Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net









  CONSERVATION ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE RICHLAND/CHAMBERS DAM AND RESERVOIR


                              PRODUCED BY
                      Archaeology Research Program
                       Department of Anthropology
                     Southern Methodist University

                         WITH FUNDS PROVIDED BY
                    Tarrant County Water Control and
                     Improvement District Number 1

                             _written by:_
                              L. Mark Raab
                                  and
                            Randall W. Moir

                           _typesetting by:_
                            James E. Bruseth

                          _graphic layout by:_
                           Chris Christopher

                                  1981




                        CONSERVATION ARCHAEOLOGY


_Archaeology_[1] has a number of popular stereotypes usually involving
expeditions to remote parts of the Earth in search of ancient tombs,
lost cities or long-extinct races of Man. The _archaeologist_ is seen
working a “dig” for years, looking for bits of bone or stone of little
importance to anyone but other scientists.

In reality, however, archaeology departs from this picture considerably.
Many modern archaeologists work in their own communities on projects
that include things familiar to most of us. The scope of their studies
may range from 10,000 year old American Indian _sites_ to early
twentieth century farms. Excavations are carried out with the aid of
tools, including small dental instruments, large earth-moving machines,
and electronic computers. Often, archaeologists do not dig at all, but
gather information from maps, photographs, written histories, and living
informants. In fact, more time by far is spent working on _artifacts_ in
a laboratory, and especially in writing reports of excavations, than is
spent in the field. Even more surprising, many archaeologists today work
in cooperation with private and governmental agencies to protect
archaeological remains, as required by state and federal laws. A
specialized field of archaeology, called _public_ or _conservation
archaeology_, has come into existence in the last twenty years to meet
this need.

The archaeological studies in the Richland Creek Reservoir area are a
good example of conservation archaeology in action. This report explains
what the Richland Creek Archaeological Project (RCAP) is, how it works,
and what it has accomplished thus far. Above all, the report tries to
show why conservation of our archaeological heritage is important to us
all, and to future generations.

A series of archaeological studies are planned for the Richland-Chambers
Dam and Reservoir area near Corsicana, Texas (Figure 1). The first phase
of those studies was carried out during 1980-81. The Tarrant County
Water Control and Improvement District Number 1, developer of the
Reservoir, employed Southern Methodist University[2] to conduct
archaeological studies. Like other construction projects requiring state
and federal permits, the Reservoir cannot be completed unless state and
federal laws pertaining to archaeological and historical sites are
adhered to. Since 1906, several federal and state laws have been enacted
to protect important archaeological sites. Particularly during the last
two decades, these laws have defined archaeological remains as an
important cultural resource that should be conserved for future
generations.

In recent decades legislators and the public have come to realize that
the expansion of our urban-industrial society is rapidly destroying the
_archaeological resources_ of the country. In many regions of the United
States this destruction has reached crisis proportions. Experts point
out that within another generation, given current rates of resource
destruction from industry, agriculture, and other land-modification
projects, intact archaeological resources will virtually cease to exist
within large areas of the nation.

Archaeological resources are fragile and nonrenewable. Much of the
scientific value of archaeological resources is lost if they cannot be
studied in an undisturbed _context_. Objects excavated from a site have
little meaning unless they can be related to specific soil layers
(_stratigraphy_) and other evidence of former activities of people, such
as hearths, trash deposits, house remains and other _features_. Any
activity that disturbs the soil may destroy this context.

    [Illustration: Fig. 1. Richland-Chambers Dam and Reservoir, Navarro
    and Freestone Counties, Texas.]

  RICHLAND-CHAMBERS DAM
  _Chambers Creek_
  _Richland Creek_
  _Trinity River_
  NAVARRO COUNTY
    CORSICANA
    NAVARRO
    RICHLAND
  FREESTONE COUNTY
  INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 45
  US HIGHWAY 287
  US HIGHWAY 75

The primary objective of archaeologists working in _cultural resource
management_ is _archaeological conservation_. As in the case of other
non-renewable natural resources, the emphasis is on resource
preservation. In the case of archaeological sites, that means digging as
a last resort. The first priority of the conservation archaeologist is
to preserve in an intact state a reasonable number of archaeological
sites for future generations of scientists and the public. Sometimes
sites can be preserved by selecting a construction design which avoids
them. In other instances adverse impact is unavoidable—a case in which
excavations are carried out to recover scientific information contained
in the sites prior to their destruction. Recovery of this information is
one way of conserving the resource. Preservation through _data recovery_
will be required in the Reservoir, and will be the focus of work in
years to come.


                         ARCHAEOLOGISTS AT WORK

One way of understanding the RCAP is to look at how archaeologists work.
People frequently ask what is an archaeological site? How do you find
sites? How do you excavate and what do you look for? What do you do with
the things that you collect?

During 1980-81, an _archaeological survey_ (Figure 2) was completed in
the project area. During the survey, an effort was made to develop the
most complete inventory possible of _prehistoric_ and _historic_ sites.
Sites were recorded by examining the entire project area on foot,
consulting landowners, amateur archaeologists, written records, museum
collections, aerial photographs, and other sources of information. No
survey could guarantee discovery of every archaeological site, but every
effort was made to construct a representative picture of the
archaeological resources in the project. Next, limited-scale excavations
(_testing_) were conducted on a sample of sites that were thought to
contain information best suited to answering specific scientific
questions. Once more, the intent was not to dig every site, but to
understand a representative sample of archaeological resources within
the project.

