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 with sand.
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) reported several
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
is difficult 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 (Suhm _et 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 at the
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 (Suhm _et 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 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.