The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314:
An Early Sharecropper Site in Bastrop County, Texas
Prepared for:
Texas Department of Transportation
Environmental Affairs Division
Archeological Studies Program, Report No. 31
Prepared by:
Center for Archaeological Research
The University of Texas at San Antonio
Archaeological Survey Report, No. 309
2001
by
José E. Zapata
with a contribution by
Barbara A. Meissner
ISBN: 1-930788-11-8
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314 José E. Zapata CAR-UTSA, ASR #309; EAD-TxDOT, ASPR #31 2001
Prepared by:
Center for Archaeological Research
The University of Texas at San Antonio
Archaeological Survey Report, No. 309
Prepared for:
Texas Department of Transportation
Environmental Affairs Division
Archeological Studies Program, Report No. 31
2001
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314:
An Early Sharecropper Site in Bastrop County, Texas
by
José E. Zapata
with a contribution by
Barbara A. Meissner
Nancy A. Kenmotsu
Principal Investigator
Texas Antiquities Permit No. 598
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314:
An Early Sharecropper Site in Bastrop County, Texas
Copyright ©2001
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Center for Archaeological Research,
The University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA)
All rights reserved
TxDOT and CAR-UTSA jointly own all rights, title, and interest in and to all data and other information developed
for this project. Brief passages from this publication may be reproduced without permission provided that credit is
given to TxDOT and CAR-UTSA. Permission to reprint an entire chapter, section, figures or tables must be obtained
in advance from the Supervisor of the Archeological Studies Program, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas
Department of Transportation, 125 East 11
th
Street, Austin, Texas, 78701. Copies of this publication have been
deposited with the Texas State Library in compliance with the State Depository requirements.
Printed by Kwik Kopy Printing
San Antonio, Texas
2001
jointly published by
Texas Department of Transportation
Environmental Affairs Division
Archeological Studies Program
Nancy A. Kenmotsu, Ph.D., Supervisor
Archeological Studies Program, Report No. 31
A. McGraw, Series Editor
and
Center for Archaeological Research
The University of Texas at San Antonio
Archaeological Survey Report, No. 309
Printed on acid-free, 60 lb. paper
ISBN: 1-930788-11-8
i
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Abstract
The T. C. Osborn tenant site was located in Bastrop, Bastrop County, about 1,300 ft. (410 m) east of the juncture of Gills
Branch Creek and the Colorado River, along the path of present-day Lovers Lane, and just south of State Highway 71. This
site was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and investigated in February and March 1987 by
John W. Clark of the Texas Department of Transportation, prior to being impacted by the construction of Lovers Lane. A
total of 32 units were excavated, and the recovered artifacts include ceramic sherds, glass fragments, beads and marbles, cut
and wire nails, assorted metal objects, buttons, and bone fragments. This site also underwent Historic American Building
Survey, Level 3 documentation, so that a series of measured drawings of the demolished four-room board-and-batten home
are also available. A site history of the property discovered that the board-and-batten home was constructed ca. 1906 by
T. C. Osborn for the use of tenant farm families. The artifactual, archival, and oral history data indicates that this site was
occupied by at least two Mexican and Mexican-American families between ca. 1906 and 1941. The matriarch of one of these
tenant families, 93-year-old Louise García, resides within four blocks of the original site, and contributed an oral history to
this inquiry. The personal narratives furnished by former Osborn Farm tenant families were critical to achieving a synthesis
of the data.
All cultural materials, field notes, forms, and photographs were retained at the Center for Archaeological Research at The
University of Texas at San Antonio for permanent curation.
ii
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Contents
Abstract.............................................................................................................................................................. i
Figures ..............................................................................................................................................................iii
Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................. v
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................1
Research Design................................................................................................................................................4
Mexican Migration Patterns into Central Texas ........................................................................................4
Social Relations within an Early Twentieth Century Rural Community ..................................................4
Research Summary .................................................................................................................................... 5
Natural Setting .................................................................................................................................................7
Historical Background ......................................................................................................................................9
Early History .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Anglo-American Settlement .....................................................................................................................10
Development of Bastrop ..........................................................................................................................11
Local Industries ........................................................................................................................................12
Transportation ..........................................................................................................................................15
Local Labor ..............................................................................................................................................16
Previous Research ...........................................................................................................................................17
Scope and Methods ........................................................................................................................................18
Archival Research .....................................................................................................................................18
Oral Histories .................................................................................................................................................19
Artifacts and the Built Environment ..............................................................................................................19
Results.............................................................................................................................................................21
Fieldwork ..................................................................................................................................................21
Ancillary Research ....................................................................................................................................25
Site Description .......................................................................................................................................28
Site History – Ownership ........................................................................................................................29
Site History – Tenancy............................................................................................................................. 32
Sharecropping as an Institution – Oral Narratives..................................................................................34
Summary of Narratives ...........................................................................................................................39
Artifactual Data ..............................................................................................................................................40
Architecture – The Board-and-Batten Home ...........................................................................................40
Artifact Analysis .......................................................................................................................................42
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................47
Vertebrate Faunal Remains ............................................................................................................................. 48
Methods ...................................................................................................................................................48
Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................48
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................50
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................51
Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................52
References Cited .............................................................................................................................................56
Appendix A
Artifact Catalog ........................................................................................................................................63
Appendix B
Data Recovered from Faunal Material..................................................................................................... 69
iii
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Figures
Figure 1. Project location map.......................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Aerial view of site location. ............................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Town of Bastrop and T. C. Osborn farm ca. 1920. ..........................................................................3
Figure 4. South end of Bastrop featuring site 41BP314. ................................................................................. 7
Figure 5. Project area showing features, units, and bladed areas. ..................................................................22
Figure 6. Photo of the Osborn tenant house taken February 1987. .............................................................23
Figure 7. North end of Osborn Farm at ca. 1930. .........................................................................................28
Figure 8. Grave marker of Nancy R. Castleman. ...........................................................................................30
Figure 9a. Mule-drawn plow. ..........................................................................................................................35
Figure 9b. Weeding cotton near El Paso, Texas. .............................................................................................36
Figure 9c. Picking cotton, Bexar County, Texas. ............................................................................................ 37
Figure 9d. Picking cotton near Granger, Texas. ..............................................................................................38
Figure 9e. Cotton wagons on their way to the cotton yard, Elgin, Texas. ..................................................... 39
Figure 10. Isometric view of a reconstruction of the T. C. Osborn tenant house. ........................................41
Figure 11. South elevation and north elevation of T. C. Osborn house........................................................43
Figure 12. West and east elevations of the T. C. Osborn house. ...................................................................43
Figure 13. Samples of activity and personal items recovered from the T. C. Osborn site. ...........................45
Figure 14. Samples of assorted buttons recovered from the T. C. Osborn site. ............................................ 46
Figure 15. Samples of metal work clothing accessories. ................................................................................46
Figure 16. Samples of bottles recovered from the T. C. Osborn site. ............................................................47
Figure 17. Town of Bastrop ca. 1982. ............................................................................................................54
Figure 18. Present-day view of site–view to the south, down Lovers Lane. ..................................................55
iv
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Tables
Table 1. 1850 Census of Manufacturers ........................................................................................................13
Table 2. 1860 Census of Manufacturers ........................................................................................................14
Table 3. Population Data, 1850-1950 ............................................................................................................15
Table 4. Farm Data, 1850–1950 .................................................................................................................... 26
Table 5. Farm Acreage, 1880–1940................................................................................................................29
Table 6. Summary of Recovered Material......................................................................................................44
Table 7. Taxon List ..........................................................................................................................................49
Table 8. Percent of Total NISP Bone Weight for Selected Taxa ....................................................................50
Table 9. Butchering Mark Types and Counts ................................................................................................50
Table 10. Meat Cuts Represented in the Collection, with an Ordinal Scale of Value ..................................51
Table 11. Counts of Heat-Altered Bone .........................................................................................................51
Table A-1. Artifact Catalog .............................................................................................................................64
Table B-1. List of Data Recovered from Faunal Material ..............................................................................70
v
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the encouragement and assistance of numerous citizens and public servants of Bastrop.
The archival research could not have been accomplished without the assistance and cooperation of Shirley Wilhelm and
Rose Pietsch of the County Clerks Office, Bastrop County, and their capable staff. Also lending a hand were Roy Hasty of
the Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Mickey DuVall of the Bastrop Public Library. Other members of the Bastrop
community who encouraged or assisted the author were Craig Pence, who is restoring the T. C. Osborn family home, Pat
Wedding of Bastrop Middle School, and Charles Huth of Ascension Catholic Church. Closer to home, I would like thank
Tom Shelton and Kendra Trachta of the Institute of Texan Cultures, The University of Texas at San Antonio, for providing
their usual gracious assistance.
A note of thanks is also due the support team at the Center for Archaeological Research. The suggestions and encouragement
of Dr. Robert J. Hard, Dr. Steve A. Tomka, Cindy Tennis, and Marybeth Tomka and her capable staff, especially Kristi
Miller, were all important to the success of this project. For their assistance and suggestions, thanks are also due to our
graphics staff, Bruce Moses and Richard Young, and our editors, Maryanne King, Johanna Hunziker, and Jennifer Logan.
For their technical support, thanks are also due to Dr. Nancy Kenmotsu, Barbara Hickman, and G. Lain Ellis of the Environ-
mental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), as well as Carol Hollingsworth and Cindy Merton
of The University of Texas at San Antonio, Office of Grants and Contracts, and lastly, our own administrative support staff
comprised of Sherri Suñaz, Mike Wright, and Tammy Hosek.
In addition to being contracted to publish this report, our contract with the Archeological Studies Program, Environmental
Affairs Division, TxDOT also called for the development of a “mini-unit plan” that could be incorporated into seventh grade
social studies curricula. To accomplish this we solicited the collaboration of our University of Texas colleagues, Dr. Mary S.
Black and Dr. Haydeé M. Rodríguez. Doctors Black and Rodríguez are both with the Department of Curriculum and Instruc-
tion, College of Education, The University of Texas at Austin. We thank them for their excellent work and collaboration on
this project.
We also acknowledge the following individuals that undertook the 1987 fieldwork. The Texas Department of Transportation
field crew was led by John W. Clark, who was assisted by Alan Wormser, Tom Eisenhower, Benji May, Jesús González,
Charles Washington, Danny Smith, Ken McMullen, Lee Hays, Gary Towns, and David Till.
Many, many thanks are also due Esther Coy of the Bastrop County District Attorney’s Office who introduced me to members
of the Barrón, García, and Martínez families, and to Dolores Coy Barrón, who provided additional insight. And finally, we
acknowledge the wealth of information secured through the personal narratives of Rudy Martínez, José Barrón, and Louise
Rodríguez García of Bastrop, Pete Martínez, Jr. of Austin, and Emma Rockwell of West Virginia; thank you all for your time
and patience. We can only hope that in some small way this report might pay tribute to yours and your parents’ hard work
and resolve.
Cover art by Eloy G. Zapata.
1
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Introduction
Although not precise, this preliminary data was very useful
in locating members of the Martínez family, as well as other
significant players. These persons were then interviewed
using a protocol that emphasized the temporal and spatial
use of the site.
More recent data indicates that the board-and-batten house
was in fact home to at least two families. A member of one
of these families still resides within four blocks of the origi-
nal site and was interviewed for this project. Combined with
the architectural survey, excavated material, and archival
research, oral histories serve to reconstruct the life of this
site—the land, material culture, and the people.
The Osborn Farm comprised 327 acres of fertile bottom-
land located along the southern limits of the town of Bastrop
and to the immediate east of the Colorado River and Gills
Branch Creek (Figure 3). The farm was established ca. 1840
by Andrew Ewing Castleman, during the Republic of Texas
era. Between ca. 1906 and 1954, approximately 100 acres
of the farm were cultivated in cotton, with the remainder
used for grazing and homesteads. The tenant house site
In early 1987, the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) performed archaeological excavations and archi-
tectural documentation of the T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm
(41BP314), Bastrop, Bastrop County, Texas (Figure 1). This
work was carried out in advance of the construction of Lov-
ers Lane Road, which would meander through the farm-
stead, just south of State Highway 71 (Figure 2).
Investigations were undertaken due to the determination that
the site was eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, and TxDOT’s commitment to mitigate the adverse
affects of construction on this historic property. The work
was carried out in compliance with Texas Antiquities Per-
mit No. 598, and supervised by John W. Clark of TxDOT.
The Center for Archaeological Research, The University of
Texas at San Antonio, was then contracted to bring this
project to closure.
The fieldwork was conducted over a ten-day period, be-
tween late-February and early-March 1987. A total of 31
units were excavated and two areas were bladed. Numer-
ous artifacts were recovered, including ceramic sherds, glass
fragments, beads and marbles, assorted metal objects, but-
tons, bone fragments, cut and wire nails, and an assortment
of other construction-related material. A portion of the field
work included a Historic American Building Survey
(HABS), Level 3 documentation. As a result, a series of
measured drawings of the demolished four-room board-and-
batten home were drafted. The finished drawings are pre-
sented in the Results section of this report.
In July 2000, the Center for Archaeological Research, The
University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), entered
into a contract with TxDOT to prepare a final technical re-
port that would interpret the artifactual, archival, and his-
torical data resulting from, and relating to, the work at site
41BP314. The required work included a graphic and tex-
tual representation of the board-and-batten home. The final
report was used in the development of a five-day curricu-
lum plan for seventh-grade history classes, which is sub-
mitted separately.
Based on preliminary data recovered in 1987, the board-
and-batten home was said to have been constructed ca. 1906
and occupied by tenant farmers until ca. 1930. This initial
information suggested that the Pedro Martínez family oc-
cupied this site between ca. 1906 and 1925. This same fam-
ily occupied the nearby G. W. Jones house, a two-story ca.
1855 structure, between ca. 1925 and 1952 (Robinson 1989).
Figure 1. Project location map.
2
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
(41BP314) was situated along the extreme northwest end
of the tract, and is labeled No. 1 in Figure 3. This same
figure also shows the location of the G. W. Jones site
(41BP86), labeled No. 2, which served as the farm’s main
house. By as late as 1989, there were two log cabins located
within the vicinity of the main house that had served as slave
quarters between 1840 and 1865. These were later used as
tenant housing. The farm’s barn and corral, labeled No. 4,
are shown to the immediate east of the main house. Also
shown is an additional tenant house (No. 3), which was in
use by as early as 1917. None of these features remain.
Figure 2. Aerial view of site location. (From MSN TerraServer
©
)
Approximate location
of Tenant House.
State Highway 71
P
e
c
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Colorado River
L
o
v
e
r
s
L
a
n
e
3
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Figure 3. Town of Bastrop and T. C. Osborn farm ca. 1920.
Pa stur e and Pine Fo res t
Cu ltivat ed Farmland
6
10
11
7
5
10
9
11
12
13
8
4
8
9
14
1 5
3 7 14 27 34 47 54
5348
49
52 69
68
7051503 130
29
32
67
66554635
36 45
26
25
15
15
6
5
1
2
17
4
3 18
17 24
23
37
38
44
4 3
5 6
57
58
42 59 62
63
64
65
61
93
60
9 5
4 140
9697
2120
98
99
1
2 19 22 39
16
14 6
28 33
121 3
A27
A28
1 8 1
19 36
1
18
17
72
73
71
89
88
90
109
108
110
112
113
111
37 67
35 38
20
1 7
22
34
33
161926
1 52025
1 42124
A25
A2 6
5
4
5
3 16
15
14
21
22
23 32
3
40 66
39 65
41
93
4
69 A8
A11
A10
A12
A13
A19
A17
A1 8
A21
68
1 09
131
13 0
132
134
135
133
1 67
166
1 68
74 87 107 114 12 9 136 165
75 86 106 115 12 8 137 164
76 85 105 116 12 7 138 163
77 84 104 117 12 6 139 162
78 83 103 118 12 5 140 161
79 82 102 119 12 4 141 160
80 81 102 120 12 3 142 159
92 91 100 121 12 2 143 158
147 148 149 150 15 1 152 157
174
1 73
149 153 15 4 155 156
172
17 1
170 169
1
2
3
4
M
K
T
R
R
Beech
Farm
Spring
Chestnut
Pine
Walnut
Austin
Government
College
Newton
Jasper
Mil l
South
W
il
s
o
n
C
h
u
r
c
h
M
a
i
n
W
a
t
e
r
P
e
c
a
n
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
H
i
l
l
H
a
y
s
e
l
F
a
y
e
t
t
e
M
a
r
i
o
n
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
B
r
i
d
g
e
C
l
o
o
r
d
o
a
R
i
v
e
r
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
C
l
a
y
P
i
t
t
M
a
d
i
s
o
n
H
o
u
s
t
o
n
P
i
t
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
9
5
Buttenwood
C
a
r
t
e
r
R
o
o
s
e
v
e
l
t
[
G
a
r
fi
e
l
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
]
[
C
le
v
e
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
]
W
a
t
e
r
Cypress
Elm
Hawthor n
[Hickory Street]
[Hackberry S tr eet]
Cedar
Catalpa
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
O
s
b
o
r
n
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Meth.
Ch.
W
ater, Light and Ice Co.
Christian
Church
African Meth.
Church
Mount
R ose
Bap. Ch.
Mexican
Ch. and
School
Negro
School
Bastrop
Public
School
Epi s. Ch .
Oprah
House
Cath. Ch.
P.O.
Miss.
Bap. Ch.
German
School
Depot
Mace.
Bap. Ch.
G
i
l
l
'
s
B
r
a
n
c
h
Cit y Cemeter y
Bast rop Cou nty Poor Far m
m
n
0 100 200 300 400
meters
500
0 100 300
varas
500
0 1000 1500
feet
500
4
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Research Design
for labor accelerated this mass migration. This demand was
generated by U.S. prosperity and industrialization of the
early 1900s, and a ready labor surplus created by Mexico’s
internal strife. The work force of northern Mexico served
as a reserve pool of labor that met the fluctuating needs of
Texas industries, especially agriculture (Zamora 1993).
Given this context, the current study considered whether
the Martínez family’s experience is consistent with that of
the typical migrant farm worker. According to Zamora
(1993), until 1915 the vast majority of immigrants chose
Texas as their preferred point of destination and many con-
verged in San Antonio. Between 50 and 75 percent of these
immigrants returned to Mexico on a yearly basis. While
acknowledging the social and regional diversity of the
early-twentieth century Mexican immigrant, Gómez-
Quiñones (1994) suggests that the Mexican immigrants
did share five basic characteristics. The Mexican immi-
grant: 1) emigrated due to lack of work and low wages; 2)
alleged a strong desire to eventually return to Mexico; 3)
expressed a dissatisfaction with their status at home and a
desire to change it; 4) in comparison with other immigrants,
the Mexican immigrant was younger and less skilled, with
both sexes immigrating; and 5) usually had relatives in the
U.S. who were also immigrants and with whom they re-
tained family ties.
The social and economic context of Mexican migration and
the typical characteristics of the migrant workers provide a
framework in which to place the Martínez family. By exam-
ining the Martínez family’s history and comparing it to these
characteristics, we should be able to identify the typical
or atypical nature of this family’s immigration and settle-
ment story.
Social Relations within an Early
Twentieth Century Rural Community
During the early-twentieth century, a little over 70 percent
of the legal (i.e., documented) immigrants expressed their
intent to settle in Texas. Most were bound for San Antonio
or other Texas communities with sizeable Mexican popula-
tions (Hall and Coerver 1988). However, by ca. 1910, the
Cotton Belt area rivaled the Rio Grande border region in
the number of permanent Mexican residents, despite the fact
that a significant number returned to Mexico annually. This
return migration reinforced a pattern of cultural and politi-
cal interaction between communities on both sides of the
border (Zamora 1993).
The objective of this study was to place the T. C. Osborn
Farm site in historical context and to highlight the growth
of cotton farming and the contributions of Mexican farm
workers in central Texas from 1900 to 1950. Among the
major topics to be considered are the geographic, economic,
demographic, and social developments in Texas during the
early-twentieth century. A total of three research questions
were pursued; these relate to issues of migration, commu-
nity evolution, and site utilization. At this point, the story of
this seemingly insignificant farm spans no less than 125
years, and involves no less than six families.
As far as can be determined, this is the first archaeological
study in Texas that features a tenant farm site occupied by a
Mexican family. Issues such as those relating to immigra-
tion patterns, race and ethnic relations, labor relations, eco-
nomic development, settlement patterns, etc., have been
addressed in the labor history studies of Gómez-Quiñones
(1994) and Zamora (1993), and the social history studies of
García (1996) and Montejano (1987). We will be using the
results of these studies as contextual framework regarding
the Mexican tenant farmer experience. We propose to pur-
sue two issues which will maximize the use of the available
data and which can be accomplished with a reasonable level
of effort. The two issues are: 1) Mexican immigration pat-
terns, and 2) social and economic relationships within an
early twentieth-century rural community.
Mexican Migration Patterns into
Central Texas
About a half million Mexicans immigrated to the U.S. dur-
ing the first three decades of the twentieth century. This mi-
gration continues unabated today (Maldonado 1985;
Montejano 1987). Most of these Mexican immigrants took
jobs on farms, railroads, and in urban-based low-wage in-
dustries (Zamora 1993). Social scientists have modeled the
immigrant process with a variety of models that specify both
the “push” forces that encourage populations to migrate and
the “pull” forces that encourage people to settle in a par-
ticular location. Both push and pull factors need to be con-
sidered to understand a particular migration pattern. Hall
and Coerver (1988) suggest that the Mexican Revolution
period (1910-1920) marked the beginning of modern mi-
gration patterns. The violence, ensuing social and economic
upheavals, and loss of farmlands and employment caused
by the Mexican Revolution pushed many families to the
north in search of better livelihoods. Gómez-Quiñones
(1994) contends that a pull exerted by U.S. capitalist demand
5
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
As Mexicans were pushed out of their homeland, they were
pulled to particular locations by social and economic condi-
tions that had more favorable prospects. Frequently, an im-
migrant selected a location based on the presence of a social
support network that consisted of relatives but also included
friends, or other social groups that assisted in finding work
and housing, protection from illness, and assistance with buri-
als. García (1996) contends that the typical Mexican migrant
was particularly concerned about dying and being buried in a
strange land far from family and friends. During the early-
twentieth century, as large Mexican communities became
established in the U.S., they actively formed permanent sup-
port networks for the newly arrived, including: mutual aid
societies, social clubs, and sports teams (García 1996). Such
relationships established cycles of donor and recipient com-
munities such that migrants from a particular part of Mexico
tended to migrate to a particular area of the U.S. The forma-
tion and nature of these networks are fundamental to under-
standing how migrant communities become established and
maintain themselves.
García (1996), in Mexicans in the Midwest: 1900-1932,
documents a unique type of these migrant communities in
the Midwest. Mutual aid societies rapidly and energetically
formed in Kansas City. The Midwest was a far more geo-
graphically and culturally isolated location for Mexican
immigrants than the border states. In addition, some of the
earliest immigrants to Kansas City were upper class profes-
sional Mexicans such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers
who had escaped the political and economic persecution of
the Mexican Revolution. These elite Mexicans played a key
leadership role in organizing self-help societies based on
the nationalistic impulses of both upper and lower class
Mexican citizens. They were intent on portraying the posi-
tive attributes of their citizenry to combat prejudicial atti-
tudes towards Mexicans by Anglo Midwesterners. These
social groups also had the intent of maintaining the Mexi-
can cultural identity and resisting acculturation into the larger
Anglo society (García 1996).
We know of no analogous documentation of mutual-aid
societies in rural central Texas. Nonetheless, Mexican im-
migrants settled in numerous rural towns across south Texas,
as well as central Texas towns such as Bastrop. This phe-
nomenal growth also brought with it the development of
distinct Mexican and Anglo neighborhoods and the estab-
lishment of hierarchical social and economic relationships
with the existing Anglo communities. The Midwest study
provides a number of useful points of contrast for analyzing
the Bastrop setting in our attempt to document the nature of
the immigrant community’s social networks and their role
in attracting, or pulling, Mexicans to this community. Spe-
cifically, we will examine three issues: 1) What was the
nature of the Mexican community’s social network in
Bastrop? 2) What role did these networks play in attracting
Mexican immigrants to Bastrop, particularly with regard
to the Martínez family? and 3) How did such social net-
works originate? This analysis of the Bastrop Mexican
community’s social network will also be placed within the
context of the larger Bastrop community.
In the south Texas farm communities discussed by
Montejano (1987), the constituents of early-1900 farm com-
munities could be classified according to three general cat-
egories: Anglo farm owners; Anglo and Mexican tenant
farmers; and Mexican farm laborers. The tenant farmer cat-
egory was actually comprised of two subcategories —share
tenant and sharecropper. Montejano defines the “share ten-
ant” as a family, typically Anglo, that rented a plot of land
and house in-lieu of one-third of the grain and one-fourth of
the cotton harvest. In contrast, the “sharecropper” was a
family, typically Mexican, that was allowed to keep half of
the cotton harvested on the assigned acreage. Most often,
the assigned acreage for a share tenant amounted to 30 acres
per plow-hand, and only 15 acres per plow-hand for share-
croppers (Montejano 1987:170–173).
Research Summary
The preliminary data indicates that the Martínez family
obtained a tenant farm. Curiously, Montejano (1987) has
suggested that Mexicans were typically not assigned to this
position. His study focused on south Texas, but he suggested
it was also applicable to portions of central Texas. This ap-
parently paradoxical farm tenancy at 41BP314 raises pro-
vocative questions. Was this rise of the Martínez’ due to
particular conditions relating to the Osborn farm and this
family, or were the social, economic and ethnic processes
different in this part of central Texas? The key word here is
typical, and it may be that this family is an exception to
Montejano’s model.
In addition to the possibility that the Martínez experience
represents individual, rather than regional variation, we have
two alternative hypotheses. The first is that the Mexicans’
relative position in the social and economic hierarchy in
the Bastrop region was pushed upward by the documented
presence of higher proportions of African Americans.
6
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Did African Americans replace Mexicans on the lowest eco-
nomic rung, allowing Mexicans to occupy the middle posi-
tion below Anglos yet above African Americans? If this were
the case, it would have afforded Mexicans more economic
options, including that of tenant farming.
