A total of 260 plain potsherds was recovered from the four mounds and the trenches in the floodplain. Paste of the plain pottery contains varying amounts of sand, and all or most of the sherds are tempered with ground potsherds. Bone tempering is present in 31 plain sherds. Wall thickness varies from 3 mm. for the thinnest body sherds to 13 mm. for some basal sherds.
The surfaces are smoothed and some are highly polished. Sixteen plain sherds are red filmed, seven of them on the exterior surface only and the others on both the inner and outer surfaces. Paste colors are mostly browns and grays, with shades ranging from very light to quite dark.
Carinated bowls, bottles, and probably other vessel shapes are represented. Many of the plain sherds undoubtedly came from vessels which were partially decorated; others probably are from entirely plain vessels. Of the 14 rimsherds, seven are large enough to show that the rims of some vessels were not decorated. No definite types were recognized.
A perforated pottery disc (Fig. 14, Q) made from a sherd was found at Mound C. It is 32 mm. in diameter, 8 mm. thick, and has a biconically drilled hole 10 mm. in diameter in the center. The outer edge has been partially ground smooth and the two flat sides are fairly well polished. The sherd from which this artifact was made is buff in color, clay tempered, and the paste is fine textured and compact.
A small, conical, ceramic object (Fig. 14, R) was unearthed at Mound B. It appears to be the tip of an appendage that has broken off an effigy vessel or a pipe bowl. It is oval in cross section, and the distal end contracts to a blunt point. The buff-colored paste is fine grained and compact; the surface is poorly smoothed. This object measures 18 mm. long and its maximum diameter at the proximal end is 8 mm.
The 46 lithic artifacts include dart points, arrow points, bifacial blades, worked nodules, pitted stones, and other objects. All the chipped stone implements are made of local quartzites and cherts which occur as very small nodules in the older stream terraces near the HarrounSite. The sandstone and hematite employed for the other stone artifacts were most likely collected from local sources also.
Of the 19 dart points recovered, 15 have contracting stems, 3 have expanding stems, and one has a rectangular stem. Eight of the contracting stem series (Fig. 15, A-D) fall within the shape range of the Gary type (Newell and Krieger, 1949: 164-166 and Fig. 57; Suhmet al., 1954: 430 and Pl. 94), but are smaller (3 to 4 cm. long) than most Gary points reported from other sites. The Gary type has been used as an inclusive group embracing most of the contracting stem dart points of the eastern United States. Several investigators (Ford and Webb, 1956: 52-54 and Fig. 17; Baerreiset al., 1958: 65-69 and Pls. 14-18; Bell, 1958: 28 and Fig. 14) have recognized variants within the broad Gary group, but only a bare beginning toward the definition of the different varieties of Gary has been made.
Three of the Gary points from the Harroun Site (Fig. 15, B-D) are quite similar to a small variety of Gary which seems to be restricted to northeastern Texas. The shoulders are slight and project laterally; the stem and blade are of approximately equal length. Similar points from the Hogge Bridge Site, Wylie Focus, have been illustrated by Stephenson (1952, Fig. 95, A). Many specimens of this variety were also recovered from the Yarbrough Site on the upper Sabine River by The University of Texas in 1940, and others have been reported from sites in the Iron Bridge Reservoir area on the upper Sabine (Johnson, 1957: 7 and Pl. 3, H-L).
Two of the contracting stem points from the Harroun Site (Fig. 15, F) have been assigned to the Wells type (Newell and Krieger, 1949: 167 and Fig. 58; Suhmet al., 1954: 488 and Pl. 123). They feature long, narrow stems which are rounded off at the base and the stem edges are ground smooth. One specimen is virtually complete except for a small portion of the tip. This point has narrow shoulders and a blade with slightly convex edges. The second Wells point is represented only by the stem, but it was probably attached to a blade similar to that of the more complete specimen.
