-
Title
-
Archaeological Investigations of an Aboriginal Defensive Ditch at Site 1DS32
-
Date
-
1989
-
Bibliographic Citation
-
Martin, Troy O. 1989. Archaeological Investigations of an Aboriginal Defensive Ditch at Site 1DS32. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 35(1):61–74.
-
annotates
-
• Presents findings from 1987 UA field school at 1DS32, located at Old Cahaba (Dallas County), where a Mississippian dry moat or ditch fortification was excavated.
o Excavations focused on a 5-x-30 ft trench through a visible depression previously interpreted as an “ancient Indian work” on early 19th-century maps.
Ditch is 18 feet wide, ~4.75 feet deep, and semi-circular in shape, enclosing a town (partially developed as a picnic area).
The ditch stratigraphy was recorded in nine depositional episodes, ranging from early 1800s intentional fill to natural sedimentation.
Stratigraphy includes:
Pensacola phase ceramics, lithics, daub, and shell at basal levels.
A significant burn layer with olive green bottle glass interpreted as early 1820s (possibly related to mosquito control or early clearing).
Euro-American materials including transfer-printed ceramics, kaolin pipes, nails, and bricks throughout fill episodes.
No palisade trench was found, though erosion may have removed shallow features.
o No Spanish colonial-age artifacts were recovered, ruling out direct association with the Soto expedition, but Mississippian ceramics and Euro-American artifacts were abundant. Previous hypotheses that the site was “Mabila” or “Casiste.”
o The area inside the semicircular ditch was also tested, yielding “White Oak” and Pensacola phase ceramics and Euro-American features (e.g., brick footings, square postholes).
Limited interior village excavation revealed:
One trash pit, two Indigenous postholes, and multiple Euro-American building features.
• The Choctaw are not mentioned in the article, but the Pensacola and White Oak ceramic components, combined with site location and continuity, are relevant for ancestral Choctaw context:
o The Pensacola phase at 1DS32 is part of a broader Mississippian tradition in the Alabama River valley, historically associated with Muskogean-speaking peoples.
o The location at the confluence of the Cahaba and Alabama Rivers is within a known zone of later Choctaw geopolitical expansion and 19th-century presence.
o Earlier research cited in the article (e.g., Knight 1987; Chase 1982) argued for a significant Indigenous village within the defensive ditch, interpreted as a precontact political center with Postcontact continuity.
• While no direct link to Choctaw is made, the site contributes important comparative data for CRM assessments involving Choctaw-affiliated mound centers and culturally continuous towns in central Alabama.
• Though authored with care, the report reflects a culture-historical model prioritizing artifact typologies and fortification function over community or cultural identity.
• Use of “aboriginal” and “prehistoric” is outdated; the site clearly exhibits Indigenous occupation extending into the 19th century, making it better characterized as a multicomponent Postcontact Indigenous site.
• Interpretations of social activities are absent, despite evidence of fortification, fire, and spatial planning.
• A decolonizing reanalysis would:
o Engage Choctaw and other Muskogean descendant communities to reassess the cultural identity and function of the enclosed town.
o Treat the ditch system as cultural infrastructure, not just fortifications, and explore its role in ritual, memory, and resistance.
o Elevate the significance of Pensacola-phase material in Choctaw-affiliated CRM narratives.
CRM Utility Assessment
• Site 1DS32 remains highly significant for CRM involving site architecture and fortification complexes, Postcontact-era settlement patterns, Indigenous adaptations to colonial intrusions
• The mix of Mississippian, Postcontact Indigenous, and early 19th-century materials makes this site a strong candidate for NRHP eligibility, especially if reassessed with descendant community input.
• While no burials were found, the site’s potential for cultural landscapes, public memory, and postcontact persistence should inform future impact assessments.
-
owner
-
sprice@wiregrassarchaeology.com