An alternative possibility is that the numerous Germans in
the Bastrop region were more tolerant of other ethnic groups.
The Germans, as recent immigrants from a more
multicultural Europe, may have been more accepting of non-
Whites and more sympathetic to other immigrants. We know
for example, that German neighborhoods in San Antonio
tended to be less segregated than other San Antonio Anglo
neighborhoods (Fox et al. 1997). Finally, if the Martínez’
gain of farm tenancy is unusual in the Bastrop community,
as it would have been in south Texas, then we will attempt
to discern the individual characteristics of the Martínez and
Osborn families that would explain this exception to the
regional pattern.
This dual examination of the social, political, and economic
structure will focus on the attractiveness of the Bastrop com-
munity to Mexican immigrants and will be conducted at
two levels: the social matrix of the local Mexican commu-
nity and the larger agricultural community of Bastrop within
which the immigrant Mexicans were situated. The Martínez
family will be the nexus of this examination in that we will
attempt to discern how they interacted with the Mexican
community, as well as the larger Bastrop community. We
will seek to establish the social and economic matrix within
which they existed and the nature and proximity of their
affiliations and interactions. For example, did they main-
tain a strong identity and relationships with particular as-
pects of the Mexican community, or did their somewhat more
elevated economic condition bring them in closer alliance
with the Anglo community and the Osborn family, or did
they seek to maintain an identity with multiple communities?
7
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Natural Setting
Colorado River on the west, Piney Creek on the north, the
headwaters of Coopers Creek on the east, and Gills Branch
Creek on the south. At the city’s eastern edge stands an iso-
lated pocket of “Lost Pines.” Bastrop is located at the edge
of three major ecological areas, the Balcones Hill Country,
the Blackland Prairie, and the Piney Woods. The town’s
location provided access to lumber, stone, and clay re-
sources, numerous wild game, and an ample supply of wa-
ter (Texas Historic Site Atlas 2000).
The Osborn Farm site (41BP314), located along the river
valley (Figure 4), is situated at approximately 360 ft. above
sea level and lies within the Bosque-Smithville-Norwood
soil association. These are nearly level soils that have a
loamy surface layer and moderately permeable lower lay-
ers. This soil association is found in a long, narrow area
along the Colorado River. The soils of the study area are of
the Smithville series, which exhibit a surface layer of gray-
ish-brown, fine sandy loam (0–6 in.) over a layer of dark
grayish-brown loam (6–16 in.). The lower layers, deeper
Bastrop County is located in south-central Texas, and is
bordered by the counties of Williamson, Lee, Fayette,
Caldwell, and Travis. The county is 891 square miles in
size, or 570,240 acres. The city of Bastrop, located about
30 miles to the southeast of Austin, is situated in the center
of the county and serves as the county seat. The Colorado
River meanders through the county in a southeasterly di-
rection, and within 1,300 ft. (396 m) of the Osborn site
(41BP314).
The countryside is characterized by rolling uplands and bro-
ken hills and exhibits a noticeable variation of being nearly
flat to hilly. The elevation ranges from between 270 and
687 ft. above sea level, in the Smithville and McDade ar-
eas, respectively. The county’s main sources of income are
derived from farming and ranching. Approximately 22 per-
cent of the land is used for crops (mainly cotton and grain
sorghum), 25 percent for pasture (beef cattle), and 36 per-
cent is forested, with most of the forested areas being used
for pasture and recreation (Baker 1979; Handbook of Texas
Online 2000; Moore 1977).
Bastrop County is situated
on the Texas Gulf Coastal
Plains and is affected by the
Post Oak Belt and the Black-
land Belt. Two plant life re-
gions abound in this county:
the Secondary Forests and
Woodlands comprised of
blackjack oak, elm, and pe-
can, as well as an isolated
pocket of forest known as the
“Lost Pines.” This forest is
very unusual because this
section of loblolly pines ap-
pears some eighty miles be-
yond the western limit of the
main pine belt in Texas. The
second region is the Black-
land Prairie, which is present
only in the far northwest por-
tion of the county.
The city of Bastrop is situ-
ated at approximately 374 ft.
above sea level. The core of
the town is bounded by the
Figure 4. South end of Bastrop featuring site 41BP314, the Colorado River, and Gills
Branch Creek.
8
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
than 16 in. below surface, are a reddish-brown to reddish-
yellow sandy clay loam (Baker 1979; Handbook of Texas
Online 2000; Moore 1977).
The county’s annual average temperature is 68º F (20º C),
with a mean minimum of 40º F (4º C) in January and a mean
high of 96º F (35º C) in July. The annual average rainfall is
36 in. (91 cm). These favorable temperatures and rainfall
rates provide for a generous growing season of 268 days.
The prevailing winds are from the southeast (Lower Colo-
rado River Authority 2000; Moore 1977).
The city of Bastrop presently relies on a variety of eco-
nomic resources. Besides cotton, sorghum, and beef, men-
tioned above, other important products include hay, oats,
peaches, pecans, pine timber, watermelons, and livestock.
The city also relies on a good variety of natural resources,
such as clay, coal, sand, gravel, gas, and oil, as well as sur-
face and underground water (Lower Colorado River Au-
thority 2000). The area’s historical architecture, numerous
landmarks, and attractive natural setting are also important
commodities, since they lend themselves well to the devel-
opment of tourism and recreation.
9
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Historical Background
were the Comanche, Lipan Apache, and Tonkawa, who had
over the years themselves migrated south and west into this
area. The Comanche were the latest to arrive and by the early-
1800s they had driven the Lipan Apache and Tonkawa from
their homes along the Great Plains. As a result, the Lipan
Apache and Tonkawa often allied themselves with the Anglo
settlers on punitive expeditions against the Comanche.
Stephen F. Austin’s colonists benefited considerably as a re-
sult of their alliance with the Tonkawa who, over the years,
remained staunch allies of the settlers (Handbook of Texas
Online 2000; Kesselus 1986).
The first recorded expedition into Bastrop County was by
the Spanish. In 1691, Don Domingo Teran de los Ríos and
Fr. Damian Massanet led an expedition into this area in or-
der to find a more direct route to the newly established Mis-
sion San Francisco de los Tejas in East Texas (Moore 1977).
The expedition left Mexico City on May 16, 1691 and
reached the Colorado River, near present-day Bastrop
County, on June 26, 1691. This early attempt to cut through
the area of Bastrop County and the great pine forest failed.
It wasn’t until September 1795 that the Spaniards finally
managed to successfully cut a road from San Antonio to
present-day Bastrop and on into East Texas. This was known
as Camino de Nacogdoches (Road to Nacogdoches) and
was later simply referred to as the Old San Antonio Road.
In Texas, the road commenced at Laredo, then headed to-
wards San Antonio, then on to present-day Bastrop, and fi-
nally ended at Nacogdoches (Kesselus 1986).
The next mention of any activity in this area occurs in the
early-1800s, with the establishment of a small military post
at the above noted crossing. The post was known as Puesto
del Colorado (Post on the Colorado) and was established
in order to protect trade and travel along the King’s High-
way. In 1807, Zebulon Pike made note of this small settle-
ment while surveying the countryside on behalf of the U.S.
government. According to Pike, the post was garrisoned by
a small detachment of Spanish Dragoons and was bordered
by a settlement of Tonkawas (Moore 1977).
Based on reconstructed accounts and old maps, the Old San
Antonio Road is said to have crossed the Colorado River
about 100 varas (277 ft.) above the Gills Branch Creek.
The road approached the river crossing from the northwest,
cut across to the southeast, crossed the river, then turned
north along the path of what would later become Pecan
Street, and then cut east along Chestnut, then a short dis-
tance north along Hill, and finally northeasterly towards
Introductory Note
Numerous owners and tenants make up the history if this
seemingly insignificant site, and more may surface. Although
we will elaborate on these in the Results section of this re-
port, we find it sensible to include some introductory notes
at this time.
Among the more notable owners of the site were Andrew
Ewing Castleman, George Washington Jones, and Thomas
Claiborne Osborn. The residents of the site included the
tenant farm families of Livorio González, David García,
José Barrón, and Pedro Martínez. The first two owner-op-
erators of the farm, Castleman and Jones, although of mini-
mal interest to this study, are helpful in developing and
presenting the county’s history and the development of cot-
ton farming in the area. The third, a nonresident-owner,
Thomas Claiborne Osborn, is the most important since he
was the one that developed the northwest section of the farm
in order to accommodate tenant families during the period
of interest.
As for the tenant families, Livorio González was probably
among the first to reside at 41BP314, followed by an un-
known tenant and then by the family of David García. Two
García family members proved extremely important to this
study, as they were able to provide us with a glimpse of
what it was like living and working on the Osborn Farm.
One of these was Louise García, the 94 year-old widow of
David García, and the other was their daughter Emma
Rockwell, nee García. Although not directly involved in the
Osborn Farm, José Barrón provided some very important
background information regarding tenant farming and ten-
ant families. Finally, the person most responsible for help-
ing us sort through the site’s history and occupancy was
Pete Martínez, Jr. The Martínez family name has already
been introduced several times, and as briefly mentioned,
this family never actually resided in the board-and-batten
house (41BP314). However, as will be demonstrated be-
low, the Martínez family did play a very prominent role in
the history of the Osborn Tenant Farm.
Early History
Given the rich natural resources, it is no wonder that this area’s
cultural history is centuries old. Whether nomadic or semi-
sedentary, numerous indigenous groups utilized the abundant
native resources. Over the ages, the forceful displacement of
one group over another was common. The historical records
indicate that among the Native Americans of Bastrop County
10
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Hoffman Road and a small path along the pine hills (Kesselus
1986:20–21). According to McGraw et al. (1998:221), this
crossing was located at Gills Branch Creek as it was ap-
proached from the west. The Old San Antonio Road would
then meander up and along the Gills Branch Creek, onto
Pecan Street, and then east along the present-day path of
State Highway 21 (Figure 4).
Anglo-American Settlement
In 1805, fearing American encroachment into Spanish ter-
ritories, Governor Cordero of the Province of Texas pro-
posed that villas be founded on the Colorado, San Marcos,
and the Guadalupe rivers at points where the road to
Nacogdoches intersected these rivers (Kesselus 1986).
Owing mostly to the fact that the area was vulnerable to
attacks by Native Americans, not much came from Gover-
nor Cordero’s proposal. A small colony of approximately
80 people was established along the San Marcos River in
early 1808, but abandoned in 1812 due to continual Native
American depredations. In 1829 there were only two towns
in all of Texas that were located north of the Nueces River;
these were San Antonio and La Bahía (present-day Goliad)
(Kesselus 1986).
By 1820, the colonization of the area that would later be
known as Texas was successfully pushed forward as a re-
sult of three factors. The first of these was the failure of the
government of New Spain to persuade additional Spanish
immigration into Texas. At the time, the settlements in San
Antonio and La Bahía were only marginally successful. The
same was true of the Escandón colonies south of the Nueces
River and, at that time, within the boundaries of Tamaulipas.
The second factor was the 1819 treaty between the U.S.
and Spain, which finally fixed the Texas-Louisiana border
at the Sabine River. Convinced that American settlers would
eventually make their way into Texas, the government of
New Spain was agreeable to controlled immigration initia-
tives. The third, and probably the most important factor,
was the Panic of 1819 that brought financial ruin to many
Americans. This financial crisis drove many such as Moses
Austin toward a westward migration, and the prospect of
starting over. Moses Austin recognized New Spain’s pre-
dicament and the potential of earning a fortune by mediat-
ing the colonization of Texas.
Already having honed his entrepreneurial skills in Pennsyl-
vania, Virginia, and Missouri, Moses Austin traveled to San
Antonio in December 1820, and with the aid of Baron de
Bastrop, a politically- and socially-connected friend, he
successfully secured a colonization grant. Moses Austin died
in Missouri in 1821, while preparing to move the first of the
colonists to Texas. His 27 year-old son, Stephen F. Austin,
then took over his father’s enterprise. Stephen F. Austin was
reluctant to assume his father’s business venture, but did so
nevertheless. He traveled to San Antonio and arrived there
in August 1821, and managed to convince the authorities
that he could successfully fulfill his father’s obligations.
Over the next 15 years, Stephen F. Austin worked tirelessly
to negotiate the colonization of Texas. His task was not made
easy, given Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821 and
the country’s ensuing political instability. By 1830, Mexico’s
internal strife was aggravated by growing tensions in Texas.
Cultural, political, and religious differences served to
heighten difficulties between the Anglo-American settlers
and the Mexican government. Because most of Austin’s
colonists hailed from Southern states and were disposed to
using free labor, Mexico’s laws prohibiting slavery became
a critical issue. The totality of the assorted difficulties fi-
nally led to rebellion, Texas Independence in 1836, and U.S.
annexation in 1845.
As a result of the difficulties noted above, Stephen F. Aus-
tin spent the first four years (1821-1825) renegotiating the
terms of the colonization agreements. In March 1825 the
governments of Coahuila and Texas finally ratified most of
the stipulations of the 1821 agreement. The revised law
continued the empresario (colonization representative) sys-
tem and offered each head of household a league of land
(4,428 acres), at a cost of thirty dollars to be paid within six
years (Kennedy and Kennedy 1987). As an empresario,
Austin’s responsibility was extremely demanding and he
took it quite seriously. Aside from his role as colonization
advocate and political emissary, Austin was also involved
in the selective recruitment of colonists, directing land sur-
veys, allocating land grants, preparing titles, and leading
campaigns against hostile Native Americans.
Although there were other empresarios involved in the colo-
nization of Texas, most would agree that Austin’s passion
and commitment was unequaled. The once reluctant entre-
preneur managed to earn the respect and loyalty of many on
both sides of the border. In July 1836, six months before
his death, Austin wrote “The prosperity of Texas has been
the object of my labors, the idol of my existence—it has
11
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
assumed the character of a religion, for the guidance of my
thoughts and actions, for fifteen years” (Handbook of Texas
Online 2000).
Development of Bastrop
Stephen F. Austin established three colonies. The first two
were located south of the Old San Antonio Road, and the
third was located east of the Colorado River and north of
the same road. This third colony, often referred to as the
“Little Colony,” is of specific interest since it was located
within the area of present-day Bastrop (Handbook of Texas
Online 2000; Kesselus 1986; Moore 1977). The contract
for the “Little Colony” was signed almost 175 years ago, on
November 20, 1827. Austin was extremely cautious in his
selection of those who settled in this colony, and let out 61
contracts and a total of 49½ leagues of land (219,186 acres)
(Kennedy and Kennedy 1987; Moore 1977).
Among those granted land in the “Little Colony” was Ben-
jamin Osborn. The contract of 1827 granted him one league
(4,428 acres) located along Wilbarger Creek, which joined
the tracts of Wells and Duty. Osborn and his wife Leah Stark,
who were originally from South Carolina, settled in Ten-
nessee, then in Mississippi, and finally Texas. Both died of
yellow fever at Matagorda, leaving their six children or-
phaned and in the care of friends (Handbook of Texas Online
2000). As empresario of the “Little Colony,” and as partial
payment for his services to the government, Stephen F. Austin
received title to two headrights along the Colorado River.
One of these was located to the immediate north of present-
day Bastrop and the other was located at the south-end of
town. Ownership of a portion of this latter tract would, by
the early 1900s, go to the grandson of the above noted Ben-
jamin Osborn. As demonstrated in the Site History section
of this report, Benjamin Osborn’s offspring figured promi-
nently in the history of Bastrop.
Edward and Sara Jenkins were among the early settlers of
the “Little Colony.” In 1830, they settled their family on
their league located along the west side of the Colorado
River. Josiah Wilbarger and Margaret Barker Wilbarger also
settled on their league ca. 1830. Their league was located
about 12 miles north of Bastrop beside a rather long river
bend that bears their name (Kesselus 1986). These early
settlers were followed in greater numbers between 1830 and
1832. In 1832, the heirs of Benjamin Osborn assumed title
to his tract and the oldest of his children, 24-year-old John
Lyle, then built a log cabin and settled with his brothers and
sisters on their league (Handbook of Texas Online 2000;
Mary Belle Turner Gore to Craig Pence, letter, 24 May 1979,
Pence Collection, Bastrop, Bastrop County, Texas; Moore
1977:29–32).
Between 1831 and 1832, the appointed land commissioner
from San Antonio, Miguel Arciniega, formalized 50 land
grants. In June 1832, Arciniega authorized a four-league
tract for the Town of Bastrop. Even though the grant called
for a plaza (public square), this Spanish colonial-style town
square was never formalized (Kesselus 1986:102–103).
Instead, the town took on an Old-South character, and the
allotted public square block (block no. 7 in Figure 3), was
later used as the site of the present-day County Courthouse
and Annex (jail). The town continued a slow and steady
growth between 1832 and 1836, and then faltered as a con-
sequence of the Texas revolt against Mexico.
In March of 1836, after the fall of the Alamo and in fear of
advancing Mexican troops, the 400-odd settlers of Bastrop
withdrew up the Old San Antonio Road towards Louisiana.
Many of these families were still crossing the Trinity River
when they received word of Santa Anna’s defeat at San Jacinto.
Although many of the families ceased their retreat and re-
turned home, other families preferred not to and resettled else-
where. Upon returning, the settlers found their homes
ransacked and/or destroyed, and their livestock missing. To
make matters worse, Native American depredations over the
next two to three years were especially harsh and, up until
about 1839, Bastrop County was considered a depopulated
county. A good example of such depredations is the scalping
of young Claiborne Osborn. In 1840, the 14 year-old son of
Benjamin Osborn was attacked and scalped while guarding
the pack animals of a hunting party he was with. Osborn sur-
vived the attack; he later married Almira Jane Leverett, fa-
thered 10 children, and lived to the age of 72. Native American
depredations continued for several more years, but were al-
most nonexistent by late 1845 (Kesselus 1986; Mary Belle
Turner Gore to Craig Pence, letter, 24 May 1979, Pence Col-
lection, Bastrop, Bastrop County, Texas).
Bastrop County was one of the ten original counties created
in 1836 by the First Congress of the Republic of Texas. For
a few years prior, the parent county had been the Munici-
pality of Mina (Kennedy and Kennedy 1987). The county’s
area at this early date was much larger and, after several
counties were created, finally assumed its present size in
12
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
1874. The town of Bastrop was incorporated under the laws
of the Republic of Texas on December 18, 1837. Between
1837 and 1839, Bastrop was in serious contention to be
designated the state capital. Even though they failed to se-
cure this designation, and as a direct result of the positive
inroads made with regards to town planning, Bastrop’s eco-
nomic development increased dramatically between 1839
and 1842. During this period, Bastrop was home to eight
general stores, two hotels, seven saw mills, two cotton gins,
and a coal mine. The town also had two attorneys, a doctor,
lumberyard, livery stable, and a river ferry at the foot of
present-day Chestnut Street (Kesselus 1986). However, this
economic prosperity was short-lived, and an economic de-
pression hit Texas from 1842 to 1845.
In mid-1842, in response to a possible invasion by Mexican
troops, President Houston relocated the new republic’s gov-
ernment to Houston and then to Washington-on-the-Brazos.
Since Bastrop’s economic prosperity was closely linked to
nearby Austin’s, the transfer of the seat of government caused
the economy of both towns to suffer. These conditions were
aggravated throughout the Republic period by bad crops, a
rash of runaway slaves, and a shortage of paper money.
Bartering was especially popular during this depression, and
land became a common means of exchange. With the an-
nexation of Texas by the U.S. on March 3, 1845, the possi-
bility of a new start was once again insured (Kesselus 1986).
Throughout the last-half of the nineteenth century, the town
of Bastrop enjoyed a slow, steady growth. Many beautiful
wood-frame homes were constructed, with over 100 of these
extant and cataloged with the National Register of Historic
Places (Texas Historic Site Atlas 2000). The 1850 Census
Products of Industry for Bastrop County lists 10 establish-
ments, and included a saddletree maker, a wagon maker, three
blacksmiths, and five saw mills. These industries reported an
annual production of over $82,000 in goods (Table 1). In
1852, the Ladies Reading Circle of Bastrop established one
of the first libraries in the state, which remained in service
until the Bastrop Public Library was organized in 1900.
Bastrop Academy, a private school, was opened in 1851 and
chartered in 1853. Among those that attended the school was
a child of Sam Houston and a future Texas governor, Joseph
Sayers. In 1872, the property of the academy became part of
the Bastrop school system. The Bastrop Advertiser was es-
tablished in 1853 and is recognized as the oldest, continu-
ously published weekly newspaper in the state.
The county continued to grow throughout the 1850s, with
new settlers arriving from the southern states and Germany.
The 1860 Census Products of Industry for the county lists
14 establishments. These include a liniment manufacturer,
a wagon maker, a blacksmith, a tin ware manufacturer, a
grist mill, and nine saw mills. These industries produced
over $156,000 in goods that year (Table 2).
In early 1861, 53 percent of the county voted against seces-
sion from the Union. But the county was drawn into the con-
flict anyway, since the majority of the state voted in favor of
secession. The Civil War years (1861-1865) were especially
harsh for the dependents of soldiers, but owing to the indus-
try and resilience of its people, the town rebounded without
much difficulty. The last three decades of the nineteenth cen-
tury were especially generous to the area. This period ush-
ered in the construction of a long-spanning iron bridge,
railways, new towns, additional schools, brick-constructed
public and private buildings, including a county courthouse
and jail, and coal, iron, and cotton establishments.
The available census data serves to illustrate the tremendous
strides made over the course of the nineteenth century. In
1835 Colonel Juan N. Almonte, acting on behalf of the Mexi-
can government, reported that the Bastrop area population
numbered approximately 1,100. Within 15 years, the popu-
lation increased by 182 percent. The population in 1850 num-
bered 3,099 (including 919 slaves) and the total number of
farms was 219. As noted above, the county census data for
1850 indicates that there were 10 manufacturing establish-
ments, with an annual production valued at $82,000. By 1900,
the county’s population numbered 26,845 and there were
3,509 farms. Also by 1900, there were 87 manufacturing es-
tablishments in Bastrop County, with products valued at over
$349,000 (U.S. Historical Census Data Browser 2000).
Local Industries
Lumber was the first natural resource utilized in Bastrop
County. Bastrop is the site of what is known as the “Lost
Pines of Texas.” This is an isolated pocket of Southern
pine trees, in a 70 square mile area, which is located 80
miles west of the main pine belt. As early as 1840, A. W.
Tunnard of Bastrop was advertising milled lumber in
the Austin City Gazette. By 1850, the lumber mills in
Bastrop County were producing over four million board
feet of lumber, and close to two million planks of shingle
13
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Quant.
Kinds Values Male Female
Average
cost of
male
labor
Average
cost of
female
labor
Quant.
Kinds Values
1
Stouc
y
& Co
Saw Mill 5,000
Pine
1,400 Wate
r
6 96 4,000
2
John Seisco
Blacksmith 150
Iro
n
150 Ph
y
sical 2 52 650
3
William H. Garret
t
Wa
g
on Make
r
500
Timbe
r
200
Horse &
Ph
y
sical
2 50
Wa
g
ons
1
,
000
4
McMahon & Co Saw Mill
12
,
000
Pine Lo
g
s
6
,
000
Steam, one
saw
14 280
Plank
18
,
000
5
Moore Sims & Co Saw Mill
14
,
000
Pine Lo
g
s
4
,
500
Steam, one
saw
10 1 280 15
Plank
12
,
500
6
FL & NS Recto
r
Saw Mill
6
,
000
Pine Lo
g
s
6
,
000
Steam, one
saw
12 264
Plank
18
,
750
7
Daniel M Bowie
Saddle Tree
Make
r
20
Wood &
Leathe
r
50
Ph
y
sical
1 15 75
Saddle
trees
375
8
Samuel R Morris Blacksmith
4
,
000
11 tons Iro
n
1
,
980
Ph
y
sical
8 229 6
,
500
9
Henr
y
Redfield Blacksmith
250
2 tons Iro
n
360
Ph
y
sical
2 50 700
10
Sims Smith & Co Saw Mill
15,000
Pine Lo
g
s
6,000
Steam, one
saw
11 253
Plank
20,000
Totals: $56,920 $26,640 68 1 $1,569 $15 75 82,475$
Annual Product
Kind of
motive
power,
machinery,
structure or
r
esou
r
ce
Raw Material Used Including
Fuel
Avera
g
e Number
of Hands
Em
p
lo
y
ed Wa
g
es
Name of
corporation,
company, or
individual
producing articles
to the annual value
o
f
$500
Name of
business,
manufacture, or
p
r
oduct
Capital
invested in
real or
personal
estate
Table 1. 1850 Census of Manufacturers
Data taken from the 1850 Agricultural and Manufacturing Census Record, for Bastrop County, Texas.
14
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Quant. Kinds Values Male Female
Average
cost of
male labor
Average
cost of
female
labor Quant. Kinds Values
1
Irwin Grimes
Liniment
Manufacture
2,000
120
g
al Alcohol
70 1 50
10,000
b
ottles Linimen
t
5
,
000
2
Wm. F. Allen Wa
g
on Maker
1
,
200 Unk
Sawed
Lumber
700 4 100 Unk
Wa
g
ons
3
,
000
3
Jas. B. Klink Saw Mill
1
,
700 Unk
Pine Tree
Wd Fuel
Unk
2,000 Steam
2 100 500
,
000
Shin
g
les
7
,
500
4
Bryce Lymon &
Co Saw Mill
50
,
000 Unk
Cedar Tr
Wd Fuel
Unk
4,000 Steam
15 500
400,000
400,000
ft. Plank
Shin
g
les 12,000 600
5
Robert N. Allen Saw Mill
3
,
000 Unk
Pine Tree
Wd Fuel
Unk
2,000 Steam
10 175 400
,
000
ft. Plank
12
,
000
6
Wm. H. Garrett Saw Mill
5
,
000 Unk
Pine Tree
Wd Fuel
Unk
2,000 Steam
10 200 400
,
000
ft. Plank
12
,
000
7
K. L. Rector Saw Mill
2,300 Unk
Pine Tree
Wd Fuel
Unk
2,000 Steam
12 240 500,000
ft. Plank
13,000
8
R.H. Grimes & Co Saw Mill
16,000 Unk
Pine Tree
Wd Fuel
Unk
2,000 Steam
12 300 400,000
ft. Plank
12,000
9
J. C. Hi
gg
ins Saw Mill
25
,
000 Unk
Pine Tree
Wd Fuel
Unk
5,000 Steam
17 1 340 20 1
,
000
,
000
ft. Plank
30
,
000
10
N
. Ferrell & Son Saw Mill
3
,
000 Unk
Pine Tree
Wd Fuel
Unk
2,000 Steam
5 150 300
,
000
ft. Plank
10
,
000
11
A.M. Williams &
Co Saw Mill
80
,
000 Unk
Cedar Tr
Wd Fuel
Unk
5,000 Steam
20 3 750 75
900,000
900,000
ft. Plank
Shin
g
les
26,000
12
She
p
hard & Co Grist Mill
1,000 Unk
Corn 2,000 Water Pr
1 30 3000 bus
Meal
3,000
13
N
ichols Erhard Blacksmith
5,000
16 tons
1000 bus
Bar Iron
Coal
2,400
500
No mach
exce
p
t hand
4 200 Unk
Iron Work
7,000
14
Henr
y
Dickamin Tin Ware
3,250 50 boxes
Tin 500
No mach
exce
p
t hand
1 50 Unk
Tin Ware
3,000
Totals: $198,450 $32,170 114 4 $3,185 $95 $156,100
Name of
corporation,
company, or
individual
producing articles
to the annual value
o
f
$500.
