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