CF-Andrew Park 1-SY 920422I
I
.]
An Archaeological Survey
of the
Proposed Coppel~ Recreationa£ Park
Cit~ of Coppell
Dallas County, Texas
]
]
]
]
-]
Donald Allan Dorwa'rd
Principal Investigator
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man
Southern Methodist University
April 22,1992
Report submitted to the City of Coppell, Texas
Survey conducted under T.A.C. Permit Number 1073
Table of Contents
Abstract
Management Summary
Introduction
Definition of the Study Area
Records Search .
-Prehistoric Back,round
protohistoric Back~round
Historic Settlement and Local History
Survey Methodology
Results
Recommendations
References
1
4
4
6
8
12
13
17
19
2O
21
I
I
!
I
Abstract
An archaeological survey of 60 acres of land on the south
side of Denton Creek, just east of the cgnfluence of Denton and'
Cottonwood Creeks, was conducted for the City of Coppell between
January Z and April 5, 199Z. The city proposes development of a
recrea=ional park here. The project area is located just north
and east of Coppell's Town Center,. between Parkway Boulevard and
Denton Creek. Development of this community in the northwest
corner of Dallas County for residential and commercial uses is
occurring rapidly. Quarrying operations have removed several feet
of the original soil over most of the project area. The survey was
performed by Donald Allan Dorward for the City of Coppell in
anticipation of fulfilling requirements specified by the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department. All work was performed in
accordance with Texas Antiquities Permit Number 1073, issued
December 20, 1991.
The p~oposed park improvements under consideration at the time
of the survey included baseball diamonds, soccer fields,
plaFgrounds, jo~gin~ trails, ~ Frisbe~' golf course,
basketball/tennis courts, res~ rooms, a fishing pier, a parking
lot, and expansion of the east recreational lake. The only deep
excavation require~ here will be in the expansion of
recreational lake. Most of the 'other construction will require
fillin~ rather than excavation. Review of existing site records,
historic maps and other pertinent documents revealed that several
&rchaeolo~ical sites are pre~ent in the vicinity of the pro3ect
One of these, 41DL300, is 3us% west of the pro3ect area.
area ·
This site and 41DL2§Z, near Den%on Tap Road, are buried sites
located durin~ construction excavation. Because of the likelihood
of deeply bj~ied sites in here, backhoe testin~ was conducted in
the area proposed for lake expansion.
Field work included pedestrian survey, shovel testing, a creek
bank survey, examination of erosional areas, and backhoe testing.
Field work focused on locating and evalua~in~ surface and shallowly
buried archaeological deposits over ~he entire pro]eot area, in
addition to testing for deeply buried sites in the area slated for
expansion of the recreational lake. All backhoe trenches and
shovel tests here were archaeologically sterile. No archaeo!o~ical
remains were encountered durin~ this survey, and it appears that
41DL300 may have been destroyed by utility construction. Based
upon these findin6s, it appears that development of the park as
proposed will not have an impact on significant archaeological
properties. However, it is recommended that excavation for the
lake proceed with caution, should any deeply buried sites be
encountered. If any archaeological remains are encountered durin~
construction here, then a professional archaeologist should be
contac%ed to evaluate those remains.
I
!
]
]
]
]
1
Management Summary
A cultural resources survey was conducted on approximately
sixty acres of vacant land immediately south of Denton Creek, 3us~
east of the confluence of Denton and Cottonwood Creeks in Dallas
County, Texas. This work was performed for the City of Coppell
under Texas Antiquities Permit Number 1073. The survey was
undertaken in order to identify and evaluate any archaeological and
historical resources that might be affected adversely by the
development of a park here, as proposed by Mesa Design Group and
the City of Coppell. The nature of the proposed park development
and public fundin~ of the pro3ect require that the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and the Texas Antiqu'ities Committee review
archaeological impacts tho% could result from the proposed
construction. Examination of local archaeological literature,
existin~ site records, historical documents, maps, and aerial
photographs was made to determine what cultural resources could be
expected in the project area. Fieldwork here includes pedestrian
survey, examination of creek banks and borrow pits, shovel testing,
and backhoe trenching. Soil profiles extendin~ as far as four
meters below the present soil surface were examined alon~ Denton
and Cottonwood Creeks, end in borrow pits in the study area.
