Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    1/19

    RESEARCH N OTESAND COMMENTSBROOKS 9. ELLWOODDOUGLAS W. OWSLEYSUZANNE H. ELLWOODPATRICIA A. MERCADO-ALLINGERSearch for the Grave of theHanged Texas Gunfighter,William Preston LongleyABSTRACT

    The hanging and burial of the notorious Texas gunmanWilliam Longley in Giddings, Texas, in 1878 has been be-lieved by some to be a hoax, and it has been rumored thatLongley may have lived for 43more years in Louisiana.Evidence including comparisons of handwriting and com-puter-based photographs of the individual suspected of be-ing Longley support this belief and suggest that a rock-fi lledor weighted coffin was buried in place of the body after aforged hanging. Onetest of the hoax hypothesis would be tofind the grave and expose the remains. While it is knownthat the Longley grave i s within the Giddings cemetery,owned by the city of Giddings and designated 41L E132, itsexact location is unknown. In an attempt to find the grave,resistivity and magnetometer surveys were performed inareas where historical research indicated the Longley gravemight be found. A nomalies were probed and cored, leadingto the identification of areas for excavation. Severaltransects were scraped, using a backhoe, to test the geo-physical results. Scraping was also performed in other areassuspected to contain the grave. The unique combination ofthese methods resulted in the discovery of 34 unmarkedburial shafts, 21 of which were excavated. Even though thesite is not ideal for remote sensing applications, the resultsstill demonstrate that the methods employed are effective inpinpointing graves. Problems included high clay concentra-tions in the soil, a multitude of modern burials distributedthroughout the search area, and a half meter of fill over partof the site. Unfortunately, researchers were unsuccessful inlocating unambiguous evidence of L ongleys grave, leavinghis story oneof the unsolved mysteries of the Old West.

    IntroductionWilliam Preston Longley, known as Bill orWild Bill, was a notorious Texas outlaw whoreportedly shot at least 32 men and one woman in

    Historical Archaeology, 1994, 28(3):94-112.Permission to reprint required.

    his lifetime. As an outlaw, Bill was not as famousas some desperados of that time, because he did notrun with a crowd or rob banks and trains. But,according to Taylor (1926), as a deadly gunfighter,he was one of the first fast-draw, two-gun outlaws.It was said that he could hit a small target six timesin quick succession from a running horse, or hit thesame target 12 times firing both guns simulta-neously. His temper, speed, and accuracy madehim extremely dangerous. For example, he quicklykilled a Yankee soldier in Kansas in the late1860s, when the soldier commented that all Texanswere thieves and there are no virtuous women inTexas (Taylor 1926).

    Longley was convicted and hanged on 11 Octo-ber 1878, in Giddings, Texas, for the murder ofWilson Anderson in 1875. But a number of indi-viduals claimed that the hanging was rigged, thatLongley was not executed, and that only an emptycasket, possibly weighted, was buried (Bartho-lomew 1953; Wax 1988). Since the hanging, taleshave circulated regarding his ultimate fate. Onestory claims he settled in Nicaragua to become acattleman, and later booked passage on the Lusi-taniu, dying when it was sunk by a German U-Boatin 1915. Another version describes him dying froma blow to the head as he rode under a tree limb nearGiddings while escaping. Yet another story claimsthat Longley escaped to Mexico to become a cat-tleman, and that one of his grandsons later becamea provincial governor. In still another story, he isclaimed to have escaped to Iberville Parish, Loui-siana, where he resided under the assumed name ofCapt. John Calhoun Brown. Through work per-formed at the Smithsonian Institution, a computer-based comparison of photographs of Longley andCapt. Brown shows, with a high probability, thatthe two are the same man. Handwriting compari-sons also have suggested that Brown and Longleywere the same individual (Wax 1988).To resolve this historical question, Douglas Ow-sley of the Smithsonian Institution and principalinvestigator, in conjunction with Patricia Mercado-Allinger of the Texas Historical Commission, de-cided to locate and exhume the grave, through theWilliam Preston Longley Project (permit no.1083). Unfortunately, the Longley grave marker

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    2/19

    SEARCH FOR THE GRAVE OF THE HANGED TEXAS GUNFIGHTER, WILLIAM PRESTON LONGLEY 95

    FIGURE 1. Photographof the current Longley marker at the Giddings cemetery, believed to have been taken in the mid1920s-1930s. (Courtesyof Rose Collection, Western History Collections, Universityof Oklahoma.)had been moved and the original location long for- because markers were either moved or they disin-gotten. A photograph, reportedly of the grave (Fig- tegrated (Jordan 1982). The early historic burialsure 1), taken in the 1920s or 1930s, was available. may never have been formally recorded, or evenTo locate the burial, in the spring and summer of marked. Historical accounts indicate that, in the1992 researchers performed a series of geophysical case of Longley, the grave was initially marked bysurveys at sites selected on the basis of the photo- a blackjack oak tree. Not until the early 1920s,graphic evidence, historical accounts, and personal after the tree had died and nearly50years after therecollections. During the investigation, it was de- hanging, was a headstone erected (Taylor 1926).termined that the photograph was probably taken The headstone, a piece of petrified wood about 18after the grave marker was moved to its current in. tall, was moved at least twice between 1925 andlocation. This report compares magnetic and resis- 1945, and later stolen. A piece of petrified woodtivity surveys, subsurface probing, and selected sur- has marked the present Longley grave site since atface scraping results with the physical evidence least 1945 (Kenneth Ahlschlaeger 1992, pers.from each located burial in order to attempt to comm.), and a Texas Historical Commissionidentify the Longley grave. marker was placed on this site in 1976. Althoughthe headstone was moved, the body was not, andPrevious Work the original location of the grave was lost.Pioneer graves were often marked with wood or Very few studies on efforts to locate graves US-native stone, and their locations were often lost ing geophysical methods are reported in the liter-

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    3/19

    96ature. In one such study, electrical resistivity workat two historic cemeteries in North Texas hasshown that graves can be delineated using geo-physical methods (Ellwood 1990). This work dem-onstrated that the delineation of burial shafts re-quires a close-interval survey, preferably arrangedin a uniform grid pattern. The resulting data setwas a regular grid pattern with data points atequally spaced intervals. Contour lines of equalvalue were drawn throughout the grid, producing amapof subsurface geophysical variations or anom-alies in the subsurface which were tested. Usingthese methods in one of the cemeteries, fourlost burials were identified and disinterred.

    HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY , VOLUME 28either the photographer created a new mound forjournalistic impact or the mound represented amore recent burial. After many hours over manymonths of searching and reinterpreting the photo-graph, researchers now believe that it is a photo-graph of the marker at its current location, and notof the original Longley burial site.There are several reasons why this determina-tion concerning the photograph was not made untillate in the survey work. Critical grave markersidentified in the photograph have been replacedwith newer markers. Those markers still present atthe site have subsided into the ground, thus chang-ing their profile, and they have darkened with time.The photograph is also of poor quality. The mostprominent postoakfeatured in the photo (Figure1)is currently obscured by a large bush. Several treeshave been removed since the photograph wastaken, and hundreds of new markers have beenadded. The cemetery is also no longer overgrownwith grass and weeds. Because the Longley markerhas been moved at least twice with no attemptmade to move the remains-see discussion of Ta-ble l ,below-this study is forced to conclude thatthe photograph does not show the locationof theLongley grave.Prior to the exclusion of the grave photo fromconsideration (Figure l), newspaper accounts, ar-ticles in western journals, and pamphlets (Bar-tholomew 1953; Wax 1988) were scrutinized andindicated that there were four general locationswithin the boundaries of the Giddings cemeterythat might contain the Longley grave site. Theselocations are labeled in Table 1:Area A, initiallythe preferred location; B, a site which fits most ofthe available information but not the photograph;C, a site preferred by a photographic expert (ChuckPratt 1992, pers. comm.) andbased on the photo-graph; and D, a second site chosen by the photo-graphic expert as possibly fitting the photo. Twoother sites, areasE andF in Figure 2, were chosenby Ted Wax after careful study of the photographand the cemetery. Other locations that might havecontained the Longley grave have since been dis-turbed by more modern burial activity.

    Table 1summarizes the likelihood in terms ofpros (+) and cons (-) of any one site containing

    Research Methods and DiscussionResearch methods used in the search for theLongley grave site are discussed below.

    The Search: General Aspects

    In searching for information on the location ofthe William Longley grave, many apparently con-tradictory descriptions were found. For example,according to an article in F rontier Times (Taylor1926), the grave was essentially unmarked until theearly 1920s when a petrified wood marker whichnow projects some 18 inches above the surfaceofthe ground at the head of his grave was erected.On the other hand, the Houston Post, on 5 Sep-tember 1937, published an article that states thatthe petrified marker was six feet in length. Ei-ther the first marker was replaced by a bigger onelater, or it grew very large in the telling.The only direct evidence indicating the gravesites location was the aforementioned photograph.This photo, however, created many interpretationproblems, and it is possible that it does not showthe actual Longley burial site. One serious problemwith the photograph was the presence of a gravemound associated with the Longley marker (Figure1). The Longley grave mound, composed of freshdirt and no ground cover, could not have persistedfor more than40years in that state, suggesting that

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    4/19

    SEARCHFOR THE GRAVE OF THE HANGED TEXAS GUNFIGHTER, WILLIAM PRESTON LONGLEY 97TABLE 1CLUES TO THE LOCATION OF THE LONGLE Y GRAVE SITE-PRO AND CON

    Note. The pros and cons in favor of any one site being the actual site are ranked with a+ for pro and a for con. Locationsidentified f rom the photo, F igure1,and other information, as the best potential Longley grave site choices are labeledA (preferredbased on columns 1-16), B (based onmost evidence but excluding the photograph), C (preferred by photographic expert ChuckW. Pratt, university of Texas at Arlington),D (chosen by Pratt and alsobased onlines 11and 12),andE (chosen by Ted Wax fromphotographic evidence). A nother site F, also designated by Wax, fits only one criterion and was not included in this table.

    the Longley grave. The table is based on a synthe-sis of available published material, evaluation ofthe Longley grave photograph (Figure l), the per-sonal notes of Reverend Socha 1991]), a Longleyhistorian now deceased, and the 1878 cemeteryboundary data (Lee County Courthouse 1876)compiled from the original deed to the City ofGiddings by a local surveyor, Louis Knox. Per-sonal recollections of historians and people, stillliving, who visited the site in the 1920s and 30swere also used.

    two pieces of information. In 1926, Taylor statedthat the petrified stone was placed at the grave afew years before his Frontier Times (Taylor1926) article was published. Second, the emptyfield behind the grave in Figure 1 is now filled withpost-1938headstones. It was initially assumed thatthe photograph taken in the 1920s representedLongleys grave. Rough comparisons were thenmade to trees, burial markers, the sun angle, andgrave mound orientation to identify possible loca-tions within the cemetery (Figure 2, A-F). Oneassumption was based on identification of theforked post oak at the left margin of the photo-graph.Grave orientation is an important clue to Long-leys burial, because early settlers in Texas gener-ally buried their dead with a west-to-east orienta-tion, and many religious groups followed that trend(Jordan 1982). All identified graves-marked andunmarked-in the Giddings cemetery follow this

    The Search: Analysis of Supporting DataA discussion of the 16 line items listed in Table1 follows.Lines 1through5 of Table1relate to the Long-

    ley grave photograph from the Rose Collection atthe University of Oklahoma (Figure 1). The pho-tograph dates to the 1920s or 1930s, as based on

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    5/19

    98 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28Lines7through 9 relate to the ethnic isolation ofburials within the cemetery. Today, the city of Gid-dings is primarily Protestant, but in the late 19thcentury it housed many Catholics and a number of

    Jews. There were also many individuals with Af-rican racial affinities living in the area. In the late18OOs, Africans and Hispanics were buried outsidethe old fence line, erected sometime after Long-leys burial, along the western margin of the cem-etery (Figure2).Because Longley was responsiblefor the death of a number of Africans and Hispan-ics, and he was viewed as a hero by some of thepopulace, it has been argued by many who havestudied the life of Bill Longley that he would nothave been buried in the African, Hispanic, or Jew-ish areas of the cemetery. However, Longley didconvert to Catholicism just before he was hanged(Killen 1974), so it is possible that he might havebeen buried in or near the Catholic part of thecemetery.There is a reference in theLeeCountyWeekly,tothe effect that:

    N

    0meters

    FIGURE 2. Map of the cemetery land owned by the city ofGiddings in 1878. Data are from the deed to the city,located at the Lee County Courthouse. Corner points arefrom data associated with the deed and were resurveyedunder the direction of J an Conn (1992, pers. comm.); dateof the resurvey was not given. The broken or dashed lineis one of the 1878 boundary roads used to bring casketsto burial sites. The current locations of the westernmostgraves which pre-date or are contemporary with the Long-ley burial are given. Areas A, B, and D mark the geophys-ical surveys in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Area C waschosen based on interpretation of F igure 1. E and F areareas where Ted Wax believed Longley to be buried (A-Eare also found in Table 1).trend. It is possible that the grave was orientednorth-south because Longley was a criminal (T.G.Jordan 1992, pers. comm.). However, this orienta-tion is considered unlikely due to his religious con-version to Catholicism ust before the hanging, andbecause most Texas outlaws were considered localheroes (T. G. Jordan 1992, pers. comm.).Line6results from an examination of the cem-etery grounds.

