ARCHAEOLOGY SERIES, NO. 2




                            THE HARROUN SITE


     A Fulton Aspect Component of the Caddoan Area, Upshur County, Texas

                                By Edward B. Jelks and Curtis D. Tunnell

This report was prepared in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement
between The University of Texas and the National Park Service providing
for salvage excavations in advance of construction at Ferrell’s Bridge
Reservoir, Texas.

                                              Department of Anthropology
                          The University of Texas • Austin, Texas • 1959




                                Foreword


Excavation and analysis of the Harroun Site were carried out in 1957,
1958, and 1959 as a part of the nationwide Inter-Agency Archeological
Salvage Project. Mound A was excavated by the National Park Service in
1957; Mounds B, C, and D were excavated by The University of Texas in
1958 and 1959 under the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement between the
National Park Service and The University of Texas providing for
archeological salvage at Ferrell’s Bridge Reservoir.

This report was prepared in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum
of Agreement (Contract No. 14-10-333-422) and was submitted to the
National Park Service in April, 1959, under the title, “The Harroun
Site: A Fulton Aspect Component, Ferrell’s Bridge Reservoir.” As
provided in Article I (f) of the contract, the letter of transmittal
from The University of Texas and the letter of acceptance from the
National Park Service are here reproduced.




                         Letter of Transmittal


                                                 The University of Texas
                                                           Austin, Texas
                                                          April 16, 1959

  Mr. Hugh M. Miller
  Regional Director
  National Park Service
  P. O. Box 1728
  Santa Fe, New Mexico

  Dear Mr. Miller:

Three copies of the report, _The Harroun Site: A Fulton Aspect
Component, Ferrell’s Bridge Reservoir_, by Edward B. Jelks and Curtis D.
Tunnell, are enclosed herewith. This report is submitted in partial
fulfillment of the provisions of Contract No. 14-10-333-422, Article 1d,
between the National Park Service and The University of Texas.

                                                        Sincerely yours,
                                                                (Signed)
                                                T. N. Campbell, Director
                                     Texas Archeological Salvage Project




                          Letter of Acceptance


                                              Department of the Interior
                                                   National Park Service
                                                            Region Three
                                                    Santa Fe, New Mexico
                                                             May 1, 1959

  Dr. T. N. Campbell, Director
  Texas Archeological Salvage Project
  University of Texas
  Austin 12, Texas

  Dear Dr. Campbell:

Thank you for the three copies of the report, _The Harroun Site: A
Fulton Aspect Component, Ferrell’s Bridge Reservoir_, by Edward B. Jelks
and Curtis D. Tunnell.

Please convey our thanks to Messrs. Jelks and Tunnell for this excellent
report prepared under Contract No. 14-10-333-422. It is in keeping with
the fine work you are doing in the Ferrell’s Bridge Reservoir.

                                                        Sincerely yours,
                                                                (Signed)
                                                          Hugh M. Miller
                                                       Regional Director




                           Table of Contents


  _Introduction_                                                       1
  _The Site_                                                           5
      Environment                                                      5
      Site Description                                                 5
      Geological Context                                               6
  _Excavation and Recording Methods_                                   8
  _Mound A_                                                            9
      Structure of Mound A                                            12
      Occupational Features                                           12
          Feature No. 1                                               12
          Burial No. 1                                                14
      Discussion                                                      16
  _Mound B_                                                           17
      Structure of Mound B                                            17
      Occupational Features                                           20
          House No. 3                                                 20
      Discussion                                                      22
  _Mound C_                                                           23
      Structure of Mound C                                            25
      Occupational Features                                           28
          House No. 1                                                 28
          House No. 2                                                 30
      Discussion                                                      31
  _Mound D_                                                           32
      Structure of Mound D                                            34
      Occupational Features                                           35
          House No. 4                                                 35
      Discussion                                                      35
  _Description of the Artifacts_                                      38
      Ceramics                                                        38
          Brushed Pottery                                             39
          Incised Pottery                                             41
          Appliquéd Pottery                                           42
          Punctated Pottery                                           43
          Engraved Pottery                                            43
          Plain Pottery                                               46
          Miscellaneous Ceramic Objects                               46
      Stone Artifacts                                                 46
          Dart Points                                                 47
          Arrow Points                                                48
          Bifacial Blades                                             49
          Worked Nodules                                              49
          Drills                                                      49
          Fragmentary Chipped Stone Artifacts                         49
          Milling Stones                                              50
          Grooved Stones                                              50
          Pitted Stones                                               50
          Miscellaneous Ground Stone Artifacts                        50
  _Provenience of the Artifacts_                                      50
  _Summary and Discussion_                                            54
  _Conclusions_                                                       61
  _References Cited_                                                  62




                       List of Tables and Figures


  TABLE PAGE
  1. Provenience of the artifacts                                     52
  FIGURES
  1. Plan of site                                                      2
  2. Plan of Mound A area                                             11
  3. Profiles of Mounds A and B                                       13
  4. Plan of Mound B area                                             18
  5. Plan of House No. 3                                              21
  6. Plan of Mound C area                                             24
  7. Profiles of Mounds C and D                                       26
  8. Plan of Houses No. 1 and 2                                       29
  9. Plan of Mound D area                                             33
  10. Plan of House No. 4                                             36
  11. Mound A prior to excavation (A); Mound C prior to excavation
          (B)                                                         64
  12. Burial No. 1 (A); pottery vessels associated with Burial No. 1
          (B and C)                                                   65
  13. Sherds                                                          66
  14. Sherds                                                          67
  15. Projectile points                                               68
  16. Stone artifacts                                                 69




