Old Dirt - New Thoughts

Well if you like vigorous scientific debate, the claim of a pre-Clovis component at Walker Hill, has really stirred up some intense discussion among Minnesota’s archaeology community. Most of the debate that I’m privy to is occurring on the CMA listserv. Although it would be inappropriate for me to quote from the listserv communications without permission, I think summarizing a few points will be helpful to readers of this blog.

First of all, the fact that the debate continues means that some archaeologists find the Walker Hill lithics convincing, or at least exhibiting enough potential that they are unwilling to declare the location a non-cultural site.

A second issue raised in the listserv communications is that there are two distinct concerns about the site - research and preservation. Those of us who are interested in the site’s research potential can debate about this site until we retire. This debate is part of the scientific process. More importantly, no one is hurt if we are wrong. The only concern is that we eventually move forward our understanding of the past.

Those who must consider the preservation issues raised by the Walker Hill site face a much greater challenge. They do not have the luxury of waiting 10 years for the scientific debate to reach concensus.  Do they recommend preservation or not? Do they recommend continued field work? From a research perspective, the safest decision would be to preserve the site, just in case it turns out to be cultural. This decision, however, will cost people money. So there’s pressure to make the right call, and pressure to make the call right now.

The final issue raised in the CMA listserv that I found interesting were comments expressing disappointment that the debate has been so public (and to some degree personal). I disagree with both of these reactions. I have been impressed by the great care to keep the debate professional (especially compared to some of the really acrimonious debates in science). I think everyone agrees that the Leech Lake Heritage Sites Program archaeologists approached the site and the presentation of their results with due professionalism. They know that any pre-Clovis claim is going to be scrutinized. They know that every wall profile they record, every lithic they bag up, and every interpretation they make is going to be critically evaluated by a host of archaeologists. This is the price they pay for the bad luck of finding a potential pre-Clovis site. (Just ask Adovasio if he doesn’t sometimes regret choosing to dig at Meadowcroft.)

So clearly we need a debate, and this debate is going to be contentious. The question raised by some of the CMA listserv comments is whether we should keep this debate private. If you’re reading this, then you obviously know that I’m not in favor of a private debate. First of all, it’s too late. The site has been discussed all across the world. Second of all, I don’t think many people out there pay even the slightest attention to our debate, whether we keep it private or make it public. But people should at least know that a debate is raging and that this is normal scientific process and peer-review.

Ultimately, the only issue that really matters is determining whether Walker Hill is a cultural site or natural formation. So how do we move forward on this question? Attempts to distinguish artifact from geofact has a long history in archaeology (Barnes 1939, Peacock 1991). In fact, archaeologists working in Alberta just recently published a paper where they looked at flaked stone from a very similar geological context as the Walker Hill site (Gillespie et al. 2004). The Walker Hill excavators said that they are developing a similar protocol when they gave their presentation at the CMA meeting. So moving forward shouldn’t be difficult. It’s just going to take time. As a research archaeologist, I can wait for these results. Fortunately I don’t have to make any tough calls about preservation. Let’s hope that those who do have to make these decisions get it right.

Barnes, A.S. (1939) The Differences Between Natural and Human Flaking on Prehistoric Flint Implements. American Anthropologist 41:99-112.

Gillespie, Jason David,  Susan Tupakka, and Christine Cluney (2004) Distinguishing between naturally and culturally flaked cobbles: A test case from Alberta, Canada. Pp. 615-633, Vol. 19.

Peacock, Evan (1991) Distinguishing between Artifacts and Geofacts: A Test Case from Eastern England. Journal of Field Archaeology 18(3):345-361.