The Project Gutenberg eBook ofConservation Archaeology of the Richland/Chambers Dam and Reservoir

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofConservation Archaeology of the Richland/Chambers Dam and ReservoirThis ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Conservation Archaeology of the Richland/Chambers Dam and ReservoirAuthor: L. Mark RaabRandall W. MoirRelease date: November 7, 2020 [eBook #63671]Most recently updated: October 18, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online DistributedProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONSERVATION ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE RICHLAND/CHAMBERS DAM AND RESERVOIR ***

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Conservation Archaeology of the Richland/Chambers Dam and ReservoirAuthor: L. Mark RaabRandall W. MoirRelease date: November 7, 2020 [eBook #63671]Most recently updated: October 18, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online DistributedProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

Title: Conservation Archaeology of the Richland/Chambers Dam and Reservoir

Author: L. Mark RaabRandall W. Moir

Author: L. Mark Raab

Randall W. Moir

Release date: November 7, 2020 [eBook #63671]Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

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

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONSERVATION ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE RICHLAND/CHAMBERS DAM AND RESERVOIR ***

PRODUCED BYArchaeology Research ProgramDepartment of AnthropologySouthern Methodist University

WITH FUNDS PROVIDED BYTarrant County Water Control andImprovement District Number 1

written by:L. Mark RaabandRandall W. Moir

typesetting by:James E. Bruseth

graphic layout by:Chris Christopher

1981

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. Thearchaeologistis seen working a “dig” for years, looking for bits of bone or stone of little importance to anyone but other scientists.

In reality, however,archaeologydeparts 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 Indiansitesto 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 onartifactsin 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, calledpublicorconservation 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 ofconservation archaeologyin 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 historicalsitesare 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 thearchaeological resourcesof 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 inan undisturbedcontext. Objects excavated from asitehave 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 otherfeatures. Any activity that disturbs the soil may destroy this context.

Fig. 1. Richland-Chambers Dam and Reservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties, Texas.

The primary objective of archaeologists working incultural resource managementisarchaeological conservation. As in the case of other non-renewable natural resources, the emphasis is on resource preservation. In the case of archaeologicalsites, thatmeans digging as a last resort. The first priority of the conservationarchaeologistis 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 throughdata recoverywill be required in the Reservoir, and will be the focus of work in years to come.

One way of understanding the RCAP is to look at how archaeologists work. People frequently ask what is an archaeologicalsite? 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, anarchaeological survey(Figure 2) was completed in the project area. During the survey, an effort was made to develop the most complete inventory possible ofprehistoricandhistoricsites. 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 findsitesby 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 isolatedprojectile pointsdropped 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 asnineteenth 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.

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 findingsitesrequires 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 contactwith 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 trainedarchaeologist.

In addition to ground survey, aerial photographs and geological studies may be helpful in findingsites. 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.

Excavatingsitesis a complex task. There is no single technique for digging. The kinds of methods employed vary from excavation oftest pitsortrencheswith 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 thearchaeologisthopes 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 archaeologicalcontext,artifactshave 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 thetest pitwalls (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 excavatesites. 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 addartifactsto 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 allconservation archaeologyprojects, 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.

Fig. 3. Atest pitbeing excavated in asitewithin the Richland Project. Note the square pit walls, and screening forartifacts. Many kinds of records are kept during digging.

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 througharchaeologyand 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 thearchaeologyof the Richland-Chambers project.

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, theseartifactsare 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 thearchaeologistto find. In the project area, only the base portion of a fluted point has been found but thisartifactis 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’seconomy, religion, society, settlement pattern and other things that made up their culture.

Fig. 4. Drawing of a Paleo-Indian fluted point (Clovis type).

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 moresites. In the project area, for example, we find that about half of allprehistoric sitesthat 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 stagesitesis 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 archaeologicalsitesthey left behind, we can come to a much fuller understanding of their culture (Figure 5).

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 wereburied 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.

Fig. 5. Projectile points excavated from an Archaic stagesitein 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.

The Neo-American stage, also called the Mississippian stage in the eastern U.S., was the lastprehistoric 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.

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 fewsitesthat 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 bythese ancient peoples. The tough prairie grasses, for example, would have made certain kinds of soils difficult, if not impossible to cultivate.

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 fromtest trenchessuch 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 ofsitesused 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 simpledigging 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 culturalfeaturesover 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 ofsitesare 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.

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 194historic sitestested 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. Thesitesrepresenting 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 8is 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 andsitesare studied in greater detail.

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.

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, andarchaeology.Artifactsrepresent 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 aroundhistoric 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 theirsitesand 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. Thearchaeologyofhistoric sitesin 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 andsitesso familiar today means oblivion for many former homesteads and communities. The task of the historicarchaeologistis to select and preserve important aspects of the past record so that this information is available to future generations.

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 cabinsitespossibly 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 Figures9and10. Compared to the simple, small, unpretentious log cabin shown inFigure 11, the crude frontier plantation house of East-central Texas fulfilled its social role as needed.

In the reservoir area, the formersitesof several simple log cabins have been found.Figure 12shows 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 inFigure 13). Other craftsmen also may have been dispersed over this rural countryside. The shoe last (iron form used in shoe repair) found at onesitesuggests 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.

Back to Index Next