Wawanaquassik Patent, is recorded as a sacred site, located
several miles from the Pachami Maheakanneuk main village and from other known
villages. Wawanaquassik means many honoring stones, and is an example of
Algonquian sacred stone works recognized as such by State Archaeologist for Rhode
Island, Timothy Ives in his report for Northeast Anthropology. Dans Kammer is
another recorded sacred stone site, which has a recorded twin on the opposite side of the
Hudson a few miles from Wawanaquassik. Dans Kammer is a number of miles from any
recorded village. Dans Kammers' religious purpose and use is many times recorded in
historic records.

Thus, the actual historic record for known towns, cemeteries, and sacred stone sites
belonging to nations of Western Massachusetts into their NY territory are all separated by
several miles on average. The proposed project at Woscheke Winohket is less than 10
miles from recorded villages at Pomptucksett and Pacquoag, and there are
wawanaquassik in several locations within 2 miles of the proposal site. Keep in mind
that honoring stones or wawanaquassik are of historic record and are recognized by
the State Archaeologist of Rhode Island as Native American in origin, and by most
neighboring states. ]

11 - The SWCA claims in section 3 about land use by local nations are entirely
contradicted by the originating Land Deeds for Hampshire County (originally included
Franklin). In those deeds, numerous cases are given where cottinakeesh/cottinakeel are
freely shared with Colonists. These places and village sites had just been emptied by
genocide. Thus, they were available. The Native terms used mean plantation
lands. Local Algonquian land use terms segregate lands into 4 categories of usage,
which are defined by their terms and restricted to those purposes. There are
kottinakish/kottinakiil - farmland and fallow land. There is Ehenda mauwikenk, places
where hunting and fishing camps are made, and village sites (mauwe= cluster,
wikwam=house). There is Ehenda mawewink, places of ceremonial gathering
(maweminen=gather us). There is Ehenda tauwundin, which designates cemetery and
is given by Zeisberger as the translation, while he notes in his dictionary that the term
derives from the word for wilderness. Since one does not inhabit or trespass on the
cemetery, it is wilderness.

[Notes: "Ehenda" signifies a defined district or space with a defined use or property.
"Endalun towiyun" is the term used to address the deities of the cardinal directions, and
the term means "who has supervision of that specific space." "Enda" = specific space,
"ehenda" = specific space use type. When Col0nists introduced European iron mines,
they were termed "Ehenda sukaxsin hatte" or "place specifically used for finding black
stones." There are many other examples of "ehenda" used to mean a place with a specific
use, including even butter churn "place for making butter," ehenda putelaink. It's not a
matter of scale of space type that determines the meaning of "ehenda," but the fact that
the space has a specific use. Neither iron mines nor butter churns have alternate uses.
Ehenda tauwundin therefore means "cemetery" and only cemetery, without any other use.
Same goes for the other land types, one use and one use only. Ehenda always applies to a
space with only one use.]

Notably, the same land deeds very often demand reserved rights of entry for upland areas,
as well as demanding restrictions on activities of Colonists in the same hills and
ridges. This further supports their segregated land use and the special status of these
upland sacred sites.
The terms used in the region for these land use types demonstrate that their uses are
segregated and the terms correlate to their separated locations in the historic and
archaeological record. This fact has been presented by the author at the 2017 Annual
Conference of the American Society for Ethnohistory, and the combined Annual
Conference of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Archaeological Society of
Connecticut, and Massachusetts Archaeological Society.

[Notes: The SWCA report fails to mention the many satellite towns that surround the
largest villages in the mid-CT Valley, such as Skakeat, Peskeompskut, Corroheagan,
Pacquoag, Mattampash, Suchow Noycoy, Pacomtuck, Wunnaquecksett, Pompstucksett,
Towanucksett, Quaboag, Chicopi, and others. It should be noted the sett or sit most
often applies to the location of a village, like Hassanamessit, Massachusett, Mattapoisett.
Skut is a variation on sett found among Apenaki and Maheakanneuk, like Penobscot,
and tuck is a common village name, as in Webatuck, Wnahktituk, Naugatuck and so
on.]

12 - The Land Deeds For Hamsphire County name 8-9 times more towns than SWCA
gives in their report, a gross error on the part of SWCA.

13 - The Shutesbury Town Master Plan cites of the MHC that only 1 in 300 Native
American sites in MA are believed to be recorded in the MHC database (Scenic and
Historic Resources section), meaning that SWCA has only a 1 in 300 chance of being
correct in their assumption of no historic site, as based on the MHC database.

14 - The very outdated population estimate cited by SWCA on page 13 gives no date for
their estimate, no area the estimate supposedly covers, and does not even define whether
their estimate is per village or for the whole mid-CT Valley region. Contrastingly, Driver
and Massey (University of Chicago, 1996) give an estimate of 20,000+ for the mid-CT
Valley population at the time of contact with Europeans.

15 - All 3 maps shown by SWCA on pages 16-17 show that Woscheke Winohket
remained wooded (trees even drawn all over the site), roadless and uninhabited through
the 1800s, which is confirmed by the 1760s map submitted by plaintiffs to the federal
district court in this case. In the 3rd map, the road and houses shown in the inset are
located outside Shutesbury, in Leverett. The portion in Shutesbury contains but one lane
leading to one house, which house lies at the northern edge of the Wheelock Tract, near
Reed Road, seemingly outside Woscheke Winohket and the proposal site. All the maps
confirm plaintiffs claim that the site is historically unpopulated and not clearcut.

16 - The cemetery and sacred stone landscape at Woscheke Winohket match the soil,
locational, topographic and cultural features of recorded cemeteries of local tribes in the
area. The SWCA report spins quite a few false statements and fails to address a large
body of archaeological record that completely refutes SWCA's claims.
The standards of science, law and decency have all been attacked by a sham process that
serves big money. The extraction capitalists who came halfway across the nation to cut
down a forest in the name of "green energy" have orchestrated a "Wizard of Oz" show to
obscure every pertinent fact of this crime against humanity. In fact, the United Nations
High Council on Human Rights has condemned exactly the acts committed by Lake
Street "Development" and Cinda Jones, with the help of Shutesbury town officials, all
who intend to divide the profits of this fake "green energy" project.