The following conclusions have been reached regarding the Harroun Site.
1. Principal occupation was by Fulton Aspect people closely related to—or identical to—people of the Titus Focus. There is an excellent possibility that this is a relatively early Titus Focus site.
2. The four houses probably were used for ceremonial purposes; ultimately each was “cremated” and buried beneath a mound of sand.
3. Mound A was for the purpose of covering Burial No. 1.
4. If the above conclusions are correct, the following archeological traits may be added to those previously recognized for the Titus Focus:
a. Mounds over human burials.b. Mounds over burned house structures.c. Circular houses of wattle-and-daub construction with centrally located hearth, interior roof supports in some cases, extended entranceway on the west or southeast side, soil banked against the exterior wall, and a centrally located center post used during construction of the house; the houses were sometimes built in shallow excavated pits.d. Probable ceremonial use of the above-described houses.e. Pottery type Pease Brushed-Incised in occupational sites.f. Dart point type Gary in occupational sites.g. Arrow point type Perdiz in occupational sites and in burials.
a. Mounds over human burials.
b. Mounds over burned house structures.
c. Circular houses of wattle-and-daub construction with centrally located hearth, interior roof supports in some cases, extended entranceway on the west or southeast side, soil banked against the exterior wall, and a centrally located center post used during construction of the house; the houses were sometimes built in shallow excavated pits.
d. Probable ceremonial use of the above-described houses.
e. Pottery type Pease Brushed-Incised in occupational sites.
f. Dart point type Gary in occupational sites.
g. Arrow point type Perdiz in occupational sites and in burials.
Baerreis, David A.,Joan E. Freeman, andJames V. Wright, 1958. The Contracting Stem Projectile Point in Eastern Oklahoma.Bull. Okla. Ant. Soc., 6: 61-82.
Bell, Robert E., 1958. Guide to the Identification of American Indian Projectile Points.Special Bull., Okla. Ant. Soc., No. 1.
Blair, Frank W., 1950. The Biotic Provinces of Texas.Texas Journal of Science, 2, No. 1: 93-117.
Davis, E. Mott, 1958. The Whelan Site, a Late Caddoan Component in the Ferrell’s Bridge Reservoir, Northeastern Texas. Unpublished report to the National Park Service, on file at the Regional Office of the National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and at the Department of Anthropology, University of Texas.
Fenneman, Nevin M., 1938.Physiography of Eastern United States.
Ford, James A., 1951. Greenhouse: a Troyville-Coles Creek Period Site in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.Ant. Papers, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 44, pt. 1.
Ford, James A.andClarence H. Webb, 1956. Poverty Point, a Late Archaic Site in Louisiana.Ant. Papers, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 46, pt. 1.
Goldschmidt, Walter R., 1935. A Report on the Archeology of Titus County.Bull. Texas Arch. and Paleo. Soc., 7: 89-99.
Harrington, M. R., 1920. Certain Caddo Sites in Arkansas.Mus. Amer. Ind., Heye Foundation, Misc. Series, No. 10.
Johnson, Leroy, Jr., 1957. Appraisal of the Archeological Resources of Iron Bridge Reservoir, Hunt, Rains, and Van Zandt Counties, Texas. Mimeographed report of the National Park Service.
Krieger, Alex D., 1947. Artifacts from the Plainview Bison Bed. In “Fossil Bison and Associated Artifacts from Plainview, Texas,”Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 58: 927-954.
Lehmer, Donald J., 1954. Archeological Investigations in the Oahe Dam Area, South Dakota, 1950-51.Smithson. Inst., Bur. Amer. Ethn. Bull. 158.
Newell, H. PerryandAlex D. Krieger, 1949. The George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas.Memoirs Soc. for Amer. Arch. No. 5.
Sellards, E. H.,W. S. Adkins, andF. B. Plummer, 1958. The Geology of Texas, Vol. 1: Stratigraphy.Univ. of Texas Bull. 3232.
Stephenson, Robert L., 1952. The Hogge Bridge Site and the Wylie Focus.Amer. Ant., 17, No. 4: 299-312.
Suhm, Dee Ann,Alex D. Krieger, andEdward B. Jelks, 1954. An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology.Bull. Texas Arch. Soc., 25.
Swanton, John R., 1942. Source Material on the History and Ethnology of the Caddo Indians.Smithson. Inst., Bur. Amer. Ethn. Bull. 132.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1958.Climatological Data, Texas, 63, No. 13, Annual Summary for 1958.
Webb, Clarence H., 1940. House Types Among the Caddoan Indians.Bull. Texas Arch. and Paleo. Soc., 12: 49-75.