Archaeologists find sites by a variety of means. Naturally, how one
defines an archaeological site has an important bearing on what is
considered as representative. In the Reservoir, a site was defined as
any evidence of past human occupation, predating 1930. The 1930 cut-off
date reflects a legal definition of sites in the National Register of
Historic places, a federal office that records important historical and
archaeological properties. To be eligible for inclusion in the Register,
a site must generally be at least 50 years old, and must meet a number
of other criteria. Applying this definition to archaeological sites,
they may be as different as isolated pieces of prehistoric stone tools
and an early twentieth century farm house. Why such concern for these
seemingly isolated tools or for dwellings that are so recent? One of the
things that archaeologists have learned is that sometimes bits of
information that are incomprehensible taken one at a time form
meaningful patterns when many pieces are put together.

For example, it has been learned that when isolated _projectile points_
dropped by prehistoric hunters are plotted on a map, their distribution
may correlate with patterns of vegetation or topography, giving clues
about the kinds of animals that they were hunting and the size of their
hunting territories. More recent things, such as old farm houses, are
worth recording because, as we discuss later, they represent the
remnants of a way of life that is largely gone from rural Texas. In
another generation these buildings, so familiar as to escape notice by
most of us, will be gone for the most part, victims of decay, vandalism,
and land modification. To future generations, these “artifacts” will be
of as much interest as nineteenth century houses are to us today. There
is a danger that what is so common to us will fail to be recorded.
Contrary to what many suppose, the rather common aspects of early
twentieth century Texas culture are most in danger of being lost without
adequate record. Often histories and other documents reflect the lives
and architecture of the wealthy and well-known rather than the common
people. Still, the buildings and farms of the latter reflect distinctive
regional styles, and tell us many interesting things about the lives of
the people who built and lived in them.

    [Illustration: Fig. 2. Members of the Richland Creek Archaeological
    Project inspecting the banks of Richland Creek for archaeological
    remains. The project area was examined by teams of archaeologists
    for prehistoric and historic archaeological resources.]

Once we know what we are looking for, actually finding sites requires a
variety of methods. The most effective technique is the trained observer
walking over the ground. Prehistoric sites, that is sites occupied prior
to written history in the project area (about A.D. 1650), can be found
by observing distinctive bits of stone (_debitage_) produced during
manufacture and use of stone tools. Before contact with Europeans, the
Indians of Texas had no metals for making tools, and relied upon stone
for many kinds of implements. In other instances, pieces of prehistoric
pottery (_potsherds_), animal bone or shell, or stained soil deposits
(_middens_) signal prehistoric sites. Many of these clues are easily
overlooked except by a trained archaeologist.

In addition to ground survey, aerial photographs and geological studies
may be helpful in finding sites. In the RCAP, for example, a soils
scientist studied the geological history of the project area, and was
able to give the archaeologists a good idea where and how deeply
archaeological sites might be buried. One of the most valuable means of
locating archaeological sites was talking to local people and amateur
archaeologists. Many of these people are keen observers and reported the
location of many prehistoric and historic sites.

Excavating sites is a complex task. There is no single technique for
digging. The kinds of methods employed vary from excavation of _test
pits_ or _trenches_ with shovels and trowels, to making larger exposures
with heavy equipment. Sometimes the shape and placement of these
excavations is determined by statistical sampling considerations; and
they are always conditioned by the specific information that the
archaeologist hopes to get from a site. That is really the most
important point: excavations are aimed at recovering information, not
things per se. As we pointed out earlier in the mention of
archaeological context, artifacts have little meaning taken out of their
setting. This fact creates one of the most striking aspects of an
archaeological excavation to many people. There is a tremendous amount
of record keeping that goes on in a dig—maps of the site and of the test
pit walls (_profiles_), sheets describing artifacts and soil
characteristics, photographs and many others (Figure 3). The object is
to keep enough records that, if necessary, the archaeological site could
be reconstructed in detail. A parallel set of record keeping comes into
play, too, once things from the field reach the archaeological lab.

The demanding nature of excavation is a good reason why the untrained
should not attempt to excavate sites. Without proper controls, digging
can only result in loss of archaeological resources. Those who are
interested in learning proper archaeological methods can contact
organizations listed at the end of this report (Appendix I).

People invariably want to know what happens to the things that are
collected by archaeologists. Do archaeologists add artifacts to their
private collections, for example? Among professional archaeologists,
keeping of private collections is actively discouraged. The reason for
this is that archaeological remains are considered a scientific and
public resource that should not be held for personal reasons. As
scientists, archaeologists are interested in artifacts as sources of
information rather than as objects with intrinsic value. All artifacts
collected in the Reservoir, as is the case with all conservation
archaeology projects, will be stored in permanent institutional
repositories, where they can be studied by future generations of
scientists. Also, plans are underway to return some of this material to
the local area in the form of a museum display, for the benefit of the
public.

