We would like to thank the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for its support in the preparation of this pamphlet. This report and the Joe Pool Lake archaeological investigations were funded by the Corps of Engineers (CE) under contract number DACW63-84-C-0146. We especially acknowledge Mr. Robert Burton, CE archaeologist, who envisioned a public dig and this brochure as means of informing the general public of Joe Pool Lake archaeological findings.
We also want to thank the many other Corps of Engineers staff who helped in the coordination of the Joe Pool Lake archaeological studies and especially in the completion of this report after Mr. Burton's departure. In particular, we sincerely appreciate the help of Mr. Stephen Helfert, Ms. Karen Scott, and Mr. Erwin Roemer of the Planning Division who provided us with detailed comments and helpful suggestions. The helpful cooperation of many members of Texas Parks and Wildlife, especially Mr. Ronald Ralph and Dennis Cordes, in the investigation of sites within future park areas was essential to the results presented here.
The Dallas Archeological Society is also gratefully acknowledged for its contribution to the recovery of archaeological data in the Joe Pool Lake area and its immeasurable contribution to the success of the public dig. We also thank staff members of the Texas Historical Commission for their constructive help and review comments. Dr. LaVerne Herrington, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, provided many helpful comments concerning the implementation of the archaeological investigations at Joe Pool Lake.
Finally, we wish to emphasize that this brochure is the result of the contributions of many individuals who participated in the Joe Pool Lake Archaeological Project between 1977 and 1986. It reflects the work of staff members, field assistants, and consultants. We appreciate the contributions of the illustrators and graphic artists Lucille R. Addington, Karim Sadr, and William A. Martin, who contributed to this pamphlet. Stan Solamillo, M. Karpenko, Tom Shaw, and Will Alexander of Environmental Consultants, Inc. prepared the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) drawings. We also want to thank Sue E. Linder-Linsley and Melissa M. Green for their assistance in the production of this brochure.
As a discipline, archaeology is very young in comparison to other fields such as astronomy, chemistry, history, or mathematics. Many of the guiding principles and field techniques in archaeology are little over a century old. What things do modern archaeologists search for among the ruins of the past? Where are archaeologists actively working today? Of what value are their findings to those of us living today?
These three questions are answered in this booklet. Examples are drawn from archaeological investigations conducted during the construction of Joe Pool Lake participated in the Joe Pool Lake in North Central Texas. This manmade reservoir, located southwest of Dallas, was completed in 1986 by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (Figure 1). It involved the construction of a dam, 4.2 miles long, on Mountain Creek that created a lake capable of covering 10,900 acres. In order to rescue important archaeological data from destruction due to land alterations, flooding, and other lake related improvements, archaeological excavations were carried out at 18 sites noted for containing significant and valuable information (2). This booklet explains why these investigations were conducted and reveals the important information which was recovered or rescued.
As these examples will illustrate, archaeologists study the physical remains of the human past. Fossil bones of extinct dinosaurs, birds, fish, and shells millions of years old are not the subject of scientific inquiry by archaeologists. Fossils of extinct forms of plants and animals are studied by specialists educated in paleontology, a subfield of geology. Geologists study rocks and paleontologists study fossils. Archaeologists study artifacts left behind by people. Archaeology, therefore, is part of the larger field of anthropology, the scientific and humanistic study of man and culture.
In the last 50 years, a special type of archaeology has grown in scope and applicationrescue archaeology also called public or conservation archaeology, has saved remains of the human past from needless loss and destruction often associated with publicly funded construction. Today, many archaeologists work in cooperation with private and public agencies to protect archaeological remains in accordance with state and federal antiquity laws (see note inside front cover). Their primary goal is to manage, conserve, and when possible, preserve some of our country's fragile and irreplaceable archaeological resources. Since conservation and preservation are the primary objectives, the work of these archaeologists is often referred to as cultural resource management (CRM).
Digging up artifacts or excavating sites is a last resort in CRM studies, only to be employed when their destruction is imminent and unavoidable. The United States is not the only nation that places a value on its past. England, Italy, Egypt, Mexico, China, and many other countries have also implemented laws and regulations concerning the inadvertent or wanton loss of their cultural and archaeological heritage. Notable foreign examples include the combined international forces used to rescue important Egyptian ruins and landmarks from flooding associated with the raising of the Aswan Dam on the Nile in the 1960s, or the building of the subway system beneath the streets of Rome, Italy.
