OXFORD — A University of Alabama archaeologist has released a report stating a pile of stones in Oxford was created by natural forces and not American Indians centuries ago — a report written two months after he signed another report stating the opposite.

Robert Clouse, director of the Office of Archaeological Research at the University of Alabama and director of the University of Alabama Museums, mailed the second report on the mound behind the Oxford Exchange to The Star at a reporter’s request.

The report cites different geologic surveys of the area and other American Indian archaeological excavations for comparison. Clouse is not a geologist, though he says he minored in geology as an undergraduate student.

The report states the mound is a natural formation and is not culturally significant.

The stone mound became the center of a dispute last summer, which ended with the City of Oxford backing away from plans to level the mound and use dirt beneath it for fill at a nearby construction site. City officials have repeatedly stated the mound was not man-made. They also later claimed they had not touched the mound, a claim contradicted by pictures contained in Clouse’s second report which show heavy equipment dismantling it.

The second report concluding the mound was natural was produced in July during the thick of the controversy over the site which began in June. The first report, which said the site was significant, was produced in April.

In a Tuesday e-mail to the Star, Clouse stated the controversy had nothing to do with his change in opinion on the stone mound.

“No individual or department or any other entity from the City of Oxford or the contractors ever asked us to change our results or interpretation from the earlier report, nor would I have changed my interpretation if I truly felt there was any potential for human remains or that the feature was a cultural one,” Clouse stated. “To change my mind for such a reason as a client asking me to change would have been a violation of ethical conduct as I practice the profession of archaeology.”

Oxford City Project Manager Fred Denney said the second report, which he first saw last year, was not requested because of the controversy.

“The city at first had archaeologists look into that site several years ago,” Denney said. “We wanted to know if there was anything up there. That’s the reason we used archaeologists (in 2009), to find out what was there.”

Attempts to reach Mayor Leon Smith by phone Tuesday to discuss the matter were unsuccessful.

In the first archaeological report, which was signed by Clouse and presented to the city on April 30, 2009, page 52 states the stone mound behind the Oxford Exchange is definitively cultural and the chance a stone mound of that size was created by a random natural phenomena was unlikely.

The second report, which was written July 6, 2009 for the city, on page six states, “details of the geological structure of the setting of the site … is such that this author supports a natural origin for the rock mound.”

The statement is in direct contradiction to claims made by Harry Holstein, professor of archaeology and anthropology at Jacksonville State University, that the mound is American Indian in origin. Holstein has studied the stone mound and others around the county for decades.

“There is as much likelihood that mound was created by erosion as there is Mount Rushmore being created by erosion,” Holstein said.

The second report cites further observations made by UA archaeologists on July 1, as construction crews gradually dismantled the mound using a large track hoe, leading Clouse to his latest conclusion. Also, the data collected at the site was assessed with comparative data from other recorded Indian mound sites, the report said.

The report states the mound was likely natural in origin because there was no architectural or structural organization to the placement of the stones. Also, it states the absence of layers of soil within the stone mound suggests erosion has carried away any of the fine materials that may have been present through and out of the loose stones.

“The physical evidence of the large amount of stone in the sub-mound soil context and the massive size of some of the boulders in the ‘mound’ matrix were sufficient in my mind to reevaluate the source of the rock feature,” Clouse stated in an e-mail. “Also the existing geological descriptions of this context clearly describe the visible evidence at this location.”

The second report does not cite an opinion from a geologist, which Clouse confirmed in another Tuesday e-mail.

“I have not had a geologist come to the site for review of the specific feature,” Clouse stated. “I have discussed the issue and my conclusions with geologists on the staff of the State Geological Survey, but they have not been to the site.”

Clouse did not respond by press time to requests for the names of geologists he consulted.

A geologist has told The Star the mound was man-made, but The Star was unable to acquire the opinion of independent geologists Tuesday.

Denney said he did not know what the city’s current plans were for the mound.

“I have no way of knowing what the city is going to do,” Denney said.

Councilwoman June Land Reaves said she had not seen the second report.

Attempts to reach other City Council members were unsuccessful.

View the full report: Part 1 | Part 2