    [Illustration: Fig. 3. A test pit being excavated in a site within
    the Richland Project. Note the square pit walls, and screening for
    artifacts. Many kinds of records are kept during digging.]




     THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE RICHLAND-CHAMBERS RESERVOIR


                           _PREHISTORIC PAST_

Recent studies suggest that humans have occupied North America for at
least 20,000 years. These prehistoric Indians were the first people to
live in North America, probably entering the New World first by way of a
great land bridge between what is now Siberia and Alaska. True pioneers,
they entered a vast land that had never before contained humans. Once in
the New World, their culture developed over thousands of years into
several successive stages and spread over the whole of North America and
into South America. In the United States the development of prehistoric
American Indian cultures is a fascinating story of a people’s
increasingly complex culture and adaptations to the wealth of natural
resources offered by our continent. Since this development occurred
before these people developed systems of writing, their history is
available to us only through archaeology and other sciences. Without an
effort to understand this story, the history of a whole people will
disappear without record.

The peopling of the New World represents a kind of huge laboratory for
understanding how human societies develop over long periods of time.
Since the first people in North America entered a new land that did not
contain human competitors except themselves, we can study the
development of their culture over thousands of years in a relatively
simple frame of analysis. Archaeologists currently recognize four basic
culture stages of prehistoric Indian development in North America. These
stages are represented, in varying ways and degrees, by the archaeology
of the Richland-Chambers project.


                        _The Paleo-Indian Stage_
                        (_18,000 to 8000 B.C._)

Since 1925, when flint spear points were found embedded in the bones of
a kind of long-extinct bison, scientists have known that Native
Americans lived in this country for tens-of-thousands of years. We call
these people the “Paleo” Indians, after the Greek word for ancient, to
refer to the oldest inhabitants of this continent. Intriguing as these
people are, however, we understand little about them because we have
found few traces of their habitations. The most distinctive trait of
these people is chipped stone spear points with characteristic “flutes,”
or long flake scars, on their surfaces (probably helping to lash the
spear point to a shaft). These are unlike anything made by their
descendants over the thousands of years to follow. Beautifully made,
these artifacts are obviously stone tools of hunters, who depended on
their weapons for a livelihood (Figure 4).

At first, it appears that the population grew slowly in the
newly-inhabited continent of North America. The people in this period
were apparently nomadic, frequently moving in search of game animals,
seasonal plant foods and raw materials. Since there were not many of
them, and they moved frequently, they did not leave many remains for the
archaeologist to find. In the project area, only the base portion of a
fluted point has been found but this artifact is an unmistakable but
faint clue to the presence of Paleo-Indian inhabitants. With further
work, more evidence may come to light. As matters now stand, we
understand little of these people’s economy, religion, society,
settlement pattern and other things that made up their culture.

    [Illustration: Fig. 4. Drawing of a Paleo-Indian fluted point
    (Clovis type).]


                          _The Archaic Stage_
                        (_8000 B.C. to A.D. 1?_)

Following the Paleo-Indian stage of cultural development, we know that
population continued to grow steadily over thousands of years. We know
this trend occurred because we find many more sites. In the project
area, for example, we find that about half of all prehistoric sites that
can be related to a cultural stage are from the Archaic stage (over 300
prehistoric sites were recorded during 1980-81). Even though these sites
were occupied over thousands of years, they are a striking contrast to
the scanty evidence of Paleo-Indian groups.

Another thing that makes it easier to find Archaic stage sites is that
the Archaic peoples’ way of life had changed from that of the
Paleo-Indians. The hallmark of Archaic culture was a round of occupation
from one site to another in a regular cycle timed to the changing
seasons. We suspect, for example, that during the fall, families moved
to camps on river terraces where they could gather acorns and other nuts
for winter food and hunt deer. In the spring and summer, they may have
moved to camps on streams, where they could fish and gather roots,
berries and mussels. By coming back to their sites again and again over
hundreds or thousands of years, a great deal of waste materials was
deposited leaving evidence to be found by archaeologists.

At present, only the barest outline of this culture is understood. Yet
through study of their burial patterns, discarded food materials and
many other aspects of the archaeological sites they left behind, we can
come to a much fuller understanding of their culture (Figure 5).


                          _The Woodland Stage_
                        (_A.D. 1 to A.D. 800?_)

Throughout much of eastern North America we know that tremendous
cultural changes occurred in the few centuries before and after the time
of Christ. The society of simple hunters and gatherers in Archaic times
gave way to a much more advanced type of society for reasons that are
not entirely understood at present. We do know that Woodland stage
peoples began building huge earthworks; sometimes as burial mounds,
sometimes in the forms of animals such as snakes. From a social point of
view, big changes occurred. We find the first evidence of social ranking
in which a few powerful people were buried in mounds with great wealth
and ceremony. In certain respects, this development was a clear step
toward the eventual emergence of civilizations. We know that this kind
of change has occurred independently in many parts of the world but we
do not yet know why. It is clearly an important development with
consequences for all human societies.

    [Illustration: Fig. 5. Projectile points excavated from an Archaic
    stage site in the Richland project. Some of the stone from which
    these points were made was imported by the Indians from many miles
    away from the project.]

The Woodland stage also saw major technological advances. It was in this
period that the bow and arrow, making of pottery (Figure 6) and
agriculture (though this may have occurred during Archaic times, too)
make their appearance.