Name of
business,
manufacture, or
p
r
oduct
Capital
invested in
real or
personal
estate
Annual Product
Kind of motive
power,
machinery,
structure or
r
esou
r
ce
Raw Material Used Including
Fuel
Average
Number of
Hands
Em
p
lo
y
ed Wa
g
es
Table 2. 1860 Census of Manufacturers
15
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Transportation
The most important factor behind the successful growth and
development of a community is a safe and reliable means
of transportation. Throughout most of the nineteenth cen-
tury, travel through Bastrop County was accomplished by
means of long established roads and ferries. People and
goods were transported by way of the Old San Antonio Road
and the Gotier Trace. The Old San Antonio Road, estab-
lished ca. 1795, approached the Town of Bastrop from the
northwest and then meandered through Bastrop along Chest-
nut Street. The Gotier Trace was a stretch of road that dated
back to 1830 and ran from San Felipe de Austin to Mina
(Bastrop). The town of San Felipe de Austin was located on
the west bank of the Brazos River at the Old San Antonio
Road crossing; off of present-day IH10 two miles east of
Sealy in southeastern Austin County. As noted above, by as
early as 1805, the Spanish government had considered the
Old San Antonio Road logistically important, to the extent
that a small detachment of soldiers was posted at the Colo-
rado River crossing, just above Gills Branch Creek.
Navigation along the Colorado River was intermittent and
not very successful, with most attempts at steamboating
occurring between 1848 and 1854. River crossings were
accomplished up and down the Colorado by means of fer-
ries. Such a ferry was used in Bastrop up until 1891 when a
(Table 2). Local clay deposits were also utilized. In 1854,
a McDade Scottish potter established the Randolph Fac-
tory and manufactured a variety of pottery and jugs. By
the 1870s, the manufacture of brick and tile became very
important to the town of Elgin. Coal mining was also im-
portant to early Bastrop—the Bastrop Coal Company was
organized in 1871. The first mine was the Goodman Mine
near Bastrop, which was followed by the Mowatt coal mine,
located about 2.5 miles from McDade and a short one-
half mile from the railroad tracks.
The cultivation and processing of cotton was another im-
portant local industry. The county boasted numerous cotton
gins and mills, as well as cotton-producing farms. By the
turn-of-the-century, the county was primarily agricultural,
with a peak number of farms (n=3,509) and peak produc-
tion of bales of cotton (n=41,730) reported in 1900 (Moore
1977:175–181). Unfortunately, between 1900 and 1950, the
number of farms in Bastrop County decreased by 47 per-
cent (n=1,858 in 1950). The county’s population also peaked
in 1900 and actually decreased by 27 percent over the next
50 years (Table 3). A comparison between 1940 and 1950
indicates a pattern of growth and prosperity generated by
World War II. The last column of Table 3 shows the 2000
Census data, which serves to illustrate the county’s recov-
ery over the past 50 years. Note that the county’s popula-
tion increased by 171 percent and the town by 103 percent.
Table 3. Population Data, 1850-1950
* The 1850 population total includes 919 slaves (29.5% of county population); unable to determine how many
were in the town of Bastrop. The 1860 census includes 2,591 slaves (37% of county population), of which 300
were in the town of Bastrop and included in the count. Shaded areas indicate data unavailable.
(Data retrieved from the Lower Colorado River Authority 2000; U.S. Historical Census Data Browser 2000)
Census Year 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 2000
County
Population
3,099 7,006 12,290 17,215 20,736 26,845 25,344 26,649 23,888 21,610 19,622 53,191
% Increase or
Decrease from
previous Census
126.1% 75.4% 40.1% 20.5% 29.5% -5.6% 5.1% -10.4% -9.5% -9.2% 171.1%
Town/City
Population
1,088 1,895 1,976 3,176 6,456
% of County *
(Population)
15.5 7.9 9.1 16.2 12.1
16
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
and farm laborers of Mexican origin that begin to filter into
the Cotton Belt region. Most accounts suggest that up until
early-1900, the Mexican-origin population in central Texas
was minimal. Based on the findings of this study (see Re-
sults) we would have to agree with Montejano (1987:31)
that the Mexican-origin population was seriously under
counted. Nevertheless, owing to a variety of national and
international forces—economic, political, and social—there
was an influx of Mexican and Mexican American laborers
into the Bastrop area during the early-1900s. This early-
1900 surge in immigration by Mexicans and Mexican
Americans is of interest to this study. The conditions under
which this population immigrated and by which they were
employed are further examined below.
bridge was finally built. The 1,200-foot iron bridge was con-
structed across the Colorado at Chestnut Street in 1890, at a
cost of $45,000 (Moore 1977:94).
The Houston and Texas Central Railroad (later renamed the
Southern Pacific) made its first run through Bastrop County
in 1871. This was improved in late-1887, when the Mis-
souri, Kansas, and Texas Railway (M.K.T.) made a con-
necting line through the town of Bastrop possible; the tracks
in fact cut through the western half of the Osborn Farm. By
early-1893, the M.K.T. had a connecting line to Houston.
The railroads spurred and guaranteed the county’s commer-
cial growth during the late-1800s, as evidenced by the growth
of towns such as Paige, McDade, Elgin, and Smithville
(Moore 1977).
Local Labor
As we praise the resolve and skills of the early entrepre-
neur, we should also consider an important factor that con-
tributed greatly to this early prosperity. Prior to the
emancipation of Southern slaves in 1865, approximately
one-third of the county’s labor pool was comprised of slaves.
In 1850, the slave population was 29.5 percent of the
county’s total, and this increased to 37 percent in 1860. The
early history and development of the Osborn Farm is owed
in large part to a number of slaves that worked the Castleman,
and then Jones, farms between 1840 and 1865 (see Results
section). Many of the emancipated workers continued to
live in the area, and about 60 percent stayed on as agricul-
tural workers, but eventually began to filter out into urban
settings. As told by Irella Battle Walker, a former slave of
Bastrop and Travis counties, there wasn’t much else they
could do but stay:
One mornin’ Massa Washinton call us all and he read
from de big paper. He say, “You is free to live and free
to die and free to go to de devil, if you wants to.” He
tell us if we gather he crops he’d pay us for it. Den he
turned and walked away and started cryin’. All de
families stays but one man. De highest price massa
pay anybody was about $15.00, but dat seem like a
lot of money to folks what wasn’t used to gittin’ any
money at all (American Memory 2001).
By the late-1800s, and certainly during the early-1900s, the
African American agricultural work force was beginning to
be supplemented by an ever-increasing number of farmers
17
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Previous Research
sources were pursued and, to the extent available, covered
a 125-year period (1825-1950). Part of the data was recov-
ered during the 1987 fieldwork, and the remainder was se-
cured in late 2000. This later research included extensive
archival research and the recovery of oral histories. The oral
histories were especially complementary to this study, as
they involved former tenants of the T. C. Osborn farm who
related their pre-1950 life histories.
No archaeological studies had been conducted on the T. C.
Osborn site prior to 1987. David Robinson, of the Texas
Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL), investigated
the neighboring G. W. Jones site in 1989. As advanced in
the Results section of this report, ownership and enterprise
closely link the Jones and Osborn sites.
In 1989, the TARL investigators conducted a field survey
and archival research of the G. W. Jones house and out-
buildings. The field survey was intended to map and record
all structures and features, especially if they were thought
to be of historical and/or chronological significance. The
archival research was conducted in an effort to provide a
history of ownership and occupancy. An ancillary research
issue was the verification of whether or not there was a pre-
historic component on this site, as reported in a Texas His-
torical Commission architectural survey of 1977. The results
of the field survey and archival research suggest that the
single-pen log cabin behind the Jones house was constructed
ca. 1840 during W. Pinkney Hill’s ownership. Robinson
suggests that Jones constructed the two-story house and
double-pen log barn ca. 1856. Construction of the rest of
the features is attributed to the Osborn ownership, or post-
1906. Robinson suggests that the Jones homestead consisted
of approximately two acres, delineated by the house and
barn on the south side and Mill Street on the north side. He
further noted that T. C. Osborn constructed two board-and-
batten sheds to the northeast of the Jones house and another
two board-and-batten tenant houses “elsewhere on the prop-
erty” (Robinson 1989:42). Finally, Robinson noted that the
Osborn Farm was cultivated up until 1952, when the fields
were leased for pasturage and all the houses abandoned and
left to ruin. As for the supposed prehistoric site, this was
determined to be unverifiable and thought to have been
modern chipped stone or simply introduced as road con-
struction material.
The Robinson study was useful in that we were able to cor-
roborate and extend his conclusions. The site plan of the G.
W. Jones site was extremely helpful in the development of a
plan that depicts the entire operation for the Osborn Farm.
These additional findings and revised site plan are presented
in the Results section.
The research methods described in the following section
were designed to maximize the utilization and interpreta-
tion of the data relating to the use and history of the T. C.
Osborn Farm site (41BP314). In an effort to present a con-
cise narrative of the site and its occupants, several primary
18
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Scope and Methods
in an effort to determine the earliest occurrence of Mexican
families. With regards to the county’s death records, we were
fortunate in having access to several binders that alphabeti-
cally indexed the county’s burials. The Bastrop County His-
torical Commission in the mid-1980s compiled these
indexes, titled Lists of Cemeteries. These indexes were ac-
complished through the work of several historical commis-
sion members who visited 106 public and private cemeteries,
and inventoried 10,010 named graves (BCC, Cemetery
Indexes 1987).
Some of the work that related to abstracting the T. C. Osborn
property was initiated in 1987. These initial leads were pur-
sued and ultimately proved useful in documenting land
ownership from the earliest conveyance, to the T. C. Osborn
ownership, as well as to its current disposition. Land grants,
deeds, wills, and probates, as well as related maps and plats,
were used to present a history of land ownership and site
development. This process required a deliberated examina-
tion of the index to deeds, direct and indirect, in order to
cross-reference and then locate the relevant record. These
same records were very useful in establishing the site’s
boundaries and its relationship to the nearby G. W. Jones
Site (41BP86 [Robinson 1989]).
This research focused on late-1800 and early-1900 site im-
provements (i.e., structures and outbuildings). Towards this
end, the earliest recorded (ca. mid-1800) Mechanics Liens
were reviewed, without success. Although numerous build-
ing contracts were recorded during the period of interest,
none were located that related directly to the Osborn Farm.
A search for photos relating to the site and community in
general was also undertaken. It was hoped that we would be
able to locate early-twentieth century visual depictions of
the site, but this proved unsuccessful. We had also hoped to
find and include personal family photos in this report, but
none of the persons that grew up on the Osborn Farm had
any early photos. The earliest photos of the Osborn Farm
are from ca. 1936, but were limited to the main house and
out-buildings that were associated with the G. W. Jones house
(Robinson 1989:10–13).
The use of aerial photos and property plats proved very pro-
ductive, in terms of producing a fairly accurate layout of
the farm. A total of five distinct maps were used to come up
with a ca. 1920 plan view of the property that shows the
houses and outbuildings. The maps used included a 1920
Archival Research
Some of the details pertaining to Bastrop’s early history were
collected from the U.S. Census, Schedules of Population
and Manufacturers, while additional data was secured from
deeds, property plats, and similarly relevant records filed
with the Bastrop County, County Clerk’s Office (BCC), since
1837. This research also included a review of the listed his-
toric properties of Bastrop, current property plats of the
Bastrop Central Appraisal District, the local history files of
the Bastrop Public Library (BPL), and consideration of the
photo collection of the Institute of Texan Cultures, Univer-
sity of Texas at San Antonio.
The U.S. Census schedules were used to reconstruct the
town’s demography and examine the relative economic and
social condition of each ethnic group. The Bastrop County
census data from between 1850 and 1950 was reviewed,
tabulated, and presented in a series of tables. This research
provided us with the names and vital statistics for many of
the key players, as well as information relating to the area’s
population, racial/ethnic affiliations, occupations, land/home
ownership, and immigration patterns. Several microfilm
reels were reviewed, many of which were found to be in
very bad condition and barely legible. With the exception
of 1890, which is no longer available, this information was
secured from the Schedule 1, Population from between 1850
and 1900. The Schedule 2, Slave Population for 1850 and
1860 reels were reviewed and were in especially bad con-
dition. These schedules were limited in use, since only the
name of the slave owner is listed. The slaves are merely
listed by sex, age, and color. The Schedule 5, Census of
Manufacturers, for Bastrop County for 1850 and 1860, were
also used. These were especially helpful in providing a
glimpse of the various industries and products. Another re-
source, which was much less taxing and extremely useful,
was the University of Virginia’s “Geospatial and Statistical
Data Center” (U.S. Historical Census Data Browser). This
web site was used extensively in order to conduct compara-
tive research at the state and county levels. This data center
is an excellent interactive research tool that can be used to
broadly depict populations and economies from between
1790 and 1960.
Another part of the archival research involved sampling the
birth and death records for Bastrop County. These data were
used in an attempt to gauge the racial and ethnic demograph-
ics for Bastrop County. With regards to birth records, the
county’s oldest birth register (BCC, vol. A & 1) was sampled
19
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
areas, as well as relations with other farmers, the Bastrop
community, and other Mexican families. In one case, Pete
Martínez, Jr. and the interviewer drove through the site and
reminisced about the Osborn Farm, its service roads, out-
buildings, main house, barn, and corral. This was an espe-
cially useful exercise, since placing Mr. Martínez back in
the setting helped to bring forth memories that had been set
aside for some time. Mr. Martínez recounted long-lost par-
ticulars about the farm and its operations, and pointed out
where different features had once been. These interviews
were then summarized and copies, with follow-up questions,
were routed to the participants for consideration. We were
quite fortunate in that all of the summaries were returned,
and additional information obtained. Through this process,
we believe, we were successful in rescuing a wealth of fam-
ily and community histories.
Artifacts and the Built Environment
The original field sketch of the T. C. Osborn tenant farm
site shows a relatively small study area of approximately
120 ft. by 180 ft. on which the house and well were located.
Based on the field notes compiled by John Clark in 1987,
the T. C. Osborn site was initially occupied ca. 1906. An
analysis of all diagnostic artifacts collected in 1987 was
then completed in order to determine the site’s temporal
limits. Over 9,000 artifacts were recovered in 1987, and
these included an assortment of glass and ceramic sherds,
personal items, hardware, and numerous other construction-
related material. The most predominant artifact on hand were
the remnants of what once had been a four-room board-
and-batten house.
This research included the standard descriptive and chro-
nological treatment of the artifactual and architectural data.
The faunal material, presented separately, was analyzed and
is discussed with regard to the predominance of one meat
source over another and types of cuts of meat. The house
remnants and associated outbuildings were also considered
in this study. As noted earlier, our attempts to reconstruct
the site based on old photos proved futile. We then resorted
to relying on the archaeologist’s field descriptions, work-
in-progress photos, and field sketches. This collection of
data was then used to produce a series of conjectural draw-
ings (plans and elevations) that were verified by one of the
former tenants, Emma Rockwell. This same information was
used to produce a site plan of the house and its relationship
to other features and outbuildings.
map of the Town of Bastrop (Iredell 1920), a ca. 1929 prop-
erty map for Bastrop County (Randolph Blueprint Com-
pany 1929), a 1982 United States Geological Survey
quadrangle map of Bastrop County (USGS 3097-121), a
1998 USGS aerial map (MSN TerraServer
©
2000), and a
1998 Bastrop Central Appraisal District property map
(BCAD AP 10-11).
Oral Histories
To a great extent, the archival records and artifactual data
were enhanced through a series of oral histories. Former
tenants of the Osborn Farm were located by following-up
on names mentioned in Robinson’s (1989) report, as well
as those in John Clark’s field notes. With the assistance of
members of the Bastrop community, we were able to locate
these former tenants and record firsthand details relating to
the occupancy and site use of the Osborn Farm.
The project assessment completed by the Texas Archeo-
logical Research Laboratory (TARL) (Ross 1993) strongly
recommended that Rudy Martínez, the son of Mr. Pete
Martínez, original tenant farmer, and retired tax assessor
Mr. Clyde Reynolds be interviewed. Through the assistance
of Esther Coy, we were able to locate and interview 95-
year-old Mr. José Barrón. Mr. Barrón in turn introduced us
to his son-in-law, Pete Martínez, Jr., oldest brother of the
above noted Rudy Martínez. The Martínez brothers then
pieced together a site history, and in the process made men-
tion of other former tenants. This bit of knowledge then led
to the location and interview of 93-year-old Mrs. Louise
García and her daughter, Emma Rockwell, nee García. Un-
fortunately, we were unable to follow through with the sec-
ond person TARL suggested be interviewed, since Mr. Clyde
Reynolds passed away in March 2000.
An interview protocol was developed prior to initiating any
of the above-mentioned interviews. This protocol comprised
a series of questions relating to family history, social rela-
tions, house occupancy, and site utilization. The first series
of questions attempted to obtain information pertaining to
why and when their family settled in Bastrop. We also at-
tempted to determine the process of immigration into the
Bastrop area, and inquired as to whom in their family was
the first to arrive and why they chose Bastrop, for instance,
was there someone or something pulling him/her towards
this area? Site-specific questions were also pursued, such
as the type of work arrangement, or contract, his/her family
had with T. C. Osborn, location of outbuildings and work
20
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Based on the limited amount of information gathered in
1987, we had assumed that the tenant families migrated north
towards the Cotton Belt region in the early 1900s, and that
for some reason yet to be determined, they decided to settle
in Bastrop on the T. C. Osborn property. As stated previ-
ously, our investigation was directed towards responding to
two basic issues: 1) Mexican immigration patterns, and 2)
social and economic relationships within an early twenti-
eth-century rural community. The following is our interpre-
tation and synthesis of the archival records, oral histories,
and artifact analyses, which respond to when and why the
tenant families emigrated from Mexico, and why and under
what conditions they chose to settle in Bastrop.
21
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Results
deep and ran the length of the house. The house was con-
structed on a pier and beam foundation. These piers were 6
in. diameter cedar posts; the dimension of the sills was 4 x
6 in., and the floor joists were 2 x 6 in. There was no indica-
tion of whether any of the lumber, especially the framing
material, was full- or nominal-dimension, which would have
provided a bit more information concerning the structure’s
date of construction. An east-west dirt road was located in
front of the house, and is seen in the foreground of Figure 6.
This same figure illustrates the condition of the house and
site in late-February 1987. A barbed wire fence ran north to
south along the west side of the house, between 10 and 12
ft. away from the structure’s west elevation.
The soils in this area consisted of fine sandy loam, classified
as a Smithville series (Sm). This soil is excellent for crops
and pasture and typically supports a scatter of pecan trees
that are used for shade and production of nuts. The typical
stratigraphy consisted of a grayish-brown fine sandy loam
from 0–6 in. below surface (10YR5/2), a dark grayish-brown
loam from 6–16 in. below surface (10YR4/2), a reddish-
brown sandy clay loam from 16–30 in. below surface (5YR4/
3), a reddish-brown sandy clay loam from 30–50 in. below
surface (5YR5/4), and a reddish-yellow fine sandy loam from
50–62 in. below surface (5YR6/6) (Baker 1979).
The first unit excavated was TU-1, located along the west
side of the house, immediately south of the chimney. This
unit was situated along the chimney base, and extended to
the southwest corner of the house. Concentrations of brick
occurred along the northwest one-fourth and the southeast
corner of the test unit. The base of the chimney was con-
structed of four courses of brick below grade. Based on the
size of the brick (2¼ x 4 x 8¼ in.), the base must have been
a mere 9 to 10 inches below grade.
While some of the crew continued excavating in the area of
the house, other members moved over to an area about 80
ft. north, to the rear of the house. The area was cleared of
heavy brush and then bladed with a gradall in an effort to
locate the privy. In addition to blading the area, a series of
five units were located in an area between 80 and 110 ft.
north of the house in a continued search for the privy. A pile
of fence material was cleared away in an effort to locate the
privy and/or other related features. The search efforts in-
cluded the use of a soil auger to a depth of about 3 ft., at 5
ft. intervals. These probes were executed along line E480
from N540 to N610, along line E475 from N540 to N570,
and along E470 from N545 to N560. The auger was also
The T. C. Osborn tenant house site was investigated in Feb-
ruary and March 1987 by John Clark of the Texas Depart-
ment of Transportation (TxDOT), prior to being impacted
by a proposed road improvement. A total of 32 units were
excavated and two areas bladed, which resulted in the re-
covery of numerous artifacts, including ceramic sherds, glass
fragments, beads, marbles, cut and wire nails, assorted metal
objects, buttons, and bone fragments. This site also under-
went HABS, Level 3 documentation, so that a series of
measured drawings of the demolished four-room board-and-
batten home were realized and are presented in the follow-
ing section. The fieldwork was complemented by means of
archival research and a series of oral histories, carried out
during the latter part of 2000. The following section reports
the results of the fieldwork and of the ancillary research.
Fieldwork
Investigations at the Osborn site focused on an area approxi-
mately 80 ft. wide, from east to west, by 160 ft. long, from
north to south. This 12,800 square foot area is shown in
Figure 5. Thirty-two units were excavated within the imme-
diate vicinity of the structure, as well as to the north and
south. Thirteen units were excavated within the house and
in the immediate vicinity, while an additional six units were
located and excavated to the south and southeast. Another
thirteen units were located and excavated to the rear, or north,
of the house. Two areas, to the north and northeast of the
structure, were investigated with the use of a gradall. These
areas were graded in an effort to locate related site features,
such as a privy or other outbuilding.
With the exception of one triangular-shaped unit (N510/
E505), all other units were 5 ft. by 5 ft. (1.5 m x 1.5 m) and
excavated in a single level to about 12 inches (30.5 cm)
below surface. Excavated soils were screened on ¼-inch
hardware cloth and artifacts were bagged in individual lots
(artifact bags). The work was completed over a 10-day pe-
riod between February 17, 1987 and March 6, 1987. A grid
was set up using station marker 13+00 as the base line, with
the grids at 20 ft. (6 m) intervals. The horizontal datum was
set at N500/E500. The north-south line of the grid followed
the centerline of the road, rather than in an exact straight
line, so that the line curved eastward. The east-west lines
were perpendicular to the tangent of the curve (Figure 5).
What was left of the tenant house (Figure 6) was described
as being 28½ ft. in length (east-west), 14½ ft. deep (north-
south) and with a lean-to addition at the rear that was 7 ft.
22
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Figure 5. Project area showing features, units, and bladed areas.
23
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Figure 6. Photo of the Osborn tenant house taken February 1987.
24
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
used at the following coordinates (approximately): N548/
E470, N548/E475, N548/E473, and N545/E475.
After much effort, the crew located what appeared to be a
privy outline and designated this Feature 1. This feature
was oblong and measured approximately 3 ft. by 4 ft., and
appeared as a light brown silty loam with lots of gravel. The
surrounding soil was the usual dark brown loam, and was
much more clayey. The lighter area was roughly rectangu-
lar in outline. A wooden post and associated post-hole stain
were visible in the northeast corner of the feature. The post-
hole stain was about 8 in. in diameter. The post was rectan-
gular in cross-section and must have been a 2-x-2 in. post.
The feature was mapped and photographed prior to being
excavated. The pit was filled with gravel and extended to
no more than 40 in. below grade, with the top 20–25 in.
having been removed by the gradall. The post extended from
the top of the scraped surface down to only about 5 in.,
suggesting that it had originally been buried some 2 ft. be-
low grade. No evidence of a privy was found and it was
then interpreted as a gravel-filled pit of undetermined use
or age.
The probes resulted in a similar profile as that described for
the trench profile. The orange (reddish-brown) silty soil
appeared gradually at between 26 and 30 in. below the sur-
face. At three test locations, the transition from dark clayey
loam to the orange siltier soil was abrupt rather than gradual.
These probes were located at N548/E475, N548/E473, and
at N545/E475. This area also had very dark soil and the
nearby 5 x 5 ft. test units (N550/E475 and N555/E480)
seemed to have had a relatively higher concentration of ar-
tifacts. The anomaly may indicate the presence of a trash
pile or shallow pit. The depth of the abrupt transition oc-
curs at about 30 inches below surface. Although the probes
were undertaken in order to locate the privy, no evidence of
a deep pit, lime deposits, or other indications of a privy
were found.
Unit N505/E505 was located in front of the house and ori-
ented with the main grid for the site. The soil in this unit
was dark and loamy; two cobbles and one brick fragment
were recovered. A triangular-shaped unit, N510/E505, was
located adjacent to and north of Unit N505/E505. The re-
covered cultural material was more varied at this location
and included such items as a 1919-penny and a mentholatum
bottle. A trapezoidal-shaped test unit, N510/E510, was lo-
cated north of and adjacent to N505/E510. The north edge
of this test unit was located along the southern edge of, and
in front of, the house. This unit further exposed the chim-
ney base and pier and beam foundation, which were then
photo documented. A series of seven units were excavated
within 30 ft. to the north, rear, of the house with little re-
sults. Another series of units were excavated inside the house,
beneath the flooring, with little or no results.