Four of the contracting stem dart points (Fig. 15, J-M) are not assignable with certainty to any recognized type. All are relatively small for dart points. One (Fig. 15, J) is slender and shoulderless; the stem areais somewhat reminiscent of the Wells type. The other three are vaguely suggestive of the Gary type, but are too aberrant to be identified affirmatively with that or any other type.
The other contracting stem point (Fig. 15, N) has a concave base, basal thinning, and ground stem edges. At first glance it reminds one of the Plainview type (Krieger, 1947; Suhmet al., 1954: 472 and Pl. 116). However, a drastic expansion just above the base is characteristic of the San Patrice type (Webb, 1946: 13-15 and Pl. 1) and we are confident that this specimen is a San Patrice point.
One of the expanding stem dart points (Fig. 15, H) has a triangular blade, slight shoulders, and a fairly large stem with smoothed edges. This point is similar to the Trinity type (Suhmet al., 1954: 484-486 and Pl. 82) but is also somewhat reminiscent of type Yarbrough (Ibid.: 492 and Pl. 125).
Another point (Fig. 15, E) of the expanding stem series has been assigned to the Ellis type (Newell and Krieger, 1949: 166-167 and Fig. 58; Suhmet al., 1954: 420-422 and Pl. 89).
The third expanding stem dart point (Fig. 15, I) is the crudest of the series. The stem is relatively small and the basal portion is missing. It falls in the general range of the Palmillas type (Suhmet al., 1954: 462 and Pl. 110).
The dart point with a rectangular stem (Fig. 15, G) is easily the largest projectile point found at the site. The triangular blade has mildly convex edges, and the moderate sized shoulders are slightly barbed. We are reluctant to identify this specimen with any specific type, but in general style it is suggestive of the Bulverde type (Suhmet al., 1954: 404 and Pl. 81). Extreme varieties of the Yarbrough and Morrill types also approach the form of this specimen.
Only six arrow points were found, including the one associated with Burial No. 1. The burial point (Fig. 15, O) is of the Perdiz type (Suhmet al., 1954: 504 and Pl. 131). It has a relatively short pointed stem and sharp barbs.
Of the remaining five arrow points, three (Fig. 15, P-R) have contracting stems and are of the Perdiz type; the other two (Fig. 15, S-T) have expanding stems and could not be identified with any known type. The three Perdiz points are almost identical in form and are remarkablyuniform in size, all falling between 18 and 19 mm. long by 11 to 12 mm. wide at the shoulder. One of the expanding stem arrow points (Fig. 15, S) is in the same size range as these three Perdiz points, the other is somewhat larger. All of the arrow points except the one from the burial have serrated blade edges.
The two bifacial blades could have been used as small knives, scrapers, or even projectile points. One (Fig. 16, E), represented by the basal portion, is a triangular blade with a straight base. It is 3.6 cm. wide at the base and is estimated to have been approximately 7 cm. long when complete. It is fairly thin and of reasonably good workmanship. The second bifacial blade (Fig. 16, F) is smaller than the other, measuring 4.2 cm. long by 2.8 cm. wide at the base. It is crudely pointed at the distal end and has a convex base. The blade edges are sinuous and show little evidence of wear.
Six small nodules of chert have been worked and show signs of wear along the worked edges (Fig. 16, A-D). All were fashioned from small elongated nodules by chipping a sharp edge at one end of the nodule, leaving the basal end smooth and unworked. They are from 4 to 6.5 cm. long. Two of them (Fig. 16, A-B) are chipped only across one end of the nodule; the others are chipped across one end and down both sides, only the basal end of the nodule being unaltered. Similar artifacts are quite common in sites over most or all of East Texas, but their purpose is unknown.
An elongated, pointed implement (Fig. 16, G) with the basal portion missing appears to be the shank of a drill. It has been chipped from gray chert. This fragment is 4.3 cm. long and is from 5 to 13 mm. wide. It is triangular in cross section and the distal end is slightly worn along the edges as though from use.
Four fragments of chipped stone implements are too incomplete for accurate description. Some or all of them are probably blade fragments from projectile points or bifacial blades.