The interesting aspect of the project area is that some of these things
(e.g., the bow and arrow and pottery) appear to have been adopted, but
not others, including the settled village life, agriculture, earth works
and social complexity of other prehistoric peoples to the east and north
(e.g., the prehistoric Caddo Indians). In many ways, it appears that the
relatively simpler life of Archaic times persisted, with a few items
borrowed from more advanced outsiders. This pattern is one that deserves
an explanation.


                          _Neo-American Stage_
                          (_A.D. 800 to 1500_)

The Neo-American stage, also called the Mississippian stage in the
eastern U.S., was the last prehistoric culture stage, and the one with
the most complex culture. During this stage, large pyramid-shaped
earthen mounds, complex ceremonialism, long-distance trade, heavy
reliance on crops such as corn and squash, and a complex social order,
with powerful chiefs at the top of the ranking system, all merged. The
prehistoric Caddo Indians of East Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and
Louisiana are an excellent example of this type of culture.

    [Illustration: Fig. 6. Pieces of prehistoric earthen pottery
    (potsherds) that were made during the Neo-American cultural stage in
    the project. Note the different types of surface decorations.]

Yet, for all of the vigor and influence of this type of culture, its
influence was not felt to the same degree everywhere. In the project
area, there are only a few sites that suggest substantial contact with
the most developed Neo-American cultures. In those cases we find certain
kinds of prehistoric pottery vessels that, if not actually obtained from
more culturally advanced peoples to the east and north, were modelled
after ceramics of neighboring peoples.

These facts raise many questions. Were the inhabitants of the project
area during Neo-American times carrying on an older style of life,
modelled economically after the earlier Archaic-type of economy? Were
the resources available in the project insufficient to support a
thoroughly agricultural type of economy? Equipped only with simple hand
tools, only certain kinds of soils allowed agriculture by these ancient
peoples. The tough prairie grasses, for example, would have made certain
kinds of soils difficult, if not impossible to cultivate.

    [Illustration: Fig. 7. This trench is one of those excavated in two
    “Wylie focus” pits discovered in the project. Since these
    prehistoric pits are about 100 feet in diameter, it is difficult to
    show their extent in a photograph. Much information on the age,
    construction sequence and content of the pits was gained from test
    trenches such as this one.]

There is also the question of environmental influences. We know that
over a period of thousands of years the climate of Texas, in fact of all
of North America, has changed a great deal. Part of the ongoing research
in the RCAP is the study of past environments. Some of the most
promising results here are from the fields of geology and palynology
(the study of pollen records). Many people do not know that pollen from
ancient plants may be preserved in the soil for thousands of years, and
can be recovered with certain laboratory methods. If this pollen from
past periods is found, it can help to understand the kinds of vegetation
that were present at different points in time. The present evidence from
the project is exciting. It suggests, for example, that a drought far
worse than anything recorded in the history of Texas occurred sometime
between A.D. 1000 to 1300. The severity of the drought may have caused
prehistoric people to change their way of life, including abandoning the
project area.

Another major scientific discovery has been made in the project, and is
dated to the Neo-American stage. For forty years archaeologists have
known that an area on the Elm Fork of the Trinity River, north of
Dallas, contained large, man-made pits dating to the Neo-American stage.
These were called Wylie focus pits, after a system of classification of
sites used by archaeologists. These pits are truly large, some measuring
up to 100 feet in diameter and up to 10 feet deep in the center (Figure
7). Moreover, these pits generally contain many human burials placed in
the pit over a period of time. One pit even contained the skeleton of a
young bear. All of these pits were excavated by hand with simple digging
implements.

During the Richland project’s first season of work two of these pits
were located and excavated. The discovery of these pits extended the
known range of these unique cultural features over 100 miles from the
region of their original occurrence.

At present, it is unclear what prehistoric culture constructed these
monumental works or what their function may have been. It is safe to
say, however, that these kinds of sites are unique to the north Texas
area, and constitute a major point of archaeological interest. Work will
be continuing on these sites in the next few years.


                            _HISTORIC PAST_

The archaeological story of people in this area during the last 150
years is no less exciting than its prehistoric counterpart. From the
material remains, sites, and structures that these people have left
behind, we see a picture of the rapid taming of a frontier, its rural
agricultural florescence at the turn of this century, and then its
decline under adverse economic conditions. Much of the rural landscape
still contains a significant percentage of early twentieth century
structures in varying degrees of abandonment and preservation. The
following sections briefly look at the archaeological record for the
historic period in the RCAP area as we know it today. The archaeological
record provides us with a tangible and materially rich picture of
specific aspects of daily life. The record left behind by the area’s
past inhabitants provides much detailed information about their
dwellings, farms, personal belongings, daily activities and lifeways.
Although we have only begun to decipher the information, some results
are already available from the 194 historic sites tested and the several
dozen individuals interviewed to date.

Before entering into a discussion of the historic period, let us step
back from the results and answer several major questions. What important
and unique qualities emerge from the historic archaeological record for
this area? Does the record tell us the same story that it would for
other areas? What insight does the record provide that is distinct and
unique to this part of Texas?

