Double Circle of Stones Update

By Carol Hallas

   In the Winter 2003 Stonewatch I attempted to document all the information about and research history of the double stone circle, sometimes referred to as the tan bark mill, near the colonial foundation identified as the Adams dwelling.  This past spring I was able to sort through a number of photos and slides in the Gungywamp Society's collections.  I was attempting to sort photos and slides, but I was specifically looking for any images of the excavations of the stone circle.

   I am happy to report a fascinating discovery!  In a set of slides dated July, 1990 were photos of the mill excavation area.  This date agrees with the "one week field excavation" reported at the double stone circle by Jim Whittall and Dave Barron.  Stonewatch published a three paragraph note on the excavation in the Summer 1990 issue containing just a brief overview and no photos.  It concluded by stating that a formal report would be written by James Whittall.  Subsequence review of the next three years of Stonewatch newletters offered no further information.  The following is a copy of the Summer 1990 Stonewatch article:

RING OF STONES -- It is too early to announce any definitive findings, but a complete excavation (30' x 30') of the ledges and ground cover surrounding the double circle of stones, aka the "Tan Bark Mill," produced a number of exciting observations and newly revealed features.  It was discovered that the outer ring of twelve curved and dressed stones were each supported by backing stones and that, beneath all of these stones were flat shingles of palm sized wedges.  The soil profiles were clearly identified into three levels of recent topsoil, roots and compost, then a level of orange brown infill, and finally an ancient level of whitish tan infill.  Charcoal was taken from 23cm in the dep second level, well below forest fire and burning root sources.

   An area of jumbled and fractured stones was identified as the probable location of the 'dressing' of many of the stones used in the circle.  Many features showed prolonged exposure to intense fire, cupping of the ledge by fire, and additional charcoal.  Numerous stone cobbles, showing scarred and chipped ends, appeared throughout the area and strongly suggest their roles as hammer stones in the working of the dressed stones.  No signs of metal tools or tooling were found anywhere in the site, further confirming the impression that all work was done using primitive, but effective fire-water-stone combinations in the dressing process.

   A formal report on the excavation will be written by James Whittall of the Early Sites Research Society once the laboratory results and C14 datings have been accomplished.

  Jim Whittall mentioned a "hearth" in his 1991 ESRS Bulletin of the site.  He located this "hearth" to the east of the double ring of stones and stated, "a careful (sic) constructed 'hearth' was uncovered in a depression in the ledge."  Unfortunately, there is no sketch or photo of this feature in the ESRS Bulletin either.  Without removing the topsoil again in this area, it is difficult to say if his "hearth" is the bowl-like depression in the photo recently found in the Gungywamp Society’s collection.  This newly-discovered photo shows a "worked" area in the ledge, a "soup-bowl like" depression.  This photo, provided on page two, was never formally identified or described in the 1990 write-up in Stonewatch.

   The interesting thing is that the bowl-like depression in the photo/slide of July 1990 depicts what is almost certainly a pivot support for a mill of the type found in the Gungywamp and elsewhere.  The following photo is of a freestanding mill pivot stone from another site in Connecticut.  It is located in the University of Connecticut’s archaeological collection.

   The exact location of the mill pivot in the Gungywamp will have to be determined.  If it is within the double ring of stones it would indicate that the ring was without a doubt a crushing mill.  If it is located elsewhere on the ledge, it may indicate that either there were once two stone mill rings on the ledge or that the ring now present was located originally elsewhere on the same ledge.

   Stand by for further developments!

Gungywamp Remembrances

By Paulette Buchanan

   We live in a time and place in which commercial and residential development has taken over large portions of woodlands and former farmland.  Along with development have come loss of history, loss of natural areas, and more hustle and bustle of humans, their machines and their habitats.

   Some towns across the country are taking steps to prevent or slow down rampant development in their towns by establishing open spaces and by enforcing minimum acreage per housing lot.  These are good policies to enact, and it is these kinds of policies that will help to preserve places such as the Gungywamp lands for future generations to enjoy.