One incomplete milling stone is made of light gray quartzite (Fig. 16, J). It has been pecked around the edges into a broad oval shape and it is smooth from use on both faces. It is 9.8 cm. long, 8.2 cm. wide, and 3.6 cm. thick.
Three small stone fragments smoothed on one face are probably pieces of milling stones, but all are too fragmentary for their original shapes to be determined.
An irregular shaped piece of hematite (Fig. 16, I) has several narrow, intersecting grooves running across one face. The grooves are set at apparently random angles. On the opposite face of this fragment is part of a deep, gouged out pit where the red pigment was evidently scraped away for use as paint.
A piece of fine grained sandstone (Fig. 16, H) has a broad U-shaped groove across one face. The groove is 20 mm. wide and 6 mm. deep.
Several small pieces of hematite bearing faint scratches were probably used as sources of pigment.
There are four pieces of sandstone and hematite with more or less flat sides that have small, circular pits pecked into them (Fig. 16, K). Three have one pit each, the other has two pits on opposite sides of the stone. The pits are all between 2.5 and 3.0 cm. wide and they vary from 4 to 8 mm. deep.
Three small pieces of stone are smoothed on one face. One is a cobble measuring 17.7 cm. long, 5.8 cm. wide, and 3.3 cm. thick. The others are too fragmentary for reconstruction, but seem to be pieces of small grinding slabs.
The provenience of the artifacts at the Harroun Site is summarized inTable 1. It is clear that the artifacts associated with each house, with the fill of each mound, and with the upper part of the floodplain deposits are quite similar, in the main, throughout the site. Or put anotherway, each major type or category of artifacts is more or less evenly distributed over the site. This supports the conclusion that the burial, the four houses, the four mounds, and most of the artifacts in the upper part of the floodplain are associated with a single occupation of the site by one cultural group. Architectural and structural data from the mounds point toward the same conclusion.
The only apparent variation from the general provenience pattern is the occurrence of all 17 of the Bullard Brushed sherds at Mound C. However, only two vessels are represented by the Bullard sherds, and because of the small sample it is probably of no particular significance that they all were found at one mound.
Some of the projectile point types may have derived exclusively from a light pre-mound occupation of Archaic affiliation. But the Gary and Perdiz types are unquestionably associated with the mounds and the houses. The Coles Creek Incised (?) and Beldeau Incised (?) sherds may pre-date the mounds.
Excavations at the Harroun Site in Upshur County, Texas, revealed abundant evidence of a Fulton Aspect occupation related to four small mounds on the floodplain of Cypress Creek. An earlier pre-mound occupation was indicated by the presence of a few scattered artifacts and stone chips buried as deeply as four feet below the surface of the floodplain. Remains of the pre-mound occupation are very sparse, however, and it is not possible to make an accurate statement of its character. The predominance of stone chips and crude stone artifacts suggests Archaic affiliation, but Fulton Aspect sherds also occurred well down in the floodplain and no pure Archaic zones were found.
The internal structure of each of the four mounds was determined in some detail. Beneath Mound A, the smallest one, was an extended burial of an adolescent male. Offerings associated with the burial were a Perdiz arrow point, a small carinated bowl, and a bottle with an expanding neck. Both vessels are of the Ripley Engraved type. The grave had been dug from the bottom of a broad, shallow pit excavated in the surface of the floodplain; the mound had then been erected over the grave.
A prepared clay hearth in the middle of the mound fill indicated that Mound A had been built in two stages. However, the uneroded condition of the hearth and the absence of a discernible break between the upper and lower portions of the mound disallow the possibility of an appreciable lapse of time between the two construction stages. Since the mound fill contained a quantity of cultural refuse, it must have been taken from a nearby area of fairly heavy occupation. The floodplain near Mound A was tested by means of trenches and small pits, but the assumed occupation area was not discovered.
Mounds B, C, and D each contained evidence of at least one circular house structure which had been burned and then mounded over withsand. Because of the consistent pattern of burning, paucity of domestic artifacts, and burial of the house ruins beneath mounds, it is believed that the structures were ceremonial in function and that the burning was intentional. The few artifacts associated with the house structures indicate that they all were built by a single group of people related to the Titus Focus of the Fulton Aspect.