Four person-daYs were expended in field work, and four were
required for back,round research and report preparation. The City
of Coppell provided the backhoe and operator.
In December, 1991, the City of Ccppell contacted the principal
investigator to conduct an archaeological and historical survey of
the area proposed for the development of a recreational park. This
survey is necessary to fulfill the repuirements of the Antiquities
Code of Texas, observed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
Austin. Public ownership of the park lands and the nature of the
proposed development requires %hat both the Texas Antiquities
Committee and Texas Parks and Wildlife review the potential impact
on archaeological and historical resources iD the study area. In
December, 1991 Texas Antiquities Committee Archaeology Permit
Number 1073 was issued for the survey the 60 acre study area.
Definition of the Study Area
The 60 acre study area is located just east of the confluence
of Denton and Cottonwood Creeks, on the south side of Denton Creek
in Dallas County, Texas CFi~ure 1). The creeks and a strip of land
immediately adjacent %0 the creeks (50-75 feet in width) will not
be affected by park development. The trees and understory here
will be preserved as a park border (Fi~'ure
The soils in the study area are mapped as the Frio silty clay,
the Trinity clay and the Coven loam (Coffee, et al 1980: map sheet
~), Each of these are deep soils on floodplains subject to
occasional floodin~ {Coffee, et al 1980: 24, 25, 36). ~uarrying
~ N. ·
'5?'30'
5"7'30'
'91
Figure
Carrollton Quad USGS 7.5' Topographic Series with the
project area, known sites and b&chkhoe trenches
sho~n.
~) C
0
0
0 q)
:~f flood-deposited sand and gravel has destroyed much of the
;rifinal soil here. The USGS Carrollton quadrangle shows gravel
'~pits in the study area (Figure 1). Judging from surroundin~"land
and local informants, about 6 to 10 feet (2-3 meters) of soil was
Iremoved during quarrying operations. The two recreational lakes
lin the study area are flood control swales constructed in the last
fe~ years to alleviate floodin~ from Denton and Cottonwood Creeks
~{Fi~ure 2). Construction of these swales and the storm sewers
which drain back into Denton Creek required excavation six to
Itwelve feet (about two to four meters) in depth. Reportedly,
construction of the west swale (recreational lake) and its
appurtenant drains may have destroyed an archaeological site,
41DL300.
The study area is located on %he eastern edge of the Eastern
Cross Timbers. Prior to settlement, this would have consisted of
an oak-hickory savanna or oak-hickory forest interspersed with
occasional small prairies (Stephens and Holmes 1989: 6). Studies
of original surveyors' notes show that the nineteenth century
Eastern Cross Timbers consisted mostly of post oak and blackjack
oak with red oaks, elms, pecans and hickories occurring as
incidentals, along with small prairies or glades'{.Jurney 1988: 340-
I346).
1'
1
1
1
]
]
]
]
]
Records Search
Prior to commencing fieldwork, a thorough examination of
pertinent archaeological and historical literature and records was
undertaken. Primary and secondary sources'were reviewed to,provide
information about local prehistoric ~nd historic settlement
patterns, and to identify any previously recorded archaeological
sites in or near the study area. Historic maps including
He~ecoxe's 1552 map of Peters C~lony, Sam Street's 1900 map of
Dallas County, and the 19R0 Soil SurVey map of Dallas County were
examined, along with aerial photos, to help in determining whether
or not any historic house sites or other structures were ever
located in the study area. No such sites were located here.
The site files of the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory
ITARL) in Austin were examined in order to establish the nature and
location of known sites in the area. Local archaeologists Jan and
Paul Lorrain were also very helpful in this re~ard. Several
prehistoric archaeological sites are located in the immediate
vicinity of the pro3ect area (Figure 1). These sites include
(Lorr-in and Lorrain
41DL2$Z, 41DL300, 41DL299, 41DL293 and 41DL31
n.d.}. The sites most important to the present investigation are
discussed below.
41DL252 The Denton Tap Site
This site was located in a borrow pit just east of Denton Tap
Road in 1984. Surface collections were made here, and later,
portions of %he site were excavated. Artifacts were located in
s~rata between 5.5 and $ feet (about 1.8-~.? meters) below the
presen~ soil surface, This i$ a deeply buried floodplain site.
