Chapter III: Part 3

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 Harroun inventory, 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.

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
ceremonial purposes 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.

Conclusions

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.

References Cited

Baerreis, David A., Joan E. Freeman, and James 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. and Clarence 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. Perry and Alex D. Krieger, 1949. The George C. Davis Site,
Cherokee County, Texas. _Memoirs Soc. for Amer. Arch. No. 5._

Sellards, E. H., W. S. Adkins, and F. 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, and Edward 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._

FOOTNOTES

[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.

Transcriber’s Notes

—Silently corrected a few typos.

—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook
is public-domain in the country of publication.

—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by
_underscores_.