Archaeological Investigations at Mission Hill Park, New ...

Archaeological Investigations at Mission Hill Park,

New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas

by

Todd M. Ahlman and Avery Armstrong Principal Investigator: Todd M. Ahlman

Texas Antiquities Permit No. 30256 Technical Report No. 85

CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES Texas State University

2021

ATTACHMENT D - SPECIAL PROVISIONS - EXHIBIT 5

Archaeological Investigations at Mission Hill Park, New Braunfels,

Comal County, Texas

By:

Todd M. Ahlman and Avery Armstrong

Principal Investigator: Todd M. Ahlman

Texas Antiquities Permit No. 30256

Technical Report No. 85

CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES Texas State University

November 2021

The following information is provided in accordance with the General Rules of Practice and Procedures, Title 13, Chapter 26, Texas Administrative Code:

1. Type of investigation: Archaeological survey

2. Project name: Archaeological Investigations at Mission Hill Park, New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas

3. County: Comal County

4. Principal Investigator: Todd Ahlman

5. Name and location of sponsoring agency: New Braunfels Park Foundation, New Braunfels, TX

6. Texas Antiquities Permit: No. 30256

7. Published by the Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, Texas, 78666-4616 (2015)

Texas State University is a member of the Texas State University System

Copyright ©2021 by the Center for Archaeological Studies at Texas State University All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, Electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,

Or by any information storage and retrieval system Without permission in writing.

For further information on this and other publications by the Center for Archaeological Studies, please contact:

CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES Texas State University 601 University Drive

San Marcos, TX 78666-4616 www.txstate.edu/anthropology/cas/

Printed in the United States of America by

McCarthy Printing, Austin, TX

i

ABSTRACT

Archaeologists from the Center for Archaeological Studies (CAS) at Texas State University conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of Mission Hill Park on August 12 and 13, 2021. The survey included visual inspection of the entire project area and the excavation of 29 shovel tests. The survey was executed to assess the project area for potential impacts to cultural resources in advance of the park’s development by the New Braunfels Parks foundation and the City of New Braunfels. Work was carried out by CAS archaeologist Todd M. Ahlman and public history intern Avery Armstrong under Texas Antiquities Permit Number 30256, assigned to Principal Investigator Todd Ahlman.

The project area comprises the entire 10-acre Mission Hill Park within the City of New Braunfels and includes two areas: a 1.0-acre narrow strip slated for development as the park’s entrance and parking area and a 9.0-acre portion at the apex of Mission Hill where trails and interpretive buildings are planned. Development of the park is planned in stages with the entrance and parking area set to be constructed first, likely in 2021, and the trails and interpretive buildings slated for later development.

The survey of the 1.0-acre narrow strip, that is the proposed location for the entrance and parking area, found no cultural material and CAS recommends that no further archaeological research is needed in this area. We recommend clearance for the development planned in this portion of the project area.

Within the rest of the project area (totaling 9.0 acres), where the trails and interpretive buildings are planned, there are two previously recorded sites (41CM308 and 41CM309) and an isolated historic feature. Site 41CM308 is the Mission Hill Site, first recorded as a historic farmstead complex located at the highest point of the property. During the survey, the previously recorded foundations and structural remains were found and a precontact component was also recorded. Site 41CM309 was first interpreted as a cistern and more recently as a kiln. The survey found an isolated historic concrete trough and shovel tests excavated around it did not yield any associated artifacts. CAS recommends that sites 41CM308 and 41CM309 are significant sites and meet the criteria as State Antiquities Landmarks. As development progresses in this 9.0-acre portion of the project area, these sites should be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, the negative effects of the development to these significant sites should be mitigated through photography, mapping, careful excavation, and interpretation for the public.

iii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Project Title: Archaeological Investigations at Mission Hill Park, New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas

Project Type: Intensive Pedestrian and Shovel Testing Survey

Local Sponsor: City of New Braunfels and New Braunfels Parks Foundation

Institution: Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University

Principal Investigator: Todd Ahlman

Public History Intern: Avery Armstrong

Texas Antiquities Permit No.: 30256

Dates of Work: August 12-13, 2021

Total Acreage Evaluated: 10 acres

Number of Shovel Tests: 29

Purpose of Work: To identify, record, and evaluate the extent and integrity of cultural resources that would be impacted within the project area.

Number of Sites: 2 revists (41CM308, 41CM309)

Curation: Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University

Comments: Pedestrian survey and shovel testing revealed both prehistoric and historic-aged cultural remains within Mission Hill Park. No cultural material was found in the narrow strip planned for park access and no further archaeological studies are recommended for this area. Sites 41CM308 and 41CM309 are both significant sites and are recommended as State Antiquities Landmarks.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... i

Management Summary .......................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Project Area Setting ................................................................................................................................ 5 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................ 5 Climate and Weather........................................................................................................................ 5 Flora and Fauna ............................................................................................................................... 5

Central Texas Cultural Chronology ........................................................................................................ 9 Prehistoric ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Paleoindian ................................................................................................................................ 9 Archaic ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Late Prehistoric........................................................................................................................ 11 Spanish Entrada Period ........................................................................................................... 12

Historic ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Previous Archaeological Investigations ............................................................................................... 15

Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 19

Results .................................................................................................................................................. 21 Site 41CM308 ................................................................................................................................ 22

Site History .............................................................................................................................. 23 Archaeological Survey Results................................................................................................ 27 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 28

Site 41CM309 ................................................................................................................................ 29 Archaeological Survey Results................................................................................................ 29 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 30

Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 45

References Cited ................................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 55

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project area location within New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas. 2 Figure 2. Location of Mission Hill Park showing modern development around park. 3 Figure 3. Archaeological sites adjacent to the APE. 17 Figure 4. Results of the Mission Hill Park archaeological survey. 31 Figure 5. Overview of narrow strip at southeast portion of Mission Hill Park. View to southeast. 32 Figure 6. Possible sinkhole or cave in northern portion of Mission Hill Park. View to southeast. 32 Figure 7. Concrete trough. 33 Figure 8. Coreth Family. From Left to Right: Agnes Coreth, Minna Zesch Coreth, Rochette Coreth,

Franz Coreth, Lina Coreth 33 Figure 9. First Coreth family home, which burned in the early 1900s. 34 Figure 10. Second Coreth family home with additions. Structural remains called Structure 1 during

survey. 34 Figure 11. Third home, inhabited by Rochette Coreth. Structural remains called Structure 2 during

survey. 35 Figure 12. Site 41CM308, elevated cistern. View to northeast. 35 Figure 13. Site 41CM308, Structure 1 (second Coreth home). View to northwest. Similar view as

Figure 10. 36 Figure 14. Site 41CM308, Structure 1, brick scattered around structure. 36 Figure 15. Site 41CM308, Structure 2 (third Coreth home). View to north. 37 Figure 16. Site 41CM308, Structure 2 chimney box. View to north. 37 Figure 17. Site 41CM308, garden by Structure 2. View to northeast. 38 Figure 18. Site 41CM308, garden by Structure 2. View to northeast. 38 Figure 19. Site 41CM308, concrete pad. View to west. 39 Figure 20. Site 41CM308, retaining wall. View to southwest 39 Figure 21. Site 41CM208. Possible cellar. 40 Figure 22. Site 41CM208, overview of asphalt road by Structure 1. View to northwest. 40 Figure 23. Site 41CM308, overview of prehistoric component. View to north. 41 Figure 24. Site 41CM309, kiln overview. View to northeast. 41 Figure 25. Site 41CM309, overview of kiln from top showing teardrop shape of lower kiln. 42 Figure 26. Site 41CM309, kiln edge showing construction method. 42 Figure 27. Site 41CM309, soil and stone hump to the northwest of kiln. 43 Figure 28. Recommended no further work and avoidance area. 47

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table A-1. All shovel tests showing texture, color, and comments by stratigraphic level. 55

1

INTRODUCTION

From August 12 to 13, 2021, archaeologists from the Center for Archaeological Studies (CAS) at Texas State University (University) conducted subsurface archaeological investigations at Mission Hill Park on behalf of the City of New Braunfels (City), Comal County, Texas. Mission Hill Park is located approximately 4 km west from the New Braunfels city center at 2100 Independence Drive (Figures 1 and 2), containing a total of 10 acres of land. The City plans to develop the 10-acre parcel into a park with parking, trails, and interpretive buildings. The project is currently planned in multiple stages with the construction of the park’s entrance and parking within the 1.0-acre sized narrow strip on the project areas southwest planned first, likely in 2021. Subsequent development will occur across the rest of the 9.0-acre parcel and will include trails and interpretive buildings.

The City’s standing as a political subdivision of the State of Texas causes this proposed development to be subject to provisions of the Antiquities Code of Texas (TAC). The TAC requires that such an undertaking consider the potential impact on any cultural resources that might be present and that might contribute information that is meaningful or significant to understanding the history and/or prehistory of the State of Texas. All archaeological work was performed under Texas Antiquities Permit Number 30256, granted to Principal Investigator Todd Ahlman.

Cultural resources located on land owned or controlled by the State of Texas, or its political subdivisions, are protected by the TAC (Texas Natural Resources Code, Title 9, Chapter 191), which identifies significant sites as State

Antiquities Landmarks (SALs) (formerly known as State Archeological Landmarks). TAC Rules of Practice and Procedure, as defined by the Texas Historical Commission (THC), are explicit about perception and protection of cultural resources located on State-owned or controlled land:

. . . archeological sites and historic structures on lands belonging to state agencies or political subdivisions of the State of Texas are State Archeological Landmarks or may be eligible to be designated as landmarks . . . The State of Texas considers that all publicly owned archeological sites and historic structures have some intrinsic historic value, and the Antiquities Code provides some level of protection for those sites . . . regardless of their size, character, or ability to currently yield data that will contribute important information on the history or prehistory of Texas . . . (26.2).

As all cultural resources located in, on, or

under State-owned or controlled land are considered eligible for SAL status, and not all cultural resources are appropriately designated as such or directly threatened by development, the THC has criteria for practically assessing the significance and/or need for further investigations under the permit process (Rules and Practice, Chapter 26.8):

1. The site has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the prehistory and/or history of Texas by the addition of new and important information;

2

Figure 1. Project area location within New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas.

3

Figure 2. Location of Mission Hill Park showing modern development around park.

4

2. The site’s archeological deposits and the artifacts within the site are preserved and intact, thereby supporting the research potential or preservation interests of the site;

3. The site possesses unique or rare attributes concerning Texas prehistory and/or history;

4. The study of the site offers the opportunity to test theories and methods of preservation, thereby contributing to new scientific knowledge;

5. The high likelihood that vandalism and relic collecting has occurred or could occur, and official landmark

designation is needed to insure maximum legal protection, or alternatively further investigation are needed to mitigate the effects of vandalism and relic collecting when the site cannot be protected.