Flint flakes, fire cracked rock, mussel shells, and bones of deer, '..
fish and birds were abundant. Two rock-lined hearths, the largest
of which is about two feet (61 centimeters) in diameter, were found ·
about six feet (two meters} apart. These were excavated, but no
diagnostic artifacts or comestibles were associated with them.
Several other hearths were also located here. Grinding stones and
several points (Gary and possiblF Kent) suggest a Late Archaic date
for %he occupation of 41DL252 ILorrain and Lorrain n.d., Lorrain
1988,
41DL300 The Vista Ridge Site
This site was discovered in 1986 about 1~00 feet (1.$
kilometers) e~st of 41DL2§Z. Excavation for a drainage channel
uncovered the site. The Vista Ridge site is just west of the
project area. Like 41DL252, this is a deeply buried floodplain
site, about six feet (two metersl below the present soil surface.
Bone, shell, fire-cracked rock, grindin~ stones, bifaces and two
hearths were located here. The hearths were approximately 2.5 to
3 feet (76-92 centimeters) across. About one dozen points were
recovered from the site, including Godley, El'am and Gary types.
These projectile points surges: a ~mte Archaic date for the site
ILorrain and Lorrain 1988, n.d.). It is possible that recent
utility construction destroyed what remained of 41DLJ00.
Prehistoric Background
During the last two decades, archaeologists from Southern
Methodist University, the University of North Texas and numerous
other a~encies public and private have conducted major studies in
the north central Texas area. Most of these studies were cultural
resource management (CRY) projects, and have contributed a great
deal to the understandin~ the pre~istory and history here. The
following discussion of prehistory follows McGregor (1988: 30-33)
with a few minor additions. The prehistory of the Dallas-Fort
Worth area can be divided into general ~eriods representing major
cultural stages.
Paleo-Indian
Archaic
c. 13,000-8,000 B.P.
8,000-1,300 B.P,
Late Prehistoric
Protohistoric
1,300-400 B.P.
400-200 B.P.
In north central Texas, evidence of human occupation is
limited to the last 13,000 years, more or less. The earliest human
group encountered here is referred to as Paleo-Indians, Artifacts
distinctive of Paleo-Indian'sites are lanceolate projectile points
and other chipped stone artifacts. Paleo-Indian points located in
the Dallas-Fort Worth area include Clovis, Dalton, Plainview,
Midland, Scottsbluff and others. These are mostly surface finds.
Few excavated sites have yielded Paleo-Indian artifacts in primary
contexts [jensen 19681. Although a ~ood deal of evidence shows
that paleo-Indians frequented the north central Texas area, this
period and its people are still relatively poorly known here.
Archaic period sites are better represented in the Dallas-Fort
Worth area, as several studies illustrats [Crook and Harris 1952,
1954; Lynott 1977; McGregor 1985; Prikryl 1987; Skinner, Richner,
and Johnston 1978; Yates and Ferrin~ 1986), Because of a lack of
excavation and because many of the Archaic studies are concerned
with iden=ifyin~ temporally diagnostic artifact sequences, the
Archaic in the area still is not well known. Indeed, much of the
data base for Archaic studies in this part of Texas is derived from
quart? pits, much like those once in and around the project area.
For this area Crook and Harris defined the Trinity aspect of
the Archaic period (1952, 1954). These authors divided the Trinity
aspect into the Carrollton focus (early) and Elam focus (late).
More recently, the Carrollton focus has been associated with the
Middle Archaic, and the Elam focus with the Late Archaic (LFnott
1977: 82). Carrollton focus artifacts include Carrcllton and
Trinity dart points, steep-bitted ~ou~es, scrapers and spokeshaves,
Waco sinkers, and the Carrollton axe. Paleo-Indian (Plainview,
Scottsbluff, Meserve) points have als~ been located in these
assemblages in very small proportions. Prikryl [1987) has defined
a more detailed artifact sequence for the Lower Elm Fork drainage,
and has noted some problems re~arding diagnostic point types. Very
few radiocarbon dates are available for the Archaic, and sinEle
component and stratified deposits are equally rare. Therefore,
9
'archaeologists are probably a lon~ way from a consensus on artifact
sequences and settlement patterns for this ?000 year long period.
