4700.7 A669 no. 18 c.1 VARIATION IN SOUTHERN PLAINS VILLAGE SUBSISTENCE AND MATERIAL CULTURE PATTERNS IN COTTON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE BURTON #1 SITE (34CT39) Robert J. Stokes with Faunal Analysis at Burton #1 Kari Schmidt OKLAHOMACONSERVATION COMMISSION ARCHAEOLOGICALRESEARCHREPORT No. 18 March 1999 2800 North Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4210 VARIATION IN SOUTHERN PLAINS VILLAGE SUBSISTENCE AND MATERIAL CULTURE PATTERNS IN COTTON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE BURTON #1 SITE (34CT39) Robert 1. Stokes with Faunal Analysis at Burton #1 Kari Schmidt OKLAHOMA CONSERVATIONCOMMISSION ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH REPORT No. 18 March 1999 2800 North Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4210 11 PREFACE This report is another in a continuing effort to break the "back log" of unfinished archeological reports related to U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service (former Soil Conservation Service) assisted Federal undertakings. This report, authored by Robert Stokes, concerns an emergency dike repair project in southern Cotton County, on property at the time controlled by the Burton family. The actual field investigations were conducted in 1987. It is only now that the information is being presented as more than just field records and "letter reports" on file. As will be seen in the report, the site poses the potential of being a significant prehistoric site dating from the Late Prehistoric Plains Village period. That the site is more than just a cursory or temporary camp site is documented not only by the number of subsurface features, but by the presence of multiple burials as well. Additional investigation of the site following the first round of field work has not been necessary as NRCS was able to avoid directly impacting those areas deemed to be significant. Part of this avoidance plan was excavation of dike repair dirt off site, rather than in the area initially proposed. This move basically negated the necessity for undertaking additional investigations other than what is documented in this report. The site has not been revisited since the 1987 investigations were completed. Consequently, it is unknown whether addition destructive erosional processes have affected the site, or whether the dike repair work has performed the intended effort. Another concern is that the fate of the site is currently under the control of another landowner. Whether this individual is aware of the site's significance is uncertain, and unlikely. Information presented by the author supports the initial conclusion of the principal field investigator that the Burton #1 site merits National Register of Historic Places consideration and protection. Charles S. Wallis, Jr. Staff Archeologist and Principal Field Investigator iii ABSTRACT This report documents the results of archaeological investigations conducted by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) at the Burton # 1 and #2 sites (34CT39 and 34CT40), Cotton County, Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission became involved in this project at the request of Dr. Robert Brooks, State Archaeologist, and the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service). The NRCS was the lead federal agency in a cost-sharing project for emergency dike repair work along a portion of Deep Red Creek in 1987 following damage by several flooding events. As a result of these events, a prehistoric burial was uncovered along an overflow channel and was reported to the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey by a local amateur collector. Charles Wallis, OCC archaeologist, and Robert Brooks investigated the site area in June 1987 and determined that several human burials had been exposed, in addition to noting the presence of other prehistoric features and deposits. This report outlines the methodology employed for data recovery on the disturbed portions of the site and the results of subsequent analyses of artifacts, features and human remains. The conclusions offered in this report highlight Late Prehistoric subsistence patterns and material culture at Burton #1, in addition to providing data on lithic resource procurement and use patterns. Although data recovery operations at these two sites were small in scale and much of the material came from surface and disturbed contexts, it is believed that important information pertaining to the prehistory of Oklahoma has been recovered, analyzed and presented in this report. The economic patterns discussed are tentative due to the nature of the recovery project, but nonetheless point to many potential and interesting future research topics concerning prehistoric groups living in the western Red River drainage area. IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Charles Wallis, Oklahoma Conservation Commission archaeologist, for providing access to the artifact collection from the Burton # I and #2 sites (34CT39 and 34CT40) and for supporting this research analysis and report. Charles' comments, criticisms, recollections and field notes pertaining to the fieldwork (Wallis 1987) and to this report were of tremendous help. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission's support in general of archaeological research in Oklahoma is always appreciated. The staff at the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey in Norman have been supportive of this research and are thanked for sharing their knowledge of Oklahoma prehistory with me. I wish to thank Kari Schimdt, currently located at the University of New Mexico, for her work on the faunal analysis section, Richard Drass for his assistance with the ceramic and botanical analysis, and Marjy Duncan, Scott Brosowske and Valli Powell for their assistance in identifying various lithic raw material types. Chris Cook provided his expertise on figure formatting and report production. Charles Wallis, Robert Brooks, Richard Drass, Susan Vehik and Marjy Duncan read and commented on earlier drafts of this report. However, I remain solely responsible for any errors and inaccuracies that may be contained in this report. Finally, everyone involved with this project wishes to thank the previous landowners, Mrs. Burton and her son Kenneth, for permitting this research on their property. v VI TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE I11 ABSTRACT ~y ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .... ._. .... v LIST OF T ABLES__._ __ __._. _ _.. _ _.. _._ __ _ _..... _ _ . _._ix LIST OF FIGURES . ._._.. _._ .. _ _.. _ _ .. __.. _.__.__ __ _.. _ Xl INTRODUCTION _. __. .. .._... _ _.__ _.. _.. 1 Project History and Background_. _ .__. ._._. _ . 2 Research Focus for Burton # 1 .. .._. ._ _.. _ .. ._._3 Research Questions and Goals __ ... .. _.. _. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND . ._ __._._ __.._.. _. _.. .__5 CULTURE HISTORY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS OF OKLAHOMA AND NORTH-CENTRAL TEXAS ..._---------------------- 8 Paleoindian . ._. .. 8 Archaic . ... ... 9 Plains Woodland -----------_.----------------------------.-------------------------------------------"------------------------------------- 10 Late Prehistoric: Plains Village .._. .._.. ._. .. 10 North-central Texas Plains Village Occupation . ._. 12 Protohistoric --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.---------.-.------------------------ 13 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICALRESEARCH IN COTTON COUNTY .. .__. ._. 13 Some Generalizations on Site Type and Site Location in Cotton County .._. .. __... 15 DATA RECOVERYMETHODOLOGY AT SITES 34CT39 AND34CT40 .. .. _. .__. 15 Site Setting . ._. .... __.__. .. 16 Artifact Collection at the Burton # I Site -------------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------- 16 The Burton #2 Site ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 Site Stratigraphy at Burton # 1 . ._. .__. 19 Shovel Probe # 1_._. ._. ._.. .. 19 Shovel Probe #2_._._ .. _ __. .19 Shovel Probe #3__ _.. __. ._.__.__.. .. .__.. 20 Shovel Probe #4 _. .._.__. ._. .._._.. 20 Soil Augur Tests #1,#2, and #3 . ...._.. .. .. ... ... .... _._... .. 20 Observations on Site Stratigraphy .. ..__._.. .__._. 20 LiTHIC ANALYSIS --_._---------_ ..._ .._ ..-.-_._---------------------_ ..--_._------_._--------------------------------------------------------_._- 22 Description Summary of Lithic Raw Material Types __. .22 Projectile Points __ _. _. .__._ . .__. ._._.._._.. 24 Lithic Tools _._... .__..__. ._. ...._.. .26 Lithic Debitage: Local vs. Non-local Raw Material and Debitage . .__..28 Cores_. __._.__.. ._... .. _.__.... .. .28 Lithic Flakes .. .__ _ ._.. __. 29 Raw Material Distributions .._. ..__. .. 30 Fire-Cracked Rock,Unmodified and Modified Gravel ..__...._. .._._.. .3 I Summation of Lithic Analysis ... .._... .. __..... .. __. .. .3 I CERAMICS .. _.__. .. _.. ._. .. .. _ .. 32 DAUB ANDBURNED CLAY .__. _.. .__ .. ._. .. 34 GROUNDSTONE 36 MUSSEL SHELL_. __._.. __. ._.__._._.... _.__.. ..__.... ... .. 40 vii BOTANICALREMAINS 42 CI4 Date Results 42 Plant Remains 42 HISTORICARTIFACTS 44 --.- ..----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------- BURJALSAND SCATTERED HUMAN REMAINSATBURTON #1 46 Burial No. 1 46 Burial No. 2 46 Isolated Occurrences of Human Bone 49 FAUNALANALYSIS AT BURTON #1 By KARl SCHMIDT 49 Introduction 49 Methods of Analysis 5 I Analytic Units and Fauna Type Distributions 5 I Surface Context. 52 Feature and Overflow Channel Slope Context 52 Mixed Context ----------------------.-------.----------------.------------------------------------------------------------------------------