Under formatting standards set forth by the Council of Texas Archeologists (CTA) and adopted by the THC, this report provides a brief overview of the regulatory requirements for this project (above), defines the project area setting, outlines regional and local trends in archaeology, describes the methods used in gathering data, and presents the results of the survey. The fieldwork for this project was performed by Principal Investigator Todd Ahlman and Public History Intern Avery Armstrong.

5

PROJECT AREA SETTING

The project area is located on the western edge of the City of New Braunfels, in east-central Comal County, Texas. The closest permanent water source is the Comal River approximately 1.6 miles to the east of the project area. There are several unnamed and named intermittent streams within a half-mile of the project area. The project area is located at the highest point in New Braunfels at around 970 ft above mean sea level (amsl). Since the late 19th century, the project area has been impacted by European and American development.

Geology and Soils

Bedrock geology of the region is spatially complex because of the Balcones Fault Zone; however, the project area is small and situated within Buda Limestone (Kbu) and Del Rio Clay (Kdr), as mapped by the Bureau of Economic Geology (Barnes 1992). In general, the project area is surrounded by Edwards Limestone (Ked).

According to the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) online Web Soil Survey, the soils within the project area are Rumple-Comfort rubbly association and Medlin, Warm Eckrant association. Both soils are relatively shallow and rocky. There is a slim chance for deeply buried cultural deposits within the project area.

Climate and Weather

The following weather statistics are based on a 30-year record (1951-1980). Mean maximum temperatures of summers approach 97° F, and winters have mean minimum temperatures of approximately 50° F in Comal County (Bomar

1983). December and January are the only two months on record that have not had temperatures above 90° F, whereas freezing temperatures have been recorded from October through April. The mean annual precipitation recorded for central Texas is 33.75 inches. Precipitation in the county is bimodal, with most precipitation occurring in the late spring and in the early fall (Dixon 2000). Weather in this region is dynamic and often marked by severe events. Hazardous weather comes in the form of extraordinary downpours and droughts. With thin soils and high-relief bedrock topography, the Hill Country is notorious for flash flooding. As moisture-rich maritime air approaches the Balcones Escarpment (a prominent topographic feature), the air is lifted, moisture condensed, and then quickly unloaded (Caran and Baker 1986; Slade 1986). As a result, the affected drainage basins rapidly fill their waterways. Drought can also be an expected feature of Central Texas weather; there is not a decade in the twentieth century that did not include drought (Bomar 1983:153). At a greater temporal scale, the region’s climate can be described as moist with mild winters, wet all seasons to dry summers (east to west), and with long hot summers (Köppen Climatic Classification: Cfa-Csa, east to west), but evidence indicates that climates are variable as well (Mauldin et al. 2012).

Flora and Fauna

Floral and faunal characteristics of both adjoining environmental regions (Edwards Plateau and Blackland Prairie), mingle along the Balcones Escarpment. Blair (1950), calling this ecotone the Balconian Province, noted that it contained wildlife from every other region in the

6

state, and it also contained endemic species. Typical modern fauna found in the region includes, armadillo, badger, beaver, black rat, coyote, crayfish, domestic dog, eastern cottontail, eastern gray squirrel, eastern wood rat, horse, muskrat, common opossum, pig, raccoon, red fox, turkey, western diamondback rattlesnake, white-tailed deer, and white-tailed jackrabbit, in addition to bountiful other mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. In prehistory, many of the same animals were present, as well as were bison and antelope.

The region’s natural vegetation is generally a grassland-woodland-shrubland mosaic, where grasslands separate patches of woody vegetation (Ellis et al. 1995). Along the escarpment, Mesquite, post oak, and blackjack oaks interrupt patches of bluestems, gramas, and many other

types of grass in the Blackland Prairie. These species are also found with the Edwards Plateau’s live oak, shinnery oak, junipers, and mesquite (Gould 1962).

Mission Hill Park is located on a hill in east-central Comal County. According to the City of New Braunfels, the park contains Eastern red cedar, Live Oaks, ative Lantana, various native grasses, and non-native vegetation (https://www.nbtexas.org/DocumentCenter/View/12821/Mission-Hill-Park-Master-Plan-PDF, accessed August 25, 2021). A visit to the park location by Master Naturalists on May 29, 2016 found a variety of native spieces within the park boundary (Table 1).

https://www.nbtexas.org/DocumentCenter/View/12821/Mission-Hill-Park-Master-Plan-PDF

https://www.nbtexas.org/DocumentCenter/View/12821/Mission-Hill-Park-Master-Plan-PDF

7

Table 1. Recorded flora in Mission Hill Park Project Area.

Common Name Scientific Name

Indian Mallow Abutilon incanum

Huisache Acacia farnesiana

Bee Brush Aloysi gratissma

Agarita Berberis trifolialata

Lindheimer’s Senna Cassia lindheimeri

Mountain Mahogany Cercocarpus montanus

Texas Purple Thistle Cirsium texanum

Day-Flower Commelina erecta

Croton Croton sp.

Pencil Cactus Cylindropuntia leptocaulis

Texas Persimmon Diospuros texana

Anaqua Ehretia anacua

Prairie Verbena Glandularia bipinnatifida

Cut Rice Grass Leersia monandra

Mimosa Mimosa borealis

Sensitive Briar Mimosa roemeriana

Prickly Pear Opuntia sp.

Mesquite Prosopis glandulosa

Mealy Blue Sage Salvia farinacea

Desert Yaupon Schaefferia cuneifolia

Texas Mountain Laurel Sophora secundiflora

Eve’s Necklace Styphnolobium affine

Four-Nerve Daisy Tetraneuris acaulis

Spiderwort Tradescania sp.

Frostweed Verbesina virginica

9

CENTRAL TEXAS CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY

The cultural chronologies for Central and South Texas are not well understood or agreed upon. However, archaeological deposits indicate rich cultural development spanning several millennia. Black (1995), Hester (1995, 2004), and Collins (1995, 2004) have synthesized available archaeological evidence from the region. All dates are in the radiocarbon time scale and given as years before present (B.P., i.e. before 1950). Human presence is divided into three periods: Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic.

Prehistoric

The Prehistoric period is divided into three major temporal stages, the Paleoindian, Archaic and Late Prehistoric. The Paleoindian stage begins with the earliest known human occupation of North America and extends to approximately 8800 B.P. The Archaic stage follows, extending from ca. 8800 B.P. to 1250 B.P. The Late Prehistoric stage begins ca. 1250 B.P. and is characterized by the development of bow and arrow and ceramic technologies.

Paleoindian Collins (1995:381–385, 2004) dated the

Paleoindian period in Central Texas to 11,500–8800 B.P.; the Paleoindian period is further divided into Early (ca. 11,500–10,200 B.P.) and Late (ca. 10,200–8800 B.P.) phases. Early Paleoindian artifacts are associated with the Clovis and Folsom cultures and diagnostic items include fluted, lanceolate projectile points. The Clovis culture is also characterized by well-made prismatic blades (Collins 1995; Green 1964). The Early Paleoindian stage is generally characterized by nomadic cultures that relied heavily on hunting large game animals (Black 1989).

However, recent research has suggested that early Paleoindian subsistence patterns were considerably more diverse than previously thought and included reliance on local fauna, including turtles (Black 1989; Bousman et al. 2004; Collins and Brown 2000; Hester 1983; Lemke and Timperley 2008). Folsom cultures are considered to be specialized bison hunters, as inferred from the geographic location and artifactual composition of sites (Collins 1995).

The Late Paleoindian substage occurred from ca.10,200–8800 B.P. Reliable evidence for these dates was recovered from the Wilson-Leonard site, north of Austin (Bousman et al. 2004; Collins 1998). At Wilson-Leonard, archaeologists excavated an occupation known as Wilson, named for the unique corner-notched projectile point. The dense occupation also included a human burial (Bousman et al. 2004; Collins 1998). In addition to the Wilson occupation, Golondrina-Barber and St. Mary’s Hall components, dating between 9500 and 8800 B.P., were excavated. Collins (1995) suggested the Wilson, Golondrina-Barber, and St. Mary’s Hall components represent a transitional period between the Paleoindian and Archaic Periods due to the subtle presence of notched projectile points and burned-rock cooking features.

Archaic Collins (1995, 2004) has contended that the

Archaic stage in Central Texas lasted approximately 7500 years, from 8800–1200/1300 B.P., and has divided the stage into Early, Middle, and Late Archaic based on Weir’s (1976) chronology. The Archaic stage marks several transitions: a shift in hunting focus from Pleistocene megafauna to smaller animals, the increased use of plant food resources and use of

10

ground stones in food processing, increased implementation of stone cooking technology, increased use of organic materials for tool manufacturing and an increase in the number and variety of lithic tools for woodworking, the predominance of corner- and side-notched projectile points, greater population stability and less residential mobility, and systematic burial of the dead. What appears as a new emphasis on organic materials in tool technologies and diet is more likely a reflection of preservation bias.

Early Archaic

Although Collins (1995:383, 2004) argued that the Early Archaic spanned the period from 8800 B.P. to 6000 B.P. based on three divisions of projectile point types, the current project considers the Early Archaic to have extended from 8800 B.P. to 5800 B.P., based on Prewitt (1981) and modified by Collins (1995). This cultural period is distinguished from previous periods by significant changes in lithic technology, such as notched projectile points, specialized tools (e.g. Clear Fork and Guadalupe bifaces), and dietary adjustment evidenced by the increased number of ground stone artifacts and burned rock midden cooking features (Collins 1995; Turner and Hester 1993:246–256). Shifts in subsistence were the result of a variable climate and concomitant variation in game resources (i.e. bison, Dillehay 1974). Collins (1995) suggested that Early Archaic peoples occupied the wetter portions of the Edwards Plateau. Early Archaic sites are thinly dispersed and are seen across a wide area of Texas and northern Mexico (Weir 1976). However, Collins (1995:383) noted a concentration of Early Archaic components along the southeastern margins of the Edwards Plateau, close to major spring localities such as in San Marcos.

Middle Archaic

The Middle Archaic, defined by Collins (1995, 2004) as 6000 B.P. to 4000 B.P. (5800 B.P. to 4000 B.P. for the current project), is approximately marked by the onset of the Altithermal. The climate fluctuated from arid to mesic, then back to arid in Central Texas during the Altithermal. Vegetation and wildlife regimes all fluctuated in response to these environmental oscillations, with human groups responding accordingly. Collins (1995) divided the Middle Archaic period by projectile point style intervals: Bell-Andice-Calf Creek, Taylor, and Nolan and Travis. The Bell-Andice-Calf Creek interval occurred during a mesic period when grasslands, attractive to bison herds, expanded southward into Central and South Texas. Bell-Andice-Calf Creek peoples, as evidenced by hunting-based lithic technology, were specialized bison hunters who followed the herds southward (Johnson and Goode 1994). As the period shifted from mesic to arid, both bison and bison hunters retreated northward. During this transitional period, Taylor bifaces were manufactured. Later in the Middle Archaic, Taylor bifaces were replaced by Nolan and Travis points (Collins 1995, 2004). The Nolan-Travis interval was a period when temperature and aridity were at their highest levels. Prehistoric inhabitants acclimated themselves to peak aridity as seen through increased utilization of xerophytes such as sotol (Johnson and Goode 1994). These plants, typically baked in earthen ovens, also reflect the development of burned rock middens. During more arid episodes, the aquifer-fed streams and resource-rich environments of Central Texas were extensively utilized (Story 1985:40; Weir 1976:125, 128).