Unfortunately, not much is available from other areas of the country for
making comparisons to the study area, but from what is known a general
picture can be formed. The rural communities in this area consisted
mainly of farms from the mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth
century. The sites representing these former farms indicate that
lifeways were amazingly stable and relatively unaffected by influences
coming from urban cultures. Since 1940, however, much of the distinctive
culture of this rural area, unfortunately, has succumbed to the same
urban American values found over other broad regions. The archaeological
record suggests that before mass transportation and electricity entered
the local scene, this area would have ranked among the richest of late
nineteenth century areas in terms of local folk cultures and rural
lifeways. Today, much of the rural culture has been lost. An objective
of the Richland Creek Archaeological Project has been to record some of
this information through interviews with senior residents over the next
several years.

Results of some of the work conducted in the study of past lifeways
portray the area’s past residents as a group of people who often made
efficient and wise use of their local natural resources. This is
illustrated in one aspect of their building construction. As bottomland
forests were cut and less wood was available locally, many individuals
adopted the practice of recycling major elements of older structures
into new ones. Figure 8 is an example of recycling older beams. Reuse of
older structures underscores a keen awareness of optimizing local
resources. Undoubtedly, other examples of the efficient use of local
resources will emerge as structures and sites are studied in greater
detail.

    [Illustration: Fig. 8. Twentieth century shed constructed with hand
    hewn and reused sills and joists. This is a prime example of the
    recycling of older building parts.]


             _A Look at the Past Through Material Remains_

What can we expect to gain from looking at broken pieces of plates,
bottles, animal bones, buttons, and window glass 50 or a 100 years old?
Aren’t museum collections and written histories adequate for providing
information about rural life from 1870 to 1910? Unfortunately, there is
a big difference between the type of information available through
antiques, books, people, and archaeology. Artifacts represent fragments
generally resulting from the discarding or breaking of common items.
Most antiques represent whole items recognized as having some intrinsic
value which afforded them greater care or curation and less utilitarian
usage. Most artifacts, on the other hand, represent common household
items or possessions that did not receive special care or handling. No
fragments of elaborately cut crystal wine glasses were among the 30,000
historic artifacts recovered from the project area, but fragments of
inexpensive, undecorated tumblers were present. Similarly, only several
dozen fragments of porcelain vessels were among the nearly 1,200 ceramic
fragments excavated. Does this mean that cut wine glasses or porcelain
cups were seldom available? No, more likely it represents a difference
in handling and caring for these more expensive items. As an example,
try counting the number of porcelain tablewares (plates, dishes, cups,
etc.) in the household of an elderly person. In most cases, porcelain
will be very frequent and often 50 years old or even older. These items
have been saved from common use and now serve decorative or very special
functions. The point of this example is to emphasize that the items
fifty or more years old in households or museums today are not
representative of the items lying broken and scattered around historic
sites.

Can the written record provide us with much of the information we need
to know? The richness of the written record is not to be underrated.
However, in many areas, the written record is not without its problems.
Often objective details about daily activities or observations about
common material possessions, farm layouts, folkways or folk technologies
are hard to locate. Diaries, travelers’ accounts, and written histories,
on the other hand, frequently provide interesting personal or anecdotal
kinds of information. The position that archaeologists wish to emphasize
is that we should not rely solely on the written record in an attempt to
understand the past. The picture conveyed for a group of people from
their sites and material remains can be strikingly different from their
own story told in writings. The archaeological record provides a direct
and often objective source of information which is consistent over long
periods of time. The record of your own life as revealed in the items
you discard may be quite different than what you portray to others. This
fact makes some aspects of the archaeological record both interesting
and important for reconstructing past lifeways.

These major points all contribute to the value of the archaeological
record. For nineteenth century rural East-central Texas, written
records, oral folk knowledge, and antiques leave much of the story
untold. The archaeology of historic sites in the proposed Reservoir area
will begin to illuminate much of the former lifeways of these small
rural agricultural communities. Without preserving some of this
information, future generations will have little to study in order to
probe the past of this nearly 100 square miles. The displacement of
people and the submergence of places and sites so familiar today means
oblivion for many former homesteads and communities. The task of the
historic archaeologist is to select and preserve important aspects of
the past record so that this information is available to future
generations.


  _Historic Settlement Along Richland and Chambers Creeks (1840-1940)_

The first few permanent settlers came to this area soon after Texas
declared its independence from Mexico in 1836. Settlement increased
tremendously after Texas achieved statehood as families migrated
westward. Most of these earliest settlers constructed log cabins for
dwellings. About ten log cabin sites possibly dating to the
mid-nineteenth century have been located in the area. Overall, however,
we see a picture of families with widely different resources facing the
same rural frontier. On the upper end were relatively affluent frontier
plantation owners, such as the Burlesons and Blackmons, who settled
along Richland Creek, or the Ingrams along the Trinity River to the
north. The location of these affluent households were similar. They were
located well above the creek bottoms and in the vicinity of good cotton
land. Even the crude plantation houses themselves were similar in that
each presented an air of important social status. Through the
architecture of these dwellings each owner presented a visual display of
his personal wealth and social status. Although these houses were far
less sophisticated than those found further east in Louisiana or
Mississippi, they were the mark of status in this area. The Burleson
plantation house is shown in Figures 9 and 10. Compared to the simple,
small, unpretentious log cabin shown in Figure 11, the crude frontier
plantation house of East-central Texas fulfilled its social role as
needed.

