-
Title
-
Prehistoric Pottery of Central Alabama
-
Date
-
1998
-
Bibliographic Citation
-
Chase, David W. 1998. Prehistoric Pottery of Central Alabama. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 44:53–93.
-
annotates
-
• This article is a regional synthesis of 25 years of archaeological research and surface survey conducted by Chase across central Alabama, primarily focused on ceramic typologies and cultural sequencing. The study area includes the Coosa-Tallapoosa-Alabama river system and surrounding counties and outlines a series of local ceramic phases from the “Middle Gulf Formational” through the “protohistoric period and early European contact,” drawing heavily on Chase’s personal investigations and collaborations.
• The paper itself does not explicitly name Choctaw or ancestral Chahta affiliations; however, it provides contextual and material information relevant to the broader cultural-historical setting in which Choctaw ancestors may have interacted or coexisted with neighboring peoples.
o The Whiteoak Phase (ca. AD 700–800 or possibly earlier), described in detail from site 1DS53 (Whiteoak Creek) and 1DS56, appears to represent a distinct regional Woodland manifestation that may prefigure or parallel developments among ancestral Choctaw groups in the Black Prairie region.
o The Marengo Phase, based on shell-tempered, “orange” slipped or “burnished” ceramics recovered during USDA SCS work (especially from sites 1MO90 and 1MO91), is tentatively discussed as a possible Chickasaw-related manifestation, but its proximity and material character (especially if extended westward) may have implications for ancestral Choctaw research, especially for Mississippi-Alabama sites.
o The Union Springs Phase (based on site 1BK7) is interpreted as a "cultural offshoot" or "migration" of Hope Hull-related peoples. Though not directly linked to Choctaw ancestry, the phase is set in a region where ancestral movements and realignments (including future Choctaw, Alabama, and Mvskoke towns) occurred.
• 1DS56 and 1DS53: Central to defining the Whiteoak Phase. Described as having deep, stratified profiles and diagnostic ceramics. The author does not assign Indigenous identity but highlights their regional uniqueness and ceremonial potential (e.g., small bowls, copper beads).
• 1MO90 and 1MO91: Sites with unusual shell-tempered pottery (Marengo Phase). While not explicitly linked to Choctaw, Chase describes them as notable for being potentially “Chickasaw” or from yet undefined Indigenous affiliations possibly tied to ancestral Choctaw homelands.
• 1MT99, 1MT231, 1MT100: Sites tied to Hope Hull and Autauga phases, showing evidence of complexity (e.g., grave offerings, dog burials) and continuity between Woodland and Mississippian.
• 1AU28: Produced Moundville-phase material (Moundville II), potentially illustrating the eastern limits of Moundville influence.
• Critical Commentary:
o The article is detailed and encyclopedic in its ceramic focus, but its lack of Indigenous affiliations (except in the broadest postcontact terms) reflects mid-to-late 20th-century typological paradigms. While Chase does note social or ritual practices (e.g., burial treatments, domestic features), he does not apply Indigenous historical frameworks or engage with Native epistemologies.
o A decolonized reading would interrogate the naming and sequencing of phases (e.g., "Hope Hull," "Autauga") as colonial impositions on local traditions and would advocate for greater use of Indigenous oral histories or collaborative tribal interpretation—especially in areas like the Black Prairie and Fall Line, which were key zones of Choctaw-related interaction and land loss.
o The emphasis on ceramic taxonomy, while valuable for chronological control, misses deeper questions about community persistence, identity shifts, and regional political economies in the centuries preceding European contact.
• Usefulness in Current CRM Context is generally high.
o This synthesis supports typological identification of Woodland and Mississippian ceramics in central Alabama, offering phase names, decorative motifs, and examples of stratigraphy and features. Especially useful for recognizing earlier Woodland components (like Whiteoak or Catoma) that are underrepresented in Phase I/II compliance literature.
o However, data should be integrated with caution when assessing tribal affiliations for NAGPRA compliance or interpretive contexts involving Choctaw sovereignty and ancestral ties. The absence of tribal framing limits its stand-alone use in culturally sensitive determinations.
-
owner
-
sprice@wiregrassarchaeology.com