A brick-lined well, located approximately 60 ft. northeast
of the house was also excavated. The rim of the well had
been buried about 2 ft. below grade, and was 3 ft., 4 in. in
diameter (outside dimension). After clearing the area of
brush, a gradall was brought in and the well cross-sectioned.
The water in the well was pumped out and then one side
was dismantled. The west profile of the trench adjacent to
the well was cleaned off in order to observe and document
the stratigraphy at the site. The uppermost layer consisted
of a dark brown clay loam from 0–26 in. below surface. An
orange silty loam or silty clay loam with caliche and mot-
tling, due to insect burrowing, extended from 26 in. to over
60 in. below the surface. The transition between the two
zones is gradual in the trench profile. The soil is a fairly
typical alluvial silty clay loam overlain by a mollic A hori-
zon typical of prairie soils. The final depth of the well
was estimated to be at least 28 ft. below surface. Given that
the depth of the well was well beyond the limits of the
rope ladder and pump capabilities, further investigation
was ceased.
Unit N580/E520 was located about 20 ft. south of the well
and the soil was a typical dark brown loam, but somewhat
gravely with small roots. The unit was excavated to 6 in.
below surface and since there were no features present, only
the west half was excavated to a final depth of 12 in. below
surface. Very few artifacts were recovered, so that the unit
was then photo documented and backfilled.
In sum, only one definitive feature was identified: a brick-
lined well was located at the rear of the house, about 60 ft.
to the northeast. A section of the well was dismantled and
further excavated with a gradall in an effort to reach its fi-
nal depth. This was not possible as the well proved to be at
least 28 ft. deep and still drawing in water. A depression
was excavated, as it had been thought to be the location of a
privy, but found to be too shallow to have served this pur-
pose. Close to 45 percent of the lots had artifact counts of
between 100 and 400, and only two lots had in excess of
1,000 artifacts. Upon closer examination, it was noted that
these last two lots were collected from units located at the
rear of the house (N545/E475 and N580/E500). There were
25
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
an additional three units within the general area of N545/
E475 and N580/E500. One of the units also had a relatively
high count of 622 artifacts, while the other two had average
counts of close to 300 per lot. Between 15.5 and 16 percent
of the artifacts of both units were ceramic fragments,
and between 27 and 29 percent of the artifacts consisted of
glass shards.
Ancillary Research
The following summarizes the results of an exhaustive re-
view of the literature, archival research, and oral histories.
These diverse sets of primary and secondary sources were
undertaken in an effort to present a synthesis of cotton farm-
ing, Mexican immigration, sharecropping, and biographi-
cal sketches. Since the principal source of income for these
tenant farmers was cotton, we will first present an overview
of cotton farming in Bastrop County. This section is fol-
lowed by four additional sections: a site description that
locates the homes and outbuildings, a site history that de-
tails the ownership of the farm, an account of the tenant
families that worked the farm, and personal narratives about
sharecropping.
Cotton Farming
An overview of Bastrop’s early industries was previously
provided in the Historical Background section. This back-
ground information suggests that the county enjoyed a cer-
tain amount of success as a result of its industries. This is all
true, but we should also understand that the county’s indus-
tries required a considerable amount of labor, and that by
1840, the work fell on an ever-increasing number of slaves.
Slave labor was a key issue throughout the Texas coloniza-
tion period (1821-1830). Despite the contributions made
by numerous African Americans to the Texas fight for inde-
pendence, their status did not improve. If anything, their
condition worsened. The newly formed Republic of Texas
wasted no time in limiting the additional immigration of
“free men” (emancipated African Americans) into Texas,
as well as restraining the legal status of those already resid-
ing in Texas. The Mexican government was never amicable
to the institution of slavery, and by 1823 instituted a law
that prohibited the purchase or sale of slaves. This same
law required that children of slaves be emancipated at the
age of 14. In 1829 and 1830, the Mexican government im-
posed further restrictions on slavery that, by intent, also
curtailed the number of new immigrants from the southern
U.S. These restrictions were considered significant griev-
ances for many Texans who eventually rebelled against
Mexico (Barr 1973).
The noted lumber and cotton industries, which took off be-
tween 1840 and 1850, relied heavily on slave labor. With
the annexation of Texas by the U.S. in 1845, slavery in the
state was allowed to continue on through the end of the Civil
War. The industries, which had profited through the use of
slaves, suffered considerably as a result of the emancipa-
tion of over 250,000 African Americans in Texas
(Juneteenth—June 19, 1865). Emancipation also brought
on changes in the area’s political and social life, which
caused a number of serious racial confrontations, most no-
tably around the community of Cedar Creek, about 12 miles
east of Bastrop (Handbook of Texas Online 2000).
After emancipation, some African Americans left the rural
communities for jobs in the cities, but most remained in
agricultural settings as sharecroppers or tenant farmers.
Agricultural workers typically worked 55-hours per week,
and in return were paid between $2.00 and $5.00 per week.
These workers received fuel and food rations and a mini-
mal amount of medical care. African American tenant farm-
ers almost never profited, because close to 60 percent of
them farmed small plots of less than 50 acres. In addition,
the landowners and storekeepers allowed them to purchase
food and supplies on credit, but at interest rates as high as
25 percent. In this way, even after emancipation, the “freed-
men” were forced to continue working on plantations under
less than favorable conditions (Barr 1973).
By 1900, 63 percent of the employed African American
population of Texas was involved in some form of agricul-
ture. Thirty-one percent of the African American farmers of
Texas were landowners, and 69 percent were sharecroppers.
In comparison, Bastrop County reported 3,509 farms in
1900, and of these, only 1,339 (38 percent) were operated
by “colored” farmers. Of these 1,339 farms, 313 (9 percent
of the total) were actually owned by “colored” farmers.
These numbers and percentages remained constant in
Bastrop County up until 1940, when they began to decrease
by as much as 10 percent.
Between 1940 and 1970 the black rural population in Texas
declined steadily as more people moved to urban areas.
Also, between 1940 and 1960, the number of black tenant
farmers and sharecroppers declined from 32,610 to 3,138
(Barr 1973; U.S. Historical Census Data Browser 2000).
26
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Table 4 illustrates the increase, and subsequent decrease, in
farms at the state and county levels. In Bastrop County, the
total number of farms peaked in 1900, whereas this did not
occur statewide until 1930. It is interesting to note the in-
credible surge in the number of farms in the state and county
in 1860, and then again in 1880.
Since the turn-of-the-century, a reserve of low-paid Mexi-
can labor has existed just across the border and was an im-
portant factor in the development of large-scale agriculture
in south and central Texas. Mexicans came by the thou-
sands in the years following World War I to work on farms
at wages of about $1.00 per day. In most cases, the eco-
nomic advantages afforded by employment in the U.S. pulled
Mexicans to Texas, just as violence and social and economic
disorganization occasioned by the Revolution pushed them
out of Mexico (Hall and Coerver 1988). The average in-
come of U.S. workers in 1900 was low, between four and
five hundred dollars a year at a time when six hundred dol-
lars was considered the minimum for bare comfort. The
average work schedule was ten hours a day, six days a week
(Gómez-Quiñones 1994).
In an effort to locate some evidence as to the longevity of
Mexican families in Bastrop County, a review of the county
birth and death records was undertaken. A random sample
of the index to death records for Bastrop County located
two Spanish-surnamed deaths in 1904 and one in 1907
(BCC, Index Book 1). These two entries could be consid-
ered among the earliest recorded. A review of the county’s
oldest birth records located three children born of Mexican
parentage: Vanetta Cardenas, born September 4, 1874 (en-
try no. 99), Callistro Alanisi, born October 14, 1874 (entry
no. 101), and María Falconia, born August 8, 1874 (entry
no. 103) (BCC, vol. A & 1). We note here that the first part
of the book contains Volume A entries, from ca. 1861 to
1902, and the second part contains Volume 1 entries, from
ca. 1903 to 1912. A total of 248 births were recorded in
Volume A; of these, 13 (5 percent) were of Mexican parent-
age and 24 (9 percent) were of “Colored” or “Negro” par-
entage. This data, however, should be weighed with some
caution, since it is a well-known fact that many rural fami-
lies were remiss in registering births and deaths. It would
be incorrect to use the data to estimate the county’s demo-
graphic composition. We can, however, use this informa-
tion to propose that there was indeed a Mexican presence in
the county well before the 1900s.
There were 226,000 Mexicans in Texas in 1910, and by
1930 the number had increased to 683,000 (Menefee 1941).
According to a Bureau of Labor Report published in 1908,
the transition in Texas from temporary immigrants to set-
tlers was quite noticeable. Among the first to recognize this
trend was a railroad official. This official noted that, ini-
tially, the vast majority of immigrant laborers were males
traveling back and forth without their families (Clark 1999).
Over a ten year period (1898-1908), however, there was a
marked increase in the number of men who brought their
wives and children, and men who returned for their fami-
lies (Clark 1999:205). The Mexican population of south
Texas was concentrated along the Texas-Mexico border
from Cameron County, at the mouth of the Rio Grande, to
Val Verde County; and in the southwest sector of the cotton
belt region, extending from east Texas to the area south of
Austin and San Antonio, and down towards Nueces County
(Zamora 1993). This area included Bastrop County.
Table 4. Farm Data, 1850–1950
Data retrieved from the University of Virginia, U.S. Historical Census Data Browser 2000.
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950
Total Farms
STATE
12,198 37,363 61,125 174,184 228,126 352,190 417,770 436,033 495,489 418,002 332,837
Farms-
% Incr/Decr
n/a 206.3% 63.6% 185.0% 31.0% 54.4% 18.6% 4.4% 13.6% -15.6% -20.4%
Total Farms
COUNTY
219 596 719 2,231 2,069 3,509 3,096 3,325 3,207 2,473 1,858
Farms-
% Incr/Decr n/a 172.1% 20.6% 210.3% -7.3% 69.6% -11.8% 7.4% -3.5% -22.9% -24.9%
27
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
In January 26, 1920, Fred Roberts, cotton farmer and presi-
dent of the South Texas Cotton Growers Association, Corpus
Christi, Texas, spoke before the U.S. House of Representa-
tives (USHR), Committee on Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion, in favor of admitting Mexican farm workers. When
pressed by one of the committee members about the possi-
bility that most Mexican workers might remain in the States,
Mr. Roberts responded that to the best of his knowledge 98
percent of the workers returned home (USHR 1920:53). Mr.
Roberts went on to comment that, “Sometimes one will stay
when a man wants a good laborer, or you will find one that
is good enough that you will want to let some other fellow
go and give him the job. Or sometimes, there are good farm-
ers among them and they will rent a farm on the halves”
(USHR 1920:53). These last remarks are of special inter-
est, since these probably best describe the circumstances
by which many of the Bastrop tenant farmers were invited
to settle in the area. The apparent bond between Osborn
and Martínez, see Site History-Tenancy below, serves to ex-
emplify such owner-tenant relationships.
Throughout the 1920s and well into the post-WWII years,
Texas was the largest contributor of Mexican labor to the
rest of the country, with El Paso, Laredo, San Antonio, and
Fort Worth serving as staging areas. During this same pe-
riod, this large pool of agricultural workers made cotton the
premier industry in Texas, and the Mexican workers the la-
borers of choice (Vargas 1999:254). The above noted Mr.
Roberts testified again on January 27, 1920, before the U.S.
Senate (USS), Committee on Immigration. His statement
most probably typifies the cotton grower’s sentiment towards
Mexican labor, and the history of this labor in the develop-
ment of the State’s cotton industry:
We are short of labor. The real fact is we have not any
labor. Modern machinery has developed very rapidly
and has made it possible for one man to cultivate a
great deal of land, but there has been no development
along the line of picking and chopping cotton. We pick
cotton like we did a hundred years ago and we chop
cotton like we did a hundred years ago, with the
exception that in picking cotton we put it into a sack
now where we used to put it into a basket. The greater
part of Texas, or perhaps all that country west of the
Colorado and south, has always been, and is today,
dependent upon Mexican labor. We have always had
free access to the Mexicans on the other side of the
border, and we have always been going there for our
labor. We have built up the institution of cotton growing
there, and millions and millions of dollars have come
into that country and developed it on the proposition
of the labor at our door. We have never had any labor
in that country except as it has been brought in from
across the Rio Grande (USS 1920:3–4).
That the south Texas cotton growers were experiencing a
shortage of labor around 1920 is not at all surprising. By
the early-1920s, northern employers were aggressively re-
cruiting Mexican workers. According to Vargas (1999:255),
this out-migration broke a quarter-century monopoly on
Mexican labor held by the Southwest farmers, railroads,
and mining industries. This migration was intensified as a
result of word of mouth testimonials, as the immigrant work-
ers traveled back and forth. Montejano (1987) explains that,
contrary to popular belief, the Mexican worker was not at
all passive and in fact did strive to secure better-paying jobs
and working conditions. Many of these workers were sen-
sitive to treatment by Anglo farmers, and quickly devel-
oped a network that passed along favorable or unfavorable
references of particular farms (Montejano 1987). In the case
of Pedro Martínez and David García, both of these tenant
farmers had worked for other Bastrop area farmers before
settling in and working for T. C. Osborn for an extended
period of time. Another point to be made and which will be
further discussed below, is that the tenant farmers of Bastrop
County included a large number of Mexican-Americans.
The population of the Texas farm areas at ca. 1920 can be
sorted into three general categories: farm owners, tenant
farmers, and farm laborers. This study considers the first
two—the owners and tenants. By 1920, 55 percent of all
Bastrop County farms were tended by tenant farmers, with
the remainder being in the hands of owner-operators. A ten-
ant farmer basically rented land and a house from the farm
owner, and then proceeded to cultivate with his own seed,
equipment, horses or mules, and his and his family’s labor.
In contrast, sharecroppers were basically laborers who were
compensated by farm owners by means of housing and
monthly rations in lieu of cash wages (Montejano 1987).
Most sharecropper agreements were for halves or quarters,
and in the case of Bastrop County, the norm was halves.
Under a halves agreement, the sharecropper furnished his
and his family’s labor, and in return he was allowed to keep
one-half of the profits resulting from the cotton cultivated
on the acreage assigned them, that is, after the family paid
off the accumulated debt resulting from the monthly rations.
28
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Site Description
This section describes the physical layout of the site, and is
based almost entirely on a firsthand account by Pete Martínez,
Jr. Figure 7 depicts the north end of the T. C. Osborn Farm at
ca. 1930, and serves to demonstrate the relationship between
the tenant farm (41BP314) and the G. W. Jones site (41BP86).
The Jones site was investigated by Robinson (1989) and is
clearly shown in Figure 7. All of the farm’s dwellings, out-
buildings, and stables were located in this area, and this was
probably the case since at least 1906.
This site plan was achieved by locating the area on a geologi-
cal survey map (USGS 1982). Once this section was isolated,
we were then able to scan in the image and overlay two dis-
tinct site maps: the T. C. Osborn farm site map (John Clark’s
1987 field map) and the G. W. Jones site map (Robinson
1989:19). These three images were then manipulated and
corrected in order to arrive at a fixed scale. The final location
of the homes, outbuildings, and service road were verified by
referring to an on-site description given by Pete Martínez, Jr.
(personal communication 2000). The focus of this report is
the site located at the far west end of the farm; 41BP314, at
the left side of the shaded area in Figure 7. The house and
eastern extent of Pecan Street, which then became a service
road that led east towards the main house, are visible.
Based on several accounts, we now know that the T. C. Osborn
site (41BP314) and the G. W. Jones site (41BP86) were in-
terrelated. Initially, the only structure associated with the T.
C. Osborn site was a simple four-room, board-and-batten,
house that had all but fallen apart by early-1987. Pete
Figure 7. North end of Osborn Farm at ca. 1930.
29
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Martínez, Jr. provided the following account, as he and the
interviewer drove through the area in December 2000:
Go up a little bit further and I’ll show you where the
house my uncle, that moved to Zapata, used to live in.
See that house over there, that’s…a man that used to
be the pastor of the Baptist Church, Brother Bell, the
one who used to have that school (the Mexican Baptist
School). Brother Bell then sold his place to Cecil Long.
Now, right about where that tree is where that house
was [41BP314]. And you see, that was cotton field
there and this was cotton field here [looking towards
the south and then east]. And you had a little road
through there [looking to the east], and over to the
right, as you crossed the railroad track, that’s where
the big two-story house was (Pete Martínez, Jr., personal
communication 2000).
Throughout the Osborn ownership, between 90 and 100
acres of the total 327 acres was actually cultivated. This
places the farm operation well within the norm. Table 5 pre-
sents and compares the farm acreage for Bastrop County
between 1880 and 1940. As is obvious, the number of farms
in the county that cultivated between 100 and 499 acres
comprised almost a third of the total. However, it seems
that the number of farms of between 20 and 49 acres was
fairly large, and actually surpassed all others in 1900. These
smaller operations remained popular up until about 1940,
when there was a dramatic decrease. This is most probably
owing to the depressed economy and the inability of small
operations to stay afloat.
Pete Martínez, Jr. went on to explain that Pecan Street, where
it butted the west end property line, became a private ser-
vice road that meandered to the east towards the tracks. He
explained that as they approached the tracks from the west,
they would open a gate, cross over, open and ride through a
second gate, and then pass right in front of the main house
(41BP86). The two structures seen in Figure 7, to the east
of the main house, were a board-and-batten garage and a
utility room. Behind and to the east of these structures was
a double-pen log house that had been converted into a barn
and corral. The single-pen log cabin was located to the rear
of the main house. Off to the north, towards Marion Street,
was the board-and-batten house where he was born. The
following histories of ownership and tenancy will help to
further clarify the overall logistics of the T. C. Osborn Farm.
Site History – Ownership
Stephen F. Austin League (1832 to ca. 1838)
As compensation for his efforts as an empresario, Stephen
F. Austin received deed to two parcels in Bastrop County.
Both parcels were along the east side of the Colorado River.
One was located to the north of the town of Bastrop, and
the other was located directly to the south and is the parcel
of interest to this study. Stephen F. Austin passed away in
1836 at the age of 43, and never did develop this land. In-
stead, his brother-in-law, James F. Perry, who was appointed
executor of his estate, began selling Austin’s League ca.
1838. He sold portions of the tract to Samuel R. Reid, Wil-
liam Pinkney Hill, and William Gammel, business and civic
leaders of Bastrop, all of whom sold to Andrew Castleman
within a couple of years.
Census Year 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
<10 acres
38 39 60 49 41 60 92
10-19 acres
239 96 153 96 76 154 217
20-49 acres
768 564 1,248 950 960 940 405
50-99 acres
314 387 838 802 1,038 889 592
100-499 acres
763 837 1,103 1,106 1,118 1,050 1,142
500-999 acres
75 88 64 56 64 63 108
>1000 acres
34 58 43 37 28 51 48
Total Farms
2,231 2,069 3,509 3,096 3,325 3,207 2,604
Table 5. Farm Acreage, 1880–1940
Note: Unable to include 1950 data –number of acres per farm was varied greatly from previous census years.
(U.S. Historical Census Data Browser 2000).
30
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Andrew Ewing Castleman Family
(ca. 1840 to Dec. 1855)
Castleman was originally from Tennessee and may be the
same Andrew Castleman that was granted land in 1828,
where the town of Plum, Fayette County, was later founded
(Handbook of Texas Online 2000). If this is the same per-
son, it seems that Castleman may have been in Texas briefly,
then returned to Tennessee to marry, returned again to Texas
ca. 1840, sold his land in Fayette County, and immediately
relocated to Bastrop County. In 1840, Castleman purchased
part of the Austin League from three different owners:
Samuel R. Reid, William P. Hill, and William Gammel.
Castleman first appears in the Bastrop County Tax Rolls of
1840 and then again in 1841 (RootsWeb.com 2000). He is
also listed as an Alderman of Bastrop in 1845 (Kesselus
1986). He, his daughter, and three sons appear in the 1850
Census of Bastrop County. Except for his nine-year old son,
born in Texas, the other children were all born in Tennes-
see. His oldest son, R. Castleman, was born ca. 1835 and
his youngest was born ca. 1841 in Texas. This suggests that
he married and started his family in Tennessee ca. 1834,
and then relocated to Texas in ca. 1840. A record for Nancy
Reding Castleman, wife of Andrew E. Castleman, was lo-
cated in the county’s cemetery records. She was interred at
Fairview Cemetery, and according to her grave marker, she
came to Texas ca. 1840 from Davidson County, Tennessee,
and died sometime prior to 1845 (Figure 8).
In 1850, Castleman is listed as a 47-year-old farmer with a
net worth of $1,000.00 (RootsWeb.com 2000). Castleman
is also listed in Schedule 2 of the Slave Inhabitants for 1850,
as owning eight slaves: a 50-year-old Black female; a 42-
year-old Black male; a 30-year-old Black female; a 23-year-
old Mulatto female; a 10-year-old Black female; a 7-year-old
Black male; a 5-year-old Mulatto female; and a 4-year-old
Black male (USDCc 1850:74). No other information such
as names and place of origin is provided. The above infor-
mation suggests that Castleman lived on the property, most
probably in the two-story house shown in Figure 7. His slaves
may have occupied the single- and double-pen log cabins
located at the rear of the house. This scenario is not at all
unlikely given the following narrative by James Jackson, an
ex-slave.
He tuk us to Bastrop County and sold us to Doc
Duvall. Marster Duvall sold my brother right after
he bought us, but me and John, we stayed wid him till
de slaves was freed. On Marster Duvall’s plantation
de slaves all lived in log cabins back of de big house.
Dey was one room, two rooms and three room cabins,
dependin’ on de size of de family. Most had dirt floors,
but some of ‘em had log slabs (RootsWeb.com 2000).
Pete Martínez, Jr. recalled having overheard “the older
people” say that the single-pen log cabin had long ago been
used to house slaves. Considering these details, it stands to
reason that Castleman was responsible for constructing the
“big house” and log cabins. This idea is further supported
by a neighborhood survey completed by Texas Historical
Commission staff between 1976 and
1977. The survey’s data sheet indicated
that the house was constructed ca. 1848.
This same survey described the house
as a two-story wood frame, salt box-
shaped, rectangular plan, with a central
hall, stairs, and three chimneys. The in-
ventory also included mention of a
double-crib log cabin, a smaller log
cabin that served as a kitchen, and a
brick-lined well (Texas Historic Site
Atlas 2000). Robinson (1989) suggested
that the house was constructed ca. 1855,
when George W. Jones purchased the
land from Castleman. It now seems
much more likely that Castleman con-
structed the double-pen and single-pen
log houses ca. 1840, for his family and
Figure 8. Grave marker of Nancy R. Castleman.
31
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
slaves, respectively. The large two-story house was prob-
ably constructed ca. 1848, which would have allowed the
slaves to utilize the double-pen log house soon after. It would
appear that between 1850 and 1855, the Castleman Family
was quite comfortable and sharing in the county’s prosper-
ity during this decade.
Finally, after having farmed in Bastrop for 15 years,
Castleman sold his farm to George W. Jones. Andrew
Castleman most probably left the county after selling to Jones
in 1855, but it seems his oldest son remained in Bastrop. A
review of the 1860 Census failed to locate Andrew
Castleman, but did locate R. M. Castleman, a 25 year-old
clerk from Tennessee (USDCb 1860). Why Andrew
Castleman decided to sell and leave remains a mystery,
although a close examination of the local paper during
this period might shed some light. It seems that R. M.
Castleman did not remain either, since Nancy Reding
Castleman is the only Castleman interred in Bastrop County
(RootsWeb.com 2000).
George Washington Jones Family
(Dec. 1855 to May 1906)
In 1855, George W. Jones purchased five parcels from An-
drew E. Castleman, in consideration of the sum of $1,000.00.
The first three parcels consisted of 12.5 acres each, or 37.5
acres, and all were described as being part of Austin’s League
and south of the town tract. The remaining two lots con-
sisted of “fractional blocks” of unspecified acreage, referred
to as Block 143 and Block 144 (BCC, vol. K:28). In addi-
tion, and as described above, Castleman deeded Jones a
fairly well established farm operation.
A review of the 1860 Census for Bastrop County failed to
locate either George W. Jones or his wife. We know that he
was in the county, since he was serving as the Bastrop County
District Attorney between 1856 and 1861, and then left to
serve in the Confederate Army from between 1861 and 1865.
It is very likely that he and his wife may have been away
visiting when the Census was completed. However, Jones is
listed in Schedule 2, Slave Inhabitants for 1860, as owning
six slaves, but this information may have been secured from
the slaves themselves. The schedule lists: a 40-year-old Black
male, a 45-year-old Mulatto female, a 17-year-old Black fe-
male, a 17-year-old Black male, a 12-year-old Black male,
and an 8-year-old Mulatto female. The schedule also notes
that there was one slave house, most likely the double-pen
log house. As was the case in the 1850 Census, information
such as names and place of origin was not given.
The 1900 Census of Bastrop County listed G. W. Jones as
living on a farm, with his wife and nephew. The schedule
notes that G. W. Jones, a 71-year-old, was a White male, born
September 1828 in Alabama. It also indicates that his father
was born in Virginia and mother in North Carolina. His wife,
Ladora S. Jones, is listed as a 64-year-old, White female,
born July 1836 in Mississippi; her father was born in Missis-
sippi and her mother in Tennessee. Also listed as being part
of the household is Jimmie S. Jones, nephew of the head of
house, and a White single male, born March 1876 in Texas,
and noted that his father and mother were both born in Ten-
nessee. The occupation of both G. W. Jones and Jimmie are
listed as lawyers. An extensive biographical sketch of G. W.
Jones (1828-1903) can be found in the Handbook of Texas
Online and in the Jones site report (Robinson 1989).
Thomas Claiborne Osborn Family
(May 1906 to ca. 1985)
Thomas Claiborne Osborn and his family lived in town at
1102 Hill Street, and never occupied their 327-acre farm
south of town. T. C. Osborn was born August 12, 1850, not
far from Bastrop in the small community of Hog Eye
(present-day Elgin). As noted earlier, he was the son of Tho-
mas Osborn and the grandson of Benjamin Osborn, who
came to Texas as a colonist with Stephen F. Austin in 1825.
