ARCHAEOLOGISTS AT WORK
One way of understanding the RCAP is to look at how archaeologists work. People frequently ask what is an archaeological [site]? How do you find sites? How do you excavate and what do you look for? What do you do with the things that you collect?
During 1980-81, an [archaeological survey] ([Figure 2]) was completed in the project area. During the survey, an effort was made to develop the most complete inventory possible of prehistoric and historic [sites]. Sites were recorded by examining the entire project area on foot, consulting landowners, amateur archaeologists, written records, museum collections, aerial photographs, and other sources of information. No survey could guarantee discovery of every archaeological site, but every effort was made to construct a representative picture of the archaeological resources in the project. Next, limited-scale excavations (testing) were conducted on a sample of sites that were thought to contain information best suited to answering specific scientific questions. Once more, the intent was not to dig every site, but to understand a representative sample of archaeological resources within the project.
Archaeologists find [sites] by a variety of means. Naturally, how one defines an archaeological site has an important bearing on what is considered as representative. In the Reservoir, a site was defined as any evidence of past human occupation, predating 1930. The 1930 cut-off date reflects a legal definition of sites in the National Register of Historic places, a federal office that records important historical and archaeological properties. To be eligible for inclusion in the Register, a site must generally be at least 50 years old, and must meet a number of other criteria. Applying this definition to archaeological sites, they may be as different as isolated pieces of prehistoric stone tools and an early twentieth century farm house. Why such concern for these seemingly isolated tools or for dwellings that are so recent? One of the things that archaeologists have learned is that sometimes bits of information that are incomprehensible taken one at a time form meaningful patterns when many pieces are put together.
For example, it has been learned that when isolated projectile points dropped by prehistoric hunters are plotted on a map, their distribution may correlate with patterns of vegetation or topography, giving clues about the kinds of animals that they were hunting and the size of their hunting territories. More recent things, such as old farm houses, are worth recording because, as we discuss later, they represent the remnants of a way of life that is largely gone from rural Texas. In another generation these buildings, so familiar as to escape notice by most of us, will be gone for the most part, victims of decay, vandalism, and land modification. To future generations, these “[artifacts]” will be of as much interest as nineteenth century houses are to us today. There is a danger that what is so common to us will fail to be recorded. Contrary to what many suppose, the rather common aspects of early twentieth century Texas culture are most in danger of being lost without adequate record. Often histories and other documents reflect the lives and architecture of the wealthy and well-known rather than the common people. Still, the buildings and farms of the latter reflect distinctive regional styles, and tell us many interesting things about the lives of the people who built and lived in them.
Fig. 2. Members of the Richland Creek Archaeological Project inspecting the banks of Richland Creek for archaeological remains. The project area was examined by teams of archaeologists for prehistoric and historic archaeological resources.
Once we know what we are looking for, actually finding [sites] requires a variety of methods. The most effective technique is the trained observer walking over the ground. [Prehistoric sites], that is sites occupied prior to written history in the project area (about A.D. 1650), can be found by observing distinctive bits of stone ([debitage]) produced during manufacture and use of stone tools. Before contact with Europeans, the Indians of Texas had no metals for making tools, and relied upon stone for many kinds of implements. In other instances, pieces of prehistoric pottery ([potsherds]), animal bone or shell, or stained soil deposits ([middens]) signal prehistoric sites. Many of these clues are easily overlooked except by a trained [archaeologist].
In addition to ground survey, aerial photographs and geological studies may be helpful in finding [sites]. In the RCAP, for example, a soils scientist studied the geological history of the project area, and was able to give the archaeologists a good idea where and how deeply archaeological sites might be buried. One of the most valuable means of locating archaeological sites was talking to local people and amateur archaeologists. Many of these people are keen observers and reported the location of many prehistoric and historic sites.
Excavating [sites] is a complex task. There is no single technique for digging. The kinds of methods employed vary from excavation of [test pits] or trenches with shovels and trowels, to making larger exposures with heavy equipment. Sometimes the shape and placement of these excavations is determined by statistical sampling considerations; and they are always conditioned by the specific information that the [archaeologist] hopes to get from a site. That is really the most important point: excavations are aimed at recovering information, not things per se. As we pointed out earlier in the mention of archaeological [context], [artifacts] have little meaning taken out of their setting. This fact creates one of the most striking aspects of an archaeological excavation to many people. There is a tremendous amount of record keeping that goes on in a dig—maps of the site and of the [test pit] walls ([profiles]), sheets describing artifacts and soil characteristics, photographs and many others ([Figure 3]). The object is to keep enough records that, if necessary, the archaeological site could be reconstructed in detail. A parallel set of record keeping comes into play, too, once things from the field reach the archaeological lab.
The demanding nature of excavation is a good reason why the untrained should not attempt to excavate [sites]. Without proper controls, digging can only result in loss of archaeological resources. Those who are interested in learning proper archaeological methods can contact organizations listed at the end of this report ([Appendix I]).
People invariably want to know what happens to the things that are collected by archaeologists. Do archaeologists add [artifacts] to their private collections, for example? Among professional archaeologists, keeping of private collections is actively discouraged. The reason for this is that archaeological remains are considered a scientific and public resource that should not be held for personal reasons. As scientists, archaeologists are interested in artifacts as sources of information rather than as objects with intrinsic value. All artifacts collected in the Reservoir, as is the case with all [conservation archaeology] projects, will be stored in permanent institutional repositories, where they can be studied by future generations of scientists. Also, plans are underway to return some of this material to the local area in the form of a museum display, for the benefit of the public.
Fig. 3. A [test pit] being excavated in a [site] within the Richland Project. Note the square pit walls, and screening for [artifacts]. Many kinds of records are kept during digging.