The Late Prehistoric period is the last major indigenous
cultural phase in north central Texas prior to contact by European
explorers~~ Durin~ the Late Prehistoric period, a ~reater reliance
on a~riculture and the adoption of a more sedentary way of life
correspond with the appearance of ceramics and arrow points in the
archaeological record. This shift away from the hunting and
~atherin~ strategies employed over %he last several thousand years
was a ~radual one, adopted at different times in different places.
The date 1300 B.P. is an approximate date for the appearance of
pot%cry in the north central Texas region. Earlier dates have been
suggested for parts of the Middle Trinity drainage (McGregor and
Bruseth 1987) and for East Texas (Sharer 1975, Story 1581: 146}.
The Late Prehistoric period may be divided into early and
late Dhases on the basis of pottery or point types. Lynott
82) su6~ests that sand and 6rog tempered ceramics similar to Gibson
aspect wares may represent the earl~ phase of the Late Prehistoric,
while shell tempered pottery similar to Nocona Plain may represent
-]
]
]
]
the late phase. McGregor ~1988: 32) su~emts ~hat if the datin~
of certain point types in Eas~ and Central Texas can be applied to
the Upper TrinitM River drainage, then Alta and Scallorn points
would represent the early part of the period, and Perdiz an~
unstemmed triangular points such as Fresno, Harrell, and Washita
would represent the later part of the Late Prehistoric.
Although the Caddo dominate4 East Texas durin$ the Late
~0
I
I
I
i
1
I
]
]
]
]
Prehistoric, groups in the Dallas-Fort Worth area at this time are
not easily assignable to one culture. The East Texas Caddo sites
~enerally are not found in this area~ ~ut the Caddo did trade with
local inhabitants. The Cobb-Pool site I%1DL148) may represent a
group of Caddoans west of the Trinity River, Three house
structures and several domestic pits and features here date to
about 700 B,P. The scarcity of other such sites in the area
indicates that the Cobb-Pool site is an exceptioa to the ~eneral
pattern (Skinner and Connors 1979: 52; Peter and McGregor 1988:
194-198).
Bison exploitation appears to have increased in the later part
of the Late Prehistoric, Fresno points are associated with bison
kills at this time (Harris and Harris 1970, Morris and Morris 1970,
Lynott 1977). Excavations associated with the construction of Joe
Pool Lake identified bison bone associated with the Ba~gett Branch
sites (41DL149] which date to 440 £80 B.P. (Peter and McGregor
1988: 244).
11
Protohistoric Background
Little direct contact between Native Americans and Europeans
occurred in the north central Texas a~ea until early in the
nineteenth century. Therefore, the span between 1600 and 1800 A D
is known as the protohistoric period. Archaeological sites which
can be shown to date to this period area rare in the Dallas-Fort
Worth area. Trade ~oods are the 6iagnostic artifacts necessary to
distinguish ~ protohistoric period site from a Late Prehistoric
period site. The French and Spanish were both present in Texas
durin~ the protohistoric period, but they did not occupy north
central Texas. The French were present &long the Red River as
early as 1516 (Sciscenti 1972: 189). European ~rtifacts and trade
~ood~ from several sites in the general area, including one near
alon~ the Trinity River near Honey Sprin~s (Harris 195~:
White Rock Creek (sollberger 1953), Five Mile Creek {McCormick
1976: 14-15), and the Elm Fork (Skinner and Baird 1985). None of
these sites have received intensive st~!dY or excavations, and
consequently, little is known abou~ local adaptations during the
Protohistoric period.
~istoric Settlement and Local History
!
]
]
]
]
]
Although some early explorers reportedly passed through the
area, actual immigrant settlement did not begin here until the
second quarter of the nineteenth century. Accordingly, historic
sites predating I840 are extremely rare in the Dallas-Fort Worth
area.
