-
Title
-
An Archaeological Survey of Hale and Greene Counties
-
Date
-
1973
-
Bibliographic Citation
-
Nielsen, Jerry M., Martha A. O'Hear, and George M. Morehead. 1973. An Archaeological Survey of Hale and Greene Counties. Research Series No. 2. Report submitted to the Alabama Historical Commission. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
-
annotates
-
• A total of 124 archaeological sites were identified or revisited. These include: shell middens, “lithic and/or ceramic artifact scatters,” historical homesteads and structural remnants.
•The work combined archival research, oral reports from residents, and systematic field inspection, yielding site relocations, new identifications, and preliminary assessments of significance.
• Sites span Paleoindian through post contact periods, with most concentrated in the Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian phases. Many Woodland and Mississippian mound and village sites were confirmed or revisited, including major centers such as Moundville, Forkland Mound (1GR15/16), and other platform mound/village complexes.
• Choctaw/Ancestral Choctaw Relevance
The "Historic Indian" section explicitly states that the survey area was claimed “primarily by the Choctaws, but also by the Chickasaws,” framing the region as a contested borderland with limited permanent settlement. Archaeological remains possibly tied to Chickasaw encampments are noted, but Choctaw attribution is primarily historical rather than archaeological.
• The Forkland/“Brasfield” Mound (1GR15/16) and other Mississippian mound sites fall within Choctaw-claimed territory in the colonial era, yet the report stops short of linking Mississippian remains to ancestral Choctaw identity. The survey indirectly underscores the erasure of Choctaw presence by privileging precontact–Mississippian over Historic Indian contexts and by casting the area as under-inhabited during European contact despite documented Choctaw land claims.
Commentary on Presentation and Framing
• The report reflects 1970s-era culture-historical priorities, heavily focused on site typologies, chronology, and artifact classification.
• Indigenous nations are treated largely as abstract cultural “claimants” rather than communities with continuity. The description of the region as a “borderland” minimizes Choctaw presence and overlooks the persistence of Native use beyond formal villages or monumental centers. Postcontact Choctaw ties are acknowledged but downplayed due to limited archaeological correlates, a framing that inadvertently reproduces erasure.
From a decolonizing perspective, the survey would benefit from:
• Reframing would recognize Choctaw territoriality as more than “claims,” framing it instead as lived landscapes.
• Critically reassessing the assumption that the absence of “villages” or “fortifications” equates to absence of occupation.
• Including Choctaw and Chickasaw perspectives on cultural affiliation of Mississippian sites.
• Addressing how reliance on surface visibility and salvage priorities reflects biases in defining archaeological significance.
-
owner
-
sprice@wiregrassarchaeology.com