Experts refute claims in 2nd mound report
Feb 09, 2010 | 4353 views | 52 
| 107 
| 
| 
| 107 | |
A controversial stone mound sits atop a large hill behind the Oxford Exchange. Photo: Stephen Gross/The Anniston Star/File
Kelly Gregg, a Jacksonville State University geology professor who has visited the site located behind the Oxford Exchange, has repeatedly said the stone mound is not natural. He was not dissuaded from his opinion after reviewing the report.
The UA archaeologist, Robert Clouse, “is going to very old, out of date works and picking and choosing what he wants to say,” Gregg said of the geology sources cited in the report. “We would never allow a student to turn in a term paper with sources that old.”
The report, which does not cite the opinion of a certified geologist, cites five sources to support its geological conclusions: Two sources date from 1926 and 1930, while the other three were written in 1961, 1962 and 1979.
“We have done a few things since then,” Gregg said.
Clouse, director of the Office of Archaeological Research at the University of Alabama and director of the University of Alabama Museums, said in an Oxford City Council meeting last month that a stone mound behind the Oxford Exchange was created by erosion and other natural forces and not American Indians. He backed up his claims with an archaeological report he wrote for the city of Oxford in July — written less than three months after he and a team of UA archaeologists filed with the city a report stating the opposite.
The Star obtained a copy of the second report last week.
The stone mound behind the Oxford Exchange was at the center of a dispute last year, 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.
Gregg said that in his opinion, the sources in the report are not only too old, they also do not fully support the conclusions Clouse makes in his second report. Gregg noted a Calhoun County soil survey study conducted in 1961, which was sourced in the report and describes the soil in the area as “stony rough land.”
The land description was used in the report to explain how many rocks appeared on top of the hill behind the Oxford Exchange.
Gregg said Clouse apparently left out a couple of sentences from the 1961 source, which would have refuted his claims.
“It goes on to say this land type is at the bases of slopes,” Gregg said. “But this mound is not at the base, it’s at the top.”
David King, professor of geology at Auburn University, said after reviewing the report that in his opinion the conclusion was not valid.
“I tend to think that (mound) has probably been built,” King said.
King said he could not attest to who might have constructed the stone pile or when, having never visited the site himself, but that nature does not tend to create such structures on the tops of hills.
“When soil like that gets weathered away with boulders in it, they tend to want to run downhill,” King said. “For me, to be piled up on top, you need another force of energy. The easiest way to do it is for somebody to do it.”
After looking at the pictures of the mound in the report, King said all the stones appeared to be small enough for a human to carry.
“If there was something too big to carry, I’d wonder about it,” King said.
King added that the report did not identify any similar natural structures in the area, which to him also signified the mound was man-made.
“If it were erosion, every knoll in the area should have a stone cap on it,” King said. “But this particular knoll has a uniqueness aspect.”
Harry Holstein, professor of archaeology and anthropology at Jacksonville State University, who has studied American Indian sites in the area for years, has been adamant in his belief of the mound’s legitimacy and does not believe differently after reading the second report.
“It lacks any evidence to support the claim it’s a natural feature,” Holstein said.
Holstein pointed out pictures in the report that show a construction crew using a backhoe during Clouse’s examination and indicated to him that the report’s findings may have been incorrect.
“They used teeth on the backhoe, which would have totally destroyed any evidence,” Holstein said. “They totally wasted that mound.”
Steven Meredith, president of the Alabama Archaeological Society, agreed with Holstein’s assessment about the backhoe.
“When you tear into an area with a backhoe and don’t find artifacts, you shouldn’t be surprised,” Meredith said. “It’s a blunt instrument. “If the site you’re excavating is delicate, it’s best not to use a backhoe.”
Meredith, who also read the report and disagrees with its conclusion, said if he had done the Oxford study, he probably would have obtained a geologist to help him.
“I’ve worked on a couple of projects where I’ve had a geologist on site,” Meredith said. “It’s not always necessary. However, if I were going to drastically reverse an interpretation I made, the more experts you can get on your side, the better.”
Stayce Hathorn, archaeologist for the Alabama Historical Commission, wrote in an e-mail to The Star that Clouse’s report fails to mention letters written by the Alabama Historical Commission which stated the mound was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and advised the mound be preserved in place.
Hathorn, who does not agree with the report, said the Advisory Council on Alabama Archaeology, a legislatively established advisory board of which Clouse is a member and a past president, informed her office recently that they no longer support monitoring as a preferred method of archaeological testing. Instead the council recommended archaeological sites receive proper phase I, phase II and phase III testing.
Clouse indicated in his report only phase II and not the more intensive phase III testing was conducted at the mound during his examination.
