Because of this, he used two references - earlier reports 1.) from Warren K. Moorehead in 1916, and 2.) from an college intern in 1931 named James Griffin. When I had my article published in the Pennsylvania Archaeologist in 2005, I proved his use of these references to be misinterpretations. For instance, Kent tries to make the argument that absolutely no embankments were found on top of Spanish Hill, when in fact Moorehead (whom he references) absolutely did say that they were there in 1916. I also go on to show that were in fact MANY references to the embankments that Kent excluded from his report.
Ellsworth Cowles and Dr. Kent had already met and clearly had differences of opinions - as you can see - Kent goes on to make a personal attack on Cowles, stating that he in fact was responsible for the continued "perpetuation" of a local myth... Rather Mr. Cowles knew this site and had been there when Moorehead and Griffin were there and was merely trying to set the records straight.
This was not the only mistakes that Dr. Kent and others would make that in the end stopped all preservation efforts in their tracks.
In 2005 - I was published in the Pennsylvania Archaeological Journal on this very information that I have provided here.
“Given the defensive character of Spanish Hill and reports of fortifications there, it seems a likely candidate as any for the fortified stronghold of Carantouan reported by Brule. Additional archaeological testing at Spanish Hill may one day answer the question of whether or not a Contact Era component exists at the site. Until more information is known, it seems imprudent to eliminate Spanish Hill as a possible site related to the nation of Carantouan, as some researchers have done (Kent 1984:300-301, McCracken 1984).” PA Archaeologist, Volume 75, 2, Fall 2005.