Settlement of north central Te×as began in earnest with the
initial land surveys for the Nacogdoches and Robertson land
Districts which were undertaken 1835-1540. The first permanent
Euro-American settlement in the area was Bird's Fort. This was
established in 1841 by Jonathan Bird and a company of volunteers
on the west fork of the Trinity River, just south of present
Euless, The establishment of Bird's Fort was part of a plan by
the Republic of Texas to construct a road from Bastrop to the Red
River through the Three Forks area. The presence of this ~arrison
would indicate to local Indians that the Republic was layin~ claim
to the re~ion, and would also aid in settlement 5f the area by
homesteaders (Payne 1982:
A number of settlers moved into the area as a result of
commercial land companies such as Mercer's and Peters'Colonies.
These companies were part of the efforts of the Republic of Texas
to populate its largely vacant lands. Company officials were
authorized to recruit and settle families in certain parts of the
state, and would receive in return sections of premium land.
Peters Colony lands included most of Dallas and Tarrant Counties
13
(payne 1982: 16-18). The land on which the Coppell recreational
park will be developed was originally settled by a Peters colonist,
Clarinda Squires.
Clarinda Squires, a widow, came to the colony prior to I843
with three children. She settled west of the Trinity in what was
then Bobertson County, on a total of 640 acres (Figures 3 and 4).
Mrs. sGuires died before 1850, and her mother, Phoebe Ward, was
~ssued a certificate of ownership by Peters Colony in 1850 (Connor
1959: 400). It is unlikely that'the Squires family built on the
part of their section proposed for park development since this is
a floodplain. More probably, they built on the high Nround north
of Den~ton Creek. Sam Street's 1900 map of Dallas County shows only
one house, a tenant house on the Squires survey. This house is
north of Denton Creek on the west side of Denton Tap Road. It is
possible that this is the location of the Squires home (Figure 5).
During the 1850s, the north central Texas are~ grew
dramatically as settlers poured in from the east and midwest.
Dallas became the county seat in 1850, and by the 1870s had become
a major cotton market and a distribution center for buffalo hides
IReese, e% al 1986: 1§4~, Railroad routes were vital in the
survival and establishment of new communities in the Dallas-Fort
Worth area irt the last three decades of the nineteenth century.
On November 25, 1871, the Texas legislature passed a bill
includin~ a rider bindin~ the Texas and Pacific Railroad to a route
within two miles of the city of Dallas. The city offered the T &
p land to brin~ the tracks throuSh town, and with the train runnin~
down pacific Avenue, Dallas enjoyed a boon in commercial
prosperity, The city of Fort Worth held a similar desire to become
a railroad town. The Panic of 1873 halted the rail line in Eagle
Ford, and by 1876, the T & P land grant for a right of way to Fort
Worth was about to be voided. In order to brint the rail line into
town, the citizens of Fort Worth literally built the last few miles
of track (Sanders 1973).
The railroad also played a role in the development of
Coppell. The town of Coppell ~rew up on the main Cotton Belt Line,
.
which passed across the northwest part of the county (Swi~zer 1954:
12). The settlement of Gibbs, near Grapevine Creek, predated
Coppell. In 1889, the railroad passed th=ouK~, and the town was
renamed Coppeli after a railroad employee. The post office
established in 1887 as Gibbs Station {after Barnett Gibbs, Texas
Lieutenant Governor 1884-1888) and was chan~ed to Coppell in 1892
(Dallas County Historical Commission 1982:
After the Civil War, cotton became the major cash crop in
north Texas. Durin~ the late nineteenth century, Texas was the
largest cotton producer ~n the world. The fertile Blackland
prairies were especially well suited to cotton farming. Labor
intensive farming methods of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries resulted in a sharecropping system in which
few sharecroppers could bum their way out (Molt, et al 1986). By
1900, mos% north Texas counties had more tenant-operated than
owner-operated farms. A map of Dallas County in 1900 shows
numerous tenant farmers in the Coppell area (Street, Figure 5).
The rural population in Texas began to decline in the mid 1920s.
Cotton production dropped as markets fell off and the soil became
; ~'~/
~ ..... ,:: ;,~ ~ , ,,...~.~ ~. ~ ... ,.
~ . ~, ' ,.,~.~ ~ ~,~ . ~ ........ ~ 7"~,j ......
' ~ ~ J~/' F F~TM~
, Co , . ......... ~ j j
~ ....... ~- ~ ~ ...... ~ · 'g, 8.8 g~ '
~ ........ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ '~.,.~,~
F~gure 5. Sam Street's
.......