11

Late Archaic

The Central Texas Late Archaic spanned the period of ca. 4000–1250 B.P. (Collins 1995:384, 2004). For finer resolution, the current project divides the Late Archaic period by Johnson and Goode’s (1994) sub-periods: Late Archaic I, 4000–2200 B.P., and Late Archaic II, 2200–1250 B.P. Sites with ideal stratigraphic separation may reveal three discernable sub-periods for the Late Archaic (e.g., Prewitt 1981). Late Archaic I, according to Johnson and Goode (1994), is marked by two significant cultural traits: 1) the billet thinning of bifacial knives and projectile points leapt forward in artistry and technology, and 2) the human population appeared to have increased. Although these patterns vary considerably through time and from one sub region to another, they strongly shape the archaeological record of the Late Archaic. Overall, evidence suggests an increasingly mesic climate through the Late Archaic (Collins 1995; Johnson and Goode 1994; Mauldin et al. 2012). Mauldin et al. (2012) suggested that climatic variation resulted in a general decrease in grassland bison range. Some archaeologists have noted the presence of cemeteries at sites such as Ernest Witte (Hall 1981) and Olmos Dam (Lukowski 1988) as evidence that populations indeed increased in size and that groups were becoming territorial (Story 1985:44–45). However, other archaeologists have challenged the interpretation of a growing population by citing a decrease in burned rock middens (Prewitt 1981:80–81).

Late Prehistoric Collins (1995, 2004) dated the Late

Prehistoric in Central Texas at 1,300/1,200 B.P.–260 B.P. and followed Kelley (1947) in dividing it into Austin and Toyah phases. The current project delimits the Austin phase to 1250–750 B.P. and the Toyah phase to 750–300 B.P. The most distinctive changes in relation to previous

eras include a technological shift away from the dart and atlatl to the bow and arrow, and the more or less concurrent appearance of pottery (Black 1989:32; Story 1985:45–47).

Austin Phase

The Austin phase is characterized primarily by the appearance of arrow points, including Scallorn and Edwards types. Evidence for increased social strife, and perhaps overall population density, has been seen in numerous Central Texas burials dated to this period, which have revealed incidents of arrow-wound deaths, suggesting that population growth may have resulted in disputes over limited resource availability (Black 1989; Meissner 1991; Prewitt 1974). Burned rock middens are occasionally found with these types of points (Houk and Lohse 1993), and ground and pecked stone tools, used for plant food processing, become increasingly common in the Austin phase.

Toyah Phase

The beginning of the Toyah phase (750 B.P.) in Central Texas is characterized by contracting stem points with flaring, barbed shoulders (a style known as Perdiz); by the common occurrence of blade technology that is considered to be part of a specialized Toyah bison hunting and processing toolkit (Black and McGraw 1985; Huebner 1991; Ricklis 1994); and by the appearance of bone-tempered pottery in Central Texas (Johnson 1994:241–281). The wide variety of ceramic styles and influences seen throughout Toyah phase ceramic assemblages provide information about the social composition of these cultural groups (Arnn 2005). Toyah phase ceramic assemblages display Caddo, Texas Gulf Coast, and Jornada Mogollon influences (Arnn 2005). In addition to shifts in material technology, Mauldin et al. (2012) suggested that bison herds foraged across increasingly widespread ranges, at least

12

partly in response to the climatic patterns described above. Mauldin et al. (2012) concluded that this change in bison herd behavior is partly responsible for a change in Toyah hunting strategy, involving increasingly logistically-organized hunting forays in pursuit of spatially dispersed herds. Based on the ratio of zooarchaeological to archaeobotanical data associated with types of sites (e.g. bulk plant processing, bulk meat processing, residential), Dering (2008) provided further evidence of Toyah phase logistically-oriented subsistence strategies and broad diet breadths. Included with logistical subsistence strategies was what appears to be either trade for horticultural products not produced in Central Texas or of limited localized horticultural practices. Both scenarios involve maize, which is exceedingly uncommon in Toyah-period archaeological contexts in Central Texas, but which has been reported from at least three locales, the Kyle Rockshelter (41HI1) in Hill County (Jelks 1961), Bear Branch (41CA13) in Callahan County (Adams 2002), and the Timmeron Rockshleter (41HY95) in Hays County (Harris 1985).

Spanish Entrada Period In Texas, the Protohistoric period, also

known as the Spanish Entrada period, was marked by Spanish entradas, the formal expeditions from established forts and missions in Northern Mexico into Central, Coastal, and East Texas in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. These encounters began with the venture into Texas by the Spanish explorer Cabeza de Vaca and the Narvaez expedition in 1528. The period is generally dated between 1500 and 1700 (or 1528, the date of the Cabeza de Vaca/Narvaez expedition, to the establishment of Mission San Antonio de Valero in 1718).

With Alonso de León’s expedition of 1680, El Camino Real (the King’s Road) was

established from Villa Santiago de la Monclova in Mexico to East Texas. This roadway followed established Native American trade routes and trails and became a vital link between Mission San Juan Bautista in Northern Mexico and the Spanish settlement of Los Adaes in East Texas (McGraw et al. 1991). Spanish priests accompanying entradas provided the most complete information of indigenous cultures of early Texas. Those documented during the early entradas include the Cantona, Muruam, Payaya, Sana, and Yojuane, who were settled around the springs at San Marcos and described as semi-nomadic bands. Other tribes encountered at San Marcos included mobile hunting parties from villages in South and West Texas, including Catequeza, Cayanaaya, Chalome, Cibolo, and Jumano, who were heading toward bison hunting grounds in the Blackland Prairies (Foster 1995:265–289; Johnson and Campbell 1992; Newcomb 1993). Later groups who migrated into the region and displaced the earlier groups or tribes included the Tonkawa from Oklahoma and Lipan and Comanche from the Plains (Campbell and Campbell 1985; Dunn 1911; Newcomb 1961, 1993).

Archaeological sites dated to this period often contain a mix of both European imported goods, such as metal objects and glass beads, and traditional Native American artifacts, such as manufactured stone tools.

Historic

Spanish settlement in Central Texas first occurred in San Antonio with the establishment of Mission San Antonio de Valero (the Alamo) in 1718, and the later founding of San Antonio de Béxar (Bolton 1970; Habig 1977; de la Teja 1995). Some researchers have demarcated the transition in Texas between the Entrada (Protohistoric) and Historic periods by the construction of the first Spanish missions in

13

Texas. Most knowledge of this period has been gained through the written records of the early Spanish missionaries.

In the 1750s, the Spanish crown sent missionaries to explore and settle the area. A man by the name of Fray Mariano perceived the land surrounding the Guadalupe River as an ideal place to establish a mission; by the end of 1756, Mariano had set up a small settlement on the highest hilltop in the area, later known as Mission Hill. Mariano’s mission became known as Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe. When Spanish officials visited the mission in 1758, they notated that four Spanish families were living there, along with 41 Mayeye Native Americans and two Spanish priests. Their dwellings, called “jacals”, were built by placing poles in the ground and covering them with mud and clay (Family Footsteps). The mission’s land encompassed five natural springs, arable fields, and a substantial amount of timber. By the end of the decade, however, Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe was officially closed due to the new interest in the San Saba Mission, which was located near modern day San Angelo, Texas. As a result, the inhabitants of Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe were dispersed elsewhere and resources from the settlement on Mission Hill were reallocated to aid in the development of the new, promising San Saba Mission.

European presence in the region increased as settlers received land grants from the Mexican government until 1835. Settlement was difficult, however, due to continuation of hostilities with and raids by Native American tribes. The Texas Rangers provided protection from these conflicts after Texas secured independence from Mexico in 1836. Settlement in the region increased until 1845, when Texas gained admission to the United States, resulting in the formation of Comal County.

New Braunfels was settled in 1845 at the confluence of the Guadalupe and Comal rivers. The town quickly grew and established itself as a trading, farming, and manufacturing center and was the fourth largest town in Texas in 1850. By the 1880s, New Braunfels was connected to the larger cities of San Antonio and Austin by railroad and telegraph.

In the 20th century, New Braunfels population decreased and rose based on local, regional, and national economic trends. The construction of Interstate 35 and development of tourist destination has led to New Braunfels becoming a significant tourist destination. The city’s population has consistently grown in the late 20th century and in the early 21st century the city was one of the fastest growing small cities in the United States.

15

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Previous archaeological investigations recorded in the THC’s online Atlas database near the project area have been limited to linear survey projects. There are 12 previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project area, and a THC Historical Marker for the Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe approximately a quarter mile to the west of the project area.

An archaeological survey of Highway 46 (Miller et al. 2007; Texas Antiquities Permit #4200), located approximately a quarter mile to the north of the project area, found five archaeological sites. The sites include three surface lithic scatters, a multi-component site, and an historic tank. A survey of the New Braunfels Utilities Land Park to Krueger Canyon Road Transmission line (Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 1992; Texas Antiquities Permit #1057)) in 1991 was located west of the project area. This survey recorded 11 sites, including two prehistoric lithic scatters (41CM198 and 41CM200) and a lithic scatter and historic house (41CM202) within one mile of the present project area. An archaeological survey of Loop 337 (Young 2011; Texas Antiquities Permit #4247) to the east and south of the project area recorded five sites. All sites were recorded as surface lithic scatters. A survey of the New Braunfels Utilities Trinity Well Field west of the project area recorded several sites, including 41CM337 (Dockall and Kibbler 2013; Texas Antiquities Permit #6547).

Based on site form data, there have been several archaeological surveys near the project area, but do not have readily available reports. It

appears that the project area was previously surveyed in 2007 during a project named the “Mission Hill Survey” as part of the Westpointe Development by Pape-Dawson Engineering. This survey appears to have included Mission Hill Park and recorded site 41CM308 and 41CM309 within the project area and nearby Sites 41CM310 and 41CM311. Surveys for proposed housing developments in 2007 and 2009 seem to have inventoried areas to the west of the project area. These surveys recorded Sites 41CM316, 41CM317, and 41CM317 within one mile of the project area. The reports for these surveys are not in the THC Atlas or the CAS library.

