DTIC ADA255770: Archaeological Survey at Fort Hood, Texas Fiscal Year 1987: The MCA range Construction, Pidcoke Land Exchange, and Phantom Range Projects. Archeological Resource Management Series Research Report Number 23

238 Pages·10.2 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
AT FORT HOOD, TEXAS
=FISCAL YEAR 1987
STUE MCA RANGE CONSTRUCTION,
= PIDCOKE LAND EXCHANGE,
AND PHANTOM RANGE PROJECTS
)o jc-
U
£?
W ith (otrihiions by
I I~~avid L. Carlson,
Shau-ji Bottath C'arlson
{ F'lizaheth A\. Miller
Robyn 1L.1 PearsonI
'rwii Rocticr, Jr.
UNITEiID T)ITES ARMY !1'! 11 100)
A. 1('IEOIA)(I('AIL RES()I'R'E .l.ANA(I TIE 'sRIFS
RESl.\R('Ii REIOW(1 ' NI'iIIR 23
. 92-25870,j-
92 0 18',, i 'I I
JhRCAOLOGIC&L SURVEY AT FORT HOOD, TXS
IZSChL YEAR 1987
THE DCA RA1NG= COCSTPDCTZOU, PIDCO LUMD ZXCHMGX,
ARID PRHM PANGE PROJECTS
H. Blaine Ensor
With Contributions by
David L. Carlson
Shawn Bonath Carlson
Elizabeth A. Miller
Robyn L. Pearson
Erwin Roemer, Jr.
United States Army Fort Hood
Archaeological Resource Management Series
Research Report No. 23
1991
Archaeological Survey at Fort Hood, Texas
Fiscal Year 1987
The MCA Range Construction, Pidcoke Land Exchange,
and Phantom Range Projects
Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of Delivery Order Numbers 1 and 6
Contract DACA-63-87-D-0155
Prime Contractor
David L. Carlson, Ph.D.
Co-principal Investigator
C.S. Mueller-Wille, Ph.D.
Co-principal Investigator
Archeological Research Laboratory
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-4352
Contracting Officer's Authorized Representative
Frederick L. Briuer, Ph.D.
Co-principal Investigator
U.S. Army Installation Fort Hood, Texas
Staff Archaeologist
ii
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
Research Report # 21
4. TITLE (and Subt fti) S. TYPE OF REPORT 4 PERIOD COVERED
Archaeological Survey at Fort Hood, Texas, Draft, Fiscal Year 1987
Fiscal Year 1987, The MCA Range Construction,
Pidcoke Land Exchange, and Phantom Range Projects 4. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTHOR(o) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)
Delivery Order Nos. 1 and 6
H. Blaine Ensor Contract DACA-63-87-D-0155
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADORES$ 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK
AREA G WORK UNIT NUMBERS
Archeological Research Laboratory
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-4352
11.C ONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
U.S. Army Engineer District Fort Hood______________ 1991
P.O. Box 17300 IS. NUMBEROPPAGES
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(IIf differnt from Con&olitnd Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thls report)
Department of the Army, HQ III Corps Unclassified
DFiorret ctHooroda,t e Toefx asF aci7l6i54t4i esDECLASSIFICATIONOWNGRAING SC EDLEIIAIN/ONRON
SCHEDULE
16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Ohl Repowt)
17. OISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of M ebeect entered In Block 20, If dlffrg hoemR upoct)
14. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
IS. KEY WOROS (Contiue on towere side If neceoomy and identlfyb block momber)
Fort Hood, Prehistory, History, Archaeology, Survey, Cultural Resources
ME A'T RACY1b 1W m ebb nosomyeumil tdootit7by block nomphr)
An archeological survey was conducted from October of 1987 until November
of 1988 at Fort Hood, Texas, by staff members of the Archeological Research
Laboratory at Texas A&M University. A total of 26.4 km2 (6,442 acres) was
surveyed. The survey grid squares for both Delivery Order No. 1 and Delivery
Order No. 6 are included in the present report. Survey results indicate that 57
prehistoric and historic siter were recorded under both delivery orders. Fifteen
prehistoric sites were recorded during the Delivery Order No. 1 survey, while 20
historic sites were recorded. During the Delivery Order No. 6 survey, 10
prehistoric and 12 historic sites were recorded.
DD
M CM47o3 * F I NO Ves Is OMOLETE
iiisEcuOTY CLASSIFICATMN OF THIS PAGE (Wen D-otBe*r e,,
SECU'ITY CLASIICATION OF THIS PAO,,(Wh bat& ..tmf.