   Part of what makes the Gungywamp area enjoyable is the recollections of people who hiked its trails twenty or more years ago.  One such person is Diane Porter Dix.  Her daughter, Maia Porter, emailed the Gungywamp Society in July of this year to offer recollections of the Gungywamp area from the early 1980s.  Diane is the person we have on record who first noticed (c. 1980) the carving of the bird figure on one of the standing stones in the rows of standing stones in the Gungywamp.

   The Clarence Latham family once owned that part of the Gungywamp that is now owned by the YMCA.  An important member of the Latham family, Louise Leake, has cherished memories of hiking through the Gungywamp, exploring the cairns and Calendar chamber and enjoying the cranberry bog.  Clarence Latham often took family members young and old on his own tours of the Gungywamp, pointing out all the mysterious and interesting sites.  Louise remains active in making sure the Latham land stays open and that the sites therein are protected.  Currently, as previously reported in the Stonewatch, efforts are underway with the State of Connecticut to purchase the former Latham land from the YMCA so as to ensure that the land is preserved for future generations, as the Latham will stipulates.

   Mike Gardner and his extended family who live on North Gungywamp Road also have offered their memories of the Gungywamp from years gone by.  Mike, who works for Groton’s Parks and Recreation department, remembers well hiking through the Gungywamp woods as a child and marveling at the many cairns and the colonial stoneworks.  Mike still hikes through the Gungywamp at least two times a month.  In fact, it was by Latham Pond that Mike recently proposed marriage to his girlfriend Stephanie   Congratulations, Mike and Stephanie!

   Mike's aunt, Ruth Cowell Signs, also remembers her own hikes through the Gungywamp.  Her father and grandfather have lived around the Gungywamp lands since the early 1900s.  She and her parents and grandparents used to pick cranberries in the bogs around Latham Pond.  She and her family also remembers well exploring around the cairns and colonial rock structures, puzzling over the rows of standing stones, and hiding out in the Calendar Chamber.  In the 1950s, Ruth remembers seeing the large stone slab that used to cover the opening to the smaller chamber located just west of the Calendar Chamber.  Ruth can also recount that there were once plans underway to put in a cranberry bog farther up along North Gungywamp Road, and that even some work was done to construct dams.  But alas, those plans never came to fruition.

   On Ruth's family land sets a rather large millstone-like wheel, leaning partially upright on other stones.  It is approximately five feet across and eight inches thick, but with no hole in the middle, as would be typical for many millstones.  One explanation given to Ruth is that the stone may be Indian in origin and could represent the moon because it faces approximately east, where the moon rises.  Perhaps a more likely explanation may be that it was a millstone of a larger, more unusual type, or possibly a rolling damming stone that was intended to be used for the dams in the cranberrry bogs.

   Ruth has many happy memories of cranberry harvests in and around Latham Pond.  She also remembers the vast farmlands and woodlands surrounding the Gungywamp area, much of which was turned into Navy housing in the early 1960s.

   Both Mike and Ruth are very happy that their little corner of Groton, Connecticut has remained largely untouched by development.  We have the Latham Family, the YMCA, the Vogt and Cowell families, and many others to thank for their efforts to keep the Gungywamp lands and its important historical sites maintained and preserved.

Historic Preservation Status

   Vance Tiede has been working on gaining state recognition of the Gungywamp land’s historic and archaeological importance.  Unfortunately, Vance has had a full schedule and he has not yet been able to assemble a package for the State Historic Preservation Department regarding the Gungywamp.  However, Vance anticipates that his fall schedule may not be as busy and that he will attempt to assemble more information for this important step toward land and site preservation.

Thoughts About The Calendar Chamber

By Paulette Buchanan

   Controversy continues to swirl in all directions regarding the Gungywamp chambers and other chambers found throughout the northeastern United States.  Reportedly, there are about 400 such chambers, of various sizes and shapes scattered throughout New England alone.