There are two previously recorded archaeological sites (41CM308 and 41CM309) within the Mission Hill Park project area and nine previously recorded sites within one mile of the project area (Table 2). The sites include 8 prehistoric sites, 1 multicomponent site, and 2 historic sites (41CM308 and 41CM309). The prehistoric sites are predominately recorded as lithic scatters or lithic procurement areas and based on the information in the site forms are mostly surface scatters; however, it does not appear that any of them were shovel tested to assess whether intact buried cultural deposits are present at the site. A possible hearth feature at site 41CM200 was probed and the soils were found to be shallow around and within the feature. Sites 41CM308 and 41CM309 are discussed further below. Figure 3 depicts the locations of the THC Archaeological Sites Atlas centroids of the archaeological sites adjacent to the project area.

16

The THC marker near the Mission Hill Park project area is approximately a half mile to the east near the intersection of State Highway 46 and Loop 337. This marker is for the Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe and was placed in 1936 as part of the Texas Centennial historic marker

program. The marker text reads: “Established by Franciscan missionaries in 1757 for the purpose of civilizing and Christianizing the Tonkawas, Mayeyes, and their associates. Formerly at Mission San Francisco Xavier on the San Gabriel River. Abandoned in 1758.”

17

Figure 3. Archaeological sites adjacent to the APE.

18

Table 2. Recorded archaeological sites within 1 mi of the Mission Hill Park Project Area.

Site Number

Survey Information Site Type Site Age NRHP/SAL Recommendations

41CM198 Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 1992

Prehistoric lithic scatter Unknown Recommended not eligible for NRHP and SAL in 1992.


Prehistoric lithic scatter with hearth feature

Unknown Recommended “potentially eligible”


Prehistoric lithic scatter and historic house

Prehistoric unknown and 19th-20th century

Unknown.

41CM308 2007 site form. Historic farmstead 19th-20th century Unknown 41CM309 2007 site form. Historic kiln 19th-20th century Unknown 41CM310 2007 site form. Prehistoric lithic scatter

and historic cistern Prehistoric unknown 19th-20th century

Unknown

41CM311 2007 site form. Prehistoric sparse lithic scatter

Prehistoric unknown

Unknown

41CM316 2007 and 2009 site forms.

Lithic procurement site Prehistoric unknown

Recommended not eligible for NRHP and SAL in 2009.







41CM337 Dockall and Kibbler 2013



41CM360 CEMEX plant survey. Site form information.



19

METHODS

The current archaeological investigations consisted of a 100% systematic, intensive pedestrian survey that included subsurface testing within the 10-acre project area. The survey followed the Council of Texas Archeologists (CTA) guidelines updated in April 2020 and adopted by the THC. Shovel tests were excavated at 2 shovel tests per acre except where there was a slope greater than 20 percent, upland and eroded areas with exposed bedrock, and evident historic disturbance. About 15 percent of the project area has a slope of greater than 20 percent. About 45 of the project area is an upland/eroded area with exposed bedrock or eroding limestone cobbles on the ground surface.

All shovel tests, approximately 30 cm in diameter, were excavated primarily by

stratigraphic zones to a maximum depth of 40 cm. All shovel tests encountered bedrock or a rock impasse and were terminated when these were encountered. All excavated sediment was passed through a ¼-inch hardware screen. Observations and comments pertaining to each probe were recorded by the excavator. Once all excavations were complete, the shovel tests were backfilled.

CAS excavated 29 shovel tests to identify any subsurface deposits and determine the vertical and horizontal extent of cultural material observed in positive shovel tests. The locations of investigations and shovel tests were recorded using a Trimble GeoXT 7 Series GPS unit.

21

RESULTS

The Mission Hill Park project area is located on the western edge of the City of New Braunfels in eastern Comal County (see Figures 1 and 2). The 10-acre parcel is irregularly shaped and includes a 23 m wide and 145 m long strip oriented northwest from Independence Drive to a larger polygonal shaped parcel that encompasses the apex of what is known as Mission Hill (Figure 4). This strip will serve as the park’s entrance and is mostly covered in prickly pear cactus, grass, low scrub, and a few oak trees (Figure 5). The larger portion of the parcel is located at the top of the hill and has a mixture of native and non-native vegetation and oak trees. Most of the parcel has a steep slope except for the apex of the hill and a small portion in the parcel’s north corner where there is a possible cave or sink hole (Figure 6). The hill’s apex has been impacted by historic development associated with the historic sites located there (41CM308 and 41CM309). Where 41CM308 is located, the hill has been leveled and there are structural remains, features, and roads.

To investigate the property, CAS excavated 19 shovel tests (Figure 4). An additional 10 shovel test radials were excavated to delineate site boundaries after positive tests or surface evidence of structures were identified. The results of the shovel test excavations are presented in Appendix A.

Three shovel tests (ST 1-3) were completed within the strip of land to the east that leads from Independence Drive to the larger portion of the parcel. Shovel tests 1 and 3 were relatively shallow (less than 20 cm below surface [cmbs]) and were a black clay loam soil overlying limestone bedrock. Shovel test 2 was deeper than the other shovel tests at 38 cmbs and was a dark brown clay loam soil. A possible prehistoric flake

was found in shovel test 2 and four radial shovel tests were excavated around shovel test 2. No cultural material was found in these shovel tests and it was determined in the lab that the possible flake found in shovel test 2 was not cultural. All of these shovel tests terminated at limestone bedrock. There is exposed limestone bedrock throughout much of this portion of the project area.

At the apex of the hill, CAS excavated four shovel tests (4-7) to the west of the historic component of Site 41CM308. Shovel test 4 was located about 20 m north of one of the structures and subsequent shovel tests were excavated at 30 m to the north. These shovel tests were all relatively shallow (less than 26 cmbs) brown to dark brown loam. Shovel test 4 was positive for historic material and shovel tests 5-7 were positive for prehistoric material. Radial shovel tests were excavated around shovel tests 5-7 and had similar profiles. All but one radial shovel tests (Shovel test 7W) were positive for precontact cultural material. The results of these shovel tests are discussed further below. The sloped topography and exposed bedrock/limestone cobbles precluded the excavation of additional radial shovel tests.

Shovel tests 8 and 9 were excavated around Site 41CM309. Both were shallow with little soil over stone. No artifacts were found. Site 41CM309 is predominantly located on a 10-15 percent slope and is surrounded by exposed bedrock/surface cobbles. As these two shovel tests demonstrated, there is little to no soil development around this site and further shovel testing was not necessary.

22

Shovel tests 10-12 were excavated in the northern portion of the parcel where it is relatively flat. This area is bordered by a housing subdivision to the west and a self-storage facility to the east. As noted above, there is a possible sink hole or filled cave in this portion of the project area (see Figure 5). The shovel tests here encountered two strata. The upper layer is typically 5-10 cmbs and is a black clay to clay loam. The underlying layer extended up to 30 cmbs and is an olive-colored clay with abundant fossilized shell that was moist in shovel test 10. This stratum had many characteristics of being wet throughout the year suggesting a local and/or seasonal water source.

Near shovel test 11, archaeologists recorded a concrete feature that may be a farm trough (Figure 7). This trough is roughly trapezoid shaped with the longer side measuring 52 cm long and the shorter side 25 cm long. There were no surface artifacts around this feature and no indication of buried deposits observed within shovel test 11. This is likely an isolated farm feature. Additional shovel tests were not excavated around the feature and shovel test 11 because of its proximity to the project area boundaries to the north, east, and west and because of the exposed bedrock/limestone cobbles and slope to the south.

Shovel tests 13-19 were excavated around the historic structures and features of 41CM308. The field crew only excavated a limited number of shovel tests around the structures because of the sloped topography, exposed bedrock/limestone cobbles to the east, west, and south, and previous disturbances from building the structures and features. Shovel test 13 was excavated at the southern end of the site within soil that was determined to have been used as fill retained by a stone wall. Shovel tests 14 and 15 were placed around the southern structure, which has been labelled as Structure 1. Shovel test 14 was shallow and terminated at a gravel driveway.

Shovel test 15 was also shallow and encountered a rock impasse at 15 cmbs. The amount of fallen brick and rock from Structure 1 made it difficult to excavate more shovel tests in this area. Shovel tests 16-19 were excavated near the northern structure, recorded as Structure 2. Shovel test 16 was placed between the driveway and what was likely a porch associated with the Structure 2. Shovel test 17 was placed near the rear porch of Structure 2. Although numerous artifacts were located on the surface of the concrete porch, shovel test 17 was negative for cultural material. A sample of materials from the rear porch were collected and are discussed below. Shovel test 18 was placed on the northern side of Structure 2 near what may have been a cellar. Shovel test 19 was placed in a garden east of Structure 2. All shovel tests around Structure 2 were negative for cultural material and were relatively shallow in depth (less than 28 cmbs). The shovel tests surrounding the structures at Site 41CM308 demonstrate that much of the hill apex has been impacted by development and there is a low likelihood for intact historic period deposits around the structural remains.

The follow sections provide additional information on the background of Sites 41CM308 and 41CM309.

Site 41CM308

Site 41CM308 was originally recorded in 2007 during an archaeological survey for a project called the “Mission Hill Survey” as part of the Westpointe Development by Pape-Dawson Engineering. The site form describes the site as:

Site 41CM308, or the Mission Hill Site, is a farm complex located on the high hill near the center of the property. The site contains several structures. The structures can be divided into two different time periods. The more recent

23

farm-related structures are mainly concentrated at the base of the hill, while the earlier buildings are atop the hill. The seven more recent farm-related structures consist of three sheds, two barns, one stock tank, and one elevated cistern. Two sheds, the two barns and the stock tank are located at the base of the hill. Another shed and an elevated cistern are at the top of the hill. The sheds and barns have a wood frame with corrugated steel roofs. The stock tank is made of brick and lined with concrete mortar. The elevated cistern consists of a wood base and steel frame. The trademark is etched into the steel tank as 'USS, Louis Henne Co., Copper Steel, Tennessee, Coal, Iron and Railroad Company'. These seven structures appear to be primarily related to farming or ranching activities and date to the middle or late twentieth-century. At the top of the hill, two dilapidated structures and a rock wall were observed. The paved access road with a retaining wall that leads up to the hill loops around the largest structure. The multi-room brick building has been burned and torn down. It appears that it consists of at least six rooms, one chimney, three brick pillars, and a low cement wall, possibly flower beds, on several sides. Evidence of ornamental plants are located within the low cement wall. There are numerous pieces of corrugated steel roofing and scrap metal scattered throughout the debris. In addition, a refrigerator, a safe, and a water meter were observed. Just south of the structure, across the access road is a rock wall. It appears to be a stone retaining wall, semi-circular, with an ornamental flowering tree in the center. Just northeast of the large structure,

across the access road, a smaller brick building with a possible porch was observed. The building consisted of a large square pit, a chimney, a fireplace, a concrete slab, and a brick fenced in area. The scattered debris consisted of decorative steel columns, an air-conditioning unit, a hot water heater, a sink, a steel cupboard, and two fuse boxes. The brick fenced-in area connects to the retaining wall built for the access road. The brick fence consists of concrete brick over limestone boulders at the base. The two brick structures atop the hill and the cistern possibly date to the middle to late nineteenth century. The two buildings may have gone through several renovations and improvements in later years based on nature of domestic appliances and electrical wiring.