    The headstone was moved by Martin Placke at the requestof the Catholics, mostly Hispanic, who were then using thatonce vacant area. Placke assures everyone that they did notmove the coffin, only the stone during his tenure as head ofthe cemetery association (Lee County Weekly 1987:9).

    Martin Placke died in 1965 after serving for morethan 50 years as the president of the GiddingsCemetery Association. That once vacant areaappears to allude to the area containing the Long-ley grave. This reference may indicate a closeproximity to the Hispanic part of the cemetery, orit may indicate that Hispanics were intending toexpand their burials into the area that was per-ceived to contain the Longley grave. Unfortunatelyno reference to the timing of the request to movethe marker was given in theLee County Weekly.Line 10 relates to the proximity of the TexasHistorical Commission marker to the Longleygrave site. It has been reasoned that if the markerwas going to be moved, it would be moved just ashort distance up the hill.

    Line 11 is based on the statement, in theH storyof Lee County, Texas (Killen 1974:44), that themarker was moved west to its present position

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    6/19

    SEARCH FOR THE GRAVE OF THE HANGED TEXAS gunbecause it was lying in the path of a newly pro-posed, north-south road. According to ReverendSochas notes (R. Vance 1992, pers. comm.), themarker appears to have been moved at least twiceby Mr. Placke.Line 12 derives from the personal notes of Rev.Socha ([1991]), which state, When measuringgraves, Paul Nerger and Martin Placke found thegrave marker was placed right on the boundaryline, so they just moved it a short ways. Appar-ently, they believed it had been moved by someonefrom its rightful place outside the cemeteryboundary. Most accounts state that Longley wasburied on the western edge, but outside the ceme-tery.Lines 13 and 14 are based on accounts alludingto the fact that the southwestern portion of thecemetery was run-down and overgrown. These eyewitnesses visited the cemetery as children in the1920s-30s to see the Longley grave, and their bestrecollection placed it in the overgrown, southwest-ern section.Lines 15 and 16 relate to the legal aspects ofsiting burials of individuals hanged by the State.The Texas Historical Commission report states,

    Wil liam (Bill) L ongley was buried in the Giddings Ceme-tery at the western edgeof the town. I t is said that on the dayof the burial he was not interred in hallowed ground, but atthe outside edge of the cemetery, since society in that daydid not accord the privilege of burial in hallowed ground tocriminals who were hanged for their deeds. Society did,however, permit burial to be done in accordance with thestandard procedures of the day, that is to say inadesignatedpublic place (Price and Vance 1976:5).

    A designated public place is interpreted here todenote land owned by the city. In 1878, the cityowned the area included within the south-centralrectangle labeled Purchased 1876, in Figure2.The only marked burials from 1876 to 1878 re-maining in the cemetery today are east of theformer carriage road shown as a dashed line. Thisroad may have served as the boundary separatinghallowed ground to the east, where pre-1879burials are located, and the city property that isthe outside edge of the cemetery to the west(Price and Vance 1976; Reverend Koenig 1992,pers. comm.). Areas A, B, C, and F are located

    gunfighter WILLIAM PRESTON LONGLEY 99within the pre-1879 cemetery boundary and arewest of the carriage road.

    The Search: Preliminary ConsiderationsBased on available information, Longleysgraveis probably located along the western portionof theland purchased by the city in 1876, near the oldfence line, an area that could be considered asunconsecrated ground or outside the cemetery.

    Nopre-1902 burials are present north of the 1876north boundary of this area, and it seems likely thatLongley was buried within the boundaries of the1876 deed. Search efforts were therefore concen-trated in the area of the old fence south of the 1876north boundary. Furthermore, eyewitnesses to theheadstone location placed it in the northern portionof this area.

    Maqnetic Survev MethodsMagnetic measurements were performed in a

    0.5-m-interval grid pattern laid out over areas sus-pected to contain the Longley grave. Magneticcontour maps were produced for two areas in thecemetery (Figure2),Area A (Figure3) and Area B(Figure4).A Williams Dual-bottle Proton Magne-tometer was used (Williams and Williams 1984).The Williams Magnetometer operates both bottlesfrom a single electronic unit, as opposed to mostdual-bottle systems, which use two different butcoupled proton magnetometers. With the Williamsinstrument, slight electronic differences affectingindividual magnetometers, resulting from internalor external factors such as temperature instabilities,are not reflected in the data. For most prehistoricsites located outside of urban areas, the precisionof the measured anomaly is +1 nanotesla (nT; 1 nT= 1 gamma). However, in urban areas magneticnoise significantly diminishes precision estimatesand makes grave detection very difficult.Each data point represents the magnetic fielddifference, or residual, in nT between a referencebottle, elevated on a pole3m above the ground ata distance of -20 m from the grid, and a search

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    7/19

    100 HISTORICAL ARC HAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28I I. . .

    CONTOURS IN nTFIGURE 3 Contour map of the magnetometer data taken from Area A P otential grave anomalies were identified andare labeled 1to 11B For example, 1 represents a potential grave, based on its size and east-west orientation The largepositive anomaly southeast of 2 represents an area of ground remagnetization due to lightning striking the post oaklabeled in the figure High magnetic values in the northeast corner of the grid result from iron concentrations associatedwith the modern burials at the north and northeastern margins of the grid Label 13 represents a burial shaft identifiedby scraping but notpredicted in advance from observation of the data due to high magnetic variability associated withthe modern burial to the north of 13 AA was not predicted in advance but was uncovered during scraping It representsa shaft -1 mdeep with shell material but no burial

    bottle placed -0.3 m above the ground and ori-ented east-west at each grid point. The locationselected for the reference bottle was swept fornear-surface metal-wire, nails, and so on-usinga metal detector before measurements were taken.These materials were not treated as artifacts andremoved, because they cause large magnetic fluc-tuations in the data which are unrelated to late

