Walker Hill a pre-Clovis site? MN State Archaeologist Says No
Scott Anfinson, the Minnesota State Archaeologist, just recently posted his assessment of the Walker Hill site, the widely reported potential 13000 year old site from northern Minnesota. After reviewing the information made available by the site’s excavators at the recent Council for Minnesota Archaeology symposium, and after consulting with a number of Minnesota archaeologists (including myself) who had the chance to examine the lithic finds, Anfinson concludes
… there is no evidence that the Walker Hill site represents an early human occupation of Minnesota (pg 6).
Anfinson’s eight page statement includes discussion of the site’s stratigraphy, glacial history, and lithic finds. As Anfinson argues, the lack of indisputable artifacts from the site is troubling, but he considers most damaging to the claims about the site is its geological context.
In the end, the most convincing evidence that the site is not an early human occupation is the fact that a glacial geologist has suggested that a “high energy environment” (i.e., massive glacial outwash) produced the sediment layers that contain the “artifacts”. … Such environments have been shown to produce “naturefacts” that greatly resemble artifacts (pg 6).
Although discussion of the Walker Hill finds will probably continue, I think this is an important statement that should reign in some of the unfounded speculation. Minnesota, at least for now, needs to be taken off the pre-Clovis list.
Thanks for the link to Scott Anfinson’s paper – the impression given of the site as it would have been at 13-15,000 sounds far from the ‘oasis’ described in earlier coverage of the story.
I couldn’t work out whether the ‘artifacts’ as they are described, were found in relative proximity with each other, or the numbers of pebbles, rocks etc. from which the samples were derived.
Still, plenty to ponder, and it will be interesting to see what if any, further finds come to light.
Good question about the association and contexts of the Walker finds. The twenty minute presentation I heard given by the researchers was an insufficient amount of time for them to provide the specific provenience details, but it was my impression that the lithics were scattered throughout a fairly thick depositional horizon, and not from a distinct occupational layer.
Anfinson’s paper was really harsh. Have any of the archaeologists who excavated at Walker responded to this criticism?
Also, I think it is strange that a presentation would be given without a sketch of the site that shows where the “artifacts” were located.
And the individual who responded to questions by saying, “These were pre-Clovis people.” What is that suposed to mean?
I wouldn’t describe Anfinson’s critique as “harsh”. I think he made a clear statement about his assessment of the site. It is important for everyone involved that he not mince words given his conclusion that the site is not the result of human activity. On-the-other-hand, he was equally clear that he was not critiquing the professional work by the Leech Lake Heritage Sites Program. I thought Anfinson was respectful of all parties involved in the research.
Regarding the CMA presentation by Olmanson and colleagues, I think they gave us as much information as possible given that they were limited to twenty minutes. We have to remember that their analysis is ongoing. I certainly do not have distribution maps showing all my Aniakchak finds yet. Fortunately my research does not face the kind of intense review given the Walker Hill Site!
Brian, Thanks for linking to Anfinson’s assessment! that’s exactly what I was looking for and I’ve printed it to read more closely later. I’ve been wanting to blog on this topic, but the only info I could find was the same news reports everyone else had.
BTW, I hope you’ll have something to send my way for the Four Stone Hearth on Wed.
Brian, I thought the points Anfinson raised were significant, and had to be taken into consideration especially in the light of it being a ‘high energy site’ – I guess he called the site as he saw it. But as this is an ongoing excavation further conclusive finds might yet be made, and doubtless other opinions will come to the fore – who knows…
Also, many thanks for linking to me, best, Tim
Hey Tim! The other opinions are already starting to be heard. There has been some negative response to Anfinson’s paper. One particular objection is that Scott’s “concensus of lithicists” was not representative of the range of opinions amongst those archaeologists who looked at the Walker Hill finds. So apparently there are some who find the site convincing. It’s going to be an interesting debate.