The sheds, barns, and stock tank at the base of the hill are outside of the Mission Hill Park project area and have been removed by recent commercial development. The “two dilapidated structures and . . . rock wall” were found during the current survey and recorded as Structure 1 and Structure 2. Much of the debris and appliances have been removed from the site. It is possible that when these materials were removed from the site that many of the surface artifacts were also removed from the site. It does not appear that any subsurface testing was undertaken at that time. The site form recommends additional archaeological and archival research to determine the site’s archaeological and historical significance.

Site History In 1847, the state of Texas granted 320 acres

of land to Andres Sanchez. This land encompassed the former site of Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe and was located

24

approximately 3.5 miles northwest of New Braunfels. According to the Land Grant Map of Comal County (Pressler et al. 1897), Sanchez was a part of the Texas Pre-emption Grant program, which required individuals to live and improve on their allotted land for a minimum of three years. Sanchez sold his 320 acres to Daniel Murchison, who was either a land speculator or land agent, in December 1854. On September 9, 1856, Daniel Murchison sold the 320 acres to Ludwig Kessler, who was also likely a land agent. Just three days later, on September 12, 1856, Ludwig Kessler sold the 320 acres to Fredrich Ludwig Hermann Conring (Comal County Deed information).

THE CONRING FAMILY

Dr. Juris Friedrich Ludwig Hermann Conring was born on July 8, 1803 in Wildeshausen, Germany where he became a practicing lawyer and professor of law. He married Georgine Meier (or Meyer) in 1837. Georgine was the daughter of a prominent farmer and grew up on 60 acres of farmland. The couple immigrated to Texas via ship in 1854 with their five children – Hermann (age 16), Georgina (age 14), Ernst (age 12), Marie (age 9) and Moritz (age 4) (Karen Boyd – Conring Family Tree on file at CAS).

On September 12, 1856, Dr. Conring purchased the A. Sanchez land survey (wherein Mission Hill was located) from Ludwig Kessler. He and Georgine built their family home on Mission Hill and lived there for the next 30 years. Two of their sons, Hermann Conring and Ernst Conring, fought in the Confederacy during the Civil War; documents indicate that Ernst served in the army a saltpeter maker – a key ingredient in the making of gunpowder. Ernst’s job in making saltpeter potentially explains the structure that resembles a saltpeter kiln that is present on the Mission Hill site (Karen Boyd – research notes on file at CAS). It is documented that in 1868, the Conring’s youngest son, Moritz, committed suicide when he was 19 years old.

Ludwig Conring died on November 10, 1875 at 72 years old after a lengthy illness that was diagnosed as Larynx-Consumption (family tree by Karen Boyd and info compiled by Elinor Conrads Daniels). On December 1, 1883, the widowed Georgine Conring sold the land on Mission Hill to Franz Coreth. The land survey was sold for a total of $3,000 to be paid over the course of two years (Comal County Deed information). According to oral history, the Conring family moved to Comal Street in downtown New Braunfels. Georgine Conring died in 1893 at the age of 80 and is buried along with her husband and children at Comal County Cemetery (Karen Boyd research notes on file at CAS).

THE CORETH FAMILY

Franz Coreth was born in Houston, Texas on October 29, 1846. In the early 1840s, his mother and father, Agnes and Ernst Coreth, emigrated from Austria to America through the port at Galveston. Ernst Coreth was a member of the Adelsverein, or the German Emigration Company (Austria was still a federal state of Germany at the time), which was founded to establish a German society in Texas by means of mass organized emigration. Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels, the first commissioner-general of the Adelsverein and founder of New Braunfels, settled the area around the Guadalupe and Comal rivers in preparation for the arrival of German settlers. He was succeeded by John O. Meusebach, who granted land tracts to a multitude of German immigrants in the hill country, including Ernst Coreth (Lich and Moltmann 2019). In 1847, Ernst Coreth purchased 280 acres of land on Wald Road from Meusebach. The purchased land was located along Comal Creek 3 mi west of New Braunfels. Ernst and Agnes Coreth built their family home on this land and began farming on it.

25

Franz was educated by his father and began helping his father tend to the farm when he was a young boy. During the Civil War, he served in the Confederate Army alongside his brothers, Carl, Rudolph and Johann; he incidentally also served with Ernst and Hermann Conring, sons of Fredrich Ludwig Hermann Conring and Georgina Conring, who owned Mission Hill at the time of the Civil War (Schlather 2009). Franz lived in his parents’ home off Wald Road and helped with their farm until his father died in 1881. The next year, Franz travelled to Austria to visit his aunt and received her inheritance. In 1883, Franz went on to sell the land his father had purchased in Houston back in the 1840s. Combining the proceeds from the land sale with his aunt’s inheritance, he purchased the 320-acre A. Sanchez survey from widowed Georgine Conring later that year. In the same year, 36-year old Franz married 16-year old Minna Zesch and had three children: Agnes, Lina, and Rochette (Figure 8). They built their family home at the top of Mission Hill (Goyne 1982).

Franz Coreth went on to hold several county offices as a young man and became an incredibly well-respected member of the New Braunfels community; he was regarded as a man of “true pioneer spirit” and was well-known as a rancher, but also a land dealer. He bought and sold considerable land in Comal County during his adult years. He was also a pioneer in the cattle business and played a vital role in the development of the Texas cattle industry as a whole (Davis and Grobe 1930).

The Coreth Family Ranch primarily specialized in goat, sheep, and cattle ranching. At any given point, the total acreage of the ranch was between 1,800 and 3,000 acres. In an interview, one descendant of the Coreth family noted that “there was a time when you stood on Mission Hill [and] you heard the tinkling of goat bells, and that was the only sound in the air” (Wade Tomlinson interview by Karen Boyd). The ranch eventually

experienced a demise in goat and sheep ranching, which the interviewees speculate could have been because of problems with wolves.

The Coreth’s first family home (Figure 9) was destroyed by a fire in the early 1900s. According to oral history, the local fire department was unable to carry the water hoses up the steep hill in their horse-drawn fire wagon. However, the home was rebuilt a year later and was expanded with additions such as a widows walk (also called “the tower” or “the watchtower”), and a full screened front porch (Figure 10). Descendants of the Coreth family have very fond memories of their time spent in the houses on Mission Hill.

The widows walk, or the tower, played a vital role in the history of New Braunfels. When the Coreth family lived on Mission Hill, the tower was the highest point in the area. During World War I, the watchtower was used by the United States army to carry out military drills. The army generals were able to view the National Guard Camp on the Landa Ranch by standing on the tower, where every part of the territory was clearly visible (Nuhn 1995). Back when the bell at the County courthouse served as a fire alarm, the fire department would call the Coreth home to determine the exact location of the fire (Nuhn 1995).

The watchtower was also a favorite memory for descendants of the Coreth family as well. In interviews, they recall watching fireworks on the Fourth of July from the tower and being able to see the New Braunfels High School stadium when it was built. On clear days, it is said that one could see into Hays and Guadalupe counties. Early mapmakers and United States Coastal and Geodetic Survey engineers used the tower to survey the region and draw maps of Comal County (Nuhn 1995). Kay Faust Specht, Franz and Minna’s oldest great-grandchild, described the home on Mission Hill as the “perfect place to

26

watch New Braunfels grow” (interview with Kay Faust Specht by Karen Boyd on file at CAS).

In Franz’s later years, he liked to sit on his large, screened porch and write poems in German “about strawberries or bluebonnets.” (interview with Kay Faust Specht by Karen Boyd). When he lived with his mother and sister on the Wald Road farm after his father had passed away, they began raising strawberries – a modest cash crop (Goyne 1982). Franz developed liver cancer and underwent surgery on January 6, 1921 but died later that same month.

Minna Zesch Coreth continued to live in the house without her husband. In an interview conducted with Coreth family descendants, they recall that Minna grew herbs in her gardens along with flowers and some vegetables. There was a “milk room” next to the kitchen where Minna and the children would separate milk from cream, churn butter, make homemade bread, and make Koch Kaese – a German cheese (Kay Faust Specht interview by Karen Boyd). Minna Zesch Coreth died in 1944 and is buried with the rest of her family in the Comal County Cemetery. (Karen Boyd research notes).

Rochette, Franz’s only son, took charge of the Coreth Family Ranch in 1912. Rochette built a third home on the property in the early 1920s for himself (Figure 11) and his new bride, Flora Bading (Davis and Grobe 1930). Flora passed away after the birth of son, Francis, at age 25 in the year 1922. Rochette married to Melinda Staats three years later. Like his father, Rochette was a well-respected man in New Braunfels; he served on the board of directors for the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, which had a membership of over ten thousand Texas ranchers. He was even chosen to be the Grand Marshal of the 1945 Texas Centennial Parade (Rahe 2010). He continued to add land to his father’s holdings in New Braunfels until he had approximately 10 miles of property on either side of Highway 46.

Rochette continued to farm and carry out his father’s legacy on the Coreth Family Ranch. In interviews, descendants had very fond memories of riding around the pastures in the pickup truck with “Uncle Rochette.” He died in 1979 of a heart attack. Melinda continued to live in their home on Mission Hill, but she eventually became incapacitated, and the property was neglected. As a result of the neglect, vagrants got on to property in the 1990s and set fire to keep warm, which resulted in the the homes catching fire and burning down. (Wade Tomlinson Interview by Karen Boyd) Francis Coreth (who later named himself Franz Coreth II after his grandfather) had moved to a Cape Cod style home at the bottom of Mission Hill off Highway 46. He enjoyed electronics and built a stereo system into the Coreth’s second home. (Wade Tomlinson Interview by Karen Boyd). Franz II died on December 30, 2016.

Mission Hill Structures

Although both houses had burned at the end of the 20th century, a few remains of the structures that once existed on Mission Hill are still present today. Most of the structures are either deteriorated or collapsed, but some remain relatively in-tact.

On top of Mission Hill, the foundations of both Franz’s home and Rochette’s home remain. Some of the original brick walls are also present. In Rochette’s home, which is the northern structure labeled herein as Structure 2, the fireplace is still partially intact in the center room. Metal barbed wire fences run alongside what appear to be remnants of the families’ gardens. An elevated cistern is present between the foundations of the two homes, which was likely to have been built in 1924, as evidenced by a concrete pad underneath one of the supporting legs. There used to be a water pump that pumped

27

water to both houses, but the pump is no longer present at the site.

A saltpeter kiln exists on the back slope of Mission Hill (Site 41CM309). This kiln is suspected to have been built in the 19th century and was most likely used by Ernst Conring, a son of the first family to live on Mission Hill, when he made saltpeter for the Confederate army. Saltpeter was a key ingredient in gunpowder (Goff 2016). The back portion of the kiln that is located along the hillside and both sides of the kiln are still mostly in-tact, but the front s of the kiln has collapsed.