    19th-century burials. The number recorded reflectsthe difference between the total magnetic field ateach bottle; a positive value indicates that the mag-netic field at the search bottle is higher than at thereference bottle. This method eliminates manyproblems associated with single-bottle magnetom-eters, such as the necessity of compensating fordiurnal variation in the earths magnetic field. An-

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    8/19

    FIGURE 4 Contour map of the magnetometer data taken from Area B No potential grave anomalies are identified inthese data due to magnetic "noise" associated with modern burials along the northern and southern margins of thegrid The "old fence line estimated from alignment of post oaks at the site, is clearly defined by a high, north-southpositive trend of anomalies Anomaly BA results from a high concentration of metal objects in the subsurface in thatarea of the grid

    other design modification of the Williams instru-ment is that the reference bottle is slightly lesssensitive than the search bottle, thereby providinga stable baseline for the data set.

    senting graves are generally oriented east-west.Magnetic variations over graves can be expected toshow an anomaly depending on several factors(Breiner 1973).A surface anomaly should resultwhere iron metal is buried in a shallow grave. De-pending upon the amount, orientation, and distri-bution of the iron, the anomaly might be strong.There should also be a dipolar, or positive andnegative value, effect associated with the anomaly.If no iron metal ispresent in the grave, there mayor may not be a dipolar anomaly, but the magni-tude of the anomaly will generally be significantly

    The Search: Interpretation of theMagnetic Data

    It is expected (Jordan 1982), and known fromexperience with other historic cemeteries in Texas(Lebo 1988; Ellwood 1990), that anomalies repre-

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    9/19

    102diminished. The orientation of the anomaly shouldremain east-west.The magnetic survey (Figure 3) of Area Ashows a complex pattern along its eastern margin,exhibiting high values and high variability. Thelarge anomaly in the northeast corner of the gridresults from iron used in the construction of mod-ern burial crypts to the north and east of the mag-netometer grid. A further complication is groundremagnetization in the south-central region due tolightning. Additional anomalous values to thenorth along the old fence line (Figure3) arisefrom metal associated with that fence, now re-moved. In the western portion of Area A the pat-terns are much less complex.Potential burial shafts were identified from sixeast-west anomalies in the data set, labeled 1, 3,4,5, 7, and 9 (Figure3), that are about the size ex-pected for graves. Also identified is an unusualeast-west anomaly, labeled 2, associated with alarger magnetic high that appears to arise fromground remagnetization due to effects of lightninghaving struck the post oak tree at the south-centralportion of the grid. At least four other areas werebelieved to represent grave clusters, labeled 6, 8,10, and 11A and B.The magnetic survey of Area B shows evengreater complexity (Figure 4). Modern burials tothe north and south dominate the magnetic patternof those areas of the grid. An old fence lineshows as a band of high positive magnetizations,which reflects discarded metal associated with de-terioration of the fence as well as remagnetizationresulting from high currents created during light-ning strikes. The sum of these magnetizationsdominates the data set making burial shaft identi-fication in AreaB uncertain.

    Electrical Resistivity Survey MethodsResistivity is one of the fundamental electricalproperties of soils and rocks. The term is usedbecause earth materials behave like electrical re-

    sistors, impeding current flow through the ground.The ability of soils and rocks to conduct currents iscontrolled by several factors including moisture,

    HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28clay content, porosity, and the presence of freeions. For example, resistance to current flow de-creases with increasing ionized water or salt con-tent. A general review of electrical resistivity prin-ciples is available in most geophysics textbooks(e.g., Telford et al. 1976; Parasnis 1986; Sharma1986; Robinson and Coruh 1988). In-depth discus-sions of the electrical resistivity method in geo-physics and archaeology appear in Tagg (1964),Keller and Frischknecht (1966), and Carr (1982).The electrical resistivity method has been ap-plied to a variety of problems including mineraland ground-water exploration, and archaeologicalstudies (e.g., Van Nostrand andCook 1966; Zohdyet al. 1974; Aitken 1974; Dobrin 1976; Ellwood1990). In resistivity surveying, a current is appliedto the ground via two electrodes, and the potentialdifference is measured between a second set ofelectrodes. The four electrodes can be arranged ina number of configurations. In this study the Wen-ner array-even spacing between electrodes-wasused, which is the most commonly employed arrayused in archaeological work (Weymouth 1986).Between measurements, the set of electrodes ismoved along a straight line by a distance equal tothe spacing between individual electrodes.The instrument used for this project is aWilliams Resistivity Meter. It operates by applyingan alternating current at 145 Hz using four 2-cmsteel electrodes inserted - 45 cm into the ground(Williams 1984). This frequency reduces the effectof local 60-Hz background noise found during sur-veys in urban areas, which originates from electro-magnetic waves generated by household and com-mercial appliances as well as from other sources.The frequency is also relatively low and somewhatinsensitive to slight changes in water ion content.As with many of these instruments, the WilliamsMeter is designed so that the potentiometer andgalvanometer are linked by the same circuit, mak-ing it unnecessary to measure current and voltageindependently. Therefore, the instrument can becalibrated in Ohms (a). rotary switch on theWilliams Meter allows reconfiguration of theprobes, so that only one electrode must be movedper measurement while profiling, increasing thespeed of data acquisition. With the exception of the