Benjamin Osborn and his wife, Leah Stark, originally from
Tennessee, first migrated to Mississippi and then on to
Matagorda, Texas in December 1825. Their second oldest
son, Thomas Osborn, married Mary Augustine McCullough
on May 2, 1841 and they had nine children; Thomas
Claiborne Osborn was their oldest son (Gore 1979; Hand-
book of Texas Online 2000).
Beginning in 1871, T. C. Osborn made seven trips up the
old cattle trails to Kansas and Nebraska, and recalled trav-
eling no more than 12 miles per day (Taylor 1934). T. C.
Osborn married Suzanna Isabel (Belle) Smithwick on Oc-
tober 20, 1878. Belle Smithwick was also born in Bastrop
County at Gravelly on Alum Creek; her father was Alex A.
Smithwick of Mississippi and her mother was Mary Jane
Cartwright of Tennessee. In September 1880, T. C. and Belle
Osborn bought the south half of building block 30, east of
Main Street, and built their home in 1881 (BCC, vol. 1:417;
32
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Gore 1979). The lumber for the house was hauled in a wagon
from a nearby mill in McDade. T. C. Osborn, his wife, and
their two daughters lived on Hill Street the rest of their lives
(Gore 1979). His daughter Mary was born May 1880 and
his daughter Kathryn was born in October 1883 (USDCd
1900). Mary never married, nor did she have any children.
It seems that throughout his lifetime, T. C. Osborn was in-
volved in various business ventures. Aside from the noted
“G. W. Jones Farm,” evidence of two other enterprises was
located. The 1880 Census of Manufacturers lists T. C.
Osborn and C. W. Cartwright as owning and operating a
butcher shop. The data indicates that they employed an av-
erage of three men, and that they worked 11-hour days from
May to November, and 9-hour days from November to May.
The total outlay in wages was $400 per year; they slaugh-
tered about 150 head of beef per year, with an average gross
weight of 600 lbs.; they also slaughtered about 5 hogs per
year, with an average weight of 200 lbs.; and the total value
of their products was reported as being $2,100 (USDCa
1880). A brief note in the Bastrop Advertiser (November
24, 1883) announces: “Messrs. Osborne and Cartwright have
sold their market business to Mr. John Kohler, who takes
charge next Monday.” Evidently, Osborn and Cartwright
continued as partners, possibly in a saloon. A mechanic’s
lien of 1886 details the construction of a two-story brick
building on Lot 4, Block 5 in Bastrop at a cost of $4,700.
The contractor is William Thaison of Austin (BCC, vol. 1:1–
3). In addition, the 1900 Census for Bastrop County lists
Osborn as “owner of saloon” (USDCd 1900). In a seem-
ingly entrepreneurial gesture, T. C. Osborn adds farming to
his enterprises. In 1906, in consideration of the sum of
$2,000, T. C. Osborn purchased four parcels of land and
the “G. W. Jones old homestead tract,” from J. S. Jones,
executor of the Jones estate (BCC, vol. 41:130).
T. C. Osborn passed away March 19, 1939 at the age of 88
years; his daughter Mary passed away May 15, 1952 at the
age of 72 years; and his wife Belle passed away on Febru-
ary 1, 1955 at the age of 97 years. Mrs. Mary Belle Turner
Gore recalls that her grandparents were able to celebrate
their sixtieth wedding anniversary a year and a half before
T. C. Osborn died. Kathryn Osborn Turner passed away on
October 24, 1963 at the age of 80 years.
Kathryn Osborn Turner sold the Osborn homestead in 1955,
soon after the death of her mother. The Osborn Farm, how-
ever, was left to Kathryn’s daughter, Mary Belle Turner Gore
(BCC, vol. 13:106–108). Mrs. Gore and her husband, Walter
Gore, were local school teachers.
Site History – Tenancy
It is unlikely that T. C. Osborn ever worked the farm, pre-
ferring instead to bring in tenant sharecroppers. After his
death in 1939, management of the farm fell into the capable
hands of his unmarried daughter, Mary. According to Pete
Martínez, Jr., Mary Osborn managed the farm until ca. 1950,
after which time they begin to lease out the land exclusively
for pasturage. Both Kathryn Osborn Turner and her daugh-
ter, Mary Belle Turner Gore, continued this practice until
selling the land in the mid-1980s.
The history of site tenancy presented here indicates that T.
C. Osborn had at least two tenant families at 41BP314 (and
another two at 41BP86). In considering the data, it will be
obvious that three major gaps in tenancy exist. The first and
second occur before and after the González tenancy (1906–
11 and 1922–31), and the third occurs after the García ten-
ancy (1942–52). Excepting the apparent uninterrupted
accumulation of artifacts, no other evidence of occupancy
(i.e., occupants) was located. Considered in their entirety,
the artifact assemblage suggests a site occupation of be-
tween ca. 1900 and 1950.
Livorio V. González and Rosario Domínguez
González Family (ca. 1911–1922)
According to Pete Martínez, Jr., one of the earliest families
that lived at 41BP314 was his uncle, Livorio “Lee” González
and his aunt, Rosario Domínguez González (his mother’s
sister). This family lived at the site at least until the early
1920s. This is all according to what his parents had told
him, and they also mentioned that they relocated to Zapata
County, where Livorio took a job with a State road mainte-
nance crew.
The county marriage records indicate that Livorio V.
González and Rosario Domínguez were married by Rev. T.
M. Lennartz, a Catholic priest, on January 1, 1911 (BCC,
vol. J:231). The Bastrop County birth records revealed that
Livorio González, a farmer, and Rosario González, a house-
wife, had three children, and that both Mr. and Mrs. González
were from Zapata County. According to Pete Martínez, Jr.,
the Domínguez family had traveled north in the early-1900s.
He recalls his mother telling him that they traveled north by
wagon. Her father would stop and work along the way, to
33
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
earn just enough money to buy the newborn baby some milk,
since it couldn’t be breast-fed. Livorio and Rosario González
had three children while at this farm. The first-born was
Sara, a female, born August 7, 1912 (BCC, vol. 16:575);
then Leobardo, a male, born March 1, 1920 (BCC, vol.
3:18); and then Amelia, a female, born July 21, 1922 (BCC,
vol. 16:576). Dr. H. B. Combs was the attending physician
for all three births.
On November 5, 1942, Sara and Amelia González returned
to Bastrop to register their births. The above-cited birth cer-
tificates were recorded on this date, with Pedro Martínez and
E. J. Rabensburg (local grocer) signing the affidavits. Unfor-
tunately, Pete Martínez, Jr. didn’t know much else about the
González family, since they lost contact many years ago.
The beginning and ending dates of occupation for the
González family are based on the couple’s marriage in 1911,
and the birth of the last child born in Bastrop in 1922. How-
ever, it is possible that their stay on the Osborn Farm might
have begun before 1911 and could have continued for some
time after 1922. As noted previously, we were unable to
determine who might have occupied the tenant house
(41BP314) between ca. 1922 and 1932.
According to Pete Martínez, Jr., the next known tenants of
41BP314 were David García and his family, back in the
1930s and 1940s. He recalls that the family moved out be-
fore the end of the War, since he distinctly remembers the
troop trains going by and the family still living at this house.
David García and Louise Rodríguez García
Family (ca. 1932–1941)
David García passed away in 1983, at the age of 86 years.
His 93-year-old widow, Louise García, was located and
found to live within four blocks of the site. Mrs. García and
her daughter, Emma Rockwell, who was visiting from West
Virginia, were interviewed in December 2000. Unless oth-
erwise noted, the following information was obtained from
the interview summaries.
Mrs. Louise García’s parents were Perfecto Rodríguez of
Galeana, Nuevo León, Mexico and Julia Ríos Rodríguez of
San Diego, Texas. Her father was a sharecropper on the
Fitzwilliam Farm, southwest of Bastrop. Mrs. García and
her four sisters (no brothers) helped in the fields from the
time they were five years old. She never knew her paternal
grandparents, but did get to meet her maternal grandfather,
Macedonio Ríos. Her grandfather was a farmer, who lived
and worked in Bastrop and Cedar Creek. In 1911,
Macedonio Ríos and others, acting as “trustees of the Mexi-
can community, west of the Colorado River,” purchased a
parcel of land to be used as a graveyard, church, and school.
The property was located about two miles south of Cedar
Creek Store, a few miles east-southeast of Bastrop (BCC,
vol. 50:32).
Louise Rodríguez García was born February 7, 1907 in
Bastrop County, in the nearby coal mining community of
Phelan. Her father’s cousins, who were already working in
the local mines, lured him away from Mexico. He left the
mines after finding work on a nearby farm. All of Louise
Rodríguez García’s brothers died in infancy, and her sisters
have all now passed away. Her oldest sister, Nemesia, was
born October 1892 in Columbus, Texas. Her husband, David
García, was born in Mexico, and Mrs. García believes he
may have been from Villa Acuña, Coahuila, Mexico, across
the border from Del Rio, Texas. His parents were Felix
García and Arcadia Villalobos García; they worked in the
area for a while and may have eventually returned to Mexico
(BCDR, vol. 18:195).
David García and Louise Rodríguez met at the Mexican
Baptist Church and were married there on July 3, 1925
(BCC, vol. N:373). Mrs. García’s older sister Nemesia,
mentioned above, was married to Samuel García (David’s
brother). Prior to their move to the Osborn Farm, David
and Louise García lived in town, and Mr. García worked
for the county road crew. According to Mrs. García, her
husband longed to get back to farming—tenía ganas de
volver al rancho—so he took the job with Mr. Osborn.
Their oldest daughter, Emma Rockwell, nee García, born
in 1927, offered a clear recollection of her childhood at the
Osborn Farm, where she and three other siblings grew up.
There were two more children born after the family moved
off the farm.
Emma Rockwell described her father as a farmer who
worked for Mr. Osborn for nine years. She recalled that
Asención Domínguez and Pedro Martínez were also share-
croppers on the Osborn Farm during their tenure. She be-
lieves her family moved into the Osborn tenant house when
she was five years old (1932), and moved out when she was
14 years old (1941). From what she recalled, her father
farmed about 10 acres of cotton, and some corn. He and
Tom Osborn would go “half-and-half” on the cotton pro-
ceeds, but she couldn’t recall what they did about the corn.
34
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Mrs. Rockwell was able to describe the house, rooms, work
areas, and outbuildings. These descriptions were used to
edit the measured drawings presented in the Artifactual Data
(architectural) section of this report. Both Mrs. García and
Mrs. Rockwell recalled the fireplace along the west eleva-
tion of the house, and recalled having used it. In the kitchen,
they used a wood-burning stove—una estufa de leña. They
also had a wood-burning heater in the house, but rarely used
it since the fireplace was more than adequate. Mrs. Rockwell
had no knowledge of what Feature 1, a shallow pit, might
have been. She did, however, recall a small barn or shed,
located about 40 ft. behind the house. This shed was ori-
ented with the gable ends to the east and west, just like the
house, and the entryway was located on the east end. Based
on Mrs. Rockwell’s description, we imagine that this shed
would have been located between Units N575/E465, N555/
E480, and N580/E500. This is also where they kept the
chickens. Although they did have a milk cow, it was kept in
the community barn (double-pen log house) next to the two-
story house (41BP86). All the farm animals and equipment
were kept in the barn by the two-story house, which was
accessible to all the Osborn Farm sharecroppers. As for the
“missing” privy, Mrs. Rockwell recalled it being located
about 100 ft. to the north of the house and towards the creek.
This would place the privy within 40 ft. of Unit N615/E490
(see Figure 5).
The worst catastrophe that Mrs. García and Mrs. Rockwell
could recall was the June 1935 flood, caused by intense
rainfall and flooding of the Llano, Pedernales, and Colo-
rado rivers (National Weather Service Southern Region
2000). The family was forced to leave their house and take
refuge with the Martínez family at the two-story house. The
flooring of the tenant house warped in places and most of
their belongings were destroyed. Some area families had
their entire homes washed away. The American Red Cross
came in and helped the Bastrop community with clean-up
efforts, provisions, and vaccinations. Pete Martínez, Jr. re-
called the 1935 flood: “I can remember my sister having
me in her arms, rocking me in a rocking chair at the house,
and daddy worried. He’s trying to decide, ‘Are we gonna
move to higher ground?’ His plan was to go up there to the
cemetery, to that hill, to the right of the cemetery [Alta Vista
Cemetery].” The river’s water level finally receded and the
Martínez and García families stayed in the two-story house.
There were many buttons recovered from within and be-
hind the house, as a result of the 1987 excavations. Mrs.
García mentioned that they used to wash and hang their
clothes out to dry out back. She washed their clothes on a
washboard—a puro tallador—and hung them out to dry on
a line. Except for the chickens out by the barn behind their
house, they didn’t keep any livestock. Mrs. Rockwell re-
called her father having a small, five-foot square vegetable
garden near the barn. She also recalled having played with,
and broken, many bottles, especially some dark blue bottles
that they often came across scattered about the property.
David García finally gave up farming in 1941 and took a
steady job at the local IGA Store, where he worked for 20
years. After retiring from the IGA Store, he took custodial
jobs at the county courthouse and at a local bank. Mrs. García
recalled someone having moved into the tenant house after
they left in 1941, but couldn’t recall the family’s name.
Sharecropping as an Institution
Oral Narratives
The concept of farm tenancy and sharecropping can be best
understood through the following notes and explanations,
presented in the form of firsthand accounts. Figures 9a–e
are submitted as graphic representations (a tiny sample) of
some of the work involved. Most of these photos were taken
during the period under study, but involve scenes from
throughout Texas.
A total of three persons from three distinct families were
interviewed for this project. The following narrative is based
almost entirely on the testimonial of these individuals. Wher-
ever possible, the data was corroborated by archival records
(as cited). The strength of these accounts lies in the fact that
two of the three informants (Emma Rockwell and Peter
Martínez, Jr.) brought forth their personal knowledge and
experience of having lived and worked on the Osborn Farm.
The third informant, Mr. José Barrón (95 years old), is just
as important due to his accumulated experience, and his
accounts are presented first.
José Barrón (born May 29, 1905)
Mr. Barrón was born on a farm in Travis County on May
29, 1905, and could no longer recall the farm owner’s name.
His father, Santos Barrón (1874–1935), was born in Taylor,
Texas and his mother, Beatrice Serna, was born in Eagle
Pass, Texas, and was about 80 years old when she passed
away in 1957. The Bastrop County death register notes that
Santos Barrón was a 64 year-old farmer, born in Texas to
Phillip and Florentina Barrón of Mexico. Santos Barrón is
35
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
money he had been advanced throughout the year. Most
often, the amount paid back amounted to his father’s entire
share. In the case of the corn crop, his father kept the entire
profits. Mr. Barrón’s father typically cultivated about 60
acres of cotton and between 30 and 40 acres of corn.
Mr. Barrón couldn’t recall how long his family lived on the
farm near Utley, but does recall they moved around from
one place to another. In 1935, the year his father passed
away, he and his brother Adolfo came over to Bastrop to
work as day laborers for Will Watson. When his father passed
away, his mother went to live with one of his brothers in
Houston. Prior to 1935, he had worked for his father, who
sharecropped around Bastrop. He and his brother stayed on
for a year with Will Watson and then moved on to work for
John Allen until about 1945, when he took a job as a custo-
dian with the Bastrop School District.
In 1934, Pascual Hurtiz, a Mexican Baptist minister, offici-
ated at the wedding of José Barrón to Virginia Galván of
Bastrop. Mr. Barrón and his bride met as a result of their
families working on neighboring farms. Her father was Pedro
Galván, originally from Mexico, possibly Piedras Negras,
and her mother was Joaquina Rodríguez Galván of Bastrop.
Joaquina Galván was a 85-year-old housewife, born in Texas
to Santiago Rodríguez and Felicitas Ramos of Mexico.
According to the Bastrop County death register, Pedro
Rivera Galván, a farmer from Mexico, passed away at the
age of 85.
interred at Alta Vista Cemetery, and Beatrice Serna is in-
terred at Hollywood Cemetery in Houston.
When Mr. Barrón was about 12 years old (1917), his par-
ents moved from Travis County to Bastrop County in order
to sharecrop in this area. There were a total of nine in the
family: his parents and seven children. Mr. Barrón couldn’t
recall the farm owner’s name, but does recall his uncle,
Vicente Serna, was also there. Besides Vicente, he recalled
that he also had a couple of paternal uncles and aunts living
in Bastrop County; they were José and Abelino Barrón, and
Francisca and Angelita Barrón. Although he and his family
never visited Mexico, Mr. Barrón does recall his mother’s
family coming over to visit them in Bastrop. They have all
long since lost contact with her family, since she passed
away some 43 years ago.
Mr. Barrón recalls that several families lived and worked
on the same farms. The number of families on a farm de-
pended on the size of the place—según el rancho del amo—
sometimes two, three, or four families. Mr. Barrón had three
brothers and three sisters, and recalled that the entire fam-
ily pitched in wherever they could. Their father was the
planter, or sembrador, and the children provided the labor
during the harvest—piscaban la cosecha.
Throughout the year, the landlord, or amo, would advance
his father a monthly allowance, for groceries and other in-
cidentals. He and his family purchased their groceries,
mostly on credit, from Rabensburg
Grocery in Bastrop. When they were
in need of medical attention or
needed a baby delivered, most Mexi-
can families went to see Dr. Combs,
while others used midwifes, or
parteras. Mr. Barrón’s children,
Rudy and Enedina, were both deliv-
ered at home by a midwife, from
what he recalls, who may have been
Mrs. Espinoza.
When the cotton was finally har-
vested and sold, the landlord and his
father would split the profits fifty-
fifty—ibamos a medias. In the early-
1900s, cotton sold for $50 per 500
lb. bale. From his share, his father
would pay back the landlord the
Figure 9a. Mule-drawn plow. (ITC-UTSA, No. 86-176)
36
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Mr. Barrón and his wife had two children: Enedina, who
lives in Austin and is married to Pete Martínez, Jr., and
Rodolfo “Rudy” of Bastrop, married to Dolores Coy Barrón.
Although he never attended school, Mr. Barrón was taught
English while residing and working on a farm near Utley.
He recalls having to cross the Colorado River on a skiff, or
esquifa, in order to get to the ranch school, or escuela de
rancho, where a young lady by the name of Nelle Schaefer
taught English. Nelrose Esma “Nelle” Schaefer was born in
Bastrop County on August 14, 1900, to John J. Schaefer
and Lillie Doss Schaefer (BCC, Index to Births). The 1900
Census for Bastrop County lists Johnny Schaefer and fam-
ily living on Farm Lot 1, Justice of the Peace Precinct 1.
Schaefer, whose parents were born in Indiana, is listed as
being 32 years old, born March 1868, in Texas. He is listed
as a “bartender” and has his wife and two sons living with
him. (Nelle was born a couple of months after the 1900
Census was completed.) Schaefer’s wife, Lily, was 24 years
old, born in Texas, with her father born in Germany and
mother unknown. He had a son, Claborn [sic], born May
1896 and another, Harold, born August 1898.
Mr. Barrón recalled there being a lot of Mexican and Mexi-
can-American families working and living in Bastrop County
back then, and many of them worked the coal mines in
Phelan. The coal miners and sharecroppers would get
together on weekends to celebrate all sorts of occasions.
Most families were spread through-
out the county, living and working
on different farms. There was a big
dance hall in Phelan, and he and his
brothers had an orchestra that usu-
ally provided the music. The orches-
tra didn’t have a name; they were just
referred to as Los Barrones. Mr.
Barrón played the 12-string bass,
or bajo sexto. The orchestra also had
a guitar, drums, violin, clarinet,
and flute.
Emma Rockwell
(born February 23, 1927)
Mrs. Rockwell recalled her father
was a farmer who sharecropped for
T. C. Osborn from 1932 to 1941. Her
father’s share was fairly small, not
more than 10 acres, which he planted
mostly in cotton, and some corn. Her father and T. C. Osborn
would split the cotton proceeds, fifty-fifty.
Mrs. Rockwell recalled that the children helped in the fields
from a very young age. She noted that few sharecroppers
could afford to hire people. “People would get paid depend-
ing on the amount, or weight, of the cotton picked. Most
had to use the immediate family.” She suggested that if you
managed to bring in a bountiful crop, you might hire people
then, but Mrs. Rockwell couldn’t recall a time when her
father had hired outside help. “We, the families, had to do it
in order to keep the money within.” Mrs. Rockwell recalls
having been around seven or eight years old when she went
out into the fields to help. “I went to school, but then I had
to come and help after school.” She continued helping for
as long as her father had the farm (ca. 1941), which is when
she was already in high school.
“My grandfather [Perfecto Rodríguez] as a farmer, made a
trip via horse-drawn carriage, usually on a monthly basis,
into Bastrop to get the groceries. Mother said there were no
frills—ningún cariñito—on the grocery list. Meat, flour,
beans, rice, coffee were about it. My grandmother, Julia
Rodríguez, worked as housekeeper for the landlady, Nell
Fitzwilliam, who paid her a few dollars plus cheese, butter,
and milk. My grandmother made the clothes for her four
daughters: Nemesia, Santos, Luisa [Louise], and Raquel. A
similar pattern was repeated in our family: My father would
Figure 9b. Weeding cotton near El Paso, Texas. (ITC-UTSA, No. 75-963)
37
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
go to town on weekends to buy the groceries which were
bought on credit, so were the shoes and clothes. These ac-
counts were settled as the cotton crop was gathered in the
summer. We liked the summer season, as we could put our
hands on a nickel here and there to buy an ice cream cone.
Mother, like my grandmother, made the clothes for us. My
dresses cost 25 cents—2½ yards at 10 cents a yard. But 25
cents were not easily available. I recall that canned milk
was a must for my brother, Homer, a baby in 1942. So I
found a job washing dishes for a lady who paid me 50 cents
a week. I did this work en route to school. It only involved
about 30 minutes. The pay covered the cost of the milk: 12
cans at 4 cents each equals 48 cents.”
Emma García (Rockwell) attended school across the rail-
road tracks off of Main Street (ca. 1933–41). The school is
gone now. The Mexican children went up to the eighth grade
at this school and, if they wanted, they could attend high
school with the Anglo children, but few did. “I was the first
Latina that went to the Anglo school” (high school, 1941–
44). Prior to desegregation, Mexican children that wanted
to attend high school had to do so out-of-town. Mrs.
Rockwell recalls that, “We were five Latinos that went from
that elementary school [to the high school] … I was the
only one that graduated from that group, with that class.”
Emma García graduated in 1944 in
a class of fifteen. After graduating
from high school, she went to work
at nearby Camp Swift for three years,
in order to earn enough money to at-
tend college. She then enrolled at
Southwest Texas State University in
San Marcos. She studied liberal arts,
moved north before graduating, and
attended other schools up north. She
eventually went into the U.S. For-
eign Service and worked in various
embassies abroad, in Europe and
Central America.
Returning to the topic of schooling
in Bastrop, Emma recalled the land-
mark school desegregation case of
Delgado vs. Bastrop I.S.D (1948).
The plaintiff, Minerva Delgado, was
her cousin. Mrs. Rockwell’s aunt,
Nemesia García, lacking any formal
education, insisted that her adopted
daughter, Minerva Delgado, be
allowed to attend elementary school with the Anglo chil-
dren, and not have to trek clear across town to the “Mexi-
can” school. The school district didn’t allow this so her aunt
enlisted the help of the renowned Civil Rights Attorney Gus
García of San Antonio, who came in and fought on their
behalf. The U.S. District Court ruled in their favor and or-
dered that the schools be desegregated by September 1949
(Handbook of Texas Online 2000).
Pete Martínez, Jr. (born October 6, 1932)
Pedro Martínez and Lucrecia Domínguez were married
on December 3, 1916 by Rev. Otto Bauer, a Catholic priest
(BCC, vol. L:296). Sometime ca. 1917 they came to work
for T. C. Osborn and stayed on until 1954. The family of
Pete Martínez, Jr. lived at the two-story Jones house, the
third house they lived in while working for T. C. Osborn.
When his father first went to work for Mr. Osborn, the
family had to stay in the small log cabin located directly
behind the two-story main house (G. W. Jones House,
41BP86). This was all that was available at that time. Mr.
Martínez doesn’t think his family lived in this log cabin
very long, and soon moved into a frame house a short dis-
tance from the two-story house. This second house was
located at the south-end of Marion Street, east of the rail-
road tracks, and a short distance to the northeast of the
Figure 9c. Picking cotton, Bexar County, Texas. (ITC-UTSA, No. 1238-B)
38
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
two-story house (see Figure 7). Pete Martínez, Jr. was born
in 1932, in this house off of Marion Street. His family
moved into the two-story house sometime around 1938
when his uncle, Asención Domínguez, moved out of this
two-story house and away from the farm. Mr. Martínez
stated that Mr. Osborn said to his father, “Peter move, I
want you to move from the little house to the two-story
house.” He [Mr. Osborn] “worshipped his mules, cause
that’s what brought him his milk and butter. He said, ‘[Pe-
ter] you can be close to the barn where you can keep an
eye on everything at night, and you can be close to my
mules in case anything should happen.’” Mr. Martínez re-
called that T. C. Osborn had a total of nine mules, which
were grazed in the forested east end of the property.
Pete Martínez was a sharecropper, “The way my daddy did
it, all the time I knew him, from the time I was born until the
time he quit—the landlord provided the land, the seed, and
the mules and plows. He [the owner] furnished everything.
The only thing you furnished was your work. You and your
family got out there and worked for him. I imagine my daddy
farmed a good 80 acres, maybe a little more, and by 1940
could count on the assistance of three teenaged sons. Like I
said, your landlord furnishes everything. You’ve got a place
to live that doesn’t cost you anything. You don’t have any
plumbing, any running water, but whatever it is, you don’t
pay nothing. When you go to harvesting your crop, you pick
a bale of cotton, you put it in the wagon, you bring it to the
gin, they’ll gin it for you, they’ll tell you how much it brought
you, you take that check to the landlord, you get half of it.