Archaeological Survey Results During the survey, CAS identified one

standing structure (an aboveground cistern) and the remains of three structures, two retaining walls, a garden, asphalt driveways, a possible cellar, and several exposed pipes (see Figure 4). These features date to the 20th century occupation of the site and relate to the site’s function as a farm and ranch.

The aboveground cistern is an elevated water tank in the center of the historic building area (Figure 12). This cistern is elevated by four steel legs set into a concrete pad and is constructed of tin.

The two primary structural remains are the foundations from the two residences on the property. The foundation remains were heavily covered in brush at the time of the present survey making it nearly impossible to complete detailed assessment and drawings of the features.

Structure 1 is the southernmost building and was the Franz Coreth residence built in the early 1900s (see Figure 10). The foundation remains for this structure are brick with some concrete that may have been porch supports (Figure 13). Brick was scattered around most of the area where the structure was located and obscured

much of the ground surface near the remains (Figure 14).

Structure 2 is the northern most building remains and was the Rochette Coreth house built in the 1930s (see Figure 11). This structure had foundations made of concrete and brick (Figure 15). A concrete patio was found on the northern side of the building. A standing chimney box (Figure 16) is located in what appears to be the eastern portion of the building. A raised bed garden with a stone, brick, and concrete retaining wall (Figures 17-18) is located to the east of Structure 2.

A concrete pad that likely served for the garage was identified west of Structure 1 (Figure 19). This pad is 2.5 m north-south by 2.0 m east-west. The western side of the pad has a built-up base to compensate for the steep slope on the hillside.

At the southern end of the historic component is a dry stacked stone retaining wall that measures 8.0 m north-south by 9.5 m. It has fill within the wall to create a flattened area. It is not clear what function this area served.

Another retaining wall is located to the east of Structure 1 along the asphalt driveway (Figure 20). This retaining wall is made of mortared and dry stacked stone. It terminates on the north end at the garden by Structure 2.

A possible cellar was found near shovel test 4 (Figures 4 and 21). At the surface of the feature, there is a depression with logs. This feature was not explored and should be studied further.

Access to the buildings at the apex of the hill was provided by an asphalt driveway which circled around Structure 1 and routed to the front of Structure 2 (Figures 4 and 22). The asphalt roads are in good condition and show how the

28

occupants accessed the houses in the mid to late 20th century.

Four 1 in diameter steel pipes were found around the structures. One was located west of Structure 2. Two were found east and downslope from Structure 2 and were oriented roughly east-west. The fourth pipe was found approximately east of Structure 2 at the edge of the Mission Hill Park property line.

As noted above, eight shovel tests were excavated around the structures associated with 41CM308 (see Figure 4). Only shovel test 4 was positive for historic artifacts. The material recovered from this shovel test includes eight terracotta chimney flue fragments from the chimney in Structure 2. No other shovel tests were positive for historic artifacts. A scatter of artifacts was found on the northern concrete porch of Structure 2. These artifacts include a wire nail, concrete with embedded iron, three milk glass container sherds, two fragments of a ceramic light fixture, a light blue container glass sherd, architecture latch with “House” embossed on one side, a piece of iron, three pieces of window glass, and a copper clothing fastener with a maker’s mark: “GRIPPER/SCOVILL.” The clothing fastener was made by Scovill Fasteners, Inc, a company that has been making clothing fasteners since 1802. The Gripper snap was invented in 1930 for easy fastening of infant and children’s clothing (Scovill website accessed September 2, 2021; http://www.scovill.com/about-us/history/).

Shovel tests 5-7 were placed north of Structure 2 and were positive for precontact artifacts (see Figure 4, Figure 23). Radial shovel tests were placed around these positive shovel tests to determine the extent of the artifact scatter. The radial shovel tests were placed from 8 to 20 m away from the original shovel tests in directions that conformed to the landform. The radial shovel tests were excavated near the edge

of the flat hill apex and what appeared to be the extent of intact soils. Exposed limestone cobbles and steep slope were all 2-5 m beyond the positive radial shovel tests. All but one radial shovel test (Shovel test 7W) were positive for cultural material.

The recovered precontact cultural material were all lithic artifacts (n=14) including one core, two utilized flakes, one uniface, one biface, and nine flakes from nine different shovel tests. No artifacts were found or noted on the ground surface. There are no temporally diagnostic materials, so the occupation period is not currently known of the site. The precontact component appears to have intact, subsurface cultural deposits, which differs from most of the precontact sites near the site that tend to be primarily surface manifestations with no or disturbed subsurface deposits.

Recommendations Site 41CM308 was originally recorded as an

historic farmstead with two houses and various outbuildings. The remaining historic structures include two house foundations, an elevated cistern, a concrete garage pad, gardens, and various stone and brick retaining walls. Additional features include metal water pipes and a possible cellar. Limited shovel testing did not encounter any historic period artifacts and there was a paucity of surface artifacts on the slopes around the buildings. It is unclear if there are yet to be discovered historic artifact bearing deposits at the site or if the occupants had previously removed the bulk of their waste from around the houses and nearby structures. Historical evidence and local accounts place the Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe at Mission Hill; however, we did not find any evidence for the mission in the form of structural remains or artifacts. The recovery of prehistoric materials in what appears to be undisturbed buried contexts in an upland setting is rare for the area. Based on the extent of

http://www.scovill.com/about-us/history/

29

the historic structural remains, historic artifact distribution, and prehistoric component, the site measures 190 by 125 m.

Site 41CM308 contains historical significance to New Braunfels as the possible locale for the Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe, the home of prominent families, and was important to the mapping of the city. The structural remains are not necessarily significant from an architectural standpoint. Because the structures are no longer extant, they do not contribute to the site’s historical significance. However, the foundations and structural remains should be completely and carefully cleared of vegetation to allow for thorough documentation including mapping and photography. It is recommended that once the structural remains are cleared of vegetation, they be recorded aerially (potentially by using a drone) and then thoroughly photo documented to create a three-dimensional model. This model should be curated for posterity and used for public interpretation, education, and outreach. CAS recommends that a metal detection survey and more intensive shovel testing occur around the building remains to fully assess whether any intact historic deposits remain. Finally, CAS recommends extensive public interpretation involving on-site and internet-based outreach.

The previously unrecorded precontact component of Site 41CM308 is a rare upland site with intact subsurface deposits. CAS recommends site avoidance by routing any trails around the component or avoiding ground disturbance by building above the existing ground surface. If ground disturbance cannot be avoided, CAS recommends additional testing involving 1-by-1 m excavation units in the location(s) of proposed ground disturbance to assess whether significant deposits will be impacted by the development.

Site 41CM309

Site 41CM309 was initially recorded as a brick lined cistern in 2007 and was described as:

approximately 108 inches in depth and 57 in. wide at the top. The northwestern wall of the cistern has been knocked out. The bricks appear to be locally hand made (sic) and are highly friable. The outer walls of the cistern consist of large limestone boulders.

Subsequent research has suggested that the feature is a saltpeter kiln that was built by Ernest Conring during the Civil War as he was known to manufacture saltpeter. Saltpeter was authorized by the Nitre and Mining Bureau of the Confederacy and local industrialists around New Braunfels were known to produce saltpeter under this authorization (Jasinski 2012). The saltpeter was manufactured from bat guano mined in area caves, mixed with sulfur and charcoal and heated in the kilns. It is estimated that 1000 pounds of guano was needed to produce 4 pounds of saltpeter. The Seekatz SaltPetre Kiln, a similar functioning kiln, is located within the City of New Braunfel’s Landa Park, approximately 3 mi to the east.

Archaeological Survey Results The kiln feature was built into the hillside

near the north end of the parcel (see Figure 4). It measures 1.6 m wide at the top, 2.7 m deep, and 2.75 m wide near the base. The northwestern portion of the kiln has fallen (Figure 23) and rock and brick are scattered to the west away from the kiln. There are some brick fragments remaining on the kiln’s interior.

The top is roughly circular and turns to a teardrop shape with a northwest-southeast orientation as it progresses down toward the bottom (Figure 24). The interior is brick lined

30

with a thin lime plaster or mortar on the interior. As noted in the original survey description, the bricks are poorly fired and heavily eroded where exposed along the top and the northwestern side. There are two to three courses of naturally shaped limestone boulders that are facing to the exterior of the kiln to make a clean appearing façade (Figure 25).

The kiln appears to be placed into the hillside to make loading the top easier. The shovel test at the top side suggests that rubble and gravel were placed between the kiln and the hillside to support the structure and fill in this space. A low mound of dirt and stone rubble measuring approximately 5 m wide extends approximately 11 m west from the kiln (Figure 26) and is likely debris from the original excavation into the hillside for the structure. There likely was an opening on the west/northwest side but it is obscured by the stone and brick from the fallen portion of the kiln.

Two shovel tests were excavated near the kiln feature and no artifacts were found (Figure 4; Appendix A). No additional shovel tests were excavated because of the sloped topography and exposed bedrock/limestone cobbles. Intensive pedestrian survey around the kiln feature led to the discovery of an enameled cooking pan that likely dates to the late 19th to early 20th century, after the construction and use of the kiln.

Recommendations Site 41CM309 is an historic saltpeter kiln that

dates to the early 1860s and contributed to New Braunfels’ and Texas’ role in the Civil War. CAS recommends that Site 41CM309 meets the significance criteria for local and national history due to its association with an important local family and a significant time period in American and Texas history.

The kiln retains integrity of location and setting. The design is similar to other saltpeter kilns in central Texas, including the Seekatz SaltPetre Kiln, and is a prime example of a bat guano saltpeter kiln. Although the northwestern kiln wall has fallen and collapsed, the kiln also retains integrity of workmanship since the builder’s intent and materials remain clear and evident.

Although not unique, the site is a rare example of a Civil War era bat guano saltpeter kiln in central Texas that played an important role in the Confederacy’s military defense of Texas and retains sufficient integrity to understand the construction and use of saltpeter kilns. CAS recommends that Site 41CM309 is eligible for listing as a SAL and should be preserved. Ideally, the site would be protected from public use via a fence and interpreted through panels or virtual exhibits. If the kiln poses risks to the visiting public and preservation of its current condition is not possible, CAS recommends that the New Braunfels Parks Foundation and the City of New Braunfels consult with an architectural conservator to preserve the structure and minimize future risks to this significant historic resource. Additionally, CAS recommends that the kiln be fully documented with scaled drawings and photographed for preservation and photogrammetry models. CAS also recommends that site 41CM309 be interpreted and shared with the public through in person and online educational exhibits.

31

Figure 4. Results of the Mission Hill Park archaeological survey.

32

Figure 5. Overview of narrow strip at southeast portion of Mission Hill Park. View to southeast.

Figure 6. Possible sinkhole or cave in northern portion of Mission Hill Park. View to southeast.