~ ~00 Map of Dallas
.-~ showing ~he Coppel~ vicinity as
the turn of the century
I · : , ~ - ,...~ :,.~,~w..:. . 4 ~ -~,,, . · ........
... , , ,. ,~, f . ] .,.. ,-.... ,.. ~,..:,~.,. . .,.,
-- ~' ~'. ;
' I.
. . ; ~ . -. . .~.
'.k. : ' ', .... . ,~ '- · "
; ~, ; . . .. · j,.-----~.,_. ~ . ~. : ...-,,:,~-', .
Figure 3: Hedgecoxe's 1852 Peters Colony Map (detail) showing the study area as presented to Peters Colonists.
· ~ ',. ;.' ..~ . . '\ , '. . ~ . ,,.- · -,, . ,
{.-. :.~ ,, · /.; ..--~-,.- ......... I ....... .- ..... ~,~:.=-. ..... ", .... ,,.-.':',,.. ,v:..,ll...... ....... .%... .... ;._,..~-..,..- .....
.... , . , / .. ,. . . ~.~ . · , .
: ~. , 'r .. : ' ' '. ~ ~' ", . '% ' '' ,b~,'.-'''' .' : ,
ST U D'Y' AR~-A
/
l'i e
l
1
1
]
°l
Figure 6:
Lc
The Dallas County Soil Survey Map showing the
Coppell area as it appeared in 1920.
]
]
l~ted World War II exposed ~an~ ~oun~ adults to a different
irban environment' Increa ''
the rurml l~bor pool dwindled (Lee 1982, Jur?eY, e~ ~1 1988).
~arehouse centers cl ' '
Dali&s-For% Worth metropiex'
Survey Methodology
I
I
I
!
]
I
The archaeological survey of the proposed Coppell Recreational Park
was desicned to comply wi~h regulations stipulated in the Texas
Antiquities Code (Title 9, Chapter 291 of the Texas Natural
Resource Code). Prior to the survey, the files at the Texas
Archaeological Research Laborator7 ITARL) in Austin, and those at
Southern Methodist University in Dallas were searched for
previousl~ recorded sites. ~istori¢ maps, Peters Colony records
IConnor 19591, aerial photographs, and other important documentary
sources were examined in order to identify known sites and to gain
an understanding of past land use in the area. Local
archaeologists Jan and .Paul Lorrain were also consulted for
firsthand information on archaeological sites in the immediate
vicinity of the pro,~ect area.
Field work here included a pedestrian survey of the 60 acre
pro,iect area and shovel tes~in~ in areas of heavy ground cover.
Four lines of shovel tests -were made north-south through the
pro,~ect area. Shovel tests were made at 20 met.er intervals; they
were approximately 50 centimeters in diameter, and were taken to
at least ~0 centimeters in depth. Areas of the pro~ect area slated
for construction of amenities such as baseball backstops and stairs
which might require penetration into the present soil surface were
also tested. Numerous other shovel tests were made more or less
at random durin~ the pedestrian survey. A total of 112 shovel
tests were made here, Accordin~ to the architects at Mesa Design,
17
- I
of the construction here will require filling, rather than
cutting, since this is a floodplain. An exception is the expansion
of the east recreational lake ¢¥igure 2). In order tO' expand the
lake to the east, dredging operations cutting as much as ten feet
(up to three meters) below the present soil surface will be
recuired. In order to test this area for buried sites such as
41DL252 and 41DL300, five backhoe trenches up to ten feet Cabout
three metersl deep were placed in this area. Because of extremely
wet weather, and the floodplain e~vironment here, the ground was
too wet for backhoe testing until April 1. The area at the east
edge of the. recreational lake was still too wet for testing, it
appears that this is a perennial condition. A creek bank survey
on Denton Creek and on parts of Cottonwood Creek was also
undertaken, where cuts up to ten feet {about three metersl in depth
~ere examined.
Ground surface visibility was very good over most of the
search area. Apparently hay was mowed here last fall, and the
winter vegetation was quite sparse. The band of heavy vegetation
on the south bank of Denton Creek is outside of the project area.
18
Results
No archaeological sites were located durin~ this survey. One
known site nearby 41DL300, is located 3ust west the pro3ect area,
near a flood control swale. No evidence of %his site could be
found here. It is possible %hat the site was destroyed during
recent utility cons%ruction.