The house at Mound B was 17 feet in diameter. It had an extended entranceway on the southeast side, a centrally located hearth prepared of clay, and several interior roof supports. This house had been built directly on the surface of the floodplain.
There were two houses at Mound C, the smaller one (14 feet in diameter) superimposed over the larger one (18 feet in diameter). Each apparently had a centrally located hearth and one, or possibly both, had an extended entranceway on the west side. Two interior roof support molds were related to the earlier house, but none were found for the later one.
Beneath Mound D was a single house with traces of an interior hearth situated near the center and an extended entranceway on the west side. Instead of being built directly on the surface of the floodplain as were the houses at Mounds B and C, the house at Mound D had been built in a shallow excavated pit.
Underneath each of the interior hearths associated with the houses at Mounds B and C was a relatively large post mold. It is uncertain whether there was a similar post mold at Mound D because the large pothole there had removed the central portion of the house floor, including the hearth. These molds at Mounds B and C apparently mark the locations of center posts which were used as work platforms during construction of the houses and then removed after the houses were completed. Ridges of sand around the perimeters of all the houses seem to have been banked against the exterior walls while the houses were standing. The floodplain between and around the mounds was tested by pitting and trenching, but no occupational features or concentrations of cultural material were found away from the mounds.
Circular houses of the same general architecture as those at the Harroun Site are typical of the Caddoan Area, especially during the Fulton Aspect period (Webb, 1940; Harrington, 1920; Newell and Krieger, 1949; Goldschmidt, 1935; Davis, 1958). Harrington (1920) reportedseveral circular houses with extended entranceways found beneath sand mounds one to three feet high in southwestern Arkansas. Some of these houses had been built on the surface of the ground, some had been built in shallow pits, and others had been placed on low mounds. Most of them had been burned, and all were associated with typically Caddoan artifacts and with burned clay daub. Harrington thought the houses were earth lodges which had burned and collapsed, the earth from the walls and roofs falling over the house floors so as to form mounds. Webb (1940) reported architecturally similar houses at the Belcher Site in northwestern Louisiana, but presented a strong argument that they were wattle-and-daub houses and not earth lodges.
It appears certain that the Harroun houses were also wattle-and-daub structures without any covering of earth. This conclusion is based on the following points:
1. The bodies of the mounds were composed of soft sand entirely unsuited for covering the sides and roofs of houses. It is doubtful if sand of this consistency would stick to a vertical or steeply sloping wall at all; but even if it did, it would surely be washed away with the first heavy rain.
2. The central portions of the Harroun mounds stood from two to three feet above the floors of the houses. If all this sand had fallen in from the tops of earth lodges, then the lodges must originally have had sand piled at least two or three feet thick on the middle of their roofs. This does not seem probable.
3. Fragments of burned, wattle-impressed, clay daub at all the Harroun houses indicate that the houses were plastered with clay, presumably on the outside. Burned clay daub apparently does not occur archeologically in association with true earth lodges in the plains.
4. Remains of true earth lodges in the Plains area show superficially as depressions, often with a low ring-shaped mound around the perimeter (Wedel, 1936: 24; Lehmer, 1954). Sometimes the depressions result in part from the shallow pits in which the lodges were built. But even when an earth lodge was built directly on a flat surface rather than in a pit, the mound left behind when the lodge collapsed has a concavity in the center instead of being convex as were the mounds at the Harroun Site. It is significant that Mound D was prominent and convex in shape even though the house it covered had been built in a pit. Certainly it isdifficult to visualize an earth lodge—whether built in a pit or not—collapsing in such a manner as to produce a smoothly convex mound like those at the Harroun Site.
In view of the foregoing factors, it is concluded that Mounds B, C, and D at the Harroun Site were purposely erected over the ruins of the burned houses.
