What Mr. Costello Is Reading Right Now: Jaylen Brown

In the last two years I've been involved with a regional conflict regarding Native American representation in Pioneer Valley. This has been my social justice initiative outside of my work as a teacher. Many of you may have come across biased articles in the local newspapers attempting to swing this matter in an inaccurate direction. I am stating here that this is not a matter of property rights, or "green energy," but a matter of civil rights. What is pasted below is a public record already in circulation. I invite your comments.

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 Town’s 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. Bruchac’s 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 Johnson’s 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 Nation’s 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.

Pelham’s 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 SWCA’s 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 SWCA’s 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 Pelham’s 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 1800’s, which is confirmed by the 1760’s 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.