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    10/19

    The Search: Interpretation of theElectrical DataFor electrical resistivity data, most grave anom-

    alies result from slightly higher current flow in thegrave due, in part, to greater concentrations of ion-ized water occupying pore spaces in the disturbedground (Ellwood 1990). Increased moisture re-duces resistance to current flow, and the anomalywill generally be characterized by a set of lowvalues (two or more), with an east-west orienta-tion. In some cases, however, especially when thecemetery is well drained or when the weather isunusually dry for long periods, values may behigh, but grave anomalies are still oriented east-west.Three resistivity surveys were performed. Thefirst survey included the southeastemend Of themagnetometer grid (Area A) and the data are pre-sented in Figure5. One clear east-west anomaly,AB, is present. The anomaly maintains the appro-priate shape and orientation expected for a graveshaft, but the values are high, not low as antici-pated. Because the weather was generally wet dur-ing the spring of 1992, preceding this survey, thesehigh values cannot be attributed to drying and re-duction of water in pore spaces. Instead, the highvalues are interpreted to arise from either an anom-alous geological horizon near the surface or, pos-sibly, unusual materials filling the grave shaft,such as rocks. This anomaly does not appear as ananomaly in the magnetometer data set (Figure 3),due to the domination in this part of the grid bylightning remagnetization effects at the site. Fur-thermore, magnetic anomaly 1 (Figure 3)-labeledA-1 in Figure 5-does not exhibit a unique elec-trical resistivity grave-shaft shape, although valuesin the area are low.A second resistivity survey was conducted atArea B (Figure 6). This survey was performed inAugust 1992, when the ground was much dryerthan the earlier survey in Area A. Several anoma-lies were identified and those near or on the oldfence line were chosen for further investigation.These anomalies are labeled BB-BF in Figure 6.While BE and BF are distinct anomalies, BB-BDlie within a complex series of anomalies associated

    FIGURE 5 Contour map of the apparent resistivity varia-tions in at Area A, Giddings cemetery AnomalyAB represents a resistivity anomaly with high values Thepost oak is the lightning struck tree in Figures 2 and 3Point A-1 is the locationof magnetic anomaly 1 from Fig-ure 3

    Martin-Clark Resistivity Meter (Clark stan-dard resistivity instruments usually require that allfour probes be moved for each measurement.The flow of current establishes an equipotentialin the subsurface from which the potential drop canbe measured. The value of apparent resistivity de-pends in part upon the distance between electrodes.For the Wenner array, the fundamental resistivityequation for apparent resistivity in re-duces to:

    = DRwhere is a geometric factor, D is the distancebetween electrodes, and R is the measured resis-tance (Keller and Frischknecht 1966). In addition,values represent the weighted average of allvariations in the subsurface. Typical values offor soils generally range from 5 to 100and for clays, from 5 to 150 (e.g., Palacky1988). Two resistivity surveys were performed andcontour maps developed from the data. These in-clude portions of Area A (Figure 5) and Area B(Figure 6). Locations of areas A and B are given inFigure 2.

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    11/19

    104 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28

    FIGURE 6. Contour map of the apparent resistivity variations in at Area B Anomalies BE and BF representeast-west resistivity highs Anomalies BB to BDare associated with acomplex anomaly along the east side of the grid.Scraping of these anomalies showed that they were the result of geological effects

    with two headstones. All these anomalies havehigh resistivities, possibly due to geological factorsor to ground-drying effects in late summer.Tothewest of the old fence line there is a large area withlow resistivities typical forknowngraves (Ellwood1990),but no distinct east-west anomalies are ap-parent in the data.The Search: Summary of theGeophysical Data

    andB. Several anomalies generally meet the size oreast-west orientation criterion expected for graveshafts. Far too many potential burials were identi-fiedtoallow examination of all sites. Therefore, dueto constraints on funding, the time necessary toexcavate each individual burial, and an analysis ofTable 1,it was decided to limit initial excavationefforts to AreaA, which appeared to have the great-est potential for success. When additional fundsbecame available additional parts of AreaA wereexcavated as well asparts of areas B and C. Effortsalso extended to transects south of Area A, but nounmarked burials were found in that area.It was clear from the geophysical surveys thatmany potential burial shafts were located in areas A

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    12/19

    Other geophysical methods, such as seismic,ground penetrating radar (GPR), or electromag-netic (EM),were not used at the Giddings ceme-tery for three reasons. First, costs are high for seis-mic and GPR studies. Second, the high claycontent in the Giddings soil and associated high,near-surface conductivities might have precludedthe effective use of GPR (Olhoeft1984),and alsoprobably would have limited the very near-surfaceEM resolution necessary to identify graves. Andthird, familiarity with magnetic and resistivity ap-plications in cemeteries made these methods thelogical choice for the Giddings work. high-densitycient resolution to identify burial shafts, but thework would have been quite time consuming andthe returns questionable.

    FIGURE 7 Segment of 2-cm-diameter core recoveredPieces of coffin wood from boththe lid and the base of thecoffin are indicated by arrows

    gravity, Or microgravity, data might provide suffi- from >I depth at anomaly 1 (Figure 2) within Area A

    The Search: Probe, Coring, and AugerTesting Geophysical Anomaliesrobe, Coring, and Auqer TestingProbe, core, or auger tests are quick and effec-tive ways to evaluate soil variations within a site.Probe testing employs a 1-cm-diameter stainless

    steel rod with a blunt tip attached to a handle. Therod is pushed into the ground along transects oversuspected graves. The probe encounters less resis-tance to penetration over graves than in undis-turbed areas.For coring work a 2-cm-bore soil-coring deviceis used. The barrel can be pushed or pounded intothe ground to depths of 2 m or more using exten-sions. This tool allows extractionof a continuous2-cm-diameter core and coringof burial shafts canrecover distinguishable coffin materials, such aswood from the lid or bottom (Figure7).In auger testing, an 8-cm-diameter sedimentbucket with fixed cutting blades is attachedtoa2-m shaft with a handle. When the auger is rotated,the blades slice into the ground, and the penetratedsediment accumulates in the bucket. The distanceof penetration can be measured, and materialsdown to a depth of 2 greater, with shaftextensions-can be recovered. Depth to culturalmaterials, such as stone tools, can be determined,as well as depth to geologic materials, which maycontrol observed geophysical variations.

    Probe tests were performed at anomalies 1, 2(Figure 3), and AB (Figure 5). Results indicatedburial shafts at 1and 2 but not at AB. Auger testsdefined the near-surface stratigraphy in the ceme-tery, which consists of a humus-rich, dark gray soilto a depthof 10cm. Below this layer to a depthof -40 cm is a dark red clay, which overlies a lightgray and whitish tan clay with yellow highlights.Tests of these anomalies, first by using an augerwith an 8-cm bore and second by coring using a2-cm bore, also indicated burials for 1and2, butnot for AB. Coffin wood (Figure7)and coffin nailswere recovered from 1and 2 at a depth slightlygreater than 1 and at 2, coffin hardware wasrecovered. The sediments overlying these sitesshowed distinct evidence of mottling resultingfrom digging and back-filling the grave. Using theauger, two fragmentsof human skull, each -3 cmin diameter, were recovered from anomaly 1.Theexcellent preservation of the wood, nail, and skullfragments at this location, coupled with the asso-ciated strong dipolar magnetic anomaly, indicateda more recent burial than at anomaly2,where thewood was poorly preserved, and the nail was badlyoxidized.Additional coring was performed at anomalies3,