“Had the site been the subject of an appropriate phase III excavation there would have been a research design that would have required review and approval by our office before excavations began,” Hathorn stated. “There would have been experts retained in relative subfields such as geomorphology, paleobotany, faunal analysis, and human osteology to name a few (according the UA report, there was a human osteologist onsite during demolition and monitoring).”
The Star attempted to obtain an examination of the report from a member of the Alabama Geological Survey. However, a Monday e-mail from the survey said it was against the agency’s policy for staff members to comment on geologic work outside of its scope.
In a Monday e-mail, Clouse declined to comment on why geologists and other archaeologists disagreed with his report.
“I am currently consulting with geological specialists myself so I am not able to comment on the issue at this time,” Clouse stated.
Clouse did not indicate which geologists he was contacting.
During my time as a cultural resource management professional, I have had the opportunity to work in every state in the Southeast with the exception of South Carolina. In almost every case, we see the rampant disregard for archaeological sites of all kinds. They are looted, polluted, and often destroyed. Whether their stewards are private individuals, state/national parks services, or even the U.S. military, the enforcement of laws concerning site investigation, preservation, and protection is sadly lacking by authorities at all levels.
In fact, in the case of the Hammonds Site in Ft. Payne, the State of Alabama run roughshod over the integrity of dozens of Native graves for the sake of a third interstate exit in a town less than the size of Oxford. However, at the same time, the tribes (both state and federal) allowed it to happen without organizing anything sort of protest on the scale of those organized for the Oxford mound.
Preservation, protection, and the enforcement of laws on the books regarding them must be honored and vigilantly applied if we are to save these valuable cultural resources from destruction.
In addition, as to the state of the stone mound in Oxford, there is little doubt that it is a man-made structure. In the terminology of archaeology, it is a cultural feature and a quite valuable one at that.
I have had the privilege of participating in the investigation of over 200 mounds across the Southeast, most of them in Alabama.
On one survey alone in Elmore County, my team and I recorded over 100 mounds in less than a 4,000 acre area along the Tallapoosa River. These were not solitary stacked mounds or rocks deposited by water action. These sites consisted of clusters of dozens of stacked stone features. At least one of these mound clusters was directly associated with a significant prehistoric encampment at the same location. We did not locate any artifacts inside these mounds as we respected them enough to leave them intact rather than using a bulldozer or backhoe to clumsily disassemble them.
Similar stacked stone mound complexes still exist across this money-grubbing, special-interested-controlled state, especially around the settlements encountered along Alabama's many waterways. They can also be found in Calhoun County as well, especially around the Cane Creek area, and can be seen dotting the landscape of the Ft. McClellan/Pelham Range/Anniston Army Depot complex. These are no accident. They are a direct byproduct of prehistoric human activity and should be protected as a result.
Remember, if certain government officials, politicians, developers, and corporations get their way, these resources can and will disappear from the archaeological record... forever. My fellow citizen, in the case of archaeological preservation, there is no second chance.
Thank you,
J. Jeremy Hicks
During my time as a cultural resource management professional, I have had the opportunity to work in every state in the Southeast with the exception of South Carolina. In almost every case, we see the rampant disregard for archaeological sites of all kinds. They are looted, polluted, and often destroyed. Whether their stewards are private individuals, state/national parks services, or even the U.S. military, the enforcement of laws concerning site investigation, preservation, and protection is sadly lacking by authorities at all levels.
In fact, in the case of the Hammonds Site in Ft. Payne, the State of Alabama run roughshod over the integrity of dozens of Native graves for the sake of a third interstate exit in a town less than the size of Oxford. However, at the same time, the tribes (both state and federal) allowed it to happen without organizing anything sort of protest on the scale of those organized for the Oxford mound.
Preservation, protection, and the enforcement of laws on the books regarding them must be honored and vigilantly applied if we are to save these valuable cultural resources from destruction.
In addition, as to the state of the stone mound in Oxford, there is little doubt that it is a man-made structure. In the terminology of archaeology, it is a cultural feature and a quite valuable one at that.
I have had the privilege of participating in the investigation of over 200 mounds across the Southeast, most of them in Alabama.
On one survey alone in Elmore County, my team and I recorded over 100 mounds in less than a 4,000 acre area along the Tallapoosa River. These were not solitary stacked mounds or rocks deposited by water action. These sites consisted of clusters of dozens of stacked stone features. At least one of these mound clusters was directly associated with a significant prehistoric encampment at the same location. We did not locate any artifacts inside these mounds as we respected them enough to leave them intact rather than using a bulldozer or backhoe to clumsily disassemble them.
Similar stacked stone mound complexes still exist across this money-grubbing, special-interested-controlled, especially around the settlements encountered along Alabama's many waterways. They can also be found in Calhoun County as well, especially around the Cane Creek area, and can be seen dotting the landscape of the Ft. McClellan/Pelham Range/Anniston Army Depot complex. These are no accident. They are a direct byproduct of prehistoric human activity and should be protected as a result.