Several buried sites are loclted in the immediate vicinity of
the pro3ect area, most of these a~e at least six feet below the
present surface (Lorrain 1985, Lor~ain and Lorrain 1988). Although
%he five backhoe trenches ~ie!ded no evidence of human occupation
of the area %0 be dredged for expansion of the e~st lake, it is
possible %hat a site could be located here.
No evidence for a historic period site in the pro3ect area
was located in either the field work or in the numerous historic
maps and documents consulted.
19
!
!
~ecom~endations
Th~ one known site immediately ad3acent to the study area,
,
41D~300,. w~s heavily damaged' by earlier construction activities
and now may be totally destroyed' Sand and gravel quarryin~ here
have removed several fee% of soil over most'of the pro3ect area,
greatly reducing the likelihood of locating Historic period sites.
Buried prehistoric sites 41DL252 and 41DL300 are in the immediate
area, however. Based upon the archaeological survey undertaken,
it appears that the proposed park improvements will have no impact
on significant archaeological properties within the study area.
However, although a thorough reconnaissance program has been
undertaken here, includin~ backhoe trenching in the areas likely
to receive deep soil disturbances durin~ expansion of the east
recreational lake, it is possible that a buried site has zone
undetected. Therefore, it is recommended that construction proceed
as planned with the proviso that excavation for the lake expansion
will be halted if any cultural materials should be uncovered, and
that any such materials will be evaluated by a professional
archaeologist immediately upon recovery.
20
]
!
1
Carter, William T.
Washin~ton: USGPO.
Coffee, D.R., R.H. Hill, and P.D. Ressell
1980 Soil sUrvew of
Washington:
USGPO.
Connor, Seymou~ V.
1959 T__he Pete~s Colov of Texa Austin:
Texas State ~ia%orXcal ASsOCiation.
Crook, W.W., Jr., and R.K. Harris
1952 Trinity aspect of the a~chaic horizon:
1954 Traits of the. Trinity aspect archaic:
Carrollton and Elam foci. ~
Dallas County Historical Commission
1982 Dallas Count ~isto~ic Resou c Survey
Harris. R,K.Dallas: Dallas County ~istorical Commission,
1951 French or Spanish or what is it~
10¢1]: 2-3, . Th__e Record
Harris, R.K. and I.M. ~arris
1970 A bison kill on Dixon's Branch, Site 27A2-$,
Dallas County. ~ 3($):
Med~ecoxe, ~.O.
1852 ~ U.S.D.A. FS MP
Jensen, H.P.
Report on excavations at the Field Ranch site
(X41COiO), Cook County, Texas.
Tea×as Archeolo~cal Society 39: 133-146.
Ju~neW, David
1988 Early historic vegetation Zones. In
on_ t~e ho~wall9w D~ai~ compiled by D.H. Jurney,
S.A. Lebo, and M.H. Green. Report submitted to the
U.$. Army Corps of Engineers by the Archaeology
Research Program, $.M.U., Dallas.
19~8
JurneF, David, Susan Lebo and Melissa Green
Histo~r!c fsrmin~ on_.theh~w&llow _brai.riel. Report
submitted to the U,S. Army Corps of En$ineers by
the Archaeology Research Program, $.M.U,, Dallas.
Lee, Reed
1982
A ~tud~ Of ch~n.ge ~n~t~e c~lt~rsl ecglo~of_the
Hiddle_Trin~v Rt~er Basin, TexasL 18~0 to the
s~. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of -
Anthropology, Southern Me~hodist University.
Lorrain, Jan and Paul Lorrain
1988 The Vista Ridge site on Denton Creek.
Overview of prehistoric Coppell, selected
archaeological sites on Denton Creek.
Unpublished manuscript.
Lorrain, Paul
1985 Site 41DL252 on Denton Creek.
18-21.
e~ 41¢1):
1988
Recent finds at the Denton Tap site.
42(3): 95-96.
The Record
Lynott, M,J.
1977 A re~iqn~l mode~ for..archa~olo~ical.rese&rch iD
~or____th~e~tral T~xas. Ph, D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist
University.