In the reservoir area, the former sites of several simple log cabins
have been found. Figure 12 shows the remains of one log cabin as found
today. These sites indicate that life was orderly yet simple during the
mid-nineteenth century. The settlers that came to this area were, for
the most part, experienced in reading the land. The locations selected
for each cabin were well above the bottomlands in order to avoid the
danger of floods, but at the same time close to rich farmland and water.
Fifty years later people were much less concerned about selecting the
proper location for a dwelling. As a consequence, many log cabins have
endured over a century of harsh weather and have outlasted more recent
structures.

By 1870, several dozen small communities, (Petty’s Chapel, Birdston,
Rush Creek, Wadeville, Pisgah Ridge, Rural Shade, Re, and Providence)
dotted the landscape. The railroad penetrated the area in 1871 and
brought about many changes in the area that have lasted until today.
There was, however, a price to be paid for this modern convenience of
trade and travel. For some of the small communities, the railroad
brought financial death and abandonment. The archaeological record shows
this pattern clearly. New communities seem to have grown up overnight
(e.g., Richland, Navarro, Cheneyboro, Streetman, and Kerens) while
others, which had been around for 30 or 40 years, deteriorated rapidly
(e.g. Wadeville, Pisgah Ridge, Winkler, and Re).

In addition to causing a shift in rural populations, the railroads also
brought another major change. Prior to the railroads, these rural
communities had become nearly self sufficient. The remains of a kiln for
firing hand made bricks found in the project area stands as an example
of rural folk industry (some fragments of glazed handmade bricks from
the kiln are shown in Figure 13). Other craftsmen also may have been
dispersed over this rural countryside. The shoe last (iron form used in
shoe repair) found at one site suggests that a rural cobbler may have
once stayed at the site (Figure 14). The railroads symbolized the start
of a new era where mass produced goods, brick, lumber, shoes and
commercial products could be transported cheaply into the area. Along
with these goods came better living conditions and prosperity for many
farmers and merchants. As a consequence some rural folk industries such
as brick making disappeared and were replaced by commercial
establishments. Even the need for a rural cobbler may have been eclipsed
by the railroads.

    [Illustration: Fig. 9. Burleson Plantation house as seen today. This
    mid-nineteenth century upper class dwelling, although covered with
    sheet metal, is much larger than contemporary log cabins.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 10. Interior of the mid-nineteenth century
    Burleson Plantation house illustrating architectural details more
    elaborate than less affluent dwellings of the same era.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 11. Mid-nineteenth century log cabin partially
    restored for use as a hunting cabin.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 12. The remains of a log cabin as seen today.
    Several such sites were found during the survey of the project
    area.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 13. Fragments of hand made bricks from a brick
    kiln site. Brick fragment at center top is covered with a crusty
    burned coating. Brick fragment at bottom lower left has a smooth
    light green-gray glaze on its outer surface.]

The archaeological record shows another effect of railroads on the local
residents. Investigations so far suggest that there was an increase in
the consumption of such items as bottles (Figure 15), plates (Figure
16), personal possessions and the like in the few decades after the
railroads entered this area. By the early twentieth century, the
archaeological record suggests that rural households had been partly,
but not entirely incorporated into the patterns of commercial
consumption. It seems that many were able to retain some of their rural
folkways well into the twentieth century.

    [Illustration: Fig. 14. Iron shoe last used in cobbler work from a
    historic site.]

The battle played locally between rural American lifeways and their
urban counterparts may be inferred from a close look at the sites,
structures, and artifacts these people have left behind. For example,
the pattern of intensive yard use by families in this area remains
unchanged until well into the twentieth century. Many fragments of
pottery and glass lie scattered around these rural dwellings. In other
more settled parts of the country, such as the northeast, rural farmers
had shifted away from this pattern of intensive yard use toward a
pattern reflecting commercial consumption. In the Reservoir area, swept
dirt yards were still being used for various daily activities, from
processing food to discarding refuse, while cosmetically treated and
manicured lawns were being kept in New England, New York, and much of
the mid-Atlantic region. In this regard, domestic life in much of
East-central Texas had changed very little. In other parts of the
country, archaeology reveals dramatic reorganization to keep pace with a
society moving towards increased consumption and disposable material
culture. Denser rural populations and a greater consumption of
disposable material culture forced many communities to organize town
dumps and mass collections to cope with the excess products. The
Richland Creek area did not experience this transition until well into
the twentieth century. Lower population density and a stronger tie to
more traditional lifeways kept many aspects of rural life the same until
the advent of better roads and electricity in the mid-1930s.

    [Illustration: Fig. 15. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century
    bottle fragments recovered from historic sites in the project area.]

The persistence of an unpretentious and traditional aspect of rural life
in this area can be observed in the dwellings found throughout. The
_Cumberland_ and _Hipped Roof Bungalows_ found here reveal a blend of
traditional southern lifeways and local folk elements. Figures 17 and 18
show two examples of early twentieth century dwellings. Figure 19
illustrates the traditional cultural overtones of this region and shows
an early twentieth century log barn.