Remember, if certain government officials, politicians, developers, and corporations get their way, these resources can and will disappear from the archaeological record... forever. My fellow citizen, in the case of archaeological preservation, there is no second chance.
Thank you,
J. Jeremy Hicks
Just a thought but has any of your contacts at JSU studied the old rock quarry that was located on the Exchange property?
You did have me worried, I thought you were going to quote President Nixon on me. Sen. Monihan had some excellent advice and wish we would apply that same reasoning throughtout all our discussions.
You even threw in some advice from Coach Bryant. You show a lot of diversity in your thoughts and seem to be a well read man. I am impressed.
I had to throw in global warming just to see what kind of reaction I would get in order to add to my profile of you but you did not bite. I just knew you would jump in on that one. You showed excellent restraint.
When you agree to take on controversial issues you do open yourself up to critisism. You make an excellent point. However at some point someone has to take the reins, make a decision, and move on. That is why they make the big bucks per say.
By the way, my father was not an educated man but he did teach us to be respectful by saying yes maam, no maam, yes sir, and no sir no matter what age. In addition, it is Mr. Mrs. & Ms. until given permission otherwise. We still open doors for women and seniors. He was a great man.
Look forward to hearing more from you. Didn't mean to get to mushy with you. haha!
Holler loud i'm in Fla. LOL
Raider, I agree with you that this whole mismanaged mess has hurt a lot of people in our area. If a greater appreciation of our heritage can somehow come out of this, it would be a good thing.
There is still a lot that is worth preserving, as it sounds like the Davises intended.
First of all, thank you for your civility. I do appreciate the courtesy title of "Mr." And I do do like the political incorrectness of your screen name. (I'm inclined myself to wear a gray, Civl War-style kepi in foul weather, regardless of what passers-by think.)
Please be aware that I am no unqualified fan of the Star. I've had some rather salty exchanges with Mr. Ayers, have no love for his regent-in-waiting, Chris Waddell, and I am neither rich nor Episcopalian. (Frankly, I loved it when Rick Bragg once remarked to his former employer, "Brandy, I don't work for you anymore! I don't have to listen to your long speeches on foreign relations!")
But I often recall to myself the wise remark by that former member of Richard Nixon's cabinet, former U. S. Senator Daniel Patrick Monihan, who observed that we are all entitled to different opinions, but we must share in common what are the facts.
The facts in the case of the Oxford mound are shared by lierally hundreds of thousands of politically divergent people, and the most prominent dissenter does not have the personal history or the academic credentials that would, frankly, pass the smell test. As to that individual's protests of mistreatment by the Star, I would envoke the Bear Bryant law: don't suit up for the game if you aren't willing to take a hit. Did he really think he could earn his extra money as a retained employee for the Oxford city government without experiencing some personal inconvenience, some examination of his professional past, and not everyone willing to be indulgent toward him?
As to climate change, I respectfully prefer to decline to respond, and request that these postings stick to our local knitting, so to speak. It's Calhoun County, and its history, that is at stake. Let's be kind and allow Brandy Ayers attempt to tell us what to think about Copenhagen; he likes that sort of thing.
Thanks, again, though, for your posting.
I have been part of those type of organizations. Sort of like the organization in Copenhagan claiming climate change is the fault of man. It even drew the President of the United States and the same guy who invented the internet Al Gore. That idea has been shot down by science but for some reason it goes against the advocate way of thinking so it is never discussed. They also have several thousand members.
Scientist, professors, layers, etc study the same basic theories, hypothesis', cases and yet can't seem to ever come to concensus. How can they all look at the same thing yet come to such different conclusions?
That leads back to square one.
First, what do Bolivia, France, Cambodia, Thailand, Pakistan, and Alabama all have in common? All five contain archeological sites of major importance that are in "imminent danger" of being destroyed, according to the Jan/Feb 2010 posting of the Archeological Institute of America, a non-profit, professional organization founded in 1879 and currently listing 200,000 members. Alabama made the top five as a result of the endangerment of the Oxford mound.
Dr. Clouse, of course, sees no archeological site of importance that is in any danger, just an unremarkable feature of natural erosion.
Second, Dr. Clouse made much in his op-ed piece defending his credentials by mentioning his stewardship for the Register of Professional Archeologists.
The "Standards of Research Performance" posted by the Register for compliance by all its members plainly states:
"Archaeologists have an obligation to accede to reasonable requests for information from the news media."
According to Star, their reporter simply asked Dr. Clouse for the names of the geologists with whom he was consulting. Dr. Clouse "did not indicate" which geologists with whom he was consulting.
Dr. Clouse perhaps has a different defintion of "reasonable" than the rest of us, or from all others in his chosen profession.