33

Figure 7. Concrete trough.

Figure 8. Coreth Family. From Left to Right: Agnes Coreth, Minna Zesch Coreth, Rochette Coreth, Franz Coreth, Lina Coreth

34

Figure 9. First Coreth family home, which burned in the early 1900s.

Figure 10. Second Coreth family home with additions. Structural remains called Structure 1 during survey.

35

Figure 11. Third home, inhabited by Rochette Coreth. Structural remains called Structure 2 during survey.

Figure 12. Site 41CM308, elevated cistern. View to northeast.

36

Figure 13. Site 41CM308, Structure 1 (second Coreth home). View to northwest. Similar view as Figure 10.

Figure 14. Site 41CM308, Structure 1, brick scattered around structure.

37

Figure 15. Site 41CM308, Structure 2 (third Coreth home). View to north.

Figure 16. Site 41CM308, Structure 2 chimney box. View to north.

38

Figure 17. Site 41CM308, garden by Structure 2. View to northeast.

Figure 18. Site 41CM308, garden by Structure 2. View to northeast.

39

Figure 19. Site 41CM308, concrete pad. View to west.

Figure 20. Site 41CM308, retaining wall. View to southwest

40

Figure 21. Site 41CM208. Possible cellar.

Figure 22. Site 41CM208, overview of asphalt road by Structure 1. View to northwest.

41

Figure 23. Site 41CM308, overview of prehistoric component. View to north.

Figure 24. Site 41CM309, kiln overview. View to northeast.

42

Figure 25. Site 41CM309, overview of kiln from top showing teardrop shape of lower kiln.

Figure 26. Site 41CM309, kiln edge showing construction method.

43

Figure 27. Site 41CM309, soil and stone hump to the northwest of kiln.

45

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The City of New Braunfels is planning to develop the 10-acre Mission Hill Park located on the west side of New Braunfels. The development will include an access road, trails, and buildings. The City plans to develop the 10-acre parcel into a park with parking, trails, and interpretive buildings. The project is currently planned in multiple stages with the construction of the park’s entrance and parking within the 1.0-acre sized narrow strip on the project areas southwest planned first, likely in 2021. Subsequent development will occur across the rest of the 9.0-acre parcel and is proposed to include trails and interpretive buildings. As a political subdivision of the State of Texas, work performed by the City of New Braunfels, using State funds and/or involving State-owned property, requires compliance with the Texas Antiquities Code. A level of effort deemed appropriate by the City, State, and the Center for Archaeological Studies included an intensive pedestrian survey and the excavation of 29 shovel tests distributed throughout the project area.

No archaeological sites or cultural materials were encountered within the 1.0-acre narrow strip that will serve as the park entrance and parking. CAS recommends that no further archeological research is necessary in this location (Figure 28). No cultural material outside the boundaries of Sites 41CM308 and 41CM309 was found and CAS recommends that no further archaeological research is necessary in these areas. Any development planned within the boundaries of Sites 41CM308 and 41CM309 should be redesigned to avoid negatively impacting the sites or, if redesign and avoidance is not possible, the mitigative steps outlined above and summarized below should be employed.

CAS recommends that Sites 41CM308 and 41CM309 be considered as State Antiquities Landmarks and be protected from future development impacts. At Site 41CM308, the focus should be to avoid both the precontact component and the historic structural remains. Figure 28 presents a map of the location at the apex of the hill which includes Site 41CM309 and the precontact component and structural remains of Site 41CM308 that should be avoided. Based on current plans, the City will avoid Site 41CM309 and plan to place a fence around the site to protect it. Current City plans suggest there will be an impact to Site 41CM308 and CAS recommends that the mitigative steps outlined above and summarized below be implemented to adequately record the site and interpret it for the community and future parkgoers.

Site 41CM308 includes two house foundations (Structures 1 and 2), an elevated cistern, a concrete garage pad, gardens, and various stone and brick retaining walls. Additional features include metal water pipes and a possible cellar. Limited shovel testing did not encounter any historic period artifacts and there were limited surface artifacts on the slopes around the buildings. It is not known at this time if there could be historic artifact bearing deposits not yet discovered at the site or if the occupants were exceptionally tidy and removed the bulk of their waste from around the houses and nearby structures. The latter is not likely; however, there could have been a significant amount of post-abandonment collecting by looters, trespassers or other visitors throughout the years. Historical and local lore places the Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe at Mission Hill; however, CAS did not find any evidence for the mission in the form of structural remains or artifacts. The recovery of

46

precontact materials in what appears to be undisturbed contexts in an upland setting is rare for the area.

The location of Site 41CM308 has an important role in the history of New Braunfels as the possible locale for the Mission Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe, the home of prominent families, and was important in the early mapping of the city. Because the structures are no longer extant, they do not contribute to the site’s historical significance. However, the foundations and structural remains should be completely cleared of vegetation and thoroughly documented by means of mapping and photography. It is possible that once the structural remains are cleared of vegetation, they could be recorded aerially using a drone and then fully photo documented to create a three-dimensional model that could aid in public interpretation. CAS recommends that a metal detector survey and more intensive shovel testing occur around the building remains to fully assess whether any intact historic deposits remain. Finally, CAS recommends extensive public interpretation involving on-site and internet-based outreach.

The previously unrecorded prehistoric component of Site 41CM308 is a rare upland site with intact subsurface deposits. CAS recommends site avoidance by routing any trails around the component or avoiding ground disturbance by building above the existing ground surface. If ground disturbance cannot be avoided, CAS recommends additional testing involving 1-by-1 m excavation units in the location of proposed ground disturbance to assess whether significant deposits will be impacted by the development.

Site 41CM309 is a historic saltpeter kiln that dates to the early 1860s and contributed to New

Braunfel’s and Texas’ role in the Civil War. CAS has determined that site 41CM309 meets the significance criteria for local and national history due to its association with an important local family and an important time period in American and Texas history.

Although not unique, the site is a rare example of a Civil War era bat guano saltpeter kiln in central Texas that played an important role in the Confederacy’s military defense of Texas and retains sufficient integrity to understand the construction and use of saltpeter kilns. CAS recommends that Site 41CM309 is eligible for listing as a SAL and should be preserved. Ideally the site would be fenced from public use and interpreted through on site displays or virtual exhibits. If a fence is placed around the Site 41CM309, the location and placement of the postholes should be reviewed by a professional archaeologist to ensure that important elements of the site are not impacted. If the kiln poses risks to the visiting public and preservation of its current condition is not possible, CAS recommends that the New Braunfels Parks Foundation and the City of New Braunfels consult with an architectural conservator to preserve the structure and minimize future risks to this significant historic resource. Additionally, CAS recommends that the kiln be fully documented with scaled drawings and photographed for preservation and photogrammetry models. CAS also recommends that site 41CM309 be interpreted and shared with the public through in person and online educational exhibits.

.

47

Figure 28. Recommended no further work and avoidance area.

49

REFERENCES CITED

Arnn, John 2005 Chronology, Technology, and Subsistence: Is That All There Is? Council of Texas

Archeologists Newsletter 2(2):17-28.

Adams, Karen R. 2002 Appendix 4b: Archaeobotanical Remains from 41CA13 (the Bear Branch Site), a Prehistoric

Rock Ring Midden in Callahan County, Central Texas. In Data Recovery at the Bear Branch Site (41CA13), Callahan County, Texas, by Paul Katz and Susana R. Katz, pp. 156-166. Report on filewith the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Temple.

Barnes. V. E. 1992 Geologic Map of Texas. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas.

Black, Stephen L. 1989 Central Texas Plateau Prairie. In From the Gulf Coast to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation

in the Central, South, and Lower Pecos, Texas, edited by Thomas R. Hester, Stephen L. Black, D. Gentry Steele, Ben W. Olive, Anne A. Fox, Karl J. Reinhard, and Leland C. Bement, pp.17-38. Research Series No. 33. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

1995 Archeological and Ethnohistorical Background. In Archeological Investigations at the Loma Sandia Site (41LK28): A Prehistoric Campsite in Live Oak County, Texas, Vol. 1, edited by Anna jean Taylor and Cheryl Lynn Highley, pp. 31-45. Studies in Archeology No. 20. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin.

Black, Stephen L., and Al J. McGraw 1985 The Panther Springs Creek Site: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Upper Salado Creek

Drainage, South-Central Texas. Archaeological Survey Report No. 100. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.

Blair, W. Frank 1950 The Biotic Provinces of Texas. Texas Journal of Science 2(1):93-117.

Bolton, Herbert E. 1970 [1915] Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century: Studies in Spanish Colonial History and

Administration, Vol. 3. University of California Publications in History. University of California, Berkeley.

Bomar, George W. 1983 Texas Weather. University of Texas Press, Austin.

50

Bousman, C. Britt, Barry W. Baker, and Anne C. Kerr 2004 Paleoindian Archeology in Texas. In The Prehistory of Texas, edited by Timothy K. Perttula,

pp. 15–97. Texas A&M Press, College Station.

Campbell, T. N., and T. J. Campbell 1985 Indian Groups Associated with Spanish Missions of the San Antonio Missions National

Historical Park. Special Report No. 16. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio.

Caran, S. Christopher, and Victor R. Baker 1986 Flooding along the Balcones Escarpment, Central Texas. In The Balcones Escarpment,edited

by Patrick L. Abbott and C. M. Woodruff, Jr, pp. 1-14. Published for theGeological Society of America Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas.

Collins, Michael B. (editor) 1998 Wilson-Leonard: An 11,000-year Archeological Record of Hunter-Gatherers in Central

Texas. Volume I: Introduction, Background, and Synthesis. Studies in Archeology 31, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin, and Archeological Studies Program, Report 10, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin.

Collins, Michael B. 1995 Forty Years of Archaeology in Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 66:361–

400.

2004 Archeology in Central Texas. In The Prehistory of Texas, edited by Timothy K. Perttula, pp. 101–126. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Collins, Michael B., and Kenneth M. Brown 2000 The Gault Gisement: Some Preliminary Observations. Current Archeology in Texas

2(1):163–166.

de la Teja, Jesús F. 1995 San Antonio de Bexár: A Community on New Spain’s Northern Frontier. University of New

Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Davis, Ellis A. & Edwin H. Grobe (editors) 1930 The New Encyclopedia of Texas, Volume III. Texas Development Bureau, Austin.

Dering, Phil 2008 Late Prehistoric Subsistence Economy on the Edwards Plateau. Plains Anthropologist

53(205):59-77.

Dillehay, Thomas D. 1974 Late Quaternary Bison Population Changes on the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist

19(64):180–196.

51

Dixon, Richard 2000 Climatology of the Freeman Ranch, Hays County, Texas. Freeman Ranch Publication Series

No. 3-2000. Texas State University-San Marcos, Texas.

