Ancient ceremonial stone landscape in New Hampshire 

The Oley Hills site in Pennsylvania has similar stonework and that has been dated to 570 BP.

Indigenous Cairns look like the ones featured in the video. Some great resources to learn more about this kind of stonework are the books Manitou: The Sacred Landscape of New England's Native Civilization, Stone Prayers: Native American Constructions of the Eastern Seaboard, Ceremonial Stonework: The Enduring Native American Presence on the Land, and Spirits in Stone: The Secrets of Megalithic America. Other great books to check out are 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus and The First Frontier: The Forgotten History of Struggle, Savagery, & Endurance in Early America.

The issue here is demographics and intensity of the scale of land use. First, Byron and Jim in Manitou had a bad habit of assuming most of what stone work they found was Indigenous. (By the way, I knew both of them personally.) At Calendar 1 they argued much was Indigenous while it was later demonstrated to the Historic Euroamerican and abandoned C1870. At Calendar 2, many of the features were of Historic Origin. Of course, a lot of this unpublished because many of us hate running down someone else's research. The next problem is demographics. At max, the Pre European Indigenous population was only between 90,000 and 200,000, depending on who you want to listen to. I favor the latter number because of Gookin's post pandemic estimates of the population at 30,000 by his circulating among them for his missionary's work. In contrast, the Euroamerican population by 1775 was about 450,000 with still only 30,000 Indigenous peoples. By 1850, the Euroamerican population was just under 2,500,000. Thus the shear scale in available labor force is significant. Second, Land Use. The Indigenous peoples by 1500 had deforested between 10 to 20% of NE physical landscape through agroforestry. These included agricultural lands, deer pastures, nut orchards, wintering grounds, wet lands, maple orchards, and wild lands. There were very large areas of climax forest found in NE during the contact period. Each of these land use zones would have had 1 in use and 2 to 3 in fallow. An example of scale, 1 deer pasture I researched was 5 miles long by 2 wide. There were 4 other similar areas within 15 miles with 5 river bottom land clear zones as well covering several square miles each. While bountiful, the process to create these land use ones was time consuming, requiring the girdling of trees to burn them off with controlled fires. Further, the system was complex. Over use would later led to famine and the Indigenous peoples knew it. The cost of overuse dominates most of their folk lore. This plus moving to seasonal food sources, hunting, finding raw materials and turning them into usable products consumed large amounts of their time. Most of their more high profile 'marking of the land efforts' such as the stone fish weirs and their version of the Adena Hopewell Glacial Kame Burials seem to occurred around 4000 BP and largely stopped there after. This may have been to the increasing challenge of them maintaining their bounty through agroforestry. There is evidence that its success led to population pressures among them which led to their progressive experimentation with agriculture over the centuries. In contrast, by 1840, the Euromericans had defrosted 90% of New England through intensive agriculture. This was done largely through axes over 200 to 400 years. The population figure of 2,250,000 must be taken in conjunction with the statistic that 90% were farmers as there were few other viable lively hoods available. Most "Gentlemen" and craftsmen were part time farmers. Their population pressure was intense enough that they were even scratch plowing unsuitable lands for crops and clearing rocks from marginal pasture lands. An example of this is a hermit in Heath, Mass. tried turning rocky Mt. Pocumtuck into fields of Rye. I think he got 15 acres out of dozens of acres. Most farmers used fences to demark property boundaries (some in the weirdest places) and went to stone walls after their root fences rotted away after 10 to 20 years with stones being readily available. Many inner property walls were built to control the use of their 5 to 15 acre fields. Wood Lots of 10 to 20 acres were a requirement for every farm. Hogs were allowed to run free for free range grazing, so the walls kept them over grazing an lot. Thus the shear scale in the difference in intensity and impact of land use was significant. Now I do not agree with the argument the "Indians didn't build things out of stone because Indian's didn't build things out of stone". Turn that argument on its head and it sound pretty ethnocentric. Second, the "Indian" stone 'forts' of New Hampshire and stone fishing weirs of NH, Mass & CT argue otherwise. However, to argue that any give stone work is Indigenous needs more supportive evidence. Context is critical.

@@colgategilbert8067 I suggest reading Stone Prayers. Dr. Hoffman covers land use very well. A presentation by Dr. Hoffman ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pt3t79K6xoQ.html

They weren't random people, it was people paying respect to their ancestors that passed before them.

@@mysteriousmountains OK, let me re-phrase: the good construction suggest a single design which is not compatible with various people paying respects and adding to the piles progressively, over time. Maybe I misunderstand but you seem to be describing "donation piles" which look quite different from yours.

@@peterwaksman9179 Understand what you mean, from my understanding the smaller stones were placed honoring the ancestors. Seen the small donations pile there are a few in the video the larger features could be something else.