Although the United States does not contain spectacular ruins of early civilizations matching the Egyptian or Roman examples, it does possess a rich and varied archaeological past covering at least 15,000 years of human history. Since 1906, several federal laws have been enacted to protect important archaeological sites and artifacts. Since then, these laws have been expanded to treat and protect archaeological remains as important resources which deserve proper attention. Like natural resources, such as clean water, clear air, and wildlife, archaeological remains are important cultural resources that need to be conserved for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. But unlike some natural resources, archaeological sites are fragile and nonrenewable. Once they are damaged or destroyed, no amount of research can repair or restore them; therefore, much of their scientific and historical value is lost. Rescue archaeology, however, provides an opportunity to examine and remove important information from a site before it is altered or destroyed.
Not all archaeology can be labeled rescue archaeology. In many instances, archaeological investigations are conducted early in the planning of a major construction project. When several construction options are feasible, engineers and architects may select one plan over another to avoid undue destruction or loss of important natural and cultural resources, including archaeological remains. In this case, the implementation of archaeological investigations at an early stage in the design of a project can help the planning agency avoid more costly studies related to the removal of significant remains prior to their destruction. This application of archaeology, which saves or conserves an archaeological site from potential loss, is referred to conservation archaeology . Together, conservation and rescue archaeology are working to save a portion of our rich archaeological past so that the generations of today and tomorrow will have a heritage to enjoy and explore.
The archaeological studies associated with the construction of Joe Pool T are a good example of both conservation and rescue archaeology in action. This booklet explains the nature of these archaeological investigations, and some of the important accomplishments achieved to date. Most importantly, it illustrates some of the reasons why our archaeological heritage is a valuable resource both today and for future generations yet to come.
Several archaeological investigations have been carried out in the Joe Pool Lake project area since 1977. The first phase of study, conducted between 1977 and 1979, identified 42 archaeological and historical sites in the vicinity of the then proposed Lakeview Lake, since renamed Joe Pool. The study was conducted by archaeologists from Southern Methodist University and was funded by the federal government through the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Archaeological properties identified at that time included small, briefly occupied camps of prehistoric hunter/gatherers, several larger reoccupied prehistoric camps, a small prehistoric village, an ante-bellum plantation, several large post-Civil War farmsteads, and a number of late nineteenth century farmsteads with standing buildings.
The results of the first phase of archaeological research in the project area were used to organize a second, more intensive phase of study. Test excavations were conducted at fifteen sites to obtain a better understanding of the buried deposits and archaeological remains found at these locations. Sites selected for test excavations were those that showed the best promise for yielding important artifacts, buried features, and significant remains for answering questions about past prehistoric people or early settlers of the area. These limited excavations provided the necessary information to identify the most representative sample of archaeological sites useful for addressing specific scientific questions. But precisely how does one identify an important archaeological site?
Obviously, not all archaeological sites contain remains that are suitable for answering scientific questions or important enough to warrant future preservation. At best, any archaeological site contains only part of the record of the human occupation responsible for its existence. Many items deteriorate after abandonment or accidental loss. Bone tools, skins and cloth, wooden implements, grass matting and baskets, food, seeds, vegetable matter, and other organic materials are seldom preserved except under ideal conditions. While all of these items were frequently discarded by prehistoric people at their dwellings, campsites, and food gathering or processing locations, it is only the stone tools, pottery sherds, charcoal, burned rock, and soil discolorations that are still preserved after hundreds or thousands of years.
These bits and pieces of tools, personal possessions, and household items make up a great majority of the artifacts recovered from sites sites. Stone arrow points or clay pottery sherds by themselves, however, are not very informative. It is their archaeological context that provides the greatest amount of information on the past. Context, or provenience, is the specific location of an artifact within a site in relation to other artifacts and features . As an example, let us consider the piece of prehistoric pottery shown in Figure 2. Without a context or provenience, the pottery sherd is of little historical or scientific value. But, let us now state that it was excavated from an underground pit containing many other items at the Cobb-Pool site near the dam of Joe Pool Lake. Since the sherd exhibits a distinctive surface decoration which is similar to that used by the Caddoan Indians living in East Texas during the 10th and 11th centuries AD, one may interpret that an exchange of goods or ideas may have flowed between the two areas. Of course, not all decorated sherds can be dated, but this particular sherd is distinctive and is common on some Caddoan Indian sites. Consequently, this sherd may provide a meaningful context for the age of the other items found along with it. Since it was excavated from an abandoned and buried food storage pit (a hollowed out hole used to store corn or other plant food remains), then its relationship with the pit gives the archaeologist some important information about when the site was occupied and who the people were who once lived there. Furthermore, other items recovered from the pit, including bone fragments, mussel shell, flint flakes, a broken flint knife, and charred seeds add to the story of the people who once occupied the site.
