“I’m not against development,” he said. “But some things should just be saved.”

As it happened, the city had already commissioned a study of the stone mound by the Office of Archaeological Research at the University of Alabama, which works on a contract basis for such projects. The report, signed by the office’s director, Robert A. Clouse, found the mound to be “definitively cultural” in origin, as opposed to having been created by a natural process like erosion.

But in a recommendation that raised objections from the Alabama Historical Commission, the report concluded that the site was not likely to be archaeologically significant, given that few artifacts and no human remains had been found. The city plowed ahead.

But then the debate over the endangered mound became public. For weeks, it was a recurrent feature on the front page of The Anniston Star, the local newspaper, as well as the subject of protests, a petition, a Twitter campaign and a Facebook group.

Many of the archaeologists and some of the American Indians who lobbied to keep the stone mound acknowledge that its original purpose is a matter of speculation. That, they say, is all the more reason to preserve it.

But when the often delicate ambiguity of scholarship and tribal heritage come up against the vigorous drive for new business and development, especially in a growing town like Oxford, it does not always make for much of a fight.