Several other aspects of traditional Southern lifeways have been
captured in the archaeological record. The sites in the Richland Creek
area indicate that foodways did not change as quickly in this area as in
others. For example, the archaeological record suggests that home
canning with commercial fruit canning (Figure 20) jars was slow to
penetrate this area. Wide use of glass fruit jars does not appear until
the second decade of this century, unlike other parts of the country
that used them as early as 1870 or 1880.

    [Illustration: Fig. 16. Fragments of late nineteenth and early
    twentieth century ceramics. The printed marks designate the
    manufacturer. The mark seen in the top row is typical of many late
    nineteenth century British potteries.]

Last of all, the consumption of commercially produced alcoholic
beverages, liquors, and patent medicines does not appear to be anywhere
near that observed in the refuse discarded by contemporaneous residents
of the northeast or frontier southwest. Whether this indicates local
adherence to southern temperance or the widespread use of “homemade”
products is not known at this time.

When segments of the archaeological record are combined, the picture
emerges of an area rich in traditional Southern lifeways. From dwellings
and patterns of yard use to foodways and the late participation in a
society based on consumption, the archaeological record reveals a rural
style of life that changed little for a period of about 100 years. In
this regard, this area avoided the less desirable aspects of changing
popular American culture and allowed local folk cultures to flourish.
After the great depression and World War II, all of this changed. Today
rural East-central Texas is not much different than many other parts of
the country, but has an archaeological heritage of which to be proud.

    [Illustration: Fig. 17. An example of an early twentieth century
    tenant farm dwelling; in this case, a four room _Cumberland_ (side
    view).]

    [Illustration: Fig. 18. An example of an early twentieth century
    _Hipped Roof Bungalow_. This was the dwelling of a local land owner
    and is more elaborate than the simple _Cumberland_ (Fig. 17).]

    [Illustration: Fig. 19. An example of the rebirth of log barns in
    rural folk construction in the early twentieth century.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 20. Early twentieth century glass fruit jar
    (bottom) with milk glass cap liner (top). If one were to pick a
    single artifact representative of twentieth century tenant farming
    lifeway, it would undoubtably be the home glass canning jar.]




                                GLOSSARY


_Archaeology_ (also spelled _archeology_): In the United States,
archaeology is taught and practiced as one of the four major subfields
of anthropology (with anthropological linguistics, physical
anthropology, and cultural anthropology). The aim of archaeology is the
understanding of past human societies. Archaeologists not only attempt
to discover and describe past cultures, but also to develop explanations
for the development of cultures.


_Archaeologist_: Anyone with an interest in the aims and methods of
archaeology. At a professional level, the archaeologist usually holds a
degree in anthropology, with a specialization in archaeology (see
_Archaeology_). The professional archaeologist is one who is capable of
collecting archaeological information in a proper scientific way, and
interpreting that information in light of existing scientific theories
and methods.


_Archaeological Survey_: The archaeological survey is a study intended
to compile an inventory of archaeological remains within a given area.
Usually a survey is an extensive rather than an intensive phase of
archaeological study. The objective is to form the most complete and
representative picture possible of the archaeological remains found
within a defined area. Surveys may be based upon a wide variety of
methods, including on-foot examinations of the ground surface, brief
digging, talking with people who know where archaeological sites are to
be found, consulting historical records, and looking at satellite photos
of an area.


_Archaeological Testing_: Archaeological testing involves carrying out
limited-scale testing of archaeological sites (see _Site_). Testing
attempts to dig only enough to determine the extent, content and state
of preservation within an archaeological site.


_Artifact_: Any object that shows evidence of modification by a human
agency. Examples of artifacts are spear points chipped from flint,
animal bones burned during preparation of a meal, fragments of pottery
vessels and coins. Whether ancient or recent, artifacts are the traces
of human behavior, and therefore one of the prime categories of things
studied by archaeologists (see also _Context_).


_Conservation Archaeology_: A subfield of archaeology whose primary
objective is informed management of archaeological remains and
information. Working with private and public agencies, conservation
archaeologists provide information that will allow archaeological
properties and information to be effectively managed for the benefit of
future generations. In this context, archaeological values are a natural
resource of the nation, to be wisely conserved for the future (see
_Cultural Resource Management_).


_Context_, or _Archaeological Context_: The setting from which
archaeological objects (see _Artifacts_) are taken. Usually the meaning
of archaeological objects cannot be discerned without information about
their setting. One example is determining how old an object is, given
that the age of objects excavated from a site varies with their depth in
the ground. Unless the depth of an object is carefully recorded against
a fixed point of reference, it may be impossible to relate objects to
the dimension of time.


_Cultural Resource Management_: Development of programs and policies
aimed at conservation of archaeological properties and information. Such
programs exist within the federal and state governments, academic
institutions and private agencies.


_Cumberland Dwelling_: An architectural style named for its common
occurrence throughout middle Tennessee. These dwellings have two front
rooms of about equal size and front doors, with any additional rooms
added onto the rear of the building.


_Data Recovery_: In the context of cultural resource management (see
definition) studies, data recovery refers to relatively large-scale
excavation designed to remove important objects and information from an
archaeological site prior to its planned destruction. Data recovery is
only undertaken after it is shown that preservation of the site in place
is not a feasible course of action in the project in question.
Scientific data are recovered to answer important scientific and
cultural questions.