Archaeological context, or the association of all artifacts and features, provides the background in which archaeological remains gain meaning. It is this context that archaeologists strive to recover, and not simply a shoe box full of artifacts that gathers dust on a closet shelf.
So far, information has been presented on a very general level without any real discussion of what constitutes an artifact or site. An artifact is any material item or object that shows evidence of modification or manufacture by a human. Examples of prehistoric artifacts are arrow points chipped from stone, cut animal bones, sherds of clay pottery, or pieces of clay, called daub, used to build a hut. Artifacts of recent societies, such as mid-nineteenth century Texas pioneers, include window glass fragments, nails, brick fragments, sherds of stoneware pottery, butchered beef bones, and buttons. As all of these examples illustrate, artifacts can be a broad range of items related to many different uses. This booklet could become an artifact given the right conditions. If it were stored in a dry cave, like the two thousand year old Dead Sea Scrolls found in Israel several decades ago, then it might be preserved for future generations.
Archaeological sites, on the other hand, are less easily defined. A site is a specific location where past human activities have left physical traces. Sites can range in size from the small camp where a few flint flakes remain after a hunter sharpened a spear, to an entire city. It may be as recent as bottle caps dropped yesterday or as ancient as the oldest stone tools found in Africa and manufactured by our distant ancestors over 2 million years ago. As a concept, an archaeological site is defined in relation to some specific physical remains and an explicit set of scientific problems. For the Joe Pool Lake studies, all of the archaeological sites contained tangible historic or prehistoric artifacts, and many yielded important features and other buried remains. The importance of some sites over others, however, was recognized by their individual potential to provide valuable information in relation to the project's research design, a written scientific "blueprint" composed to direct the studies. In CRM investigations, a research design is required to address, among other questions, the importance of an archaeological site in terms of four criteria outlined by the National Register of Historic Places (hereafter referenced as NRHP).
The NRHP offers an important set of guiding principles or criteria for identifying the value of an archaeological site or historic structure. It not only requests archaeologists to consider the scientific merit of a site, but also its humanistic and historical value. As a result, sites on the National Register not only include archaeologically important places such as Jamestown, Virginia, or Mesa Verde, Colorado, but also Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts which has no significant archaeological remains. Archaeological sites in the Joe Pool Lake area were evaluated using National Register criteria The eighteen sites which received rescue archaeology were deemed to be significant based on these criteria In general, a site or structure is required to be at least 50 years old before it can be considered for significance and nominated to the NRHP. Given this minimum age, the National Register then requires that a property (archaeological site, historic building, object, or district) meet at least one of the following four criteria of significance to be eligible for nomination. Eligible properties:
These four criteria provide the necessary set of guidelines for evaluating and identifying important archaeological sites, historic buildings, structures, and even entire districts. They are intended to give formal recognition to all properties that have contributed to our rich heritage whether they are from the recent historic past or from the more distant prehistoric past. As such, the National Register is a catalog containing a major, but incomplete, listing of our cultural heritage. It is a listing of the tangible elements of our past, a record of physical structures, places, objects, and archaeological sites that have played an important role in the cultural and historical development of our country from the very beginnings of human history in North America.
In Texas, the National Register has listed over 1,000 nominations since the first property was designated in 1969. Although properties of national significance were identified as National Landmarks as early as 1935, following the Historic Sites Act passed by Congress in that year, it was not until 1966, following the National Historic Preservation Act, that properties of state and local significance were also considered worthy of protection under the National Register. Today, the National Register of Historic Places contains properties of immense national significance as well as more common properties which illustrate our cultural development and heritage. National Register properties in Texas include Mission San Antonio de Valero, more commonly known as the Alamo, the thirteenth century Native Indian pueblo of Landergin Mesa in the Panhandle, Fort Concho in San Angelo, the 11,000 year old Lubbock Lake archaeological site, Lyndon Johnson's boyhood home in Johnson City, the State Capitol building in Austin, and stone carvings and paintings (petroglyphs and pictographs, respectively) as old as AD 200 at Hueco Tanks near El Paso. Other examples much closer to the Joe Pool Lake Project include the blue granite and red sandstone Dallas County Courthouse (built in 1891), the 12 block Munger Place Historic District, and 10 Georgian Revival buildings on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas County. In Tarrant County, examples include the Fort Worth Stockyards Historic District, Thistle Hill, and the Blackstone Hotel. Dallas and Tarrant Counties together contain 59 separate properties, including several large districts, listed on the National Register as of 1984. Of this number, only one is strictly an archaeological site. All the others are historic buildings, structures, or districts.
It is clear from these examples that historic buildings and structures make up the greatest proportion of properties listed in the National Register to date. Many archaeological properties are eligible for protection through the National Register of Historic Places without being placed on it. The eighteen sites that received intensive study within the Joe Pool Lake project area were also determined eligible for nomination by the Texas Historical Commission without being formally placed in the National Register of Historic Places. The value of each of these archaeological sites is identified in the research design or framework for scientific study compiled by SMU archaeologists and used to direct the rescue efforts. At the completion of the archaeological investigations at Joe Pool Lake, two prehistoric and seven historic properties were still sufficiently intact to be recommended for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
A research design is simply a guiding framework or set of ideas that helps to direct archaeologists as they identify, evaluate, and rescue important archaeological sites and data. In this regard, a research design guides archaeological investigations in much the same way a blueprint directs an engineer and architect. In both cases, preliminary ideas are put down on paper and revised and refined based on rigorous evaluation and testing. In a series of reevaluations and modifications, the initial research design becomes tailored to more closely fit the importance and research potential of the archaeological remains under study. Like an architect modifying his plans based upon his clients needs and cost limitations, the archaeologist uses a research design to outline the future archaeological studies. Without an explicit design, the archaeologist not only wastes valuable time and money, but also ends up with a haphazardly collected product. The research design, therefore, serves an important role in directing archaeological investigations.
For the Joe Pool Lake archaeological studies discussed next, the research design is divided into two segments: (1) historic and (2) prehistoric. The following sections briefly convey the scientific basis for the Joe Pool Lake archaeological research along with some of the more interesting results.
Thirteen historical sites received archaeological investigations to recover important information about early settlers and nineteenth century farmers living in the project area. In addition to excavating soil to recover artifacts, fieldwork also involved the recording of standing architecture, interviewing senior citizens about traditional farm life, and conducting archival and historical research to gather important information on these farms. All of these investigations were designed to provide a fuller understanding of the ethnic diversity, historical development, and changing demography of the families that settled in the Mountain Creek area since the 1840s.
The archaeological, architectural, and written records of the families that settled this area during the last 150 years need to be combined if we are to appreciate the entire story of the development of this part of Texas. Archaeological investigations of nineteenth century farmsteads such as the ones addressed in the Joe Pool Lake studies are a comparatively recent endeavor in North Central Texas. The research design used to address the significance of these sites focused on the integration of archaeological data with written records and oral history . Farmstead sites, like the ones studied here, once formed the backbone of rural America (Figure 3). In 1890 for example, two of every three households in the United States lived on farms. In Texas, the ratio was considerably higher, reaching about six of every seven. In the following five decades, the nature of rural America, including Texas, changed dramatically as many families gave up farming to pursue new opportunities offered in America's growing cities. Farmers make up an extremely small proportion of today's population.
Farming itself has also changed with the times. Mechanization has forced most farmers to become industrialized and has made agribusiness a necessary and viable alternative to the old family farm. A detailed history of the traditional farmstead, like studies of the cotton tenant farmer of yesterday, has been ignored due to the American desire for progress. What seemed unimportant at the time that many changes were taking place has since become lost in the passing of decades and changing of generations.
Occasionally, one finds an older farmstead complete with many of its traditional outbuildings still intact like the John Wesley Penn farmstead in the Joe Pool Lake area (Figure 4). Only then can one really visualize and fully understand the degree of social and technological change that separates the families of today from those of only two or three generations ago. The Penn farmstead may one day be restored as an early twentieth century working farm museum, complete with a staff performing day-to-day chores in period dress and using authentic tools and animal labor. If restored, the Penn " working period farm " will rank among the most intact historical parks in North Central Texas. It will serve as a tribute to rural Texan farmers and will be among the most complete nineteenth century farmsteads in the state (3). The archaeological investigations conducted on the Penn farmstead as a part of the Joe Pool Lake CRM studies have provided important information on the full archaeological potential of this property, and they have underscored the value of preserving the this farm.
So far, we have merely pointed out the historical importance of one site. What is it that the other twelve historical sites have to offer the archaeologist, historian, or mere curiosity seeker? Some answers can be found in the recent studies of rural farmsteads in the Richland/Chambers Reservoir located about 60 miles south of Dallas. These studies, like the Joe Pool Lake investigations, revealed that farmhouses and their outbuildings were surrounded by abundant archaeological deposits useful for studying past lifeways(4). In both cases, farmstead sites were found to contain rich historical information on a way of life that is no longer practiced today.
The Joe Pool Lake investigations, like the Richland/ Chambers investigations, also encountered substantial archaeological deposits or middens around many dwellings. Buried in the soil around these houses were artifacts numbering in the hundreds of thousands. These small pieces of glass, pottery, bone, metal, wood, and other materials represented a rich but fragmented record of some daily activities and household possessions of the past (Figure 5). Furthermore, systematic study of these midden deposits revealed that their artifacts were not haphazardly scattered about, but actually formed a physical map of some of the yard activities conducted during the life of the farmhouse (Figure 6).
Little more than fifty years ago, the rural yard was the center of much household activity. Before electricity and other modern conveniences, the yard received more intensive use than many interior parts of the farmhouse. Children and adults did chores ranging from fetching water, splitting wood, or washing clothes to making soap, feeding chickens, butchering animals, or cooking. The yard itself was markedly different than today. Instead of a lush green and manicured grass lawn, the traditional yard contained many areas of bare earth crisscrossed by paths between weeds and small brush. The inner portion of the yard would receive the closest attention to what we would consider yard maintenance today, and may have been periodically swept for practical as well as aesthetic reasons. The distribution of artifacts around the old Penn farmhouse indicated that yard sweeping was conducted around this dwelling.
One direct consequence of the many outside activities conducted in the traditional yard was the middens of artifacts left behind for the archaeologist to recover. Over the years, many of the sherds of glass, pottery, metal, and other materials have been worked into the soil to become buried up to a foot or two below the surface. Trampling by both humans and animals along with the actions of rain, frost, and large and small burrowing animals have helped to turn the soil and bury most artifacts. Through careful excavation and the trained eyes of the archaeologists, artifacts can be recovered to provide a physical picture of the layout of the yard (Figure 6).
These artifact rich middens are as important for studying some segments of the past as are historical diaries, photographs, and documents. From these deposits, we are learning about many of the more common activities and objects that were too commonplace to be recorded at the time. While much has been written about the wealthier upper classes, urban dwellers, or rugged pioneers of the nineteenth century, far less has been documented about the typical rural farmer, his farmstead, possessions, and family activities. The archaeological record provides detailed insights for common yet unrecorded items, such as the table dishes and kitchen containers owned, kinds of glass, metal tools, buttons and personal items worn, and even the types of animal meats and plant food eaten. Much more important evidence of some daily activities and rural practices are subtly awaiting the trained eye of the historical archaeologist to identify and interpret for others. For example, evidence of the techniques and implements used to butcher a cow are still recorded on some excavated bones (Figure 7). The scratches and wear marks on a dish tell us of the amount of use it received, as well as, the kinds of storage methods used for it between meals. The duplication of patterns of glass and ceramic vessels provide some direct information on the personal tastes, wealth, and current fashions of the family from which they were discarded. Even the scattered fragments of household items around the farmhouse convey family information about activities and practices of the past.
In summary, the research design organized for the archaeological investigations of historic farmsteads in the Joe Pool Lake project area focused on the nature of the middens associated with the farmhouses, the former resident's material possessions, and the layout of the farmstead based on the deposits of artifacts, structures, and features. Investigations also took into account the types of buildings associated with the farms, their locations, size, and specific techniques of construction. Using all of the available kinds of archaeological, historical, and architectural information, the resulting studies not only concentrated on the particular National Register significance of each farmstead, but also the scientific, historical, and humanistic merits of the sites and their contents. Some of the more notable results of these investigations are reviewed in the following section.
The Penn Farm (41DL192), for example, contains log and hewn timber frame dwellings and outbuildings that are representative of the types of buildings generally found in North Central Texas. The major barn on this site was built in the late 1850s from over 80 red cedar trees cut over a two year time span. The structure is a horizontal log double crib barn capable of storing grain and sheltering animals. A frame granary (Figure 8) was also built at the same time using red cedar trees from the same forest stand. The earliest Penn dwelling (Figure 9), a modest hewn timber frame house built in 1859, was constructed of trees that had been cut from a different forest than the barns. Tree-rings indicate that a second granary was cut from a floodplain oak forest in April 1874, probably the product of a local sawmill. The main Penn house, built in 1876, was constructed from large pine timbers cut from East Texas forests and shipped by railroad. During the twentieth century, all lumber used in construction was commercial pine lumber purchased from local lumberyards.
The architectural forms of houses in the Joe Pool Lake area were diverse, but the main type used by wealthy landowners was the central hall. Single story, story and a half, and two stories were present. Houses of smaller landowners and tenants were simpler two room dwellings. The average room dimensions of a house provide a general measuring stick of the affluence of their owner-builders. At the upper end of the social scale is the Anderson family's plantation house on site 41DL190. Constructed in 1887, it was an impressive two story house containing 14 rooms that was destroyed by a fire in the 1940s. Based on the dimensions of its burned remains, its rooms averaged about 20 by 20 feet. In comparison to the average room size for a Joe Pool Lake dwelling, the Anderson plantation house rooms were 50% larger.
Most Joe Pool Lake dwellings contained rooms averaging about 16 or 17 ft. square. The dwellings at the Pool and the Marrs tenant sites contained the smallest average room sizes (14 by 14 ft. averages) and these sites also ranked near the lower end of the economic scale. still however, their occupants were not poor and their families lived a lifestyle above the average Texan household of the time.
Architecture represents one kind of tangible evidence that we can use to study the past. The Joe Pool Lake dwellings revealed that the Mountain Creek area contained a rural population that stayed closely abreast of the major social changes spreading through urban areas and more densely settled portions of the northern and eastern United States. The Bowman-Sprinkle house, for example, illustrates the mainstream participation of rural Mountain Creek (Figure 10). The house contains many Victorian elements in its layout and construction. It combines Victorian (picket fence trim and diagonal flat stick work in its gables), Queen Anne (spindle work gingerbread in its gables, free classic porch columns, and bay windows) and simple folk characteristics (symmetrical south face and floor plan, moderate roof pitch, and a sloping skirt protecting the lower foundation). The house was built in 1907 and it presents a late Victorian appearance more typical of town residences rather than rural farm workers. Interior elements such as elaborate molding and bull's eye motifs matched some of the period details found in upper middle class urban houses constructed in Dallas' lower Swiss Avenue District by Frederich P. Wilson between 1899 and 1902.
The Bowman-Sprinkle house, although presenting a outward appearance of stylish and popular designs revealed an incongruence in its interior construction. Unlike urban residences constructed at the turn-of-the-century, the Bowman-Sprinkle house revealed a inner frame of reused beams and wall boards from several older buildings. This conservation of wood materials seems to contrast greatly with the outward Victorian appearance and elaborate decorative embellishments. Furthermore, architectural investigations indicated that the house may have been constructed in several phases over a five year period as indicated by oral recollections. The house represents a well balanced mixing of traditional rural conservation and modest urban late Victorian architectural fashion.
The fencing of the prairies with the newly invented barbed wire in the 1870s and 1880s and improvements in plows for tough prairie soils contributed greatly to changing the landscape. Saw mills cut the virgin forests along many of the streams and the Cross Timbers also fell victim to their blades. Suppression of nature's and man's prairie fires which produced fertile soils, and finally the abandonment of many agricultural systems in the second quarter of this century led to a landscape considerably different today than 130 years ago.
In a very few areas, some undisturbed vegetation has been by-passed by most of these events. A few remnants of undisturbed prairie will be protected in the Joe Pool Lake parklands. Early settlers, such as the Penns, Andersons, Loyds, and Rapes took advantage of these small natural prairies. Without any initial preparation, these prairies offered feed for livestock and required little maintenance. Our research of early land records supported the proposition that the Penn and Anderson families settled on the edge of the Mountain Creek escarpment specifically to take advantage of small, upland prairie patches away from flood prone bottomlands and the larger, more open "grand prairies". Guidebooks and entrepreneurs writing to attract new settlers noted the good mixture of bottomland forests and prairies in North Central Texas. Edward Smith, for example, who published a guidebook in 1848 covering his travels through North and East Texas noted that a settler should choose a location well away from the "midst of a great prairie. . . [because] stock water is not very plentiful; wood is scarce...and shade is absent" in those areas. Instead, one should locate on the "edge of a wood, where there is good timber...and not far distant from small water courses." (6).
Our research into records of the General Land Office (GLO) in Austin supports Edwards' recommendations. The earliest land tracts surveyed and patented in the Joe Pool Lake area were usually located along Mountain Creek (Figure 11). These GLO records also contain a wealth of information on the vegetation of the area before settlement, land clearing, and lumbering disrupted the natural order of the area. The corners of each tract of land contain a description of the trees used as witnesses to mark the boundary point. The species, diameter, and distances were noted so that they could be used to document the survey point. When prairies or open spaces were encountered, these notes clearly document the fact by indicating the great distances or other features required to set the survey point. Through these records, we have been able to collect a picture of the native vegetation and landscape before it was radically altered by development.
The records of the early surveyors indicate that prairies comprised 60% of the landscape, but brushy trees were often scattered in prairie areas. The Mountain Creek valley contained hogwallow (heavy clay soil) prairies with scattered mesquite trees. Apparently the spread of mesquite was limited by the native vegetation and fire until plowing and grazing altered the natural balance. The Eastern Cross Timbers were 10 miles west, but a lobe of post oak forest extended down Walnut Creek into the reservoir. The cedar ridge forest was much smaller than today, concentrated in a 10 square mile area around Cedar Hill. All of this information has allowed us to better understand what was available for the frontiersmen to use for their buildings, cattle, and families.
The influence of these different survey divisions has been imprinted into the settlement pattern and landscape of the Mountain Creek area and the greater Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan area. The orientations of many roads, town layouts, and even rural farmhouses have been dictated by the original surveys. Since many landowners did not desire newer roads cutting across their farmlands, the rural road system was established with right angled corners and property line roads that ran between adjacent owners. The influences of these factors are highly visible on the turn of the century Sam Street maps for Dallas and Tarrant Counties (Figure 12).
The Sam Street maps are rich archival documents because they locate and identify landholders' dwellings and also show the location of most tenant houses. Two cemeteries, located adjacent to the Joe Pool Lake, contain many individuals from residences shown on these early maps. By locating and studying the relationships of these buried individuals to their former residences, we have been able to reconstruct two distinct communities across part of the Joe Pool Lake area (Figure 13). The largest community located on the Cedar Ridge escarpment was centered around Pleasant Valley Cemetery and School. The other was located on the prairie between Mountain and Walnut Creeks, centered around the Estes Cemetery, Friendship Church, and Gertie School. In interviews with local residents, we found it very difficult to reconstruct these same communities since different families retained very different perceptions depending on the time period recalled or personal relationships held. The reconstructed cemetery "communities" actually represent church related geographical areas rather than politically and socially cohesive units. It is unfortunate that many rural cemeteries are being vandalized since gravestones often represent some of the more easily retrievable personal data on former inhabitants of rural areas. In Dallas County, the Dallas City Planning Division in concert with the Historic Preservation League has recently begun a public campaign to draw attention to the important value of cemeteries and the great need to actively thwart vandalism.
Two results are worth mentioning in this regard. First, home canning using glass jars is a technique that has been around since 1860. Archaeological studies on over 30 rural farmsteads in the Richland Creek area 60 miles south of Dallas indicated that home canning by the typical farmer was not practiced to any large degree before 1910. Open smoking, curing, salting, and drying of foods (fruits, vegetables, meats, etc.) were usually the preferred method of preserving as opposed to the home canning method using glass jars or tin cans. Although informant after informant vouched that their family had practiced home canning for over 100 years, most archaeological evidence did not support these assertions. Furthermore, when an occasional informant or two dragged out an old fruit jar to prove the point, it generally dated to after 1890 or 1900 and added support to the absence of old jar fragments on nineteenth century sites.
In the Joe Pool Lake area, however, the practice of home canning appears to exist earlier than in more rural areas. The historic trash pit uncovered next to the old Penn house (41DL192) yielded fruit jar remains dating to the 1870s and 1880s, and discarded by 1895 (Figure 14). At several other sites, fragments of late nineteenth century fruit jars were also recovered. Two influences seem to contribute to this earlier occurrence of home canning. First, the old adage of "keeping up with the Jones"' seems to apply to the Mountain Creek area, and apparently home canning spread faster throughout this area as a result of influences from the major urban centers of Dallas and Fort Worth. A second factor that may have enhanced this early use of home canning was that many of the families who settled in the Mountain Creek area were from the Midwest and Upper South. Historical research has indicated that families from these areas relied on several crops, animals, and farming practices rather than placing all their energy in one crop, such as cotton. While these families did grow some cotton, also planted was wheat, corn, oats, and other grains. They also raised cattle, horses, and other livestock. Unlike the Richland Creek households mentioned above, focusing mostly on cotton as a cash crop, Joe Pool Lake households started off with a philosophical advantage and were more open to experimenting with other foods and food technologies.
The bones of animals consumed for food are also frequently found. Over 1800 fragments were recovered in Joe Pool Lake excavations (Figure 15). The majority of these remains represent cattle and pigs. No deer bone was recognized among the species identified, but this was to be expected since there were no sites occupied earlier than 1859. Many of the sites dated after 1875. Settlers in North Central Texas quickly exterminated deer. These wild animals were scarce except for an occasional fleeting individual probably flushed out of the Trinity River bottom forests to the north.
Cattle were a major source of meat since their bones were the most common faunal remains recovered in refuse deposits at Joe Pool Lake historic farmsteads. This is quite different from the traditional southern diet where pork dominates. Poultry, eaten on weekends and special occasions, were also common. On households of prominent landowners, prairie chickens and passenger pigeons were present indicating that these gentlemen farmers preferred fowling as a sporting leisure. Fish, turtles, shellfish, and ducks also indicate that people visited the Trinity River and lower Mountain Creek to supplement their diets. In all, over two dozen species of animals were represented in the faunas materials recovered from the historic sites. The passenger pigeon bones represent one species that did not make it beyond the 1920s.
We have had similar experiences with informants who tell us about cisterns on their homesteads that seemed to vanish when we go out to locate them. Not until question a little further, do we realize that they were referring to above ground cisterns and not dug ones. On other occasions we have grown wise to references of early houses being brought in from East Texas. Most often, these oral traditions refer to the pine clapboard siding being imported and not the full house. Much of our work with wood identification and dendrochronology has helped to reinforce these interpretations.
Last of all, we have occasionally been lucky to find some oral history actually recorded on site. The genealogy painted in the N. B. Anderson cellar, for example, provides a good illustration of documentary evidence of a family's oral traditions recorded in 1898 (Figure 16). It records the births, marriage, and deaths of the Napoleon Anderson family from 1826 to 1898. The Anderson cellar is an impressive structure constructed out of handmade brick, semipressed and fired in a local kiln. The John Wesley Penn cellar, constructed in about 1879, was also an impressive subterranean structure with a conical handmade brick roof (Figure 17). Both Anderson and Penn immigrated to Texas from Sangamon County, Illinois, and both constructed major brick cellars for safety and storage.
In addition to dating buildings, tree-rings provide useful information on past climate (Figure 18). Frost rings formed in oak trees when cold fronts, called "northers," surged southward following mild, wet winters. Specimens collected from Joe Pool Lake indicate that particularly strong "northers" happened in 1716, 1810, 1820, 1832, 1833, 1867, 1870, 1876, 1880, 1890, and 1923. Major dry periods occurred in the late 1870s and the early 1880s, and for eleven years surrounding 1900.
The broken fragments of ceramic dishes and plates were generally from undecorated white ironstone tableware. Unlike the first half of the nineteenth century, these later dishes were very plain and characterized the sparkling cleanliness associated with the Victorian period. On a few sites, fragments of brown or blue decorated transfer printed dishes were recovered (Figure 19). These were reminiscent of the earlier wares and may have been family heirlooms accidentally broken.
Architectural remains were also very common among the artifacts recovered. The nineteenth century bricks represented were not the usual crude handmade varieties commonly found in rural areas, but were well formed, semipressed, mass produced varieties probably made at one of several Dallas brick plants. These fragments once again underscored the influence exerted on the rural families by urban Dallas. Like many of the other differences noted in the artifact assemblages, these bricks indicated mainstream influences on the local area
Metal items were also recovered. Architectural hardware such as hinges and nails, stove parts, and tools were most common (Figures 5 and 20). A commemorative pin from the 1908 Reunion of Freemasons is indicative of some of the social activities of former residents of the Joe Pool area.
From these investigations, we have gained a few more insights into the history and prehistory of the Mountain Creek area. Excavations of historic farmsteads have indicated that many mid- and late nineteenth century families lived in well constructed, frame dwellings. Log buildings were not as common as once believed. Both Dallas and Fort Worth attracted saw mills along the Trinity bottomlands and sawn lumber was available to most families by the 1850s.
The artifacts recovered from excavations of the yard areas around dwellings have also provided us with some insights into family life and household possessions. Home canning using the glass fruit jar indicates a break from older traditional foodways by the turn-of-the-century (i.e., 1900). Animal bones indicate a strong reliance on beef rather than on the more traditional pork. Both of these pieces of evidence support the dominance of a Midwestern orientation of foodways that diverges from most Texas counties to the south. The plain white ceramic tablewares and the low consumption of bottle glass for the same period, on the other hand, both correspond more closely with Southern traditions. One message is clear from these studies. Both human adaptations (culture and technology) and the natural environment have changed tremendously over the last 12,000 years. From the evidence of the earliest sites found that were occupied some 6,000 years ago, up to the first American settlers about 140 years ago, the Mountain Creek area has been affected by nature's relentless fluctuations. The archaeological investigations sponsored by the United States Army Corps of Engineers at Joe Pool have provided a few brief glimpses into the rich record of human history and prehistory of this area. Time's march never ceases and in another thousand years, future generations may be equally interested in our own society and its archaeological remains.
GO TO JOE POOL PREHISTORIC INFORMATION
