-
Title
-
Performance of a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance On Black Warrior-Tombigbee River, Alabama
-
Date
-
1977
-
Bibliographic Citation
-
Saltus, Jeanne, William M. Staub, and Albert E. Perry. 1977. Performance of a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance On Black Warrior-Tombigbee River, Alabama. Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Gulf South Research Institute, Baton Rouge.
-
annotates
-
• Documents a 1976 reconnaissance-level archaeological survey of tracts along the Tombigbee River in advance of USACE planning for flood control and multi-resource development.
• Survey relied on pedestrian transects and surface collections, resulting in documentation of 40 archaeological sites, including both Indigenous and Euro-American components.
• Most sites are described as “low-density lithic scatters,” “short-term Indigenous occupations,” or “artifact concentrations,” but no subsurface testing was completed.
• The report does mention the Choctaw, but primarily in the context of ethnohistoric documentation in Mississippi and Alabama, rather than in direct connection to the specific archaeological sites surveyed.
• In the regional overview, the authors note that portions of the Tombigbee drainage were occupied by the Choctaw into the postcontact period, citing early historical maps and documents.
• They acknowledge that while documented Choctaw territory centered farther west, the Tombigbee corridor served as a frontier zone, with known mobility and interaction across political boundaries. The Sipsey-Tombigbee corridor itself was an important travel and trade route for Choctaw groups into the 18th and early 19th centuries.
• Several sites documented in the report include:
o Shell- and sand-tempered ceramics, consistent with Late Woodland and Mississippian phases tied by later research to Choctaw-related material traditions. Tallahatta sandstone, which is widespread in both precontact and Postcontact Choctaw assemblages in Mississippi and western Alabama.
• While no direct links are drawn between individual sites and the Choctaw in the report, the archaeological and geographic context strongly supports its relevance to ancestral Choctaw heritage research.
Data Presentation / Decolonizing Commentary
• The report reflects 1970s survey methodology, focused on site recording for regulatory compliance.
• Uses terms like “aboriginal” and “prehistoric” without exploring cultural continuity or postcontact Indigenous presence.
• There is no mention of tribal affiliation, Indigenous land claims, or consultation with descendant communities.
• A decolonizing approach would:
o Emphasize the significance of this region for Choctaw cultural memory and ancestral landscape mapping.
o Frame artifact-bearing sites as potential indicators of persistent Indigenous land use rather than “unknown prehistoric” episodes.
o Recommend tribal review for any future testing or development in these tracts.
CRM Utility Assessment: Moderately useful
o Establishes a site location baseline in Choctaw-affiliated counties of western Alabama and northeastern Mississippi.
o Helps identify potentially significant, underexplored sites for future CRM or consultation-driven work.
• Limitations:
o No subsurface testing, no tribal context, and no eligibility recommendations.
o Many sites would need re-survey and evaluation using modern standards and collaborative frameworks.
• Recommended Use:
o As a planning resource or comparative inventory for CRM involving Choctaw or Muskogean ancestral territories.
-
owner
-
sprice@wiregrassarchaeology.com