_Debitage_: A term meaning the characteristic types of stone flakes
produced from manufacture of prehistoric stone tools by chipping (as,
for example, stone spear and arrow points). One of the most common types
of prehistoric artifacts, these distinctive flakes frequently alert the
archaeologist to the presence of a prehistoric site.


_Feature_, or _Archaeological Feature_: Many things of archaeological
interest are portable, such as fragments of bone, pottery and stone
tools. However, archaeological sites frequently contain man-made things
that are not portable, but are part of the earth itself. Examples of
these features are hearths, foundations of buildings, storage pits,
grave pits and canals.


_Hipped Roof Bungalow_: These are square to rectangular dwellings with
hipped gable roofs, one or two front doors and four to five rooms
arranged in a modular design.


_Historic Sites_: Archaeological sites dating to the historic era, or
after about the early seventeenth century in the project area. The
distinguishing characteristic of this period is availability of written
documents. This era extends from the earliest period mentioned in
histories to the present.


_Midden_: A word (adopted from the Danish language) meaning refuse heap.
In many instances, one of the most apparent aspects of an archaeological
site is “midden”, or a soil layer stained to a dark color by
decomposition of organic refuse, and containing food bones, fragments of
stone tools, charcoal, pieces of pottery or other discards.
Archaeologists can learn a great deal about people’s lifeways by
studying their middens.


_Potsherds_ (or _sherds_): Pieces of ceramic vessels. Since the making
of pottery did not begin in the project area until the first few
centuries A.D., the presence of potsherds is a useful index of time.
Also, the composition of the sherds and their decorative motifs are a
highly useful way of detecting different prehistoric cultural groups,
since manufacture and design of pottery varied with cultural groups.


_Prehistoric Sites_: Archaeological sites (see _Site_) that date to a
time prior to European contact (that is, before written history). In the
project area that would be prior to the early seventeenth century.
Prehistory is a relative concept, varying from one area to another,
depending on the first intrusion of Americans or Europeans.


_Profiles_: Detailed maps of the walls of test pits and test trenches
(see definitions). These are key records in understanding a site’s
layers (stratigraphy) and distribution and age of artifacts.


_Site_: A site, or archaeological site, is the location of past human
behavior. Sites vary tremendously in their size and content, ranging
from cities to a few flakes of stone indicating the manufacture of a
stone tool. As a relative concept, sites are defined in relation to
specific research problems and needs.


_Stratigraphy_: A number of normal processes caused the earth’s surface
to be built up over time in layer-cake fashion. Sometimes this is caused
by floods or wind-carried soil. In other cases it may result from people
piling up refuse of one kind or another. The layering effect here is
called stratigraphy, and is a major interpretive tool of the
archaeologist. Within a given stratigraphic sequence the most deeply
buried layers are usually the oldest, and things found within a given
level were usually from the same points in time. Stratigraphy is
therefore a means of telling time (in a relative sense) for the
archaeologist.


_Test Pits_: Rectilinear pits dug during excavation of a site (see
_Archaeological Testing_). The archaeologist works with square or
rectangular pits because they aid in keeping records of changes in soil
types and other variables with depth. Extensive records, drawings and
maps are kept of test pits. The function of the test pit is to provide a
sample of a site’s contents at a particular point.


_Test Trenches_: Serving much the same function as a test pit, the test
trench give a more continuous record of a site’s contents over a larger
distance than a pit. Trenches are useful for tracing stratigraphy (see
definition) over distance.




                               APPENDIX I


There are several organizations that encourage interest and education in
archaeology by members of the public. Some of these organizations are
listed below.


The first is the _Texas Archaeological Society, Center for
Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio, San
Antonio, TX 78285_. This society is composed of avocational
archaeologists from all walks of life. It holds an annual meeting in the
fall during which members present papers on various aspects of Texas
archaeology. Each summer the society also organizes a field school where
members can participate in excavation of an archaeological site under
the supervision of a professional archaeologist. The society also
publishes a high-quality bulletin about Texas archaeology.


Another organization that promotes archaeology is the _Archaeological
Institute of America_. This organization has its national headquarters
in Washington, D.C., and schedules national lecture tours by
archaeologists who visit local chapters in major cities. The lectures
are offered six times a year, and present the results of archaeological
investigations world-wide.


In addition, local or county archaeological societies can be contacted
for information about archaeology in Texas. If such an organization does
not currently exist in your community, perhaps you could start one!


Discovery of archaeological remains, particularly destruction of
archaeological properties, deserves official attention. To report such
events and to obtain information about the State’s efforts in protecting
archaeological and historical resources, contact: _Texas Historical
Commission, P.O. Box 12276, Capitol Station, Austin, TX, 78711_.




                               FOOTNOTES


[1]Terms in italics are defined in Glossary at end of report.

[2]Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Southern
    Methodist University, Dallas, TX, 75275.


    [Illustration: Longhorn skull]




                          Transcriber’s Notes


—Silently corrected a few typos.

—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook
  is public-domain in the country of publication.

—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by
  _underscores_.

—Added links to the glossary for words defined there.