——, 1946. Two Unusual Types of Chipped Stone Artifact from Northwest Louisiana.Bull. Texas Arch. and Paleo. Soc., 17: 9-17.
——, 1948. Caddoan Prehistory: the Bossier Focus.Bull. Texas Arch. and Paleo. Soc., 19: 100-147.
Wedel, Waldo H., 1936. An Introduction to Pawnee Archeology.Smithson. Inst., Bur. Amer. Ethn. Bull. 112.
Fig. 11.A, Mound A prior to excavation, view looking southwest;B, Mound C prior to excavation, view looking northeast. Mounds B and D were of approximately the same size and shape as Mound C.
Fig. 11.A, Mound A prior to excavation, view looking southwest;B, Mound C prior to excavation, view looking northeast. Mounds B and D were of approximately the same size and shape as Mound C.
Fig. 12.A, Burial No. 1, Mound A, looking northwest;BandC, pottery vessels of type Ripley Engraved, associated with Burial No. 1.
Fig. 12.A, Burial No. 1, Mound A, looking northwest;BandC, pottery vessels of type Ripley Engraved, associated with Burial No. 1.
Fig. 13.AandB, sherds of type Bollard Brushed;C-G, sherds of type Pease Brushed-Incised;H, sherd of Coles Creek Incised or Chase Incised (?);I, sherd of Beldeau Incised (?). Profile exteriors are to the left.
Fig. 13.AandB, sherds of type Bollard Brushed;C-G, sherds of type Pease Brushed-Incised;H, sherd of Coles Creek Incised or Chase Incised (?);I, sherd of Beldeau Incised (?). Profile exteriors are to the left.
Fig. 14.AandB, brushed rimsherds;CandD, brushed body sherds;E, sherd of type Crockett Curvilinear Incised (exterior of profile to the left);F, sherd of type Maydelle Incised (?);G, incised body sherd;HandI, punctated sherds;J, appliquéd sherd;K-M, sherds of type Ripley Engraved;N-P, sherds of type Taylor Engraved;Q, perforated disc made from sherd;R, fragment of appendage from pipe or effigy vessel.
Fig. 14.AandB, brushed rimsherds;CandD, brushed body sherds;E, sherd of type Crockett Curvilinear Incised (exterior of profile to the left);F, sherd of type Maydelle Incised (?);G, incised body sherd;HandI, punctated sherds;J, appliquéd sherd;K-M, sherds of type Ripley Engraved;N-P, sherds of type Taylor Engraved;Q, perforated disc made from sherd;R, fragment of appendage from pipe or effigy vessel.
Fig. 15. Projectile points.A-D, Gary dart points;E, Ellis dart point;F, Wells dart point;G, rectangular stem dart point;H, Trinity (?) dart point;I, Palmillas dart point;J-M, Unidentified contracting stem dart points;N, San Patrice dart point;O-R, Perdiz arrow points (specimenOwas associated with Burial No. 1);SandT, expanding stem arrow points.
Fig. 15. Projectile points.A-D, Gary dart points;E, Ellis dart point;F, Wells dart point;G, rectangular stem dart point;H, Trinity (?) dart point;I, Palmillas dart point;J-M, Unidentified contracting stem dart points;N, San Patrice dart point;O-R, Perdiz arrow points (specimenOwas associated with Burial No. 1);SandT, expanding stem arrow points.
Fig. 16. Stone artifacts.A-D, worked nodules;EandF, bifacial blades;G, drill;HandI, grooved stones;J, mano;K, pitted stone.
Fig. 16. Stone artifacts.A-D, worked nodules;EandF, bifacial blades;G, drill;HandI, grooved stones;J, mano;K, pitted stone.
[1]In the preliminary sorting an effort was made to disregard all previously described types insofar as possible. It is believed by the writers that more realistic results can be obtained if the artifacts from a specific site are compared and grouped on a basis of their own characteristics, and not on a basis of preconceived forms, styles, and types recognized at other sites.[2]The anomalous presence of two Lower Mississippi sherds and five Gibson Aspect sherds at the Harroun Site must be considered intrusive, although a reasonable hypothesis to explain their occurrence in a site of Fulton Aspect date does not, it must be confessed, come readily to mind.
[1]In the preliminary sorting an effort was made to disregard all previously described types insofar as possible. It is believed by the writers that more realistic results can be obtained if the artifacts from a specific site are compared and grouped on a basis of their own characteristics, and not on a basis of preconceived forms, styles, and types recognized at other sites.
[2]The anomalous presence of two Lower Mississippi sherds and five Gibson Aspect sherds at the Harroun Site must be considered intrusive, although a reasonable hypothesis to explain their occurrence in a site of Fulton Aspect date does not, it must be confessed, come readily to mind.