   American Indians in New London County believe that their ancestors built the chambers in the Gungywamp.  Some people believe that the chambers and other sites in the Gungywamp are aligned with the pyramids at Giza and Stonehenge in England and therefore contain mystical energy lines.  Early Sites Research Society (ESRS) and others believe that a wide range of Europeans and/or Mediterranean sea peoples built the chambers and traversed throughout North America long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue.  ESRS has cited a Thompson, Connecticut chamber's charcoal pit with having a radiocarbon date of approximately 1200 AD to bolster their theory that Europeans arrived in North America centuries before Columbus.

   Europeans before and during Columbus' time were quite fascinated with the possibility of lands west of Europe.  The sixth century travels of St. Brendan the Navigator from the Celtic Isles were known in Columbus’ day, and contemporary maps often depicted -- somewhere in the Atlantic -- an island named after St. Brendan.  But Brendan's Navagatio is peppered throughout with fantasy, and it is difficult to discern truth from fancy.

   The Nordic Sagas also describe westward sailing odysseys, and parts of the Sagas' description of land masses in the northwestern Atlantic are quite accurate.  Afterall, the eleventh century Nordic settlement of L'anse aux Meadows in NewFoundland was found in part because of the descriptions in the Nordic legends.  But fantasy and legend interweave frequently among the geographic descriptions in the Sagas and so, as with Brendan's Navagatio, this source cannot be taken as complete truth either.

   Somewhere around 330 BC, an educated Greek named Pytheas sailed from present-day Marseille, France and journeyed around the British Isles and Denmark, and evidence seems to suggest he traveled as far west as the ice packs of Iceland.  Voyages, or tales of voyages, previous to Columbus do indicate that it was entirely possible for Europeans of various epochs to sail westward.  But the burning question remains:  Did they in fact accomplish landfall on mainland North America?

   What does this have to do with the Gungywamp's chambers, and all those other chambers scattered about in the northeastern United States?  Some would say plenty, since what records do exist of westward sailing ventures offer enough compelling evidence of pre-Columbian European contact in North America.  And surely, a radiocarbon date of 1200 AD in a Thompson chamber seems to support that theory.  But results from radiocarbon dating have to be taken cautiously because all sorts of factors can produce inaccurate and misleading conclusions.  These factors can range from mistaking roots burned in a natural forest fire for charcoal produced by man-made fire, to blatant tampering of samples to produce the desired "evidence."  In stating this, no accusations against specific individuals are being made; it's just the way things are in all aspects of archaeology.

   Traditional archaeologists insist that the chambers do not vary from known root cellar constructions in various parts of the United States and Canada. In fact, websites exist which depict how anyone can construct a root cellar, and these sites offer descriptions on all types of root cellars.  In all fairness, the samples of root cellars depicted on such websites do certainly bear a striking resemblance to the Gungywamp Calendar Chamber especially.

   It must be remembered that what evidence has been unearthed in the Gungywamp, particularly around the chamber sites, indicates colonial and post-colonial working sites.  There is a mill site just a short distance from the two intact chambers.  There is a stone enclosure also not too far from the mill site which seems to indicate that it was either a storage facility possibly or a drying area for tanned or dyed goods.  Could the chambers have also been constructed and used used for storage by colonial or post-colonial people?  As for the calendar feature in the one large chamber, it would not have been extraordinary for colonial builders to erect a chamber with a solar equinox feature; spring and fall seasons were very important to colonial people for planting and harvesting.  Of course, the same argument about the importance of the equinox could be made for eighth century AD Celtic monks, or Indians, or Phoenicians, or Norsemen, or . . . .

   Whatever explanations and theories abound about the chambers, the important thing to remember is that they should remain protected.  The equinox feature built into the large intact chamber we hope will remain a fascinating feature for many more generations to enjoy.

 

Possible Explanations of the Rows of Standing Stones

?????????????

By Carol Hallas

Photo by Charles Clough.