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    13/19

    1069, and 10. Results were negative at 3 and 9, butboth mottled soil, typical of burial shafts, andpieces of coffin wood were recovered at 10. Theresults clearly show that at least three burials wererepresented in the magnetic data, and the researchteam felt that the data warranted excavation.Auger and probe results at anomaly AB (Figure5) were negative. The probe could not penetrateeasily into the ground, and the soil recovered bythe auger was not mottled. Large cobbles andgravel fragments were encountered at the site at adepth of -80 cm, indicating that the anomaly isassociated with an unusual, near-surface gravellayer and is natural, or geological. The uniformityin the resistivity data (Figure5)may be attributedto the red clay in the near subsurface throughoutthe cemetery, which from place to place contains agravel lens. This result suggests that where suchuniform clay horizons exist, near-surface electricalsurveys like that reported for Area A may be inef-fective.GPR and EM surveys will probably also beineffective under these conditions.

    The Search: ExcavationA simple research design was followed duringthe excavations. The first effort took place on 24August 1992. A backhoe with a 1.5-m blade wasused to scrape away -0.25 m of soil along twotransects in Area A. These included a north-southtransect from anomaly 2 through 3 and ending at10, and an east-west transect from anomaly 1through 2 and ending at 4 (Figure 8). These

    transects were later extended, as discussed below.Scraping exposed grave shafts at anomalies 1,2,3,4, and 10, and a sixth shaft just south of 4, labeled4B (Figure8).This shaft lies between anomalies4and 7 in Figure 3 and was not uniquely identifiedin the magnetometer data, although it does overlapanomaly 4. Exposed shafts are distinctive becauseback-filling after burial resulted in a mottled ap-pearance, with the red clay at the surface beingpenetrated by the whitish clay brought up frombelow.The burial shafts identified in association withanomalies 1, 2, 4, and 10 were excavated. The

    HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28burial shaft at 3-1abeled A-3-was quitesmall, obviously that of a child (Table 2), and wasnot excavated. When the exposed area around 3was examined, it was noted that the 2-cm-core holeonly missed the burial shaft by 5 cm. An adult-sized shaft would have been identified.The coffins at anomalies 1, 2, and 4B wereopened and skeletal remains examined. BurialsA-1 and A-2 contained Caucasian women, andanolder man, possibly with African affinities, wasidentified at A 4B. The auger hole associated withanomaly 1, which recovered coffin wood and skullfragments, was clearly visible during the excava-tion of burial shaft1(Figure 9). Anomalies 4A and10 were excavated until the coffin wood was en-countered. At 4A, coffin nails known to be post-1880 were encountered, excluding Burial A-4Afrom further consideration as the Longley grave.The coffin at 10 was thatof a child-labeled A-10,soexcavation was halted (Table 2). Burials at A-2and A-4B had coffin hardware and other materialsthat indicate an 1880-1920 range of ages. Thewood and skeletal preservation in these graves wasexcellent.

    Excavation within Area A clearly demonstratedthat the graves examined did not contain BillLongley. At the end of this first excavation period,the team attempted to locate the Longley gravewithin Area C. This involved scraping away thesurface sediments looking for graves.No geophys-ics or probing was performed before the backhoecleared the site. Five burial shafts were identified,confirming suspicions that many unmarked gravesare present in the cemetery. Excavation at two ofthese yielded an adult man and an adult woman withAfrican racial affinities-labeled C-7 and C-8, re-spectively (Table 2). The sizes of the other burialswere believed too small to have been Longley.Excavation within Area B was conducted on25-26 September 1992. The research plan in-volved the scrapingof a north-south transect alongthe old fence line identified in the magneticdata (Figure 4), and an area to the east of this lineto include resistivity anomalies BB to BF (Figure6) within the excavation area. No burial shaftswere identified to the east of the magnetic highassociated with the old fence. These highs were

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    14/19

    Longley remains and was not excavated

    found to originate from pieces of barbed wire anda number of other artifacts found along the strongpositive north-south anomaly in the central portionof Figure4. These data confirmed that the fenceline originally ran to the north along the generaltrend of the post oaks in the cemetery, but the fencemay have been displaced a meter or so to the westof the dashed line labeled old fence line in thefigure.The search then expanded to the west of the

    fence anomaly (Figure 4), by removing the soilalong a north-south transect. Burial shafts labeledB-l to B-3, B-5, and B-6 were exposed in thismanner (Figure10).A second north-south transectfurther to the west uncovered burial shafts B-4 andB-7. Burial B-1 was too small to contain Longley,while all the others had African affinities, and allbut B-3 of these excavated burials were women(Table2).In the region to the east of the old fence line,

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    15/19

    108 HISTOR ICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28TABLE 2UNKNOWN AND UNMARKED BURIALS IDENTIFIEDINTHE GlDDlNGS CEMETERY

    Burial ID AgeNo. Sex" Race" A ge Methodb Range"A. Areas Initially Covered by GeophysicsA-1 FemaleA-2 FemaleA-3 ndA 4 a ndA 4b MaleA-5 UntestedA-6 UntestedA-7 UntestedA-8 UntestedA-9 MaleA-10 ndA-1 1 FemaleB-1 ndB-2 ndB-3 M aleB 4 FemaleB-5 FemaleB-6 FemaleB-7 FemaleB. Areas Not Surveyed Using GeophysicsA-12 ndA-13 FemaleA-14 ndA-15 ndA-16 FemaleA-17 ndA-18 FemaleA-19 FemaleA-20 FemaleA-2 1 Femalec-7 MaleC-8 Female

    CaucCaucndndnd----CanendCaucndAfricanAfricanAfricanAfricanAfricanAfrican

    ndCaucndndAfricanndAfricanAfricanAfricanndAfricanAfrican

    so+25-35ChildAdult35-50

    -so+Child60ChildChild406060+40so+

    Infant60+ChildChildChildChild35453545304030-4040-5016-20

    Geo,PCAGeo,PCAGeoGeoScrapingGeoGeoGeoGeoScrapingGeo,PCAGeoScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScraping

    ScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScrapingScraping

    1895-19201880-1920nd1880-19102ndndndndnd

    1875-19201875-19201875-1920?1875-19201875-1900?1875-1920

    1880-1900?

