-
Title
-
Archaeological Investigations at the Faunsdale Sites, 1Mo35 and 1Mo36
-
Date
-
1985
-
Bibliographic Citation
-
Mistovich, Tim S. 1985. Archaeological Investigations at the Faunsdale Sites, 1Mo35 and 1Mo36. Report prepared for the Alabama Highway Department by the Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, Moundville.
-
annotates
-
• Phase II-level archaeological testing at Sites 1Mo35 and 1Mo36, located near Faunsdale, Marengo County, Alabama, conducted in advance of U.S. Highway 80 expansion.
• Testing including hand excavation of test units, contour mapping, and four motor grader transects to identify potential features.
o Two cultural components: A Late Woodland Miller II subphase (A.D. 450–600) occupation at 1Mo36, later Alabama River phase through early Historical Choctaw occupation at both sites.
• The report directly identifies both sites as part of a “Late Mississippian through Choctaw era” occupation sequence and explicitly discusses Historical Choctaw ceramic types and settlement patterns:
o Sherds with fine-line curvilinear incising are identified as an undefined variety of Alabama River Incised, inferred to represent early Historical Choctaw occupation. Sherds exhibit shell temper, unburnished surfaces, and fine curvilinear line work, consistent with Choctaw ceramic traditions observed at other sites in central and western Alabama.
• The author relates these sites to regional patterns of isolated farmstead occupation, referencing du Roullet’s 18th-century observations of Choctaw settlement patterns combining hilltop towns and valley farmsteads.
• The Faunsdale sites are interpreted as part of a broader Choctaw-affiliated cultural landscape echoing site patterns noted in Chase’s 1981 survey (e.g., 1Mo80 and 1Mo91).
Sites 1MO35 and 1MO36 yielded multiple occupations including "Miller III" and Alabama River Phase/postcontact Choctaw
Data Presentation / Decolonizing Commentary
• The report is clear and unusually direct in linking ceramic styles and settlement types to early Choctaw presence.
o It is explicitly recognize Choctaw-era farmsteads in this region.
• Terminology such as “late aboriginal” and “historic aboriginal” is used, but the discussion of Choctaw settlement is respectful and based on ethnohistoric sources (e.g., du Roullet 1732).
• A decolonizing critique would:
o Encourage direct tribal collaboration and expand on the cultural and ceremonial significance of these types of farmstead sites.
o Acknowledge that plowzone-only contexts do not negate cultural importance for descendant communities.
o Treat this report as an early example of incorporating Choctaw perspectives into CRM interpretation, even if limited in scope.
CRM Utility Assessment
• Highly relevant for Choctaw-related CRM work in the Black Prairie region:
o One of the clearest identifications of Choctaw ceramic presence in Alabama in a CRM testing context.
o Helpful for recognizing non-mounded, farmstead-type Choctaw sites, which may otherwise be dismissed in compliance scenarios.
• Despite the absence of intact deposits, the sites contribute to mapping early Choctaw settlement strategies in east-central Alabama.
• Recommendation: Use this report as a model reference for identifying Choctaw-affiliated ceramics and low-density rural sites during Phase I and II surveys.
-
owner
-
sprice@wiregrassarchaeology.com