When you’re farming like he was, where he [the landlord]
furnishes everything, he gets half of it. You go out there and
harvest your corn, you count, one row for you and one for
him. That’s all it is, you don’t go by the load. The way my
daddy and I used to do it, we’d leave five rows there, that’s
for him, and I take these other five. See, if those five rows,
adjoining your five, if they don’t produce as much, if they
don’t produce more, you don’t do anything about it. It’s one
row for you and one for him.”
When T. C. Osborn passed away, his daughter Mary took
over. “Mary, she was living with her daddy and her mother.
And when he died, Mary took over the farm, and my daddy
continued working for her just like he did for Mr. Osborn.
There was no change. He’d go to her, just like he did with
her daddy. Like I was telling you, when you got to harvest-
ing your cotton and you take that to the landlord—see you
have to come up with quite a few bales before you can get
anything out of it, cause see, all during the year, the land-
lord, he’s advancing you money. They had a deal, where
depending on the size of the family, they’d give you so much
per month. And on the first of the month you’d go up there
and get your money. Of course money was different then, it
was hard to get, but it went a long way. You see today, it’s
easy to get, but it don’t go nowhere.”
Mr. Martínez later recalled that the
amount of the allowance was about
$20 per month.
“No, you’re not gonna get rich
[sharecropping]. But you see that’s
all, the Mexican people, that’s all
they did. That’s all they knew. No,
that’s all you did. You just get by.
And you bought things—it was just
on a handshake back then. So at the
end of the year you pay the boss man
and you pay anybody else you owe.
My father he used to have an uncle
that lived on a farm, down this street
right here, where you come to the
river. He would say, ‘Well I don’t
have anything left, but I’ve got my
doors open.’ See what he’s saying
is that he paid everybody, so he can
Figure 9d. Picking cotton near Granger, Texas. (ITC-UTSA, No. 98-158)
39
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
go back and start charging from
them tomorrow if he wants to, be-
cause you see, his name was good.
He made good on that money he
owed. See that was the deal, ‘When
my crop comes in, I will pay you.’
And they did. And my daddy would
say that money left his hands sore.
‘So much money went through my
hands, that that’s all I have left, sore
hands’ he said.”
Even before Mary Osborn passed
away in 1952, she had already
started to get out of the farming busi-
ness. “She rented the land to a man
that used to own a dairy, right across
the street, a fellow by the name of
Long. And my daddy went to work
for him. He [Mr. Long] made ar-
rangements with Mary. When she
rented the place, she said [to Mr.
Long], ‘I’ll rent you the place, but
this house has got nothing to do with it. Peter is going to
live there for as long as he wants to.’ He [my father] bought
a lot over here in town, during the War, and he built a house
on it. And he had been renting it. And he said, ‘I just want to
have a house so that when I get ready to move I’ll have a
place of my own to move into.’ Cause you see, when she
rented that place, that ranch to Mr. Long, she told him that
daddy was going to live there rent free for as long as he
lived. And then when she died, I don’t know—Mr. Gore,
who was married to a granddaughter of Mr. Osborn, and
they took over the place. Mary Belle Turner Gore and her
husband, Walter Gore, were local school teachers. Daddy
moved into town while I was in Korea. I came back in fifty-
five, I think my daddy told me he moved [into town]
in fifty-four.” Mr. Martínez recalled that his uncles, John
and Ysidro Domínguez, sharecropped on Earl Erhard’s farm
up until the late-1950s, and were the last to do so in the
Bastrop area.
Summary of Narratives
It is apparent that all three tenant farm families shared fairly
similar experiences. In all three cases, the families lived on
and worked the farm in lieu of half the proceeds from the
cotton harvest. All three received a monthly cash advance
and/or were allowed credit, which was settled soon after
the crops were harvested. In all three cases, the entire fam-
ily provided the skilled and unskilled labor necessary to
cultivate and harvest the crops.
It is interesting to note that by the mid-1950s, all three
families had worked their way out of tenant farming and
into more stable employment. What is also obvious is that
all three—Barrón, García, and Martínez—were experi-
enced and successful farmers. Another observation is that
almost without exception, these farm families were Texas
Mexicans (Tejanos). They were not recent arrivals, and
they were certainly not refugees from the Mexican Revo-
lution of ca. 1910-1917.
Figure 9e. Cotton wagons on their way to the cotton yard, Elgin, Texas.
(ITC-UTSA, No. 96-1312)
40
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
As early as 1850, Bastrop County had five sawmills, which
increased to nine by 1860. These nine sawmills were pro-
ducing close to four and one-half million linear feet of plank,
and over one and one-half million roofing shingles per year
(USDCa 1850). Wood shingle samples were recovered from
the site, and these are 4¼ in. wide by 16¼ in. long. The
shingles were ¼ in. thick and the exposed end tapered to
about
1
/
8
inch.
A review of the Bastrop properties surveyed in the mid-
1970s and listed in the Historic Site Atlas of the Texas His-
torical Commission revealed no less than eight
board-and-batten homes constructed between ca. 1850–90.
Based on the available photos, there are two that resemble
the T. C. Osborn share-tenant house in form and scale. One
was at 1805 Pecan Street and the other at 1316 Farm Street,
and both were constructed ca. 1870 (Texas Historic Site
Atlas 2000). A recent pedestrian search for both properties
proved unproductive.
Included in the above referenced inventory is a “Late Vic-
torian Farm House” at the end of Pecan Street, with a date
of construction of ca. 1880 (Texas Historic Site Atlas 2000).
This “T” plan board-and-batten farm house is directly across
the street from the Osborn tenant house. (The house can be
seen in the background of Figure 18, in the Summary sec-
tion.) According to Louise García, Emma Rockwell, and
Pete Martínez, Jr. (personal communications 2000), this
house was home to “Brother Bell” and his family in the
1930s. Paul C. Bell (1886–1952) was the minister of the
Mexican Baptist Church in Bastrop between 1914 and 1919,
and pastor between 1923 and 1935. During this latter pe-
riod, he served simultaneously as pastor of the Bastrop Bap-
tist Church between 1925 and 1928. He left for two years,
and then returned to serve as pastor between 1937 and 1941.
Bell is also credited with establishing an elementary school
for Mexican children in 1926, which continued in opera-
tion until May 1941 (Handbook of Texas Online 2000). The
Mexican Baptist Church, and former site of the Mexican
Baptist School, is located a few blocks northwest of the
Osborn tenant house.
T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm House
According to the Osborn family, the board-and-batten home
was constructed ca. 1906 by T. C. Osborn for the use of
share-tenant families (Robinson 1989). Based on the archi-
val research and oral histories, we now know that the house
Artifactual Data
The T. C. Osborn tenant farmhouse was located at the south-
ern end of Bastrop, at the far south end of Pecan Street. The
1987 investigations by John Clark (TxDOT) focused on an
area approximately 80 ft. wide, from east to west, by 160 ft.
long, from north to south (12,800 square feet), with the house
located along the south-end of the study area. Thirty-one
units were excavated within the immediate vicinity of the
structure, and to the north and south. Subsurface investiga-
tions also included the use of a gradall to blade two areas at
the rear of the house (see Figure 5 in Results section).
This parcel of land and the tenant house was home to at
least two families, but the extent and variety of cultural
material suggests there may have been more. The structure
was constructed ca. 1906 was continuously occupied until
ca. 1950. The 1987 investigation included the documenta-
tion of what was left of the house, which met Historic Ameri-
can Building Survey (HABS) Level 3 guidelines. These 1987
field drawings were then used to describe and prepare a
graphic representation of the structure (Figure 10). These
data are followed by a section detailing an analysis of the
recovered cultural material.
Architecture
The Board-and-Batten Home
The early homes of Bastrop were constructed with expedi-
ency, and featured local materials. The most common early
homes were log cabins, constructed from the same trees that
were felled in order to clear the land for farming (Moore
1977). Numerous examples of Bastrop’s early architecture
are extant and listed on the National Register of Historic
Places (Texas Historic Site Atlas 2000). Included in this
inventory of early homes is a less romanticized cottage, typi-
fied by its board-and-batten exterior siding.
Board-and-batten was a fairly popular mid-nineteenth cen-
tury house type. This type of house is recognizable by its
siding of wide boards and narrow battens. This siding was
popularized in the 1830s and 1840s, during the Gothic Re-
vival period. The vertical arrangement of the board-and-
batten siding was perceived as being a more natural way of
using wood, given that trees grow vertically. By about 1900
its continued use was mostly limited to the drier Southwest,
because the narrow battens warped and curled away from
the walls in wetter northern climates (Glencoe Mill and Mill
Village Historic District 2001).
41
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Figure 10. Isometric view of a reconstruction of the T. C. Osborn tenant house.
42
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
of equal size, with two front doors. As in this example, rooms
are generally added into the original design as a rear addi-
tion (Raab 1982). The practicality and low-cost of this type
of house made it a favorite in agricultural settings as hous-
ing for transient farm workers.
Figure 6 serves to illustrate that the house was in a serious
state of deterioration in early 1987. Based on this and a
series of other photos, we know that by this late date, the
chimney had already collapsed and the missing bricks most
likely had been carted off to be recycled elsewhere. The
east half of the house had collapsed and the material re-
mained where it had fallen. The TxDOT archaeologists had
to remove this debris in order to proceed with their excava-
tions. Most of the doors were missing and the windowpanes
had all been broken. The front facade, south elevation, of
the west half of the house had been removed, probably to
allow for easy access and use as a hay barn.
Based on the oral histories, we know that this broken-down
house, as modest as it may have been, was home to no less
than two families who were anything but transient. The fol-
lowing illustrations serve to depict how the house would
have looked during its prime. By utilizing three distinct data
sources, we were able to produce a series of illustrations
that included a plan view, four elevations, and an isometric
view of the house (see Figures 10 through 12). These im-
ages are from a collection of several black and white pho-
tos of the structure taken by the TxDOT crew in February
1987. These photos were then cross-referenced against a
second source, the architectural field sketches and details
executed by Tom Eisenhower of TxDOT. The accuracy of
the draft illustrations was then confirmed by Emma
Rockwell, former resident (personal communication). Based
on Emma Rockwell’s recollections, we were also able to
recreate the footprint of the front porch.
Artifact Analysis
Well over 9,000 individual artifacts were collected during
this investigation. These artifacts were recovered from 32
units: 13 units were excavated within the immediate vicin-
ity of the house and an additional six units were located and
excavated to the south and southeast of the house. Another
13 units were located and excavated to the rear, or north, of
the house. Two additional areas were investigated, about
60 ft. north of the house, in an effort to locate the privy and/
or other outbuildings. According to Mrs. Rockwell (cited
was home to the Livorio González family (ca. 1906–25)
and the David García family (1932–41). Given the artifac-
tual evidence, we are certain that the house was continu-
ously occupied during the first-half of the twentieth century,
but were unable to find out who the other families were.
The Osborn farm and house were located outside the Bastrop
City limits (see Figure 3). The share-tenant house was a
one-story, two-room, side-gabled, with a two-room, lean-to
addition at the rear. The house featured a gable-end chim-
ney along the west elevation and a wood shingle roof. Al-
though the house also featured a front porch, this was no
longer extant in February 1987.
According to Emma Rockwell (personal communication
2000), the front facade did have two entrances as well as
two windows. The front doors led into separate bedrooms
(living areas), and the rooms at the rear, lean-to portion
served as a kitchen and dining room (Figure 10). The main
structure of the house was 14½ ft. wide by 28½ ft. long.
The lean-to addition ran the full length of the rear of the
house (28½ ft.) and was 7 ft. wide. The front of the house
was oriented slightly to the southeast, and faced onto Pecan
Street. The house lacked any sort of utilities, either plumb-
ing or electrical.
House Plan and Elevations
The typical board-and-batten house begins with the con-
struction of a one to two room structure on a pier and beam
foundation. The framework, known as balloon framing, was
primarily of 2 x 4 in. studs, which were then enclosed with
1 x 12 in. boards nailed vertically to form the walls. To
allow for expansion, the boards were spaced ½ in. apart,
and the spaces were then covered over with 1 x 3 in., or 1 x
4 in., narrow boards (batten). These small houses had
wooden floors and gabled roofs of wooden shingles, which
were often later replaced with galvanized metal roofs. As
the family grew and financial circumstances permitted,
rooms were added to the back of the house and perhaps a
porch to the front and to the rear.
The Osborn tenant house is a typical model of a type of
residential structure that was popularized in the mid-1800s
and carried over well into the twentieth century. The house
features are especially characteristic of post-railroad folk
housing construction (McAlester and McAlester 1986). This
style of folk housing is often referred to as Cumberland ar-
chitectural type, and consists of two front rooms, typically
43
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
previously), the privy was lo-
cated about 100 ft. to the north
of the house and towards the
creek, which means that the
field crew was about 40 ft.
short of the mark.
With the exception of one tri-
angular-shaped unit, the rest of
the units were 5 ft. by 5 ft. (1.5
m x 1.5 m) square and all were
excavated in a single level of
about 12 in. (30.5 cm) below
surface. Given this mode of
recovery, it was impossible to
stratigraphically isolate the ar-
tifacts. These conditions also
made it impossible to deter-
mine if the artifacts were as-
sociated with sheet refuse or
recovered from an intact ma-
trix. Nevertheless, we were
able to formulate a minimal
amount of discussion regard-
ing the spatial distribution of
the artifacts.
Figure 11. South elevation, front of house, (top) and north elevation, rear of house,
(bottom) of T. C. Osborn house.
0
1m
0
4 ft
Figure 12. West (left) and east (right) elevations of the T. C. Osborn house.
Firep lace Open in
g
(
4’ x 4 ’
)
Chimney Was Not
Attached to Wall
0 1m
0
4 ft
44
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
(12 percent) was recovered from a unit located about 50 ft.
from the rear of the house. These three units also accounted
for the recovery of 30 percent of the buttons. A series of
graphic representations of select artifacts is presented in the
discussion. This section is concluded with a detailed analy-
sis and discussion of the recovered faunal remains.
Chipped Stone
A total of 96 chipped stone fragments were recovered. Of
these, 81 were fire-cracked rock, and 15 were classified as
flakes. Most of this material was recovered from units lo-
cated between Feature 1 and the well, approximately 40 ft.
south of Gills Branch Creek. An additional 43 pieces were
determined to have been mislabeled, and were not chipped
stone. The presence of chipped stone is not at all surprising
given the site’s close proximity to Gills Branch Creek and
the Colorado River.
Metal Objects
Over 400 assorted metal fragments were recovered, and most
of these were unidentifiable. This collection consists of 4.8
pounds (2.2 kg) of mostly unidentified metal objects, such
as bits and pieces of brass, copper, lead, iron, and sheet
metal. It would seem likely that most of these fragments at
one time related to barn and workshop items, as well as
construction-related hardware.
Miscellaneous
This category included an odd assortment of mostly
nondiagnostic artifacts (n=141). Items recovered included
an aluminum fragment, bits and pieces of cardboard and
paper, coal fragments, egg shells, peach seeds, and uniden-
tified fragments of fabric, plastic, wood, and rubber. Included
in this category is a relatively small collection of mussel
shell and snail. A total of 8.3 oz. (258.2 g) of mussel shell
and 0.15 oz. (4.67 g) of snail shell were recovered.
Activity
A total of 40 items were included in this category. Over half
of these (n=22), were school or education-related, such as
slate fragments, slate marker fragments, and pencil frag-
ments. Over half of the writing material was recovered in
An inventory of the recovered material is presented in Ap-
pendix A, and a synopsis of this is presented in Table 6. Close
to thirty-eight percent of the recovered material was construc-
tion-related, such as assorted hinges, nails, wood screws, and
window glass. The next highest percentage of collected ma-
terial was associated with kitchen and household items (34
percent), such as bottle and jar caps, bottle and vessel glass,
and can fragments. The third highest category of material
collected was ceramics (15 percent), including a variety of
whiteware, porcelain, and stoneware sherds.
The recovered cultural material strongly suggests a post-
1900 occupation that carried over well into the 1950s. This
is especially obvious when considering that only five per-
cent of the total bottle glass recovered was manganese
bleached (pre-1915 origin). In contrast, the occurrence of
selenium bleached bottle glass (post-1915 origin) was five
times greater. Based on glass vessel sherds, there was greater
evidence for post-1900 occupation of the site, with well over
half of the sample being represented by selenium-bleached
sherds. The largest percentage ceramic type recovered from
this site was undecorated whiteware (67 percent), which was
a fairly common house ware by 1915. Another strong indi-
cator of a post-1900 occupation was the amount of cut nails
vs. wire nails. A total of 38 percent of the recovered nails
were cut nails, while 62 percent were wire nails. Regardless
of type, a large percentage of the recovered nails were 6d,
7d, and 8d sizes, which are commonly used on roof and
wall components (Brown et al. 1998).
A summary of the analysis of the cultural material is pre-
sented below. We had proposed to undertake a comparative
analysis of a select type of cultural material, but this idea
was abandoned since it seemed redundant given the exten-
sive oral narratives. We also attempted to identify artifact
densities, or concentrations, throughout the site based on
artifact types (e.g., Construction, Activity, etc.). After com-
paring the percentage of artifacts between units, we found
that Clothing/Personal was the only category that showed
higher/lower concentrations between units. The highest con-
centrations of Clothing/Personal items occurred beneath the
east end bedroom (13 percent) and along the exterior of
the west end bedroom (8 percent). Another concentration
Chipped
Stone
Metal
Ob
j
ects Misc.
Shell &
Snail Activit
y
Clothing &
Personal
Arms &
Ammunition
Barn &
Wrksh
p
Kitchen &
Household Ceramics Construction Total
Count 96 425 141 107 40 128 11 411 3237 1413 3624 9633
% 1.0 4.4 1.5 1.1 0.4 1.3 0.1 4.3 33.6 14.7 37.6 100.0
Table 6. Summary of Recovered Material
45
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
close proximity to the two bedrooms and front porch.
The slate markers (n=3) had initially been mislabeled as
simply slate fragments. This slate material is interesting as
it definitely related to ca. 1910 school material. An adver-
tisement by the Peoples Cash Grocery states that they “have
bought a large stock of Tablets…Slates…” (Bastrop Ad-
vertiser, October 8, 1910). The remaining 18 items related
to toys and game pieces, with nine of these being ca. 1930
marbles (Zapata 1997). The items shown in Figure 13 are a
representative sample of activity-related items which all date
to ca. 1920–40 (Meissner 1997a).
Clothing/Personal
A total of 128 personal items were recovered. Within this
category, the highest number of items was buttons (n=83),
with 42 of these being shell buttons. In terms of density,
most of these artifacts were recovered from within and im-
mediately outside of the house (Unit N505/E510, n=16 and
Unit N520/E515, n=14). An additional concentration was
recovered from a unit located about 40 ft. behind the house
(Unit N580/E500, n=17). A sample of personal items, beads,
and earrings are also shown in Figure 13. Numerous cloth-
ing-related items were recovered, and include an assortment
of buttons (Figure 14). The celluloid and glass buttons all
date to within the first-half of the twentieth century, while
the plastic buttons probably date to ca. 1945 (Meissner
1997b). Also recovered and shown in Figure 15 were some
metal buttons and fasteners commonly used on work pants,
such as those found on overalls. They were fairly common
and are still in use today.
Arms and Ammunition
A total of 11 cartridges were recovered. Five were .22 cali-
ber, one .25 caliber, one .32 caliber, one .45 caliber, and 3
shotgun shells. These specimens were found scattered
across the project area, exhibiting no particular signs of
concentration.
Barn/Workshop
The vast majority of these items consisted of metal strap-
ping and wire fragments. One-half pound of strap fragments
were recovered, as was one and one-half pounds of wire
fragments. Among the recovered material were 13 small
fragments of fairly common two-point barbed wire, as well
as three size-D batteries and three battery core fragments. A
total of 12 items relating to tools and 48 items relating to
machinery parts were recovered, and included file fragments,
nuts, and bolts.
Kitchen/Household
The recovered material within this category comprised the
second highest percentage of the total material collected at
this site. A number of complete bottle and jar caps were
recovered, as well as can fragments and lamp glass. The
largest amount of material recovered was bottle glass, 2,105
fragments (10.9 lbs). Vessel glass (e.g., jars and possibly
drinking glasses) comprised the next highest number, with
a total of 584 fragments (4.2 lbs). Figure 16 shows three of
the bottles recovered. These date to between ca. 1930 and
1940 (Toulouse 1971).
Figure 13. Samples of activity and personal items recovered
from the T. C. Osborn site. a) black, “pee-wee” marble;
b) opaque, green and white swirl marble; c) translucent, dark
green and white, swirl marble; d) doll’s lower leg, bisque;
e) doll’s leg, infant with raised toes (pair), bisque, with self-
shank for joinery; f) earring pendants, plastic; g-m) assorted
costume jewelry beads.
46
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
percentage of stoneware (4 percent), mostly salt
glazed, represented in the collection.
Considering the entire collection, the largest per-
centage (67 percent) was comprised of undeco-
rated whiteware. This type of undecorated
whiteware is fairly common in post-Civil War
sites. The next highest grouping (11 percent) was
comprised of an assortment of whitewares (e.g.,
banded slip, decal, decorated, edge decorated,
hand-painted, plain color, spatter, and transfer).
Construction
Over one-third of the recovered material was con-
struction-related (n=3,624), and included an as-
sortment of door and gate hinges, cut and wire
nails, wood screws, and window glass. Of these
items, the largest number recovered was window
glass (n=1,494). The recovered window glass
ranged in thickness from 2 mm to 3 mm, with one
fragment being 6 mm thick. Of this sample 4.3
percent were 2 mm thick, 22.4 percent were 2.5
mm thick, and 14.7 percent were 3 mm thick.
Five percent of the total bottle glass recovered was manga-
nese bleached (pre-1915 origin), and 26 percent was sele-
nium bleached (post-1915 origin). The occurrence of
pre-1915 vessel glass (4 percent) was fairly similar to that
of the bottle glass. There was, however, greater evidence
for post-1915 vessel glass, with 55 percent of the recovered
vessel glass represented by selenium bleached sherds.
Ceramics
The greatest number of ceramics were recovered from be-
hind the house, with 64 percent of these from five distinct
areas with a total of 100 or more sherds. Almost a third of
the total number of ceramics were recovered from an area
comprised of three lots, located between 40 and 90 ft. be-
hind the house.
The earliest type of ceramics recovered from this site was
tin-glazed—Guanajuato and Monterey, representing less
than one percent of the total (0.8 percent). Considering the
age and scarcity of these types (ca. mid-nineteenth century),
they most likely represent heirloom pieces. There was a small
Figure 14. Samples of assorted buttons recovered from the T. C. Osborn
site. a-c) celluloid buttons; d-g) plastic buttons; h-l) glass buttons;
m) collar stud.
Figure 15. Samples of metal work clothing
accessories. a) strap D-clasp; b) strap slides;
c-f) assorted metal buttons and fasteners.
47
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
A total of 708 cut nails were recovered. Thirty-two percent
of the recovered cut nails were 6d, commonly used on nailers
(shingle or shake roof systems). The rest of the cut nails ranged
in size from 4d to 40d, with no obvious concentration of any
one type. The largest number of nails recovered from this site
was wire (n=1,145). Thirty-one percent of the wire nails were
7d and 8d—commonly used for flooring and siding. The rest
of the recovered nails ranged in size from 2d to 60d, with no
obvious concentration of any one type.
The recovered material also included some bolts and nuts,
mortar fragments, brick fragments, and complete bricks.
Also included in the excavated sample were two cold chis-
els, an L-brace, three ceramic door knob fragments, 15 as-
sorted hinges (door, gate, and cabinet), three electrical
insulator fragments, five sections of galvanized pipe, about
33 grams of wood fragments, and six flat washers.
Summary
The most abundant materials recovered at this site relate
directly to the board-and-batten home. This is not at all sur-
prising, given that when the site was investigated in 1987
the house had already been abandoned for nearly 30 years.
As demonstrated previously in Figure 6, the structure’s state
of deterioration was quite advanced, with an enormous num-
ber of architectural elements scattered about. Although an
abundance of flat glass (n=1,494) was recovered, we de-
cided not to proceed with an analysis of this glass, since we
already had excellent information regarding the 50-year his-
tory of the structure. With the exception of the chipped stone
artifacts, the vast majority of the recovered material was of
ca. 1900-1950 origin, and none appeared to be of post-1950
origin. In an effort to glean more information from the re-
covered cultural material, the faunal remains were inten-
sively studied, and the findings are presented in this report.
Figure 16. Samples of bottles recovered from the T. C. Osborn site. a) “Vicks Va-Tro-Nol 24”
nose drops, cobalt blue, ca. 1935; b) “Bayer” aspirin bottle, ca. 1930; c) “Gebhardt Eagle” chili
powder bottle, ca. 1940.
48
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
usefulness in collections that are the result of a market
economy, i.e., when some or much of the meat was purchased
in table-ready cuts from butchers. In addition, in a small
collection such as this, with bone collected from widely
spaced units, MNI becomes more a count of presence/ab-
sence in a unit, and is of little value.
Bone weight can also, with caution, be used as a measure of
relative abundance. Bone weight is, in general, a better in-
dicator of relative dietary importance (as opposed to rela-
tive abundance) than NISP, but this measure must not be
used exclusively. In general, larger bones carry more meat,
but the relationship is not linear (Reitz and Wing 1999:222–
231), varies among different taxa, and there is considerable
variation from one part of the animal to another (e.g., lower
legs of cattle are dense, heavy bones but carry relatively
little meat compared to other bones of the body). The use of
bone weight as an assessment of dietary importance also
suffers from the necessary assumption that all taphonomic
factors that affect bone weight (such as leaching, mineral-
ization, or encrustation) have affected all bone in the col-
lection uniformly. Bone weight tends to emphasize the
importance of larger, heavier animals, and because of this,
tends to counter-balance the tendency of NISP to empha-
size smaller animals.
Each analytic method discussed above is subject to a num-
ber of biases (Reitz and Wing 1999:200). The degree to
which any of these biases has affected the collection cannot
usually be assessed. Used together, however, NISP and bone
weight can provide a better picture of the relative impor-
tance of each species to the diet than either can provide
when used alone.