20 (Continued)
Of these numbers, one prehistoric site and one historic site (Delivery
Order No. 1) are considered eligible for the National Register. Sites deemed
potentially eligible to the National Register numbered 11 (seven prehistoric,
four historic) for Delivery Order No. 1. Potentially elibible sites for Delivery
Order No. 6 included three prehistoric sites and four historic sites. Twenty-two
sites for Delivery Order No. 1 are considered not eligible to the National
Regster (15 prehistoric, seven historic). For the Delivery Order No. 6 survey,
15 sites are considered not eligible (seven prehistoric and eight historic).
Building on previous work, Ensor presents an update of the projectile point
data base at Fort Hood. Intuitive type formations are tested using formal shape
criteria and found to be reasonably consistent. Point shape variability, both
within and between the Fort Hood and South Bend projectle point samples, is
compared using a number of statistical methods. It is concluded that, in terms
of shape variability, the disparate types match well, suggesting a similar
cultural tradition in each locality; however, based on point size alone, these
same types are significantly different. On the whole, Fort Hood points are
larger than their South Bend counterparts.
Finally, the results of a statistical comparison of point type proportion
between Fort Hood and South Bend indicate that, while the prehistoric inhabitants
of both localities belonged to the same cultural traditions throughout most of
prehistory, important differences obtain. Differences in point type proportion
during the Middle Archaic, Terminal/Transitional Archaic, and Late Prehistoric
periods suggest that cultural adaptations were not static; rather, it appears
that a dynamic relationship between the natural environment, social and political
factors, as i as shifts in productive technology and subsistence patterns may
have resultud in changing demographic patterns and cultural content within
Central and north-central Texas.
iv
An archeological survey was conducted from October of 1987 until November
of 1988 at Fort Hood, Texas, by staff members of the Archeological Research
Laboratory at Texas A&M University. A total of 26.4 km2 (6,442 acres) was
surveyed. The survey grid squares for both Delivery Order No. 1 and Delivery
Order No. 6 are included in the present report. Survey results indicate that 57
prehistoric and historic sites were recorded under both delivery orders. Fifteen
prehistoric sites were recorded during the Delivery Order No. 1 survey, while 20
historic sites were recorded. During the Delivery Order No. 6 survey, 10
prehistoric and 12 historic sites were recorded.
Of these numbers, one prehistoric site and one historic site (Delivery
Order No. 1) are considered eligible for the National Register. Sites deemed
potentially eligible to the National Register numbered 11 (seven prehistoric,
four historic) for Delivery Order No. 1. Potentially elibible sites for Delivery
Order No. 6 included three prehistoric sites and four historic sites. Twenty-two
sites for Delivery Order No. 1 is considered not eligible to the National Regster
(15 prehistoric, seven historic). For the Delivery Order No. 6 survey, 15 sites
are considered not eligible (seven prehistoric and eight historic).
Building on previous work, Ensor presents an update of the projectile point
data base at Fort Hood. Intuitive type formations are tested using formal shape
criteria and found to be reasonably consistent. Point shape variability, both
within and between the wort Hood and South Bend projectle point samples, is
compared using a number of statistical methods. It is concluded that, in terms
of shape variability, the disparate types match well, suggesting a similar
cultural tradition in each locality; however, based on point size alone, these
same types are significantly different. On the whole, Fort Hood points are
larger than their South Bend counterparts.
Finally, the results of a statistical comparison of point type proportion
between Fort Hood and South Bend indicate that, while the prehistoric inhabitants
of both localities belonged to the same cultural traditions throughout most of
prehistory, important differences obtain. Differences in point type proportion
during the Middle Archaic, Terminal/Transitional Archaic, and Late Prehistoric
periods suggest that cultural adaptations were not static; rather, it appears
that a dynamic relationship between the natural environment, social and political
factors, as well as shifts in productive technology and subsistence patterns may
have resulted in changing demographic patterns and cultural content within
Central and north-central Texas.
Accession For
NTIS GfAI /
DT110 TAB
Unannounced El
Just ficatio.
DTIC QUALM INSpEcM 3 Availability Codes
V'Avail and/or
•G O8IRZ
This report summarizes the results of an archeological survey conducted for
the U.S. Army at Fort Hood, Texas, by personnel from the Archeological Research
Laboratory, Texas A&M University, during Fiscal Year 1987. The surveyed area
totals 26.4 km2. The goal of the survey was to identify all cultural properties
in the survey areas and to make recommendations as to their National Register
eligibility status. The survey recorded 57 sites, 25 prehistoric and 32
historic.
Two sites, one prehistoric and the other historic, are considered eligible
to the National Register. Some 18 sites are considered potentially eligible, 10
prehistoric and eight prehistoric. Thirty-seven sites are considered eligible
to the National Register, of which 22 are prehistoric and 15 are historic.