Dockall, John E. and Karl W. Kibbler 2013 Archeological Survey of the Proposed Trinity Well Field and Production Facilities, New

Braunfels Utilities, Comal County, Texas. Report prepared by Prewitt & Associates, Inc., Austin, TX for New Braunfels Utilities, New Braunfels, TX.

Dunn, William E. 1911 Apache Relations in Texas, 1718–1750. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 14:198–274.

Ellis, Linda Wootan, G. Lain Ellis, and Charles D. Frederick 1995 Implications of Environmental Diversity in the Central Texas Archeological Region. Bulletin

of the Texas Archeological Society 66:401-426.

Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 1992 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Landa Park to Krueger Canyon Road Transmission Line

Rebuild, Comal County, Texas, Texas Antiquities Permit No. 1057. Report prepared by Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc, Austin, Texas for New Braunfels Utilities, New Braunfels, Texas.

Foster, William C. 1995 Spanish Expeditions into Texas 1689–1768. The University of Texas Press, Austin.

Gould, F.W. 1962 Texas Plants—A Checklist and Ecological Summary. The Agricultural and Mechanical

College of Texas, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station.

Goff, Myra Lee Adams 2016 Mission Hill Park. Around the Sophienburg, Sophienburg Museum Blog.

https://sophienburg.com/mission-hill-park/. Accessed online September 14, 2021.

Goyne, Minetta Algelt 1982 Lone Star and Double Eagle: Civil War Letters of a German-Texas Family. Texas Christian

University Press, Fort Worth, Texas.

Green, F.E. 1964 The Clovis Blades: An Important Addition to the Llano Complex. American Antiquity

29:145-165.

Habig, Marion A. 1977 The Alamo Mission: San Antonio de Valero, 1718–1793. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago.

https://sophienburg.com/mission-hill-park/

52

Hall, Grant D. 1981 Allens Creek: A Study in the Cultural Prehistory of the Brazos River Valley, Texas. Texas

Archaeological Survey Research Report No. 61. University of Texas at Austin.

Harris, Edwin S. 1985 An Archaeological Study of the Timmeron Rockshelter (41HY95), Hays County, South

Central Texas. Special Publication No. 4, South Texas Archeological Association, San Antonio.

Hester, Thomas R. 1983 Late Paleo-Indian Occupations at Baker Cave, Southwestern Texas. Bulletin of the Texas

Archeological Society 53:101–119.

1995 The Prehistory of South Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 66:427–459.

2004 The Prehistory of South Texas. In The Prehistory of Texas, edited by Timothy Perttula, pp. 127–151. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Houk, Brett A., and Jon C. Lohse 1993 Archeological Investigations at the Mingo Site, Bandera County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas

Archeological Society 61:193–247.

Huebner, Jeffery A. 1991 Late Prehistoric Bison Populations in Central and Southern Texas. Plains Anthropologist

36(137):343–358.

Jelks, Edward B. 1961 The Kyle Site: A Stratified Central Texas Aspect Site in Hill Country, Texas. Archaeology

Series, No. 5, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin.

Johnson, LeRoy, Jr. 1994 The Life and Times of Toyah-Culture Folk: The Buckhollow Encampment Site 41KM16

Kimble County, Texas. Office of the State Archeologist Report 38. Texas Department of Transportation and Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Johnson, LeRoy, Jr., and T. N. Campbell 1992 Sanan: Traces of a Previously Unknown Aboriginal Language in Colonial Coahuila and

Texas. Plains Anthropologist 37(140):185–212.

Johnson, LeRoy, Jr., and Glenn T. Goode 1994 A New Try at Dating and Characterizing Holocene Climates, as well as Archeological

Periods, on the Eastern Edwards Plateau. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 65:1–51.

53

Kelley, J. Charles 1947 The Lehmen Rock Shelter: A Stratified Site of the Toyah, Uvalde, and Round Rock Foci.

Bulletin of Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 18:115-128.

Lemke, Ashley, and Cinda Timperley 2008 Preliminary Analysis of Turtle Material from the Gault Site, Texas. Current Research in the

Pleistocene 25:115-117.

Lich, Glen E. and Günter Moltmann 2019 “Solms-Braunfels, Prince Carl Of,” Handbook of Texas Online, accessed September 14,

2021, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/solms-braunfels-prince-carl-of. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

Lukowski, Paul D., with contributions by Robert F. Scott IV and Richard F. Shoup 1988 Archaeological Investigations at 41BX1, Bexar County, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report

No. 135. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.

Mauldin, Raymond P., Jennifer Thompson, and Leonard Kemp 2012 Reconsidering the Role of Bison in the Terminal Late Prehistoric (Toyah) Period in Texas. In

The Toyah Phase of Central Texas: Late Prehistoric Economic and Social Processes, edited by Nancy Kenmotsu and Doug Boyd. Texas A&M Press, College Station.

McGraw, Al J., John W. Clarke, Jr., and Elizabeth A. Robbins (editors) 1991 A Texas Legacy: The Old San Antonio Road and the Caminos Reales, A Tricentennial

History, 1691–1991. Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Austin.

Meissner, Barbara 1991 Notes on the Excavation of 41BX952. Manuscript on file, Center for Archaeological

Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.

Newcomb, William W., Jr. 1961 The Indians of Texas From Prehistoric to Modern Times. The University of Texas Press,

Austin.

1993 Historic Indians of Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 64:1–63.

Nuhn, Roger 1995 The New Braunfels Sesquicentennial Minutes. The Sophienburg Museum & Archives, New

Braunfels, Texas.

Pressler, Herman & Terrell, O. O. 1897 Map of Comal County, map, Austin, Texas.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth493113/m1/1/: accessed September 14, 2021), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Hardin-Simmons University Library.

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/solms-braunfels-prince-carl-of

54

Prewitt, Elton R. 1974 Preliminary Archeological Investigations in the Rio Grande Delta Area of Texas. Bulletin of

the Texas Archeological Society 45:55–65.

1981 Culture Chronology in Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 52:65–89.

Rahe, Alton 2010 History of Mission Valley Community, Now Part of New Braunfels, Texas. Historical

Publishing Network, San Antonio, Texas.

Ricklis, Robert A. 1994 Toyah Components: Evidence for Occupation in the Project Area During the Latter Part of

the Late Prehistoric Period. In Archaic and Late Prehistoric Human Ecology in the Middle Onion Creek Valley, Hays County, Texas, by Robert A. Ricklis and Michael B. Collins, pp. 207–316. Studies in Archeology 19. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin.

Schlather, Wilfred 2009 War Between the States: Participants from Comal County, Texas. Privately published book.

New Braunfels, TX.

Slade, Raymond M., Jr. 1986 Large rainstorms along the Balcones Escarpment in Central Texas. In The Balcones

Escarpment, edited by Patrick L. Abbott and C. M. Woodruff, Jr. pp. 15-20. Published for the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas.

Story, Dee Ann 1985 Adaptive Strategies of Archaic Cultures of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. In Prehistoric Food

Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 19–56. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Turner, Ellen S., and Thomas R. Hester 1993 A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Second edition. Texas Monthly Field.

Weir, Frank A. 1976 The Central Texas Archaic. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department,

Washington State University, Pullman.

Young, Brandon 2011 An Intensive Archeological Survey on Loop 337 from IH 35 to Rivercrest Drive in the City

of New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas. Texas Antiquities Permit No. 4247. Report prepared by Blanton & Associates, Inc, Austin, TX for the Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.

55

APPENDIX A

Table A-1. All shovel tests showing texture, color, and comments by stratigraphic level.

ST Depth (cmbs)

Sediment Texture

Sediment Color

Artifacts Recovered Comments

1 0-10

7.5YR 2.5/1 None Terminated at bedrock.

2 0-38

7.5YR 3/3 Chert piece that appeared cultural in field but upon examination in the lab was noncultural.

Terminated at bedrock.

2E 0-38 7.5YR 3/3 None 5 m to east of ST 2. Terminated at bedrock.

2W 0-10 7.5YR 3/2 None 5 m to west of ST 2. Terminated at bedrock.

2S 0-18 7.5YR 4/3 None 5 m to south of ST 2. Terminated at bedrock.

2N 0-34 7.5YR 4/3 None 3.5 m north of ST 2. Terminated at bedrock.

3 0-20

7.5YR 2.5/1 None Terminated at bedrock.

4 0-22

7.5YR 4/3 8 terracotta chimney flue fragments

Terminated at rock impasse.

5 0-15 Loam 7.5YR 3/3 1 core Terminated at rock impasse.

5E 0-15 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 1 uniface 10 m east of ST 5. Terminated at rock impasse.

5W 0-15 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 2 flakes 15 m west of ST5.

15-40 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 Terminated at rock and caliche. Approximately 50 percent caliche in this layer.

6 0-26 7.5YR 4/3 1 flake Terminated at rock impasse.

6E 0-22 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 3 flakes 10 m east of ST6. Terminated at rock impasse.

6W 0-21 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 1 utilized flake 12 m west of ST6. Terminated at rock impasse.

7 0-15 Loam 7.5YR 2.5/1 1 flake Terminated at rock impasse.

7E1 0-34 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 1 biface, 1 utilized flake, 2 flakes

10 m east of ST7. Terminated at rock impasse.

7W 0-24 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 None 10 m west of ST7. Terminated at rock impasse.

56

8 0-5 Shallow organic and soil layer

7.5YR 4/3 None This shovel test was east of the kiln (41CM309) on the upslope side. There was a shallow organic layer over rock fill that was dumped between the hill slope and the kiln.

9 0-10 Shallow organic and soil layer

7.5YR 4/3 None This shovel test was placed about 7 m west of the kiln (41CM309). There was a shallow organic layer mixed with soil that terminated at bedrock.

10 0-5 Clay 7.5YR 2.5/1 None Wet soil.

5-28 Clay 5Y 5/4 None Wet soil with gley-like characteristics.

11 0-10 Clay 7.5YR 2.1/1 None Near concrete trough feature.

10-30 Clay 5Y 5/4 None Soil has gley-like characteristics. Abundant fossilized shell in this layer.

12 0-8 Clay 7.5YR 2.5/1 None Near possible sinkhole/cave entrance in northwest corner of property.

8-18 Clay 5Y 5/4 None Abundant fossilized shell in this layer.

13 0-40 Clay loam 7.5YR 3/2 None

14 0-5 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 None

5-14 Gravel None Crushed gravel driveway.

15 0-16 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 None Terminated at rock impasse.

16 0-15 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 None Near what was the rear porch of Structure 2. Abundant cobbles in this level.

17 0-13 Loam 7.5YR 5/2 None To the north of the Structure 2 porch.

13-21 Caliche None

18 0-18 Loam 7.5YR 4/3 None Terminated at rock impasse.

19 0-23 Loam 7.5YR 2.5/1 None In Structure 2 garden.

23-28 Clay loam 2.5Y 5/2 None

Archaeological Investigations at Mission Hill Park, New ...

Documents

Transcript of Archaeological Investigations at Mission Hill Park, New ...