Analysis
A list of identified taxa is shown in Table 7, with counts and
weights. A complete, provenienced list of all data recov-
ered from the bone is in Appendix B. The bone was gener-
ally in good condition, with little evidence of damage from
atmospheric or chemical weathering, however 79.2 percent
of the bone could be identified only as mammalian. Eighty-
seven bones (14 percent) could be identified to the genus
taxonomic level.
Taxa Identified
A total of 14 genera was identified. Opossum (Didelphis
virginiana) is the most common identified bone, constituting
Vertebrate Faunal Remains Barbara A. Meissner
Methods
A total of 620 vertebrate faunal remains, weighing 1,140.23
g, was recovered during the project. The bone was identi-
fied to the most specific taxon possible using the compara-
tive collection at CAR, as well as several reference texts
(Balkwill and Cumbaa 1992; Cohen and Serjeantson 1996;
Gilbert 1990; Hildebrand 1955; Hillson 1986; Olsen 1960,
1964, 1968; Sobolik and Steele 1996). Identifications were
conservative, i.e., bone that appeared to be cow-sized was
not identified as Bos taurus unless it could be differentiated
from Bison and Equus species. One exception to this is that
all saw-cut bone of cow size was tentatively identified at
Bos taurus, under the assumption that bison and horse would
not be butchered in this fashion during the time the farm
was occupied. All bone was weighed, and evidence of ex-
posure to heat was noted on all bone. Element, portion of
element, side, evidence of immaturity, butcher marks, and
pathologies were noted on bone identified to the order taxo-
nomic level. When bone could be identified only to class
(e.g., mammal, bird, etc.) an estimate of the size of the ani-
mal was made when possible. After the analysis, the bone
was bagged by unit and level. Bone identified to at least the
order taxonomic level was bagged separately and included
in the unit-level bags.
Two measures of relative abundance were used to estimate
the importance of all species to the meat diet as represented
by this collection: Number of Identified Specimens (NISP)
and bone weight. NISP is the count of specimens that have
been identified to at least the genus taxonomic level. Its use
as a measure of relative abundance is problematic (Grayson
1984:20–24; Reitz and Wing 1999:191–192). As Reitz and
Wing (1999:192) have remarked: “By using [NISP] as a
measure of abundance, the analyst assumes cultural and
noncultural fragmentation is uniform, recovery rates are
constant for each taxon, and all taxa have an equal opportu-
nity to be counted.” NISP cannot differentiate between 11
fragments from 11 different cows and 11 fragments of a
single cow bone. Reliance on NISP alone will distort the
estimate of relative abundance in favor of small animals
and animals with parts that are more readily identifiable in
fragmentary form.
The Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) is often used
to correct some of the problems with NISP (Reitz and Wing
1999:194,197–198). MNI is the number of individuals nec-
essary to account for the bone present. MNI is of very limited
49
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
24.1 percent of the total, and armadillo (Dasypus
novemcinctus) the next most common taxa (Table 7), with
23 percent of the NISP. In fact, wild mammals make up 54
percent (n=47) of the total NISP. Cattle are the third most
common, with 20.7 percent of the NISP. Of domestic ani-
mals commonly used for food, only cattle (Bos taurus) and
pigs (Sus scrofa) are represented in this collection. No fish
bone, and only two turtle bones, were identified, totaling
2.3 percent of the NISP.
As discussed in the Methods section, however, NISP gives
a false impression of the importance of species with smaller
body weight. Table 8, which shows the percentage of total
NISP weight for each of the categories listed above, indi-
cates that the meat diet represented by this collection is
dominated by domestic food animals, which together con-
stitute 89.5 percent of the NISP bone weight. Although wild
mammals are well represented in the NISP, they are only a
small percentage of the NISP bone weight (Table 8).
Table 7. Taxon List
Taxa Common Name Count % of NISP Weight (g) % of NISP
Mammalia Mammals
Bos taurus
Cattle 18 20.7% 425.81 71.0%
Canis
s
p
. Do
g,
co
y
ote
,
or wol
f
4 4.6% 10.78 1.8%
Dasypus novemcinctus
Armadillo 20 23.0% 7.69 1.3%
Didelphis virginiana
Opossum 21 24.1% 28.70 4.8%
Felis
domesticus
Domestic cat 4 4.6% 8.71 1.5%
Odocoileus virginianus
White-tailed deer 1 1.1% 0.89 0.1%
Procyon lotor
Raccoon 1 1.1% 1.12 0.2%
Sciurus
s
p
. Tree s
q
uirrels 1 1.1% 0.25 0.0%
Sus scrofa
Domestic pig 8 9.2% 111.01 18.5%
S
y
lvila
g
us
s
p
. Cottontail rabbit 3 3.4% 1.08 0.2%
81 93.1% 596.04 99.4%
Artiodactyl Deer, sheep, goats 4 24.80
Bovinae Cattle or bison 9 40.59
Rodentia Rodents 3 0.16
Suidae Pigs 1 0.55
Mammal--small Rabbit-sized 4 3.08
Mammal--medium Dog-sized 1 3.42
Mammal--large Deer, sheep-sized 4 10.37
Mammal--very large Cattle, bison, horse-sized 40 195.53
Mammal Size indeterminate 442 250.36
589 1124.90
Aves Birds
Gallus domesticus
Chicken 2 2.3% 0.95 0.2%
Turdus migratorius
Robin 2 2.3% 0.30 0.1%
4 4.6% 1.25 0.2%
Aves--medium Pigeon-sized 5 0.77
Aves--large Chicken-sized 1 0.83
Aves--very large Turkey, hawk-sized 1 2.03
Aves Size indeterminate 18 8.07
29 12.95
Reptilia Reptiles
Chelydra serpintina
Snapping turtle 1 1.1% 0.98 0.2%
Trion
y
x
s
p
. Softshelled turtles 1 1.1% 1.40 0.2%
2
2.3%
2.38
0.4%
Total NISP 87 100.0% 599.67 100.0%
Overall Totals 620 1140.23
Total Reptiles
Total Identified Mammals
Total Mammals
Total Identified Birds
Total Birds
50
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Butchering
Butchering marks were recorded only on bone that was iden-
tified to at least the order taxonomic level, with one excep-
tion. All saw marks on bones for which the size of the animal
could be estimated were recorded, since most sawed bones
were too small to identify to the order taxonomic level. As
mentioned in the methods section, however, sawed bone
that was cow-sized was assumed to be cow.
Table 9 lists the butcher mark types and the number of bones
displaying these marks by taxon. Fifteen bones in the col-
lection (2.4 percent of the total) showed evidence of being
sawed. Of these, the type of saw could not be identified on
three bones. Two other bones had been sawed with a ma-
chine saw, indicating they had been butchered in the twen-
tieth century. The remainder of the sawed bone was cut with
hand saws, a nineteenth-century butchering practice.
Meat Cuts Represented
Meat cuts represented by the identified beef bone is listed
in Table 10. Nineteenth-century butchering patterns were
similar to those used today (Clonts 1983:350), although the
relative value of each cut has shifted somewhat over time
(Schulz and Gust 1983:48). The ranking of each cut pre-
sented in Table 10 is based on records from the latter half of
the nineteenth century, as presented in Schulz and Gust
(1983:48). The majority of the bone is from moderate to
less expensive cuts. In fact one-third of the bone is from the
least expensive cuts, the hind and foreshank.
Evidence of Heat Alteration
Evidence of exposure to heat can indicate whether bone
was routinely thrown into the fire as a disposal method.
Normally, cooking of meat, even over an open fire, will
only smoke-stain or char the bone. The duration and inten-
sity of heating necessary to calcine bone is considerable. It
is unlikely to occur during routine cooking (Lyman
1994:388–389). In this collection, 32.5 percent (n=183) of
the bone showed evidence of heat alteration (Table 11). Of
these, 80.3 percent (n=147) were partially calcined or fully
calcined. This strongly suggests that bone was burned as a
disposal method, probably with other trash.
Discussion
This collection is very small, and the small number of iden-
tified bone severely limits the inferences that can be drawn
from this analysis. However, a few observations can be made
and conclusions can be drawn while keeping the limits of a
small sample size in mind.
Almost all of the identified beef bone was sawed, in cuts
that have been standard, at least for Anglo-American butch-
ers, since the middle of the nineteenth century (Schulz and
Gust 1983:48). No beef head, foot, or tail elements were
recovered. This strongly indicates that the beef represented
by this bone was purchased from professional butchers, in
retail cuts.
Taxa Category % of Total NISP Weight
Cattle 71.00%
Pigs 18.50%
Wild mammals 6.60%
Chicken 0.20%
Turtles 0.40%
Table 8. Percent of Total NISP Bone Weight for Selected Taxa
Type Count Notes
Cut 1 Only seen on humerus of a snapping turtle
Chop 3 Cow atlas chopped in half; distal tips of medial maleolus of cow tibia chopped off
(
bone had been sawed
j
ust
p
roximal of the e
p
i
p
h
y
sis
)
;
p
i
g
cranium also cho
pp
ed.
Hand sawed 10 Includes 2 radii, 3 femora, 3 tibia, and 2 innominates of cattle
Machine sawed 2 Includes 1 femur and 1 innominate of cattle.
Saw (Indeterminate) 3 Includes 1 rib, 1 ulna, and 1 innominate of cattle
Impact scar 1 Located just above semi-lunar notch of cow ulna
Table 9. Butchering Mark Types and Counts
51
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Most of the identified pig bones (Sus scrofa) were frag-
ments of head and teeth. One pig ulna had been sawed just
distal of the semi-lunar notch, but also had an impact scar
in the olecranon. There are too few pig bones identified to
be sure, but it is possible that pigs may have been grown
and butchered on site.
Most of the animals identified in this collection were wild
animals, including deer (a single tooth fragment), squirrel
(a single ulna), opossum, and armadillo. Any of these may
have been hunted for food, but except for the deer, any of
them may have been killed or found dead, and simply dis-
posed of in the trash. There are, however, cut marks on one
of the turtle bones, suggesting that the meat was removed.
Unfortunately, the sample is too small to allow speculation
on how much the meat diet on the farm was supplemented
by hunting.
Heat Alteration Count
Smoke stained 3
Charred 33
Partially calcined 74
Calcined 73
Tota
l
183
Table 11. Counts of Heat-Altered Bone
Summary
This collection of only 620 bones, of which only 87 were
identifiable, is too small to allow more than a few sugges-
tions about diet, butchering, and participation in a market
economy. The bones identified suggest that beef was pur-
chased from grocery or butcher stores, while the pig may
have been grown and butchered at home. Mammals com-
monly hunted for food are present and may have been part
of the diet. There is evidence that bones were commonly
disposed of by burning, probably with other trash.
Due to the small sample size, this collection is only able to
hint at the nature of the meat diet on the farm, and how that
meat was acquired.
Element Count Cut Represented 19th Century Ranking
Femur (distal and medial) 3 Round steak 3
Ischium 4 Rump 4
Proximal rib 1 Chuck 5
Distal 1st rib 1 Cross rib 6
Atlas 1 Neck 8
Radius 2 Foreshank 9
Tibia 3 Hindshan
k
9
Table 10. Meat Cuts Represented in the Collection, with an Ordinal Scale of Value
(Based on Schulz and Gust 1983)
52
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Although Pedro Martínez and Lucrecia Martínez and their
children lived and worked on the Osborn Farm for 38 years
(1917–1954), they never lived at the tenant house
(41BP314), located at the west-end of the farm. Pedro
Martínez and Lucrecia Domínguez were originally from
Zapata County, Texas. According to Pete Martínez, Jr., his
mother migrated north with her parents by wagon, ca. 1902.
We were unable to determine when Pedro Martínez moved
from Zapata County to Bastrop County, although it may have
been at an early age, since he had some formal schooling
and spoke English. We were unable to determine whether
or not he migrated to Bastrop County on his own.
David García was originally from Villa Acuña, Coahuila,
Mexico, just across from Del Rio, Texas. Mr. García, like
Mr. Martínez, also had some formal schooling and spoke
English. Mrs. Louise García recalled that he had mentioned
being sent by his parents across to Del Rio to stay with an
uncle and attend school there. We were unable to determine
when David García’s parents migrated into this area, but if
he was in school up to age 10 or so, this would place the
family in Bastrop ca. 1908. Numerous García family mem-
bers also resided in the area and as noted earlier, Mrs.
García’s sister, Nemesia, was married to David’s brother
Samuel. Mrs. Louise Rodríguez García was born in the small
community of Cedar Creek in Bastrop County. Her oldest
sister Nemesia, however, was born in 1892 in Columbus,
Colorado County. This information indicates that the
Rodríguez family had migrated to the Cotton Belt region
some time before the first big wave of Mexican immigra-
tion, and places them in the area by ca. 1892.
The Barrón family had the earliest documented arrival date
into this area. José Barrón’s father, Santos Barrón, was born
in 1871 in Taylor, Williamson County, north of Austin. His
mother, Beatrice Serna, was born in Eagle Pass, Texas. José
Barrón was born in Travis County. Mr. Barrón’s wife, Vir-
ginia Galván, was born in Bastrop. Her mother, Joaquina
Rodríguez, was also born in Bastrop in 1886. Her father,
Pedro Galván, was born in Mexico, but appears to have
been in the area by at least ca. 1915.
By-and-large then, the Barrón, García, and Martínez fami-
lies were Texas Mexicans or Tejanos, and were not part of
the ca. 1910-17 group of immigrants that fled Mexico as a
result of political and economic upheavals. These life expe-
riences prove extremely important in presenting yet another
depiction of Mexican-American life in early-twentieth cen-
tury Texas.
Summary and Conclusions
In addition to placing the Osborn Farm site in historical
context, this study was also designed to respond to two ba-
sic issues: 1) Mexican immigration patterns, and 2) social
and economic relationships within an early twentieth cen-
tury rural community. The personal narratives furnished by
former Osborn Farm sharecroppers were critical to achiev-
ing a synthesis of the data.
Based on the archival data and oral narratives, we now know
that the T. C. Osborn site (41BP314) and the G. W. Jones
site (41BP86) were linked through ownership and cotton
farming. The sites, however, were found to consist of di-
verse historic-period components. The Jones site (41BP86)
was continuously occupied between ca. 1840 and 1952, and
can be regarded as a Republic of Texas-era Anglo farm-
stead that featured slave quarters, as well as a late-nine-
teenth century to early-twentieth century African-American
and Mexican-American sharecropper’s homestead.
The Osborn site (41BP314) was continuously occupied
between ca. 1906 and 1952, and can be regarded as an early-
twentieth century Mexican-American sharecropper’s home-
stead. This study’s conclusions regarding the latter site are
presented below. Considering the reciprocity of the desig-
nation Mexican and Mexican-American, as applied to these
families, subsequent references will simply be Mexican.
Mexican Migration Patterns in Central Texas
As stated in our research design, we had proposed to frame
the Martínez family experience around the social and eco-
nomic context of Mexican migration and the typical char-
acteristics of the migrant workers. It was believed that by
examining the Martínez family evidence in comparison
to these characteristics, we could identify both the typical
and atypical nature of this family’s immigration and settle-
ment story.
Given the evidence, we now know that two erroneous as-
sumptions were made about the Martínez family. The prin-
cipal assumption was that the Martínez family had emigrated
from Mexico, which proved to be false. The other assump-
tion was that the family had resided at the T. C. Osborn
tenant house (41BP314), which proved to be partially false.
On this last detail, we point out that the Martínez family
was associated with 41BP314 through their sharecropping
activities on the Osborn Farm.
53
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Social Relations within an Early Twentieth-
Century Rural Community
The preliminary data indicated that site 41BP314 was a “ten-
ant farm” and that the Martínez family operated the farm
for T. C. Osborn. This supposed work relationship served
to contradict the literature and, if true, would prove quite
interesting given that Mexicans were typically not assigned
tenant farms. As it turns out, the preliminary data was once
again incorrect. None of the families that assisted in this
study were ever “tenant farmers.” The Martínez, García,
and Barrón families were all sharecroppers and, as was typi-
cal, they worked for half of the cotton harvested on the as-
signed acreage. By the 1940s, Pedro Martínez’ assigned
acreage was about 20 acres per farm hand, as opposed to
David García’s 10 acres. This difference in assigned acre-
age indicates that Pedro Martínez enjoyed a certain amount
of prestige and autonomy, most probably owing to his years
of continuous service to the Osborns.
The literature states that two key factors propelled Mexican
emigration. These are termed the “push” and “pull” factors
that work in tandem. The “push” factor suggests that, in this
case, Mexico’s failing economy and political turmoil of the
early-twentieth century actually pushed many away from
their homes. The “pull” factor suggests that the better-pay-
ing jobs in agriculture, mining, and railroads, which was
further enticed by existing social connections across the
border, pulled many towards the U.S. In considering the
actual life experiences summarized above, we would have
to agree that in every case, the “push” and “pull” factors
were at play here. However, we would argue that these fami-
lies did not wait for situations to worsen before seeking to
improve their lives. These families arrived in central Texas
during the 1870-1890s, while others arrived during the first
decade of the 1900s, well before things deteriorated along
the border.
With respect to established social networks, the evidence
suggests that these families moved purposefully, and that
they relied on support networks of friends and relatives. As
in the case of Pedro Martínez, two of his brothers-in-law,
Livorio González and Asención Domínguez, also worked
for T. C. Osborn. By all indications, both González and
Domínguez were already at the Osborn Farm when the
Martínez family arrived in 1917. As described by José
Barrón, the weekly gatherings held by the Mexican fami-
lies in Phelan were important, as this was probably their
only means of channeling and extending social relations.
Just as important were the religious and family bonds
established by the congregation of the Mexican Baptist
Church, as exemplified by the García-Rodríguez families.
Examples of how these families interacted with the com-
munity at-large are sketchy. Beyond the routine business-
related transactions, social interaction between Mexican and
Anglo appears to have been minimal. The strongest evi-
dence for this lies in the fact that the public schools were
segregated up until 1949. Educational and oratorical skills
notwithstanding, Mrs. Nemesia García proved quite capable
of asserting her child’s civil rights, and those of countless
other children. As for business relationships, the most often
mentioned were Rabensburg Grocery and Dr. Combs. It
seems that E. J. Rabensburg and Dr. Henry B. Combs were
the Mexican community’s grocer and physician of choice.
Edward J. Rabensburg appears to have been more than just
a grocer to the Mexican community. He personally appeared
at the courthouse in order to attest to the births of two
of Livorio González’ children. Dr. Combs, who seems to
have started his practice in 1898, was the only physician in
Bastrop that attended to the health needs of the Mexican
community. Dr. Combs, who lived to the age of 94, attended
to the births of two of the García children and all of the
Martínez children.
There are two principal cemeteries in the town of Bastrop.
The oldest and largest is Fairview, which includes an Afri-
can American section. The other is Alta Vista Cemetery, or
the “Latin” cemetery located within one-half mile to the
east of the Osborn Farm. The earliest burial in Alta Vista
Cemetery dates to 1929, and most of the Barrón, García,
and Martínez family members and close relations are bur-
ied here. We were unable to determine the exact history of
this cemetery, and believe that it was organized, most likely,
by the Mexican Baptist community ca. 1929. Figure 17 de-
picts the town of Bastrop at ca. 1982. The site is shown on
the extreme south end of the illustration; the Alta Vista Cem-
etery is seen in close proximity to the farm, and Fairview
Cemetery is seen at the far northwest end of the town.
Figures 2 and 18 depict the site as it appears today. Figure 2
is from a USGS aerial taken ca. 1998, the footprint of the
site is indicated as being located near the bottom center of
the photo. The Colorado River is seen to the far left and the
Gills Branch Creek appears as a meandering line of trees,
above the site. Figure 18 is a present-day perspective of the
site, and was taken at ground level. The footprint of the site
appears almost at center, with the house of Bro. Paul Bell
seen above and to the right of the site.
54
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Figure 17. Town of Bastrop ca. 1982.
55
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
Understandably, this is a superficial treatment of the very
complicated institution of tenant farming that existed
throughout the cotton belt of central Texas. Nevertheless,
in concluding, we extend the following statement: consid-
ering the time and the place, the hardships endured and the
advancements realized, this group of sharecroppers can be
characterized as possessing a daring spirit, a deep sense of
family loyalty, a strong work ethic, tenacity, and above all,
optimism.
Figure 18. Present-day view of site—view to the south, down Lovers Lane. (Photo taken January 2001.)
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
56
References Cited
American Memory
2001 Historical Collections for the National Digital Library, Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers’ Project 1936-
1938. <http://memory.loc.gov> Accessed August.
Baker, F. E.
1979 Soil Survey of Bastrop County, Texas. National Cooperative Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Balkwill, D. M., and S. L. Cumbaa
1992 A Guide to the Identification of Postcranial Bones of Bos taurus and Bison bison. Canadian Museum of Nature,
Ottawa.
Barr, A.
1973 Black Texans: A History of Negroes in Texas, 1528-1971. Jenkins Publishing Company, Austin.
Bastrop Advertiser [Bastrop, Texas]
1910 Advertisement for slate writing tablets. 8 October. Microfilm roll, vol. 58, no. 25, Bastrop Public Library, Bastrop,
Texas.
Bastrop Central Appraisal District [BCAD]
1999 Aerial Photograph 10-11 (ca. 1999), of south-central Bastrop, Bastrop County, Texas.
Brown, M., J. E. Zapata, and B. K. Moses
1998 Camp Elizabeth, Sterling County, Texas: An Archaeological and Archival Investigation of a U.S. Army Subpost,
and Evidence Supporting Its Use by the Military and “Buffalo Soldiers.” Archaeological Survey Report, No.
267. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
Clark, V. S.
1999 Comments on Changes in Mexican Immigration to the United States, 1908. In Major Problems in Mexican
American History, edited by Z. Vargas, pp. 204–207. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Clonts, J. B.
1983 Some Long Overdue Thoughts on Faunal Analysis. In Forgotten Places and Things: Archaeological Perspectives
on American History, edited by A. E. Ward, pp. 349–354. Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Cohen, A., and D. Serjeantson
1996 A Manual for the Identification of Bird Bones from Archaeological Sites. Revised edition. Archetype Publications,
London.
Fox, A. A., M. Renner, and R. J. Hard (editors)
1997 Archaeology at the Alamodome: Investigations of a San Antonio Neighborhood in Transition, Volume III: Artifacts
and Special Studies. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 283. Center for Archaeological Research, The University
of Texas at San Antonio.
García, J. R.
1996 Mexicans in the Midwest, 1900-1932. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
57
Gilbert, B. M.
1990 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.
Glencoe Mill and Mill Village Historic District
2001 Criteria Assessment, Section 8, Glencoe Historic District National Register Nomination Form, Faucette
Township, North Carolina 1979.
<http://www.gendex.com/users/kcates/glencoe/library/doc3.htm> Accessed January 15.
Gómez-Quiñones, J.
1994 Mexican American Labor, 1790-1990. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Gore, M. B. T.
1979 The Thomas Claiborne Osborn Home. Annotated site and family history, Bastrop, Texas, May 24, 1979 [Craig
Pence Collection].
Grayson, D. K.
1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Hall, L. B., and D. M. Coerver
1988 Revolution on the Border: The United States and Mexico, 1910-1920. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Handbook of Texas Online
2000 Texas State Historical Association, The General Libraries at the University of Texas at Austin.
<http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online> Accessed December 15.
Hildebrand, M.
1955 Skeletal Differences Between Deer, Sheep, and Goats. California Fish and Game 41:327–346.
Hillson, S.
1986 Teeth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Iredell, G. S.
1920 Map of Bastrop, Texas. By George S. Iredell, Civil Engineer, June 1920.
Kennedy, I. K., and J. L. Kennedy
1987 Genealogical Records in Texas. Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., Baltimore, Maryland.
Kesselus, K.
1986 History of Bastrop County, Texas Before Statehood. Jenkins Publishing, Austin, Texas.
Lower Colorado River Authority
2000 Community Profile – City of Bastrop, Texas.
<http://www.lcra.org> Accessed December 22.
Lyman, R. L.
1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
58
McAlester, V., and L. McAlester
1986 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
McGraw, A. J., J. W. Clark, Jr., and E. A. Robbins (editors)
1998 A Texas Legacy – The Old San Antonio Road and the Caminos Reales: A Tricentennial History, 1691-1991.
Second edition. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin.
Maldonado, L. A.
1985 Altered States: Chicanos in the Labor Force. In Ethnicity and the Workforce, vol. IV, edited by W. A. Van Horne
and T. V. Tonnesen, pp. 145–166. University of Wisconsin System, American Ethnic Studies Coordinating
Committee/Urban Corridor Consortium, Madison.
Meissner, B. A.
1997a Dolls, Toys, Games, and Other Diversions. In Archaeology at the Alamodome: Investigations of a San Antonio
Neighborhood in Transition, Volume III: Artifacts and Special Studies, edited by A. A. Fox, M. Renner, and R. J.
Hard, pp. 57–99. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 238. Center for Archaeological Research, University of
Texas at San Antonio.
1997b Making the Man: Remains of Clothing Recovered from the Alamodome Project. In Archaeology at the Alamodome:
Investigations of a San Antonio Neighborhood in Transition, Volume III: Artifacts and Special Studies, edited by
A. A. Fox, M. Renner, and R. J. Hard, pp. 119–164. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 238. Center for
Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
Menefee, S. C.
1941 Mexican Migratory Workers of South Texas. Federal Works Agency, Work Projects Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Montejano, D.
1987 Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836—1986. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Moore, W. E.
1977 Bastrop County, 1691-1900. Nortex Press, Wichita Falls, Texas.
MSN TerraServer
©
2000 1998 United States Geological Survey aerial map of Bastrop.
<http://terraserver.microsoft.com>
National Weather Service -Southern Region
2000 <www.srh.noaa.gov>
Olsen, S. J.
1960 Post-Cranial Skeletal Characters of Bison and Bos. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1964 Mammal Remains from Archaeological Sites: Part I. Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Peabody
Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1968 Fish, Amphibian, and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites: Part I. Southeastern and Southwestern United
States. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
59
Raab, L. M.
1982 Settlement of the Prairie Margin: Archaeology of the Richland Creek Reservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties,
Texas, 1980-1981. Archaeological Monographs, No. 1. Archaeology Research Program, Southern Methodist
University, Dallas.