It appears certain that the four houses at the Harroun Site were typical Caddoan houses. Perhaps they were of the traditional “beehive” shape, or possibly they had wattle-and-daub walls and thatched roofs like those photographed by Soule about 1870 and pictured in Webb (1940: Pl. 8, 1).
Historical descriptions and sketches of Caddoan houses indicate that they did not usually have extended, covered entranceways as do a majority of the prehistoric houses that have been excavated in the Caddoan Area. This suggests that the extended entranceway was used at a relatively early period but was abandoned prior to the 17th century. However, Caddoan houses of the early historic period will have to be excavated before a definite statement can be made in this regard.
Ceramics at the Harroun Site consisted mainly of brushed, incised, engraved, and appliquéd styles, including types Ripley Engraved, Taylor Engraved, Bullard Brushed, Pease Brushed-Incised, and Maydelle Incised. One sherd of Crockett Curvilinear Incised was also found, and two other sherds are similar to the types Coles Creek Incised (or Chase Incised) and Beldeau Incised. Ripley, Taylor, Bullard, and Maydelle are all indigenous types of the Titus Focus (Suhmet al., 1954: 192), Ripley in particular being considered diagnostic of the focus. Beldeau Incised and Coles Creek Incised are Lower Mississippi types and they are surely intrusive in the site. Both were buried between 2.5 and 4.0 feet deep in the floodplain (but at different locations) and they may pre-date the mounds. The sherd of Crockett Curvilinear Incised came from a disturbed area at Mound B, but four sherds from a Gibson Aspect engraved bottle are anomalies that are apparently associated with the mound period at Harroun.
The most common type in the small sample of arrow points is Perdiz, generally considered to equate in time (in East Texas) with the Fulton Aspect, but usually thought of as a trait of the Frankston Focus—not the Titus Focus. Dart point types Cary, Ellis, and Wells—all found atthe Harroun Site—are widely distributed in East Texas, and any or all of these types could be affiliates of the Titus Focus or related complexes, although such associations have not been previously demonstrated. The few miscellaneous stone artifacts are relatively non-distinctive in form.
The Titus Focus has been defined on the basis of data derived almost entirely from burials (Suhmet al., 1954: 191). As pointed out by Davis (1958: 67) there is a possibility that mortuary offerings of pottery, arrow points, and other objects may represent selected items and do not necessarily provide a complete catalog of traits actually used by the Titus Focus people. Trait lists compiled from burial data include the arrow point type Talco and the pottery types Ripley Engraved and Harleton Appliquéd as focus diagnostics. Other types listed as Titus Focus traits are shared with other foci.
Davis (1958: 67-68) has noted that Talco points are reported by local collectors to occur only in burials. If this is so, the absence of Talco points in the occupation zones at Harroun does not necessarily negate Titus Focus affiliation for the site. The Perdiz arrow point associated with the burial, however, does seem out of character for Titus Focus as it has been defined.
By and large, the ceramics at the Harroun Site are typical forms and styles of the Titus Focus. However, the absence of diagnostic pottery type Harleton Appliquéd and the presence of Pease Brushed-Incised are incongruous with previous concepts of the Titus Focus.[2]At the Whelan Site, on Cypress Creek 15 miles below the Harroun Site, Davis (1958) has recently reported a series of superimposed houses within a small mound, associated with an assemblage of artifacts remarkably similar to those at Harroun. Ripley Engraved and Pease Brushed-Incised were both present in significant quantities at Whelan, while Harleton Appliquéd was totally absent. No Talco arrow points were found, but six arrow points with expanding stems and one Perdiz point were recovered. Since more than 15,000 artifacts were collected from the Whelan Site, it adds considerable substance to the inventory of artifacts from Harroun, and virtually eliminates any possibility that the Harrouninventory, because of the smallness of the sample, is not truly representative.
On a low ridge near the edge of the Cypress Creek valley, about a half mile west of the Harroun Site, R. R. Nicholas and E. M. German (personal communication) recently excavated several burials. They reported finding vessels of Ripley Engraved and Pease Brushed-Incised associated in the same graves. This spot may be the location of the main village occupation related to the Harroun mounds; in any event the burials there confirm the association of Titus Focus and Bossier Focus ceramic types found at the Harroun and Whelan Sites.