Complete descriptions of each site and site specific recommendations for
management purposes are given in the report.
vii
TAL& OF CONTE TS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................. xv
INTRODUCTION ................ .............................. 1
ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ............ ........................ 5
Geology and Geomorphology ........... ..................... 5
Climate and Water Resources .......... .................... 7
Flora and Fauna ............. .......................... 7
CULTURAL BACKGROUND ........... ........................... . 11
Prehistoric Setting ......... ........................ 11
Historic Setting .......... ......................... 11
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ........... ............................ . 15
Prehistoric Sites .......... ......................... .. 15
Historic Sites .......... .......................... 15
RESEARCH DESIGN ............ ............................. . 17
Introduction ........................... 17
Classificatory Method ....................... 18
Taxonomic Units .......... .......................... 20
SURVEY PROCEDURES AND RESULTS ........ ...................... 23
Survey Procedures .......... ......................... . 23
Survey Results .......... .......................... 24
RESEARCH RESULTS ........... ............................ 31
Update of Fort Hood Projectile Point Data Base .. .......... . 31
Formal Comparisons of Fort Hood and South Bend Projectile Points 31
A Statistical Comparison of Point Type Frequency Between Fort Hood
and South Bend ......... ....................... 65
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ........ ..................... .. 71
Site Recommendations ......... ....................... 71
Summary and Conclusions ........ ...................... 71
REFERENCES CITED ........... ............................ 77
APPENDIX I. PREHISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS ....... . 83
(H. Blaine Ensor and Robyn L. Pearson)
APPENDIX II. HISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS . ....... .. 101
(H. Blaine Ensor and Robyn L. Pearson)
APPENDIX III. PREHISTORIC MATERIAL CULTURE DISCUSSION .. ......... . 123
(H. Blaine Ensor)
ix
APPENDIX IV. HISTORIC MATERIAL CULTURE DISCUSSION ... .......... 133
(Shawn Bonath Carlson)
APPENDIX V. PREHISTORIC SITE CODING FORMAT .... ............. 145
(David L. Carlson and Erwin Roemer, Jr.)
APPENDIX VI. HISTORIC SITE CODING FORMAT ..... ............... 153
(Shawn Bonath Carlson)
APPENDIX VII. TABULATION OF PROJECTILE POINT NOMINAL AND METRIC DATA 163
APPENDIX VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL DATA BY SITE .. ......... 203
APPENDIX XI. HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY ...... ............... 219
x
LIST Of FIGURZS
Figure 1. Location of Fort Hood in Bell and Coryell Counties, Texas 2
Figure 2. Survey Area for Fiscal Year 1987: Delivery Orders 1 and 6 3
Figure 3. Environmental Zones Present at Fort Hood as Defined by Briuer
(1983) .............. ........................... 6
Figure 4. Map Showing Fort Hood and South Bend Study Areas ...... .. 52
Figure 5. Two-dimensional Plot of the Morphological Relationships between Dart
Point Types at Fort Hood ...... .................. 56
Figure 6. Two-dimensional Plot of the Morphological Relationships between Dart
Point Types at South Bend ...... .................. . 59
Figure 7. Two-dimensional Plot of the Morphological Relationships between
Projectile Point Types at Fort Hood and South Bend ..... . 63
Figure 8. Three-dimensional Plot of the Morphological Relationships between
Projectile Points at Fort Hood and South Bend .. ........ .. 64
Figure 9. Burned Rock Scatter with Lithics-Site 41CV3444 ........ .. 91
Figure 10. Hearth Exposed in Cutbank of Clear Creek-Site 41CV1446 . . 93
Figure 11. Lithic Scatter at Site 41BL946 ..... ............... .. 96
Figure 12. Lithic Scatter at Site 41BL947 .... ............... .. 97
Figure 13. Nicholas Henderson Gravestone (1869) at Site 41CV1447 . . .. 108
Figure 14. Above Ground Cistern at Site 41CV1457 .... ............ . 114
Figure 15. Stone-lined Well at Site 41BL952 ..... .............. 117
Figure 16. Storage Container at Site 41BL955 ..... .............. . 119
Figure 17. Dart Points .......... ......................... 126
Figure 18. Untyped Dart Points ........ ..................... . 127
Figure 19. Bifaces, Preforms, and Scrapers ..... ............... .. 128
Figure 20. Historic Artifacts Recovered from Delivery Order No. 1 Survey 138
Figure 21. Historic Artifacts Recovered from Delivery Order No. 6 Survey 139
xi