    1875-1890?

    1880-1900?1875-1920

    1875-1920ndnd1875-1900?nd

    1880-19201875-19001875-1890?nd

    1875-1890?

    1875-1 890187.5-1900

    "Skeletal traits were used to assign gender and genetic groupings: Caucasian (Cauc), African, or not determined (nd). Untestedindicates anomalies were considered too far west to be the Longley grave.bID method represents bow the grave was identified: Geo by geophysics; PCA by probe, coring, or auger; or Scraping by backhoescraping.'Age range estimates were determined from grave artifacts;? =date uncertain; nd =not determined.

    the magnetic and electrical resistivity data fromArea B (Figures4,6)were not useful in identifyingunknown graves, although anomalies BB, BC, andBD are associated with marked burials at the site(Figure6).Anomalies BE and BF were associated

    with gravel horizons in the near subsurface andarise from geological effects. To the west of the"old fence line," nearly 0.5m of surface fill wasencountered. Because an electrode spacing of 0.5m was used for the electrical survey, it appears that

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    16/19

    SEARCH FOR THE GRAVE OF THE HANGE D TEXAS GUNFIGHTER, WILLIAM P RESTON LONGLEY 109

    FIGURE 9 Skeletal remains uncovered at anomaly 1 (Fig-ure 3, A-1 in Figure 8, Table 2) in Area A Note the baseof the auger hole (arrow) in which was initially recoveredcoffin wood and bone, confirming the presence of a burialat this location

    the current penetration depth was insufficient todelineate graves in this area. However, it is inter-esting to note that a large anomaly exists in boththe magnetic and resistivity data sets covering theregion containing burials B-1 to B-7. Becausemost of these burials were soclosely spaced, andbecause the area contained a 0.5-m fill, individualburial shaft anomalies did not emerge in the geo-physical data sets. In retrospect the mass of burialsdoes appear to be delineated. Further interpretationof these data over the rest of Area B, then, indi-cates additional burials may exist within the large,untested magnetic low to the west of the identifiedburials in Figure 10.Following the work within Area B, a number ofadditional transects and continuations of transectswere scraped in Area A. These are illustrated inFigure8,with those grave shafts which were iden-tified. Because of the magnitude of magnetic noisewithin Area A, unique anomalies associated withthese new burial shafts-labeled A-9, A-1 1,A-13, AA-were not identified in the magnetic data(Figure8).Three other burials were discovered tothe north of the Area A magnetic grid. One of theseis shown as A-12 in Figure 8. All are listed inTable2.Of particular interest was the only shaft locatedon the old fence line-labeled AA, uncovered

    during the investigation of Area A (Figures 3,8).This apparent burial shaft was only- m deep andcontained no coffin. It did, however, contain mod-ern oyster and snail shells-not fossils-typical ofthose often found in the back-fill of burial shafts inthe Giddings cemetery. This feature was the onlyempty grave discovered during excavation work.A single burial shaft was also excavated in AreaF.Probing by Ted Wax and coring showed that theshaft contained a coffin, and excavation was per-formed to see if the shaft contained an unusualnorth-south orientation, as suggested by probing.The grave, oriented east-west, was that of awoman with African racial affinities. Immediatelyto the south was an additional burial shaft that wasnot investigated but was probably responsible forthe misidentification in probing of the grave ori-entation.

    ConclusionsThe overall objective, to find the grave ofWilliam Longley, was unsuccessful. The failure tofind the one specific grave may be attributed to oneof three explanations. First, information identify-ing the general location of the grave was ambigu-ous and misleading, and the team was searching inthe wrong area of the cemetery. Second, the Long-ley grave shaft may have been located but wasoverlain by a later burial. This hypothesis is basedon the size of the AAA, AAB, and A-10 burialshafts, which were much larger than the coffinscontained in these shafts. Either skeletal remains oran empty coffin may have been destroyed if over-burial did occur; however, no discernible evi-dence of debris was noted. Third, Longleys in-tended grave may have been the shallow, emptyshaft identified as AA, but for some reason nocoffin was ever interred. Unfortunately, none ofthese possibilities is testable. Historical researchinto the problem of finding Longleys grave is stillin progress.Although the grave of Wild Bill Longley wasnot identified, it is clear that the methods employed

    by this project have been successful in locating 34unmarked burial shafts, of which 21 contain skel-

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    17/19

    FIGURE 10 A mapof the burial shafts identified within Area B at the Giddings cemetery superimposed on the magneticanomaly map in Figure 4 Burial shafts are labeled B-l to 8-7 Excavation was conducted at all but B-I, which wastoo small to contain the Longley remains, and results are reported in Table 2

    etal remains that were examined. In Area A, six ofnine burials located within the magnetic grid haddistinct anomalies used in identifying the burials(Figure8).Four other potential anomalies have notbeen excavated (Figure3). In Area B the magneticdata were unsuccessful in locating graves, but weresuccessful in identifying an old fence line aswell as a trash midden, BA (Figure4). The resis-tivity data have not yet proven to be useful at theGiddings site, due to the high clay content in thesoil, and the 0.5-m sediment fill. However, at anumber of other sites in Texas, resistivity data havebeen effective in locating graves (Ellwood 1990).In isolated historical cemeteries, where modem

    burials with metal caskets and iron-reinforced ce-ment are not present to produce large magneticeffects that distort the overall anomaly patterns,these methods would be even more effective. Fur-thermore, at the Giddings cemetery, the clay layersin the subsurface combined with the unusuallyhigh spring rainfall rendered the electrical resistiv-ity data difficult to interpret. In cemeteries wherethis is not a problem, such as the cemetery ex-plored by Ellwood (1990), the combination of themagnetic and electrical data sets should be evenmore effective than one method alone in preciselypinpointing unmarked graves. By further addingthe essentially non-destructive coring, augering,

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    18/19

    SEARCH FOR THE GRAVE OF THE HANGED TEXAS GUNF IGHTER, WILLIAM PRESTON LONGLEY 111and probing techniques employed here, confirmingthe presence of burial shaft anomalies is possible.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe acknowledge the following people for their con-tributions to the search for the grave of Bill Longleyand for providing information on the Longley topic:Bertita Compton, J an Conn, Maynard and Ona MaeCowan, J anis Hannes, Carolyn Marble, FredOwens, Charles Pratt, Malcolm Richardson, QuinnSimmang, Ruby Vance, Fred Willard, Woodrow Wil-son, and Alfred Zoch. Special thanks go to the vol-unteers who helped to excavate the graves exam-ined, including Vicki Hatfield, Stacy Howe, RickJ arnagin, Bill Richmond, Linda Satter, and Vickyand Shawn Worsham. Funds for field support wereprovided from the Springhouse Foundation and agrant from the Research Opportunities Fund, theNational Museum of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution, and the Center for Geoenvironmentaland Geoarcheological Studies, University of Texasat Arlington. We especially thank Ted Wax and thedescendants of the Longley family and the LeeCounty Historical Commission for their interest andsupport, and Hardy Weedon for his enthusiasmand perseverance. This investigation was autho-rized by the Texas Antiquities Committee and theCity Council of Giddings, Texas, and J ames Dover,City Manager.

