-
Title
-
Protohistoric Development in Central Alabama
-
Date
-
1986
-
Bibliographic Citation
-
Sheldon, Jr., Craig T., and Ned J. Jenkins. 1986. Protohistoric Development in Central Alabama. In Protohistoric Period in the Mid-South: 1500-1700, edited by David H. Dye and Ronald C. Brister, pp. 95–102. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.
-
annotates
-
This chapter presents a synthesis of ceramic and cultural developments in central Alabama during postcontact (ca. A.D. 1540–1700), focusing on the transition from the Moundville phase to the Alabama River phase. Drawing on comparative ceramic analyses from the Warrior, Tombigbee, and Alabama river drainages, the authors identify "intrusive traits" from the Central Mississippi Valley that were added to local assemblages around A.D. 1400–1500. These include: Appliqué rim treatments (Alabama River Appliqué / Campbell Appliqué), Barton Incised (vertical rim incision), Red and white painted wares (Alabama River Painted / Nodena Red and White), Pinched decoration (Parkin Punctated / Alabama River Pinched), Banks Noded variants.
No new excavations are reported. The chapter relies on previous work by Steponaitis, Curren, Bozeman, Solis and Walling, and others.
The Alabama River phase is characterized as a continuation of Moundville traditions, marked by the decline of mound-building, ceremonial complexity, and exotic artifacts, yet with continuity in subsistence and ceramic forms.
Choctaw / Ancestral Choctaw Relevance:
• Explicit references: None. The Choctaw are not mentioned in the text.
• The chapter centers on the Protohistoric period and describes ceramic and settlement transitions likely related to Indigenous responses to early European contact, though no tribal identifications are made.
• The Alabama River Valley was occupied by Mvskoke and Choctaw groups. The ceramic sequences described here represent ancestral materials, but the authors do not address such affiliations.
Assessment for CRM Use / Archaeological Utility:
• Offers a detailed comparative ceramic typology and phase sequencing valuable for identifying contexts in CRM surveys and excavations.
• Useful for interpreting ceramic assemblages from the Warrior, Tombigbee, and Alabama river valleys dating to ca. A.D. 1400–1700.
• Does not provide site-specific data but synthesizes multiple lines of published research to define material trends across regions.
Data Presentation / Decolonizing Commentary:
• The tone is academic and typological, focused on ceramic change and cultural taxonomy. No tribal names or descendant perspectives are included.
o The term “devolution” is used to describe the shift from Mississippian to "Protohistoric" forms—reflecting an assumption of cultural decline Postcontact.
• No mention of descendant communities or engagement with Indigenous interpretations.
o The framing centers on ceramic style and complexity as proxies for social organization without consideration of resilience or adaptation.
• Opportunities for reframing:
o Reassessment of Alabama River phase sites with Choctaw or Mvskoke input could better situate material transitions within lived Indigenous histories.
o Greater attention to continuity in lifeways (e.g., subsistence, local production) might challenge decline-based narratives.
-
owner
-
sprice@wiregrassarchaeology.com