-
Title
-
Historic Settlement in the Upper Tombigbee Valley
-
Date
-
1981
-
Bibliographic Citation
-
Doster, James F., and David C. Weaver. 1981. Historic Settlement in the Upper Tombigbee Valley. (DOD-COE Contract C-5714 (78), Mobile District, Mobile, Alabama). University of Alabama, University.
-
annotates
-
This is a historical and documentary synthesis of cultural change, land use, and settlement patterns in the Upper Tombigbee Valley, spanning the period from European contact (1540) through 1960. It was prepared as part of mitigation efforts for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project and functions as a literature-based cultural resources overview. The report incorporates historical documents, early land records, maps, census data, interviews, and prior scholarship. It does not contain archaeological fieldwork, artifact descriptions, or site-level excavation data.
• Indian land tenure and trading patterns (1540–1820)
• White settlement and Postcontact transformation of the valley
• Changes in agriculture, transportation (steamboats, railroads), and economic systems
• References to Indian countrymen and cultural hybrid communities during the colonial and early national periods
Choctaw / Ancestral Choctaw Relevance:
• The Choctaw are referenced as major occupants of the western Tombigbee Valley and surrounding regions prior to and during U.S. expansion. Their role in trade, treaties, and settlement dynamics is discussed.
o The report notes the presence of Choctaw communities, the effects of the 1805–1830 treaties, and the location of Choctaw land cessions along the Tombigbee RiverLankford III 1983.
• Postcontact Native activity is described in historical terms. The presence of mixed-race “Indian countrymen,” continued residence of Native people after initial U.S. land sales, and patterns of adaptation (e.g., trade, subsistence) are noted.
o Reference is made to cultural preadaptation of Native communities to frontier life and their contributions to early regional economic systems.
• The report includes generalized references to Native towns, forts, and missions, though the detail is mostly from secondary sources. Specific Choctaw settlements are named only when corroborated by documentary evidence.
Assessment for CRM Use / Archaeological Utility:
• Although not an archaeological report, this document provides valuable contextual information about historic Native American land use, settlement, and interactions in the Upper Tombigbee region.
• It can support CRM efforts by:
o Informing predictive modeling for site location
o Identifying key periods and locations of Choctaw presence
o Enhancing interpretations of archaeological sites with postcontact components
Data Presentation / Decolonizing Commentary:
• Language is scholarly and historical. Native populations are treated as agents within evolving socio-political systems, but primarily from a Euro-American documentary perspective.
• The report does not incorporate tribal consultation or Native-authored sources. The Choctaw presence is documented through U.S. treaty and colonial accounts but not interpreted through Indigenous frameworks.
• This synthesis could be enhanced by adding Choctaw perspectives, oral traditions, and tribal knowledge to deepen interpretations of settlement continuity, resistance, and cultural landscapes.
-
owner
-
sprice@wiregrassarchaeology.com