Row of Standing Stones, depicting the Eagle Effigy standing stone.  Two disjointed rows of standing stones exist in the Gungywamp, running roughly north and south.  The stone with the spread-winged eagle carved into it is approximately in the middle of the southernmost row of standing stones.

   One of the foremost problems in finding an explanation for the two rows of standing stones (see photo either in our Winter 2003 Stonewatch or in our photo gallery on our website, www.gungywamp.com) is that we have not been able to find a similar example.  In the Winter 2003 Stonewatch article on the double ring of stones we noted that we were able to find other such examples, one right here in Connecticut.  But as to the rows of standing stones, we do not know of any other example of this particular wall construction.  As far as is known, none of the New England Antiquities associations have reported anything with this type of construction.

   Qualified archaeologists have examined these walls (or at least have written about them as if they had personally examined them).  Frederic W. Warner, former chairman of Central Connecticut State University’s Anthropology Department, noted "The use of standing stones for walls is unusual but not unknown, either in this country or in Britain."  The then went on to describe an example in Pennsylvania (ASC Bulletin, #44). But the example Warner used shows the standing stones with their broadsides all facing outward and abutted right next to each other.  This does not at all bear any resemblance to the rows of standing stones in the Gungywamp.

   Now, when I received my degree (BS in Mathematics, UMASS-Lowell), Warner's example would have been dismissed as comparing apples to oranges because it is not an acceptable comparison.  Fortunately, Warner went on to admit "Certainly, we do not know as much as we would like to about the Gungywamp complex," and he recommended "CONTROLLED EXCAVATION," which is always a necessary component of research.  Warner finished by stating that without clear evidence, making "connections with exotic peoples or cultures is simply not good anthropology."

   Let me throw a little more mud in the water by mentioning that the Scandinavians would erect one or more upright stones to indicate a safe/best crossing place at a waterway.  Curiously, the two wall segments in the Gungywamp are west of and parallel to the place where we cross the swamp and stream when entering the complex with a tour group.

. . . And Yet Another Explanation . . .

By Paulette Buchanan

   Those two rows of standing stones are just so dang puzzling!  As noted in Carol's article, Warner just did not have it right when he used outward-facing upright flat stones to compare with the rows of standing stones in the Gungywamp.  And what explanation do we have for that eagle's head carving on one of the stones?  I offer the following musings as possible explanations:

   Okay, let's say that the colonial folks built the two rows of standing stones.  What we may now behold as we gaze perplexed at the rows of standing stones may be the skeletal remains of a traditional British-styled rock wall in which the standing stones were used as a support system for fieldstones.  This explanation is not too off-the-wall (forgive the pun!).  Farther down from the two rows of standing stones and on the same trail, but on the opposite side of that same trail, is another fieldstone rock wall.  Lo and behold, standing stones are found placed periodically within that same stone wall.  Just as with the two rows of standing stones, these standing stones are lined up with their broad sides back to front, not side to side.  However, the gaps between these standing stones set in the rock wall structure are larger than the approximate one to two-foot gaps between the standing stones in the two rows.

   But if the two rows of standing stones are nothing but a support system for a long since gone fieldstone wall, then what about that bird carving?  Why would someone carve a bird’s head and wings on a standing stone only to use that standing stone within a rock wall where the carving couldn't be seen?  If the two rows of standing stones really are nothing more than a support system for a colonial stone wall, then perhaps the bird carving was made on that flat standing stone before the wall builders ever even thought to use that stone for a rock wall.  Perhaps the standing stone was originally intended as some kind of marker (cemetery, property, whathaveyou).  Perhaps, the eagle-carved standing stone was a reject in some other project but its shape was just right to be used as a support standing stone in a colonial rock wall.  I've built rock walls since I was a teenager; I and other rock wall builders will tell you much the same -- you use whatever rock you can get to make a fit!

   So there it is -- the bottom line is . . . we STILL don't have a clue as to what purpose those two rows (possibly at one time one single row) of standing stones were used or who built them.