McCormick, O.F., III
1976 An archaeological reconnaissance of. the ~ivemil~
~r~ek fl~odmlain. Dallas Count_w~ T~xa~. Institute
of Applied Sciences, North Texas State University,
Denton.
McGregor, D,E.
1988 Archaeological background. In ~rehistorF of_the~
Mo~ntaiD Creek_Baa.in, edited by DrE. Peter and
D.E. McGregor. Report submitted to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers by the Archaeology Research
Pro,ram, S'.M.U., Dallas.
McGregor, D.E. and J.E. Bruseth, editors
1987 Hun~r,~herer &da~ta~Lons alone the ~rairie mar~in:.
Site excavations ~nd s~nthes_is of. nrehi.s~orlc
~r~haeqlo~v.. Richland Creek Technical Series, Volume
III. Archaeology Research Program, $.M.U., Dallas.
22
Hoi~,,
1986
M.v.H- .
History_ze~, and H S. ,.
Jo~e -~ ,set tleme~t
· - ~ ~ake zn th
Houris, v. and B.
1970 ' Mo~iS .... u., Dallas.
EXCavation of
County. bison ~emains
Pavne Darwin ~ in no~th~es
, 27~I ;: 2-5 t DalLas
1982 ·
' ~indso~ ~..~co~v. ~°odland
Pe~e~, D.~. ~ndS°~s
1988 ' ·
Prikryl, D.j.
I987 ~f . .
' ~exa~ =~. . ~s~ed M
nlStoric ar~u.J_, P~iktyl
~a~ _ unaeolo~v. ~ ,
. ' ~ates and C. ounties
a~de~s, J.W
197~ '
Wo~th _ _
Fo~t ~he T -
~sce~ti, J.V. ~-~: Amo~ OaPtep M~~tW~e~~ APt.
I97Z
_ Report
arm~ Corps of ~nglnee~s submitted t~ n he
. o the
the Study of Earth and Man, S.~.U.' Dallas.
by the Institute fo~
~ain ~-' . ~n bate ~_, cms: d __ .,,erer
esea~ch pro~i_~ Enginee,i ~u~tCed t~ ~.an~ *"~' Dallas. ~ ~rCnaeology
I
I
I
I
I
f
Sharer, N.J.
1975 Commen'~s on Wood/and cultures
z49-2~4
Skinner, S.A. and L.
1985 ~chaeolo~y a. d ~t ~f e Ha ~0be~ts
~ t~ ent 'n a mar 'ha Zone Volume III.
Cultural Resources Report 85-11, A R. Consultants
Inc., Da/las, Texas. ',
Skinner, S.A. and D,T. Connors
1979 A~h~o o '~ inves~ at%ns at L evi w ak .
Archaeology Research Program Re~ort 118, S.M.U.,
Dallas.
Skinner, S.A., j.j. Richner, and M.R. Johnston
1~78 ~11~ A~haeolo i~ Research
Repor~ iii, Archaeology Research Program, S.M.U.,
Dallas. ·
Sollberger,
I953 The HUmphrey site. ~ I1(3): 11-14.
Stephens, A.~. and ~.N. ~olmes
I989 ~i~o~ca tla~ of Texa~.
of Oklahoma Press. Norman: University
Story, D.A.
198I
Street, Sam
1900
An overview of the archaeology of East Texas.
Plains Anthro olo ist 26(92): 139-IS6.
Sam Street's a of D,--- -
xzas Count Texas.
St. Louis: Aug. Gast Bank Note and L/tho. Co.
Switzer, D.S.
1954 It'S o~__~llas.County~ Dallas: D S Switzer
Educational Writings, ' '
United States Geological Survey
Carrollton, Texas ~uadrangle, ?.5' Series
topographic map. Washington: USGS.
Yates, B.C. and C.R. Ferring
1986 ~of cultural res
Texas. Final report submitted to the U-S.'Army Corps
of Engineers by the Institute of Applied Sciences
North Texas State University, Denton. '
24
DI~PARTMm~T og' nplT~url~tm t,l~o,-rt~:'r~Olsl
I) 3 ,' 1.19 ,' 93 09:57
'~_-- 9-9~ 7UE ..8:52
'~'Z14 73~ 0095
~E$~ DESIGN GROUP
ING FAX NO, 2148'/11bd'/