    REFERENCESAITK EN, ARTIN.1974 Physics and Archaeology. Second edition. OxfordUniversity Press, London.BARTHOLOMEW,D1953 Wild Bill Longley a Texas Hard-Case. Ed Bartho-lomew, Houston, Texas.BREINER,.1973 Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers.Geometrics, Sunnyvale, California.CARR, HRISTOPHER1982 Handbook on Soil Resistivity Surveying. Center forAmerican Archeology, Evanston, Ill inoisCLA RK, NTHONY

    1969 Resistivity Surveying. In Science in Archaeology,edited by Don Brothwell and Eric Higgs, pp. 695-707. Thames and Hudson, London.

    DOBRIN, ILTON.1976 Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting. M cGraw-Hill, New Y ork.ELLWOOD,ROOKS.1990 Electrical Resistivity Surveys in Two HistoricalCemeteries in Northeast Texas: A M ethod for Delin-eating Unidentified Burial Shafts.Historical Archae-ology 24(3):91-98.HOUSTONOSTJORDAN,. G.

    1937 Houston Post, 5 September 1937.Texas Graveyards: A Cultural Legacy. University ofTexas Press, A ustin, Texas.1982

    KEL LER, EORGE., AND FRANK . FRISCHKNECHT1966 Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting. Per-gamon Press, New Y ork.Historyof Lee County, Texas.Nortex Press, Quanah,Texas.

    LEBO, USAN .

    KILLEN,AM ES .1974

    1988 An A rchaeological and Bioarchaeological Perspec-tive: TheTucker (41DT104) and Sinclair (41DT105)Cemeteries of Delta County, Texas. Report of theInstitute of Applied Sciences, University o NorthTexas. Denton.LEECOUNTYOURTHOUSE

    Deed of Record. Lee County Courthouse, Giddings,Texas.1876LEECOUNTYWEEKLY1987 Lee County Weekly, 24 September 1987:9.OLHOEFT, ARY .1984 Applications and Limitations of Ground PenetratingRadar. Paper presented at the 54th Annual M eetingof the Society of Exploration Geophysics, Tulsa,Oklahoma.OWSLEY,OUGLAS., BROOKS. ELL WOOD,NDPATRICIA. MERCADO-ALLINGER

    1993 The Search for the Grave of Will iam Preston Long-ley, 41LE132, Giddings Cemetery, Lee County,Texas. Report prepared by the Smithsonian Institu-tion. Submitted to theTexas Historical Commission,Department of Antiquities Protection, Austin, Texas.PALACKY,. J.1988 Resistivity Characteristics of Geologic Targets. InElectromagnetic Methods in Applied GeophysicsTheory,Vol. 1, edited by M isac N. Nabighian and J .D. Corbett, pp. 53-129. Society of Exploration Geo-physicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.PARASNIS,. S.1986 Principles of Applied Geophysics. Fourth edition.Chapman and Hall, London.

  • 7/29/2019 Enterramientos Texas S. XIX-XX

    19/19

    112PRICe,LUCIE C., AND MRS.ROBERTANCE1976) Will iam Preston Longley (Oct. 6, 1851-Oct. 11,1878). Texas Historical Commission State MarkerProgram, Report No. 4678. A ustin.

    Basic Exploration Geophysics.J ohn Wiley and Sons,New Y ork.ROBINSON,DWIN.,AND CAHIT ORUH1988sharma P. VALLABH1986 Geophysical Methods in Geology. Second edition.Elsevier, New Y ork.SOCHA,EVEREND[1991] Personal Notes. On file, Lee County Historical So-ciety, Giddings, Texas.TA GG, . F.TAY LOR, . U .

    1964 Earth Resistances. Pitman Publishing, London.1926 Bil l L ongley and His Wild Career. Frontier Times3(9): 17-3 1.

    TELFORD,. M., L . P. GELDA RT,OBERT. SHERIFF,NDD. A. KEYSApplied Geophysics. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Interpretation of Resistivity Data. U S. GeologicalSurvey Professional Paper No. 499. U S. Govern-ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

    1976VANNOSTRAND,. G., AND K . L. COOK1966

    WAX, ED1988 Dead Man on the Bayou? Western Historys BestKept Secret Finally Revealed. Ted Wax, Gonzales,Louisiana.

    HISTOR ICAL ARCHAEOLOGY , VOLUME 28WEYMOUTH,OHNW.1986 Archaeological Site Surveying Program at the Uni-versity of Nebraska. Geophysics 51:538-552.

    A New Resistivi ty Device. J ournal o Field Archae-WILLIAMS,. MARK1984 ology 11:110-114.WILLIAMS,. MA RK,ND MARSHALILLIAMS1984 A New D ifferential Proton Magnetometer. Manu-script on file, Lamar Institute, Watkinsville, Georgia.ZOHDY,. A. R., G. P. EATON,ND D. R. MABEY1974 Applications o Surface Geophysics to GroundwaterInvestigations: Techniques o Water-Resources In-vestigations, Book 2, Chapter D1, pp. 5-51. U.S.Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

    BROOKS. ELLWOODSUZANNE. ELLWOODCENTEROR GEOENVIRONMENTALNDUNIVERSITYF TEXAST ARLINGTONP.O. Box 19049ARLINGTON.EXAS6019

    GEOARCHAEOLOGICALTUDIES

    DOUGLAS. OWSLEYNATIONALUSEUMF NATURALISTORYSMITHSONIANNSTITUTIONWASHINGTON,.C. 20560PATRICIA. MERCA DO-AL LINGERTEXA S ISTORICALOMMISSIONP.O. Box 12276AUSTIN, EXA S87 11