The traits observed at the Harroun Site indicate affiliation with the Titus Focus, but with the following notable deviations from previous conceptions of the focus:
1. Talco points—thought to be a diagnostic trait of Titus Focus—are absent. However, Talco is alleged to occur only in burials, and consequently its absence in occupational areas is not necessarily significant.2. Perdiz points are present, although they have not been listed as a trait of Titus Focus.3. Harleton Appliquéd pottery—one of the two ceramic types considered diagnostic of Titus Focus—is absent. Since Harleton has been found only in graves, however, it may be a specialized type used solely for burial purposes.4. Pease Brushed-Incised pottery is present in significant quantity. Pease has been previously assigned only to the Bossier and Haley Foci, and has been thought a bit too early for association with Titus Focus. Its presence here may indicate that the Harroun Site dates from the earlier part of the Titus Focus.5. The entire artifact assemblage is directly associated with mounds. Mounds have not previously been reported as a Titus Focus trait.
1. Talco points—thought to be a diagnostic trait of Titus Focus—are absent. However, Talco is alleged to occur only in burials, and consequently its absence in occupational areas is not necessarily significant.
2. Perdiz points are present, although they have not been listed as a trait of Titus Focus.
3. Harleton Appliquéd pottery—one of the two ceramic types considered diagnostic of Titus Focus—is absent. Since Harleton has been found only in graves, however, it may be a specialized type used solely for burial purposes.
4. Pease Brushed-Incised pottery is present in significant quantity. Pease has been previously assigned only to the Bossier and Haley Foci, and has been thought a bit too early for association with Titus Focus. Its presence here may indicate that the Harroun Site dates from the earlier part of the Titus Focus.
5. The entire artifact assemblage is directly associated with mounds. Mounds have not previously been reported as a Titus Focus trait.
The following alternative hypotheses were advanced by Davis (1958: 67-68) as possible explanations of the circumstances found at the Whelan Site. They are equally applicable to the Harroun Site.
1. The site was occupied by “classic” Titus Focus peoples whose artifacts used in every day life differed in some respects from those usually placed in graves. If the Harroun Site served primarily for ceremonialpurposes as has been suggested, this might also help explain some of the observed trait differences between it and the Titus Focus cemeteries previously reported.2. Occupation was by Titus Focus peoples, but at a slightly earlier date than the establishment of the large cemeteries from which the focus has been defined. Conceivably, the trait inventory of early Titus Focus peoples may have been slightly different from that of their descendants. If a temporal factor is involved, it is assumed that the Harroun Site dates early in the sequence rather than late because of the associated Pease Brushed-Incised pottery. There are no stratigraphic data to support this conjecture.3. The site was not occupied by Titus Focus peoples at all, but by some contemporaneous group who acquired Titus Focus artifacts through trade or by imitation.
1. The site was occupied by “classic” Titus Focus peoples whose artifacts used in every day life differed in some respects from those usually placed in graves. If the Harroun Site served primarily for ceremonialpurposes as has been suggested, this might also help explain some of the observed trait differences between it and the Titus Focus cemeteries previously reported.
2. Occupation was by Titus Focus peoples, but at a slightly earlier date than the establishment of the large cemeteries from which the focus has been defined. Conceivably, the trait inventory of early Titus Focus peoples may have been slightly different from that of their descendants. If a temporal factor is involved, it is assumed that the Harroun Site dates early in the sequence rather than late because of the associated Pease Brushed-Incised pottery. There are no stratigraphic data to support this conjecture.
3. The site was not occupied by Titus Focus peoples at all, but by some contemporaneous group who acquired Titus Focus artifacts through trade or by imitation.
We believe that the first and second hypotheses are most likely to be the correct ones, with a distinct possibility that a combination of the two may best explain the association of traits found at the Harroun Site.