An Intensive Surface Collection and Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Archaeological Materials from the Coy Mound Site (3LN20), Central Arkansas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 4-2004 An Intensive Surface Collection and Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Archaeological Materials from the Coy Mound Site (3LN20), Central Arkansas William Glenn Hill Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Hill, William Glenn, "An Intensive Surface Collection and Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Archaeological Materials from the Coy Mound Site (3LN20), Central Arkansas" (2004). Master's Theses. 3873. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/3873 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN INTENSIVE SURFACE COLLECTION AND INTRASITE SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS FROM THE COY MOUND SITE (3LN20), CENTRAL ARKANSAS by William Glenn Hill A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degreeof Master of Arts Department of Anthropology WesternMichigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April 2004 Copyright by William Glenn Hill 2004 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Foremost, my pursuit in archaeology would be less meaningful without the accomplishments of Dr. Randall McGuire, Dr. H. Martin Wobst, and Dr. Michael Nassaney. They have provided a theoretical perspective in archaeology that has integrated and given greater meaning to my own social and archaeological interests. I would especially like to especially thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Michael Nassaney, for the stimulating opportunity to explore research within this theoretical perspective, and my other committee members, Dr. Allen Zagarell and Dr. Frederick Smith, for their unsolicited advice, comments, interest, and special attention given to the subjectmatter of this research. I would like to thank Dr. Bill Cremin for the archaeological conversations and comradeship in general while at WMU. Thank you Art Desjardins for your helpful lab assistance, access to lithic collections, and fieldobservations at the Coy Mound site. I am ever grateful to Monika Trahe for her support and for being there more for me than I have for her. Thanks to Juan Florencia for our (often to the distress of others) long and enjoyable conversations on social issues and theory, and that's just the beginning. Thank you Peter Larson for the help and support with university resources and for being a friend. Thank you Matt Deloof, Brock Giordano, and Tim Bober. A special thanks to Stacy Tchorzynski for her patience, friendship, and never fail attitude. Thanks to my family for their unending concern and help. And finally, I would like to thank all of my professors, especially for the diversity of their opinions; this diversity gives strength to them all as a whole by providing others an awareness and ability to freely contrast and compare a wide variety of scholarly perspectives. William Glenn Hill 11 AN INTENSIVE SURFACE COLLECTION AND INTRASITE SP A TIAL ANALYSIS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS FROM THE COY MOUND SITE (3LN20), CENTRAL ARKANSAS William Glenn Hill, M.A. WesternMichigan University, 2004 Surface collected materials from the Coy Mound site (3LN20), Lonoke County, Arkansas, are utilized in order to address questions regarding site temporal occupations, resource utilization, internal site configuration, and the socio-political organization of the Baytown-Coles Creek period Plum Bayou culture. Artifact distribution plots revealed the presence of a mound and plaza site configuration in addition to potential domestic and off-mound midden deposits. While the site organizational plan has implications for a hierarchical socio-political organization, the absence of inter- and intrasite variability in ceramic types and lithic materials support the hypothesis that limited social differentiation was present in Plum Bayou culture and that control over resources was weak. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ V LIST OF FIGURES ................................................� ........................................................ vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 II ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLUM BAYOU CULTURE AND THE COY MOUND SITE (3LN20) ............................................................................................ 7 The Plum Bayou Culture ......................................................................................... 8 The Coy Mound Site ............................................................................................. 17 Research Limitations ............................................................................................. 21 III FROM WITHIN A SOCIAL CONTEXT: UNDERSTANDING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, INTRASITE VARIABILITY, AND POLITICAL- ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION ........................................................................... 25 The Built Environment .......................................................................................... 25 Intrasite ArtifactVariability .................................................................................. 28 Political-Economic Organization .......................................................................... 31 IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 37 Classification......................................................................................................... 37 Ceramic Analysis .................................................................................................. 38 V ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................................................................................. 48 General Site ArtifactDistribution ......................................................................... 48 The Ceramic Assemblage.......................................................................... 51 Multiple Site Occupation and Temporal Considerations .......................... 55 Plum Bayou Culture Ceramic Distributions.......................................................... 60 The Lithic Assemblage .............................................................................. 70 Raw Material Acquisition and Lithic Reduction Strategies .................................. 75 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS-CONTINUED CHAPTER V Lithic Distribution ..................................................................................... 78 Faunal Assemblage and Distribution ........................................................ 82 Site Configuration and Community Structure ........................................... 86 VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 96 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................ 106 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 119 A. Table of Ceramic Types and Weight Per Collection Unit......................................... 119 B. Table ofLithic Morphology and Count, Baked Clay/Daub Weight, and Bone Weight Per Collection Unit............................................................... ..................................... 125 lV LIST OF TABLES I. The Coy Mound Site Surface Collected Ceramic Assemblage ................................... 52 2. Frequency and Percentage of Chipped-Stone ArtifactsBy Raw Material Class From the Coy Mound Site (3LN20) Surface Assemblage . ................................................... 73 3. Frequency and Percentage of Chipped-Stone Artifacts by Artifact Morphology From the Coy Mound Site (3LN20) SurfaceAssemblage . ................................................... 74 V LIST OF FIGURES 1. Distribution of Plum Bayou Culture and Other Cultural Complexes During the Coles Creek Period (adapted from Nassaney 1996a: Figure 13). ....................................... 11 2. The Toltec Mounds Site (3LN42) (adapted fromNassaney 1992a: Figure 4.2)....... 12 3. The Location of Select Plum Bayou Culture Sites in Relation to Physiographic Regions of Central Arkansas (adapted From Rolingson 2002: Figure 3.2).. ............ 18 4. The Coy Mound Site (3LN20), Showing Locations and Identification Numbers of Surface Collection Units and Excavation Trenches.................................................. 20 5. The Effects of Using Sherd Count and Weight in the Comparison of Ceramic Assemblages (Adopted From Orton 2000:52).. ........................................................ 39 6. Total Surface Artifact Distribution and Artifact Concentration Designations by Letter. ............................................................................ ....................................... 50 7. French Forked Incised Pottery Sherds Recovered From the Surface at the Coy Mound Site (3LN20).. ............................................................................................... 54 8. Ceramic Disks Collected From the Surface of the Coy Mound Site (3LN20). ........ 56 9. CeramicAssemblage: