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 application rescue 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.
Our understanding of prehistoric people and how they lived depends upon the excavation and analysis of archaeological sites. Through excavation, we can recognize the remains of former activities (food preparation and cooking, tool production, pottery production, etc.) and can relate these remains to the broader fabric of human advancement. Why some cultures developed agriculture or the wheel and others did not is a very basic and important question. An understanding of prehistoric subsistence economy depends upon the recovery of animal and plant remains from archaeological sites. These remains are recovered by special collection techniques and their analysis depends upon the expertise of botonists and zoologists . The archaeologist attempts to interrelate all of the information to understand not only what prehistoric people were doing in areas such as the Mountain Creek drainage, but also why they chose a particular lifestyle.
The use of the Mountain Creek area by prehistoric peoples is interesting, for there are few prehistoric sites known within this valley. Furthermore, there are very few artifacts found on these sites in comparison with other prehistoric sites in North Central Texas. Why prehistoric peoples did not use the Mountain Creek drainage more often was one of the questions to be answered by the archaeological investigations. Of course, one answer might be that Mountain Creek did not offer the abundance of food resources that surrounding areas provided. Nevertheless, such a conclusion needed to be demonstrated.
Soils were collected for detailed analyses to see if any plant pollen or burned seeds were present. Unfortunately, the conditions of the Mountain Creek soils were not suitable for pollen preservation. The General Land Office survey records provided data for the reconstruction of the distribution of plant communities as they existed just prior to the pioneer settlement of the 1850s. These records revealed that the Mountain Creek area consisted primarily of open prairie areas, narrow forests along streams, and a cedar forest on the White Rock Escarpment (Figure 21). Both the prairie areas and the cedar forest were dominated by wild plants of little economic importance to prehistoric man. The low density of trees in the prairie areas limited the amount of fruit and nut resources that could be gathered by prehistoric people. Although the prairie grasses provide forage for grazing animals such as antelope and bison, neither was abundant in the area until after AD 1400. In other portions of the Upper Trinity River our studies revealed the presence of a wider variety of food resources which would have attracted prehistoric hunter/gatherers and the animals they hunted. Consequently, it is apparent that the Mountain Creek drainage may not have provided sufficient food resources for a long term occupation by one or more prehistoric groups.
The absence of suitable rocks for making stone tools may also have made the Mountain Creek valley less attractive to Indians. While gravel outcrops provide numerous cobbles for tool production throughout much of the North Central Texas region, particular areas such as the Mountain Creek drainage lacked such stone. Consequently, the chipped stone tools found in the Joe Pool Lake sites generally had to be carried in from outside the Mountain Creek drainage. The probable sources of these rocks were the gravels located along the divide between the Trinity and Brazos River basins (Figure 22). Throughout the time periods represented by the Joe Pool Lake sites, the prehistoric inhabitants favored the chert (flint) gravels of these rivers rather than the quartzite cobbles which were available from closer rivers to the north (Figure 22). This scarcity caused the prehistoric people to be conservative in their use of stone tools. Each arrowhead or knife was often sharpened time and again before it was discarded. Furthermore, the production of tools to replace worn ones was limited. The local scarcity therefore limited the number of worn out tools and fragments discarded at a site. Where such resources were available, tools could be discarded and easily replaced.
A second research question addressed by the Joe Pool Lake investigations concerns the original home territory of the people living in the Mountain Creek area. This question also addresses the direction of influence by outside groups on the local natives. For example, during the Late Archaic period (1,000 B. C. - A. D. 700) it had been suggested that people living along Mountain Creek normally inhabited the Brazos River valley and visited Mountain Creek only during specific seasons (7). During the Late Prehistoric period (AD. 7Q0 - 1600), the inhabitants of the Mountain Creek area were thought to be from the Caddoan peoples living further to the east. The types of stone used for making stone tools and the decorative designs impressed on clay pots supported both of these initial interpretations. The following sections will discuss the lifestyles of the inhabitants of the Mountain Creek drainage, how these prehistoric people adapted to changes in climate and sources of food, and with whom they exchanged ideas and material possessions. The discussion follow three major time periods starting with the earliest occupations.
Although there is no direct evidence of the earliest inhabitants of North America within the Joe Pool Lake study area, the easily recognized, chipped stone, spear points used by the Paleo-Indians have been collected within the Upper Trinity River drainage of North Central Texas. The Clovis and Folsom points are the most distinctive artifacts left behind by hunters between 9,500 and 8,000 BC (Figure 23-a, b). The flutes (long flake scars) on the bases of these points likely aided the lashing of the points to the spear shaft. The association of these spear points with the remains of mammoth, giant bison, and other now extinct animals in southwestern sites led to the portrayal of these people as "Big Game Hunters." Recent studies suggest that such kills may have been infrequent and that plant food collecting and hunting of smaller mammals provided the bulk of their diet.
A warming of the climate and the northward retreat of the glaciers affected the plant and animal resources available to these people between 8,000 and 6,000 BC As conditions became warmer and drier, the forests of spruce and fir gave way to more open hardwood forests and grasslands. The latter portion of the Paleo-Indian period is distinguished by the presence of spear points with a slightly different technology known by archaeologists as parallel flaking (Figure 23-c,d). A spear point from this period was recovered from the Cobb-Pool site at Joe Pool Lake. The absence of other artifacts belonging to this early period suggests that this particular spear point was lost by an early hunter passing through the Mountain Creek area The Field Ranch site, located in the Upper Elm Fork drainage, has also yielded several Paleo-Indian spear points including Clovis, Folsom, Plainview, and Hell Gap specimens (Figure 23). All of these specimens were collected from an eroded land surface.
The most significant Paleo-Indian site in the Upper Trinity River drainage is the Lewisville site which was exposed in a borrow pit during the construction of Lake Lewisville in the late 1950's. A series of burned clay patches which contained Pleistocene (Ice Age) animal remains were interpreted as cooking hearths. One of these clay features contained a Clovis spear point and carbonized organic material that was radiocarbon dated to greater than 37,000 years ago. Because Clovis points have consistently dated to around 10,000 BC at other sites in North America the Lewisville find generated a considerable amount of controversy. Additional investigations at the site in 1979 provided an explanation for the older than expected date. Contamination from much older organic matter (probably lignite or soft coal which contains ancient carbon) in the burned area was apparently responsible for the early dates.
The combined effects of the nomadic lifestyle of Paleo-Indians and 10,000 years of either erosion or deep burial of their sites by flooding and soil development have not preserved many sites that can be readily studied. Paleo-Indian groups, comprised of two to five families, likely moved frequently as natural resources within a day's walk from their camp dwindled. As a consequence, territories roamed by these people may have been quite large. The small assemblages of tools and refuse left behind are not easily detected thousands of years later. Many of these earliest sites have been either altered by erosion or buried beneath many feet of flood deposits.
The earliest portion of the Archaic period is poorly known for sites are frequently buried beneath several feet of flood deposits. Sites eroding from terraces have yielded food grinding stones, stone "sinkers" (probably weights for nets), gouges for woodworking, and scrapers for softening hides (Figure 24-c). Large spear points with stemmed bases are characteristic. During the latter portion of the Archaic period, stone "sinkers" and gouges no longer were a part of the tool assemblage. Although the climate was likely getting drier and the prairie areas were expanding at the expense of the forests, the sites from the Joe Pool Lake area indicate the continued use of river (catfish, clams, turtles) and woodland (deer, rabbit, turkey) resources. Antelope, prairie chicken, and jack rabbit were also eaten but in much lesser amounts.
Late Archaic (600 BC to AD 700) sites within the Joe Pool Lake area represent the repeated use of hunting and gathering camp localities over hundreds of years. The lack of formal features, such as cooking hearths and storage pits, at some of the Late Archaic sites suggests that the use of a particular camp was relatively short (less than one month). Even the sites yielding a greater number of features and artifacts were likely occupied for periods of less than two months. The large quantities of burned rock within these sites and the presence of filled pits suggests that heated rocks were used either for stone boiling or as a heat source for pit baking ovens. The prairie turnip ( Psoralea ) was one of the foods which was roasted within these pits.
The plant and animal foods used by the Late Archaic occupants of Mountain Creek indicate that the valley was used primarily during the late spring and summer months. Prehistoric hunters and gatherers spent only a portion of their seasonal round within the valley itself. Occupations during other parts of the year may have been concentrated in the Eastern Cross Timbers where nut producing trees were more common, or within the Trinity River valley where other nuts and game would have been more abundant. The use of chert (flint) gravels as the primary raw material for their tools, however, suggests that these people did not spend much of their yearly occupation along the main stem of the Trinity River. Quartzite, which is available within the upland gravels along the Trinity River, was used infrequently by the Late Archaic people. Instead they mainly used chert gravels found to the west along the Trinity-Brazos River divide. The home territory of these people was likely to the west along the West Fork of the Trinity River.
The interaction sphere or social friendship distance of these people, however, extended beyond the North Central Texas region. The recovery of an ocean shell bead (Figure 24-e) and a gorget from Late Archaic contexts indicates that the prehistoric occupants of the Joe Pool Lake area traded with groups that had access to goods produced or collected hundreds of miles away. Whether or not the Joe Pool Lake area occupants personally participated in the seasonal gatherings at selected sites in the Upper and Middle Trinity drainages is unclear. Some sites are distinguished by the presence of large circular depressions or pits. These large circular pits usually contain burials, fire hearths, burned rock, and other debris. Evidence of multiple episodes of use of these pits suggests that they served several different functions; yet their large size and limited geographical distribution suggest that they likely served as special community landmarks. Such sites may represent seasonal gathering points of tribes for the purposes of trading, finding marriage partners, and seeing relatives. Increasing population densities and decreasing territory sizes made the reinforcement of social ties critical to survival during times of food shortages. Relatives or trading partners in neighboring groups would welcome one into their home territory if their food supplies were ample.
This period represents a significant shift in the lifeways of the occupants of the Upper Trinity River drainage. Technological innovations, such as the use of the bow and arrow, provided a more effective hunting method and the introduction of pottery vessels improved the storage of foods. A more settled lifestyle was adopted, with larger groups of people living in small villages for extended periods. This sedentary lifestyle may have been largely due to the addition of corn horticulture to the use of other native foods. It is likely these innovations were responses to the pressure of an increasing population and an increasingly drier climate.
The Late Prehistoric Period is usually divided into an early and late phase. The early phase is usually characterized by the presence of stone arrowheads made on a chipped flake (known as Scallorn and Alba arrow points, Figure 25-d), clay pottery with punctuated and incised decorations (Figure 26), and food remains collected from wild sources. The late phase is characterized by Perdiz arrow points, various unstemmed, triangular points, clay pottery tempered with broken and burned pieces of mussel shell, beveled stone knives, increased bison hunting, and planting of corn. The excavations at Joe Pool Lake, however, have shown that archaeologists' impressions of the Late Prehistoric period have been biased by a lack of thoroughly excavated sites and inadequate recovery techniques. Excavation of the Baggett Branch site, the Cobb-Pool site, and site 41DL199 revealed significant changes in the technology and lifestyle of the occupants of Mountain Creek drainage during the Late Prehistoric period. Three phases of development are represented.
The lack of physical remains from domesticated plants suggests that hunting and gathering were still the primary means of obtaining food and clothing. Nutshell and prairie turnip fragments are the most common plant remains recovered from these sites, while deer and aquatic species such as turtle, fish, and clams also continued as very important foods.
It is possible that the Mountain Creek area was being used by prehistoric people only on a seasonal basis during this period. Their occupations were likely short term with frequent moves to new camp locations. The yearly territory of these inhabitants had not changed greatly from that of the Late Archaic period. However, no evidence of broad regional contact or trade, such as marine shell beads, has been recovered so far. Analysis of the types of small stone arrow points found in the Mountain Creek area reveals that the Joe Pool Lake specimens may be recognized as stylistically different from the arrowhead types found along the Brazos River to the west and the Middle Trinity River to the east. Consequently the local resident population of the Joe Pool Lake area may form a tribal group along with other groups living along the West Fork of the Trinity River.
Although only three sites within the Mountain Creek drainage contained artifacts of this period, one site, Cobb-Pool, was the most intensively occupied site within the Joe Pool Lake area The Cobb-Pool site revealed evidence of a horticulture community dating between A. D. 1100 and 1200. Evidence of three house structures and associated features, a large pit interpreted as an earth oven, posts for food drying and storage platforms, and refuse disposal areas make up the archeological record left behind by this small village (Figure 27). The food remains from this site document an economic adaptation not recognized previously in North Central Texas. A heavy reliance on maize (corn) is indicated by many fragments of kernels and cobs recovered from the site. Prairie turnips and nuts were present as relatively minor supplements to the diet. Deer and river animals were again the major sources of meat.
At the same time that this village was occupied, a more temporary hunting and gathering site was occupied along an upland stream. The Baggett Branch site was also occupied by people who left Scallorn and Alba arrow points, grit and grog tempered pottery. They exploited river and woodland food resources. No corn, however, was recovered from this site. It is likely that this site represents a seasonal hunting and gathering camp of a group occupying a more permanent village such as the Cobb-Pool site.
The wood post and grass thatched house structures at the Cobb-Pool site were recognized by filled post holes preserved in the clay subsoil of the site. The rotted posts from these structures left dark organic stains after they decomposed. The patterns of these dark post hole stains indicated that the houses were circular and (Figure 28) 15 to 17 feet in diameter. Large interior posts were used to support a thatched roof. The walls, depending on the season of the year, may or may not have been thatched. Three different house patterns were outlined by the post hole stains.
The three structures at the Cobb-Pool site may have been used during different seasons or served different functions. The close spacing of the wall posts of Structure 1 and the presence of additional wall and interior posts may indicate rebuilding of the structure (Figure 28). Structure 2, on the other hand, exhibits a four post, interior support system and an interior arc of postholes which probably represent the support posts for a bench. The bench may have served as a sleeping or storage area. Structure 2 was apparently built over a portion of the area used previously for earth baking ovens (Figure 27, 28). Its proximity to the baking oven area may have contributed to its destruction, for it is the only structure which burned.
Structure 3 exhibits yet another construction style. A single center post provides support for the roof and the spacing between the outer wall posts is much greater than the other structures. It appears that Structure 3 was never enclosed. Such a structure likely served as a shaded work area or a more open summer house. Whichever is the case, such variability is not unexpected. These structures may have been very similar to those of a historic Caddo farmstead which was photographed in eastern Oklahoma in the 1870s (Figure 29). Figure 30 represents an artist's reconstruction of how the Cobb-Pool village may have looked.
A primary focus of activity at the Cobb-Pool site centered around Feature 2, a large pit located between Structures 1 and 2. Although the pit appears to be 20 to 25 ft in diameter and 40 inches deep, it grew to reach this size from repeated use of the area for baking food by burying it with hot rocks and coals. The distribution of burned rock and animal bones supports this conclusion that Feature 2 served as a food processing area. The wide variety of bones represented and the relatively l o w percentages of burned bone indicate food processing and cooking activities rather than refuse dumping. The presence of so much burned rock in relation to the pit suggests that earth oven baking was the primary activity in this area
The distribution of artifacts in the pit indicates that such baking ovens were only 2 to 2.5 feet in depth (Figure 31). The pit was first dug with the aid of a digging stick, possibly a clam shell, and the hands. Rocks, heated in a nearby hearth, were then placed in the pit and covered with green grass and leaves. Then, prairie turnips, nuts, or meat may have been placed in the pit for baking or roasting. More grass and dirt were placed over the food to seal in heat, thus forming an earth oven.
floatation , or gentle water separation, of the soil from features such as cooking hearths, baking ovens, and storage pits revealed that corn was grown by the occupants of the Cobb-Pool site. This dependence on corn was the critical factor determining the village location. Unlike most of the other sites at Joe Pool Lake, Cobb-Pool sits on a high terrace some distance from a stream. This location also corresponds to that of one of the few patches of Siliwa fine sandy loam soil in this area. It seems that a soil, easily tillable by simple hand tools such as digging sticks, was more important than access to other forest and stream resources. Although wild plant and animal foods were still being exploited fully, it appears that the practice of corn horticulture provided the key to establishing this year-round occupation.
As noted earlier, the presence of Caddoan-like pottery at this site led to the suggestion that a group of Caddoan people settled on the prairies at Cobb-Pool. If this interpretation is correct, one would expect changes in tool styles, raw materials used, and decorative styles of the ceramics. Admittedly, the rather abrupt formation of a small village, corn horticulture, and the Caddoan-like pottery leads one to regard the site as a Caddoan frontier settlement. An examination of the evidence for regional interaction, however, reveals that influences were probably as strong from the west as from the east. The use of chert as a major source of rock for tools clearly points to the same resource areas used by the previous occupants of the Mountain Creek basin. An intrusive Caddoan group would have carried more quartzite tools with them and would have used the quartzite sources along the Trinity River drainage. The recovery of the Gahagan-like bifaces of Central Texas flint and two obsidian flakes from the site by R. King Harris, a prominent avocational archaeologist, also denote interaction with people to the west. The stylistic analysis of the Alba points from the Cobb-Pool site also revealed that the projectile point assemblage is distinguishable from similar assemblages to either the east or west.
Indirect influence from the Caddoan societies of East Texas cannot be ruled out for this site. Designs on clay pottery in the form of incised lines, punctates, and finger nail impressions are characteristic of the Caddoan wares to the east. Circular house structures with either a center post or a four post support system in the Middle Trinity River drainage also exhibit some similarities to Caddoan constructions. These similarities to Caddoan sites are too generalized, however, to indicate more than indirect ties to Caddoan people to the east Instead, the Cobb-Pool site represents an example of a local group of people who borrowed some ideas from neighbors. Their home territory was getting smaller and they were forced to use their resources more intensively. Corn, as a domesticated plant, was added to their food resources to compensate for any unexpected changes in wild plant and animal populations. Interaction to the east and west with relatives and trading partners also provided an assurance of help in times of stress.
The subsistence remains from the Baggett Branch site indicate important changes in the use of both plant and animal foods. Although deer apparently continued to be a dominant food source, bison remains appear for the first time. This increasing emphasis on bison hunting late in the Late Prehistoric period is part of a regional trend that has been recognized for North Central Texas in general. This shift parallels a regional climatic trend toward drier conditions (9). Walnut and prairie turnip remains were the most common plant remains from late phase contexts. Unlike the Cobb-Pool site, corn was recovered in only limited amounts at Baggett Branch. It is possible that an increasingly drier climate had made corn horticulture less reliable by this time. However, it is also possible that the Baggett Branch site represents only a single part of a larger settlement system used by these late phase peoples. Without data from other contemporaneous sites in this region, the overall importance of corn to these people cannot be conclusively determined.
In addition to the increased emphasis on bison hunting, certain other artifacts appear during this phase showing an increasing orientation toward the Southern Plains cultures to the north and west of the Joe Pool Lake area. The steeply-chipped, "Plains" style end scrapers , most likely used for processing bison hides, are associated with this time period. A shift in pottery traditions is indicated by the apparent predominance of shell-tempered pottery during the late phase. Apparently, the drying trend of the Late Prehistoric period resulted in the eastward migration of the bison herds. The people of North Central Texas quickly adopted the tool kit which was essential for efficient hunting for both food and clothing. A portion of their year was probably spent following the herds of bison. In the early spring and summer they likely returned to small villages where they planted and harvested their corn. Such a pattern was common along the eastern edge of the Plains when European explorers first arrived.
In summary, the prehistoric investigations of the Joe Pool Lake area have demonstrated that small groups of hunters and gatherers used Mountain Creek only seasonally during most of the prehistoric period. The lack of plentiful wild food resources and rocks for stone tools likely contributed to the short term use of the area. The main stem of the Trinity river and the Eastern Cross Timbers zone to the west of the Joe Pool Lake area both offered a wider variety of food, especially nuts, which provided food for both the hunters and the animals they hunted.
Increasing numbers of people and much drier climatic conditions around AD 1000 stimulated the adoption of corn. The presence of tillable soil along the valley sides made Mountain Creek attractive to a more sedentary group of people interested in gardening.
The short term occupation (less than 10 years) of the Cobb-Pool village raises questions concerning the feasibility of corn horticulture in the prairie environment. The increasing drought after AD 1000 may have made corn a less dependable food source. The Cobb-Pool inhabitants likely moved elsewhere where the drought was not as severe. Corn horticulture continued to be used along major river systems of North Central Texas, but Mountain Creek was never settled intensively by prehistoric people again.
By AD 1500 the lifestyle of the Mountain Creek inhabitants had changed again. The drought had thinned the post oak forest of the Eastern Cross Timbers and herds of bison were moving eastward onto the prairies of North Central Texas. This bountiful source of food, clothing, and shelter was quickly exploited by local prehistoric people. Although this change in lifestyle and the prior adaptation of corn horticulture might be interpreted as movement of new people into this area, it is more likely that a local population was merely trying new ideas to survive in a situation where the numbers of people were increasing, the climate was becoming drier, and food resources were becoming scarce. As people do today, they were simply "trying to get by."
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 LAKE HISTORIC INFORMATION
Return to the Anthropology Department Home Page
Go to SMU's Home Page