Randolph Blueprint Company
1929 Map of Bastrop County, Texas. Map No. 55 (ca. 1929), Randolph Blueprint Co., San Antonio, Texas.
Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing
1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Robinson, D. G.
1989 Historical Research at the George Washington Jones Homestead 41BP86, Bastrop County, Texas. Technical
Series No. 11, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.
RootsWeb.com
2000 <www.rootsweb.com/~txbastro/bastrop.htm>
Ross, S.
1993 An Evaluation of Documentation and Materials from Site 41BP314, The T. C. Osborn House Site, Bastrop
County, Texas. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.
Schulz, P. D., and S. M. Gust
1983 Faunal Remains and Social Status in 19th Century Sacramento. Historical Archaeology 17(1):44–53.
Sobolik, K. D., and D. G. Steele
1996 A Turtle Atlas to Facilitate Archaeological Identifications. Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Inc.,
Rapid City.
Taylor, T. U.
1934 Thomas Clayborn Osborne. In Frontier Times 11(7):318.
Texas Historic Site Atlas
2000 National Register of Historic Places, listing and descriptions for Bastrop County. Texas Historical Commission.
<http://www.atlas.thc.state.tx.us> Accessed December 6.
Toulouse, J. H.
1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, New York.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1982 Bastrop Quadrangle Map, 3097-121, Bastrop County, Texas. USGS, Denver, Colorado.
United States House of Representatives (USHR)
1920 United States House of Representatives, Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization –
Temporary Admission of Illiterate Mexican Laborers, Jan 26, 27, 28, 30, and Feb 2, 1920.
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
60
United States Senate (USS)
1920 United States Senate, Hearing Before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate – Admission of Mexican
Agricultural Laborers, Jan 27, 1920.
U. S. Historical Census Data Browser
2000 <http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census>
Vargas, Z.
1999 Mexican Immigrants in the Midwest. In Major Problems in Mexican American History, edited by Z. Vargas, pp.
254–265. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts.
Zamora, E.
1993 The World of the Mexican Worker in Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Zapata, J. E.
1997 Alamodome and Abroad: A Composite Inquiry on Toy Marbles. In Archaeology at the Alamodome: Investigations
of a San Antonio Neighborhood in Transition, Volume III: Artifacts and Special Studies , edited by A. A. Fox, M.
Renner, and R. J. Hard, pp. 100–115. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 238. Center for Archaeological Research,
The University of Texas at San Antonio.
Archives and Collections Consulted
BCC – Bastrop County, County Clerks Office
BPL – Bastrop Public Library
Craig Pence Personal Collection, Bastrop, Bastrop County, Texas
USDCa – United States Department of Commerce, Schedule 5. Agricultural and Manufacturing Census Records, 1850
and 1880.
USDCb – United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Schedule 1. Population Schedules, Free Inhabitants
1850 and 1860.
USDCc – United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Schedule 2. Slave Population, 1850 and 1860.
USDCd – United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Schedule 1. Population 1900.
The T. C. Osborn Tenant Farm, 41BP314
61
Oral Histories
Barrón, José (95-year-old) of Bastrop, Texas – Tape No. 1-A, 6 Dec. 2000.
García, Louise (93-year-old) of Bastrop, Texas – Tape No. 3-B; Tape No. 4-A, 7 Dec. 2000.
Martínez, Pete, Jr. (68-year-old) of Austin, Texas – Tape No. 2-A & 2-B; Tape No. 3-A , 7 Dec. 2000.
Martínez, Rudy (61-year-old) of Bastrop, Texas – Tape No. 2-A & 2-B, 7 Dec. 2000.
Rockwell, Emma García (73-year-old) of Lewisburg, West Virginia – Tape No. 3-B; Tape No. 4-A, 7 Dec. 2000.
Photo Credits
Figure 9a - Elof Gustafson plowing behind four mules. Postcard photo by Jordan Photo, Austin, Texas, Institute of Texan
Cultures, The University of Texas at San Antonio, No. 86-176.
Figure 9b - A man hoeing cotton near El Paso, Texas, along U.S. 80. Texas Highway Department, Institute of Texan Cultures,
The University of Texas at San Antonio, No. 75-963.
Figure 9c - Men in field picking cotton, Bexar County, Texas. San Antonio Light Collection, Institute of Texan Cultures, The
University of Texas at San Antonio, No. 1238-B.
Figure 9d - Picking cotton on Pavliska farm near Granger, Texas. Courtesy of Nancie Pavliska Roddy, Institute of Texan
Cultures, The University of Texas at San Antonio, No. 98-158.
Figure 9e - Cotton wagons turning off Main Street on to First Street on trip from gin to cotton yard, Elgin, Texas, Courtesy
of Leo Foehner, Institute of Texan Cultures, The University of Texas at San Antonio, No. 96-1312.
Appendix A
Artifact Catalog
64
Table A-1. Artifact Catalog
Osborn Tenant Farm Arms
Lot Provenience
1 Chimney Fall
2 Well rim
3 T-1 1 1 1 1 9 11 3 5 8
4 Gradall Trench 1 1 1 1 4 2 2
5 N505/E505 1 1 1 4 11 16 10 10
6 N600/E490 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 20 24 2 23 1 26
7 N610/E490 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 1 3 2 27 33
8 N510/E505 1 1
9 N605/E490 1 2 3 1 1 1 26 29
10 N505/E510 4 1 5 1 1 2 7 9 2 1 12 15
12 N510/E510 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 7 8
13 N615/E490 12 12 7 3 38 2 50
14 T.U. 1
15 T.U. 1 2 13 15 3 3
16 Surface rear of house 1 1
17 N610/E485 1 4 5 1 1 25 27
18 N485/E520 2 4 6 6 6
19 N505/E540 2 2
20 N555/E480 4 1 5 4 2 33 1 40
21 House interior 0 0 0 0
22 N560/E500 3 3 1 1 10 1 32 45
23 N515/E505 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 10 1 3 1 12 17
24 Under floor; SE rm. 1 1 1 1
25 Surface N.E. Room
26 N520/E515 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 11 17
27 N515/E500 4 4 1 6 1 8
28 N525/E520 1 1 2 5 7 1 2 1 2 6
29 House interior 0 0 0 0
30 N510/E515 1 5 6 1 4 5
31 N550/E475 5 5 1 1 4 4 6 14 1 1 13 4 3 89 2 113
32 N535/E500 1 14 15 1 1 1 28 31
33 N515/E490 1 1 6 13 19 1 27 1 29
34 N545/E475 4 4 1 1 19 6 16 41 7 24 6 3 135 175
35 N575/E465 1 1 0 5 8 1 53 67 1 1 13 7 1 78 2 103
36 N580/E520 1 1 1 1 7 9 2 13 3 47 65
37 Surface N side of house
38 N580/E500 5 6 11 3 3 1 2 9 4 19 35 2 57 7 3 116 5 190
39 Maintainer cuts 0 0 7 1 5 13 1 19 4 193 217
40 N560/E540 1 1 1 1 2 4 8 5 54 67
41 Feature 1 0 0 0 3 3
42 N540/E505 1 1 1 11 12 1 18 19
43 N505/E535 1 2 7 10 4 6 1 11
44 N535/E550 0 0 3 1 3 7 8 1 24 33
45 Wall fall of east room
46 No Provenience 1 4 1 6
47 Maintainer cuts
Grand Total 2 16 22 40 11 11 48 22 63 12 266 411 15 14 196 57 11 1104 16 1413
Activit
y
Barn/Worksho
p
Ceramic
65
1 1
3 3
1 1 2 1 2 31 58 92
1 1
17 28 3 156 204
1 1 2 1 1 18 18 1 6 45
5 5 18 1 33 9 1 16 78
9 1 8 18
4 4 1 1 20 3 1 1 26 53
2 11 1 2 16 7 15 49 1 108 180
1 1 1 15 57 4 78 155
3 3 30 23 10 5 68
3 3
2 2 2 5 27 1 45 80
9 9
2 9 3 9 23
5 1 6
2 2 19 30 5 1 23 78
0 1 1
3 3 2 1 13 30 21 67
6 6 1 6 21 15 56 99
1 1 31 8 39
1 1 11 13 6 24 2 1 36 69
1 1 3 1 5 5 1 1 23 39
1 1 2 9 27 1 119 156
0 0
1 1 6 30 31 67
1 1 2 1 44 51 52 148
3 3 1 2 3 3 39 1 90 139
1 6 1 8 4 3 1 1 7 31 111 158
10 1 11 13 2 131 103 1 4 1 124 379
4 4 3 1 98 65 1 1 3 33 205
1 1 2 2 6 1 16 36 1 1 1 1 19 76
1 2 11 1 1 1 17 8 1 2 2 102 263 5 1 3 75 462
6 6 2 1 2 3 5 1 25 39
1 1 2 1 1 18 21 1 27 69
0 17 25 42
1 1 2 1 6 50 78 135
1 1 2 1 24 1 24 52
1 1 3 2 10 26 2 7 50
1 1
1 6 5 19 1 32
4 4
8 8 96 2 5 7 2 128 7 116 7 16 21 708 1142 5 60 5 41 2 1494 3624
Constructio
n
Clothin
g
/Personal
Osborn Tenant Farm
Lot Provenience
1 Chimney Fall
2 Well rim
3 T-1
4 Gradall Trench
5 N505/E505
6 N600/E490
7 N610/E490
8 N510/E505
9 N605/E490
10 N505/E510
12 N510/E510
13 N615/E490
14 T.U. 1
15 T.U. 1
16 Surface rear of house
17 N610/E485
18 N485/E520
19 N505/E540
20 N555/E480
21 House interior
22 N560/E500
23 N515/E505
24 Under floor; SE rm.
25 Surface N.E. Room
26 N520/E515
27 N515/E500
28 N525/E520
29 House interior
30 N510/E515
31 N550/E475
32 N535/E500
33 N515/E490
34 N545/E475
35 N575/E465
36 N580/E520
37 Surface N side of house
38 N580/E500
39 Maintainer cuts
40 N560/E540
41 Feature 1
42 N540/E505
43 N505/E535
44 N535/E550
45 Wall fall of east room
46 No Provenience
47 Maintainer cuts
Grand Total
Table A-1. continued…
66
4 40 44 1 1
2 2 1 1
7 16 23
4 47 30 1 82 1 2 3
3 40 41 84 4 3 7 1 0 1
1 1 1 1
2 80 1 9 92 2 2 1 5 6
1 37 9 47 1 1
16 16 1 1 1 1
74 43 117 3 3 3 0 1 4
1 10 4 15 4 4
28 20 0 48 1 0 1
9 7 1 17 1 1
4 21 25
1 57 47 105 2 2 15 0 15
0 0 0
43 44 1 88 9 9 1 1 19 21
1 52 27 80 0 21 21
1 2 3
3 3 1 1
1 38 7 5 51 3 3 2 50 3 55
21 11 1 3 36 1 1 38 38
22 22 4 1 5
0 0 0
13 1 14
1 282 1 1 285 2 2 1 8 0 9
1 53 11 12 1 78 2 2
127 4 4 1 136 14 1 15
336 1 1 338 37 37 1 5 1 18 24
6 153 2 161 0 1 2 20 23
2 64 42 108 4 4 1 1 0 2
3 3
6 212 261 5 484 18 3 21 6 2 2 10
111 2 1 1 1 116 0 1 1 3 5
3 198 1 1 203 2 2 13 13
1 1 0 1 1
33 2 35 1 2 5 8
1 37 1 39 30 30
230 2 232 0 1 2 101 104
2 2
1 1
38 2479 626 13 27 9 2 43 3237 81 15 0 96 3 1 36 5 128 248 5 425
Ki
tc
h
e
n
/
H
ouse
h
o
l
d
Li
t
hi
cs
M
eta
l
Osborn Tenant Farm
Lot Provenience
1 Chimney Fall
2 Well rim
3 T-1
4 Gradall Trench
5 N505/E505
6 N600/E490
7 N610/E490
8 N510/E505
9 N605/E490
10 N505/E510
12 N510/E510
13 N615/E490
14 T.U. 1
15 T.U. 1
16 Surface rear of house
17 N610/E485
18 N485/E520
19 N505/E540
20 N555/E480
21 House interior
22 N560/E500
23 N515/E505
24 Under floor; SE rm.
25 Surface N.E. Room
26 N520/E515
27 N515/E500
28 N525/E520
29 House interior
30 N510/E515
31 N550/E475
32 N535/E500
33 N515/E490
34 N545/E475
35 N575/E465
36 N580/E520
37 Surface N side of house
38 N580/E500
39 Maintainer cuts
40 N560/E540
41 Feature 1
42 N540/E505
43 N505/E535
44 N535/E550
45 Wall fall of east room
46 No Provenience
47 Maintainer cuts
Grand Total
Table A-1. continued…
67
Grand
Total
1
3
5 1 6 165
10
2 2 1 1 257
2 1 3 187
2 2 8 8 226
2 2 23
1 1 3 3 193
1 1 13 1 16 2 1 3 293
1 2 3 192
1 1 2 4 4 263
3
8 8 127
10
1 1 2 1 1 107
30
33
2 1 3 1 1 2 252
0 0 1
8 8 0 244
3 20 0 3 1 27 1 3 4 266
4 4 49
4
2 4 6 2 2 1 1 18 7 7 241
2 2 129
2 2 1 1 202
0 0 0
3 3 96
1 1 7 7 587
1 1 9 9 278
1 1 4 4 371
1 1 2 11 11 1023
1 1 2 4 4 570
11 11 3 3 285
3
4 15 2 21 1254
0 5 5 401
2 2 363
0 2 2 49
5 5 2 2 219
1 1 1 1 145
1 1 2 3 3 432
3
39
0 0 4
42 7 47 8 5 23 5 4 141 82 0 25 107 9633
Mi
sce
ll
a
n
eous
S
h
e
ll
Osborn Tenant Farm
Lot Provenience
1 Chimney Fall
2 Well rim
3 T-1
4 Gradall Trench
5 N505/E505
6 N600/E490
7 N610/E490
8 N510/E505
9 N605/E490
10 N505/E510
12 N510/E510
13 N615/E490
14 T.U. 1
15 T.U. 1
16 Surface rear of house
17 N610/E485
18 N485/E520
19 N505/E540
20 N555/E480
21 House interior
22 N560/E500
23 N515/E505
24 Under floor; SE rm.
25 Surface N.E. Room
26 N520/E515
27 N515/E500
28 N525/E520
29 House interior
30 N510/E515
31 N550/E475
32 N535/E500
33 N515/E490
34 N545/E475
35 N575/E465
36 N580/E520
37 Surface N side of house
38 N580/E500
39 Maintainer cuts
40 N560/E540
41 Feature 1
42 N540/E505
43 N505/E535
44 N535/E550
45 Wall fall of east room
46 No Provenience
47 Maintainer cuts
Grand Total
Table A-1. continued…
Appendix B
Data Recovered from Faunal Material
70
Lot Unit Taxon Ct. W
g
t.
(g)
Element Portion Juv.? Gnawed T
yp
e Ct. Notes Char Part. Cal. Cal.
5 505/505 Aves 1 0.07
5 505/505 Mammal 1 1.14
5 505/505
Proc
y
on loto
r
1 1.12 Femur Distal end
10 505/510 Mammal 2 1.85
10 505/510 Mammal--small 1 0.11
10 505/510
S
y
lvila
g
us
sp. 1 0.26 Scapula Antrior 2/3
43 505/535 Aves 2 0.34
8 510/505
Canis
sp. 1 1.55 Caudal vertebra Large coyote sized
8 510/505 cf.
Bos taurus
1 30.51 Rib Distal 1/2 Indet. sawed 2
8 510/505
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.22 Carapace Fragment
12 510/510 Mammal 1 0.45
12 510/510 Mammal--very large 2 7.82
33 515/490 cf.
Bos taurus
1 125.9 Tibia Fragment of the diaphysis Handsawed 2 3.75" section
33 515/490
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.42 Carapace Complete
33 515/490
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.34 Carapace Complete
33 515/490
Didelphis virginiana
1 1.19 Cervical vertebra Complete
33 515/490
Felis domesticus
1 5.53 Mandible Almost complete
33 515/490
Felis domesticus
1 0.34 Canine Complete Not not fit the mandible
33 515/490
Felis domesticus
2 2.84 Radius All but distal end
33 515/490 Mammal 14 5.89
33 515/490 Mammal--very large 3 22.03
33 515/490
Sus scrofa
1 27.57 Ulna Fragment at the semi-
lunar notch
Indet.
saw/Impact
scar
1/1 Impact scar just above
semi-lunar notch
33 515/490
Sus scro
f
a
1 6.76 Canine Fragment
27 515/500 Aves--very large 1 2.03
27 515/500
Didelphis virginiana
12 14.1 Lumbar & Thoracic
Vertebrae
Almost complete Still articulated, held by
dried ligaments.
27 515/500
Didelphis virginiana
6 9.18 Sacral vertebrae &
pelvis
Almost complete Still articulated, held by
dried ligaments.
23 515/505 Aves 1 0.09
23 515/505
Bos tauru
s
1 64.41 Atlas lateral 1/2 Chopped 1
Butcherin
g
Burned
Table B-1. List of Data Recovered from Faunal Material
71
23 515/505
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.36 Carapace Complete
23 515/505
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.36 Carapace Complete
23 515/505
Didelphis virginiana
1 3.68 Innominate Complete Very large and robust
23 515/505 Mammal 1 0.39 1
23 515/505 Mammal--small 3 2.97
23 515/505 Mammal--very large 2 5.31
23 515/505 Suidae 1 0.55 Incisor Fragment Small, not sure it's Sus
26 520/515 Aves 2 2.35
26 520/515 Bovinae 1 8.83 Rib Fragment
26 520/515
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.39 Carapace Complete
26 520/515 Mammal 14 5.67
26 520/515 Mammal--large 1 2.35
26 520/515 Mammal--very large 1 14.04
26 520/515 Rodentia 1 0.04 Femur All but the distal end Yes unsealed head
26 520/515 Rodentia 1 0.03 Innominate Ischiujm & pubis
28 525/520
Turdus mi
g
ratorius
1 0.07 Scale Complete
28 525/520
Turdus mi
g
ratorius
1 0.23 Tibiotarsus Complete
32 535/500 Aves 2 0.56
32 535/500
Canis
sp. 1 2.95 Metapodial All but distal end Size of large coyote
32 535/500
Canis
sp. 2 6.28 Innominate Fragment of acetabulum Size of large coyote
32 535/500 Dasypus novemcinctus 6 0.95 Small carapace Complete
32 535/500
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.41 Carapace Complete
32 535/500
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.34 Carapace Complete
32 535/500
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.29 Carapace Complete
32 535/500
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.33 Carapace Complete
32 535/500
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.42 Carapace Complete
32 535/500
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.17 Carapace Fragment
Lot Unit Taxon Ct. W
g
t.
(g)
Element Portion Juv.? Gnawed T
yp
e Ct. Notes Char Part. Cal. Cal.
Butcherin
g
Burned
Table B-1. continued…
72
32 535/500
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 1.97 Axis Complete
32 535/500
Dasypus novemcinctus
1 0.72 Cervical vertebra Complete
32 535/500 Mammal 19 5.86
32 535/500 Mammal--medium 1 3.42
32 535/500 Mammal--very large 1 5.46
42 540/505 Artiodactyl 1 6.25 Innominate Ischium Canid Several large canid tooth
marks on each end
42 540/505 cf.
Bos taurus
1 47.44 Radius Diaphysis near proximal
end
Canid Handsawed 1 2.75 " long. Proximal end
is chewed off.
42 540/505 cf.
Bos taurus
1 11.48 Femur Fragment of diaphysis Handsawed 2 1/2" steak
42 540/505 Mammal 1 0.21
42 540/505
Trion
y
x
sp. 1 1.4 Humerus All but distal end
34 545/475 Artiodactyl 1 12.09 Radius Diaphysis near the distal
end
Yes Ybsealed distal end
34 545/475 Artiodactyl 1 4.83 Ulna Fragment at the semi-
lunar notch
34 545/475 Aves 2 1.28
34 545/475 Bovinae 1 5.8 Molar Fragment
34 545/475 Bovinae 1 3.71 Premolar Fragment
34 545/475 Bovinae 1 3.89 Metapodial Fragment of condyle 1
34 545/475 Mammal 84 46.73 8 13 8
34 545/475 Mammal--very large 18 46.04
34 545/475
Odocoileus virginianus
1 0.89 Premolar Complete
34 545/475
S
y
lvila
g
us
sp. 1 0.47 Metapodial Complete
34 545/475
S
y
lvila
g
us
sp. 1 0.35 Metapodial Proximal 1/2
31 550/475 Aves--lar
g
e 1 0.83
31 550/475 cf.
Bos taurus
2 52.38 Tibia Distal end Yes Chopped/Hand
sawed
1/1 Unsealed but articulated,
tips of medial maleoulus
chopped off
31 550/475 cf.
Bos taurus
1 8.55 Tibia Fragment of diaphysis Handsawed 2 1/2" steak
31 550/475 Mammal 18 9.91 5 2
31 550/475 Mammal--very large 2 28.62
Lot Unit Taxon Ct. W
g
t.
(g)
Element Portion Juv.? Gnawed T
yp
e Ct. Notes Char Part. Cal. Cal.
Butcherin
g
Burned
Table B-1. continued…
73
20 555/480 Aves 1 0.06 1
20 555/480 Mammal 1 0.1 1
20 555/480 Mammal 8 3.41 1 2 2
22 560/500 Aves--medium 5 0.77
22 560/500
Chelydra serpentina
1 0.98 Humerus All but distal end Cut 2
22 560/500 Mammal 24 10.16 1 1 2
22 560/500 Mammal--very large 4 17.03 2
40 560/540 cf.
Bos taurus
1 6.71 Femur Diaphysis near distal end Handsawed 2 very small--veal? 1/4"
40 560/540
Gallus domesticus
1 0.67 Cervical vertebra
40 560/540 Mammal 4 1.31 2
35 575/465 Aves 3 0.72
35 575/465 cf.
Bos taurus
1 16.55 Femur Fragment of diaphysis Handsawed 2
35 575/465 cf.
Bos taurus
2 11.13 Femur Fragment of diaphysis Machine
sawed
2
35 575/465 cf.
Bos taurus
1 8.13 Innominate Fragment of the tuber
ischii
Handsawed 1
35 575/465 cf.
Bos taurus
2 10.23 Innominate Fragment of ischium Machine
sawed
2 1.5"
35 575/465 cf.
Bos taurus
1 2.42 Innominate Fragment of ischium Handsawed 2 0.5
35 575/465 cf.
Bos taurus
1 2.73 Innominate Fragment of ischium Indet. sawed 2 .5"
35 575/465 Mammal 30 41.75 1 4
35 575/465
Sus scro
f
a
1 0.99 Tooth Fragment
38 580/500 Aves 4 2.6
38 580/500 Bovinae 1 8.99 Molar Fragment
38 580/500 Bovinae 1 1.83 Premolar Fragment
38 580/500
Gallus domesticus
1 0.28 1st phalange (foot) Complete
38 580/500 Mammal 122 54.42 15 36 21
38 580/500 Mammal--large 2 7.04
38 580/500 Mammal--very large 6 28.31 1 1
38 580/500
Sus scro
f
a
1 0.49 Tooth Fragment
36 580/520 Bovinae 2 1.43 Deciduous incisor Fragment
36 580/520 Mammal 3 2.48 2
6 600/490 cf. Bos taurus 1 27.24 Radius Diaphysis near distal end Handsawed 2 1/2" steak
Lot Unit Taxon Ct. W
g
t.
(g)
Element Portion Juv.? Gnawed T
yp
e Ct. Notes Char Part. Cal. Cal.
Butcherin
g
Burned
Table B-1. continued…
74
Lot Unit Taxon Ct. W
g
t.
(g)
Element Portion Juv.? Gnawed T
yp
e Ct. Notes Char Part. Cal. Cal.
Butcherin
g
Burned
6 600/490 Mammal 9 15.41
6 600/490 Mammal--large 1 0.98
6 600/490
Sus scrofa
1 8.64 Mandible Fragment Yes w/ 1st molar just erupted,
not worn
9 605/490 Bovinae 1 6.11 Rib Fragment near proximal
end
9 605/490 Mammal 3 1.51 1
17 610/485 Mammal 7 2.98 3 4
13 615/490 Artiodactyl 1 1.63 Premolar Almost complete Badly worn
7 615/490
Didelphis virginiana
1 0.55 Mandible Fragment
7 615/490 Mammal 21 8.57 3 5 8
13 615/490 Mammal 50 18.76 6 15
13 615/490 Mammal--very large 1 20.87
13 615/490 Rodentia 1 0.09 Tibia Fragment of proximal
end
13 615/490
Sciurus
sp. 1 0.25 Ulna Complete
39 Maintainer cut Mammal 2 1.09 1
39 Maintainer cut
Sus scrofa
1 11.71 Cranium Fragment w/ occipital
condyle
Chopped/2 2/1
39 Maintainer cut
Sus scrofa
2 54.85 Cranium Frag of parietal &
squamosal
Included part of lamboid
suture
41 Fea. 1 Mammal 3 10.31
620 1140.23 33 74 73TOTALS:
Table B-1. continued…
75
The following information is provided in accordance with the General Rules of Practice and Procedure, Chapter
41.11 (Investigative Reports), Texas Antiquities Committee:
1. Type of investigation: Archival, artifactual, and historical research
2. Project name: Osborn Tenant House
3. County: Bastrop
4. Principal investigator: Nancy A. Kenmotsu
5. Name and location of sponsoring agency: Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Divi-
sion, 125 E. 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2483
6. Texas Antiquities Permit No.: 598
7. Published by the Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 6900 N. Loop
1604 W., San Antonio, Texas 78249-0658, 2001
A list of publications offered by the Center for Archaeological Research is available. Call (210) 458-4378; write
to the Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 6900 N. Loop 1604 W., San
Antonio, Texas 78249-0658; e-mail to car@lonestar.utsa.edu; or visit CAR’s web site at http://car.utsa.edu.