                              Introduction


The Harroun Site (University of Texas Site No. 41UR10), in the extreme
northeastern corner of Upshur County, Texas, is one of several sites
excavated in the Ferrell’s Bridge Reservoir area as a part of the
Inter-Agency Archeological Salvage Project. The site, which consisted of
four small mounds on the south floodplain of Cypress Creek, was located
and recorded by E. Mott Davis and Bernard Golden in October, 1957. It
promised to produce valuable archeological data, and since it was
scheduled to be completely submerged by Ferrell’s Bridge Reservoir in
the summer of 1959, immediate steps were taken to provide for salvage
excavations prior to its inundation.

In December, 1957, a National Park Service field party excavated the
smallest of the four mounds, Mound A. A single extended burial
containing two pottery vessels and an arrow point, was found in a
shallow grave beneath the mound. It appeared that Mound A had been
erected for the purpose of covering the burial. While Mound A was being
excavated, the entire site was mapped, several trenches and test pits
were dug in the floodplain of Cypress Creek near Mound A, and some of
the trees and bushes were cleared from the other three mounds.

In September, 1958, under terms of a co-operative agreement between The
University of Texas and the National Park Service, a crew of the Texas
Archeological Salvage Project returned to Harroun to complete the
investigation of the site. Because of time limitations it was apparent
that all three of the remaining mounds (B, C, and D) could not be
entirely excavated. Therefore, it was decided to concentrate on Mound C
since it appeared superficially to be the least disturbed of the three.
After excavation of Mound C was well under way, a portion of the crew
was moved to Mound B and it was also opened. Both mounds were found to
contain burned remains of house structures.

    [Illustration: Fig. 1

    HARROUN SITE
    41 UR 10
    PLAN OF SITE
    solid lines mark measured locations
    dashed lines mark approximate locations]

  LOW MARSHY AREA
  FENCE
  MOUND C
  BORROW PIT
  LAKE
  high water drainage channel
  MOUND B
  CYPRESS CREEK
  MOUND A
  MOUND D

Investigation of Mound D was begun late in September a few days before
the termination of the dig. Time did not permit complete excavation of
Mound D that season, but it was tested sufficiently to reveal that
it—like Mounds B and C—contained the burned remains of at least one
house.

During the 1958 season, in addition to the work at Mounds B, C, and D,
several trenches and test pits were dug in the floodplain near the
mounds in a fruitless search for additional occupational features.

A final trip was made to the site in February, 1959, by L. F. Duffield,
W. A. Davis, and E. Mott Davis of the Texas Archeological Salvage
Project. They spent three days exposing and recording the portion of the
house at Mound D which had been left unexcavated the previous fall.

As a result of the investigations at the Harroun Site in 1957, 1958, and
1959, all four of the mounds were completely excavated except for
certain marginal portions and several check blocks. In addition, the
area surrounding the mounds was tested sufficiently to show that there
was no general area of occupation near the mounds. The excavation of the
Harroun Site was supervised by the senior author. The junior author
served as an assistant archeologist during both the 1957 and 1958
seasons.

The artifacts recovered indicate affiliation with the Fulton Aspect of
the Caddoan Area (Suhm _et al._, 1954: 151-161). The Fulton Aspect is
the later of two aspects that have been recognized in the Caddoan Area
as belonging to the agricultural, ceramic Mississippi culture pattern of
the Southeastern United States.

To the Corps of Engineers, whose personnel at Ferrell’s Bridge extended
many courtesies and co-operated with the archeological field parties in
every possible way, we express our sincere gratitude. Special
acknowledgment is due Dr. E. Mott Davis and Dr. J. F. Epstein, staff
archeologists of The University of Texas, who visited the site while the
dig was in progress, and who not only aided the progress of the
excavations by flexing their muscles over shovels and wheelbarrows, but
also offered much valuable advice toward solving the technical problems
encountered in the field. Their prowess with their guitars contributed
greatly to the conviviality of the field camp in the evenings.

A word of thanks and appreciation is due the shovel hands who worked at
the Harroun Site in 1957, 1958, and 1959. All extended themselves beyond
normal expectation in order to accomplish a maximum amount of work in
the limited time available. They are John B. Johnson, Robert L.
Brockman, Thomas V. Loveday, W. Brent Hempkins, Floyd W. Sharrock,
Andrue Moore, A. C. Harvey, and W. C. Jones. We wish also to thank Mr.
Sam Whiteside of Tyler, Texas, a frequent visitor to the site who spent
many hours on the dig as a volunteer shovel hand.

Especially to be commended are the assistant archeologists, John Allen
Graham, L. F. Duffield, W. A. Davis, and LeRoy Johnson, Jr., all of whom
carried out their duties in exemplary fashion despite the continuous
pressure under which they were working.




                                The Site


                              ENVIRONMENT

Ferrell’s Bridge Reservoir is located in the northwestern part of the
Gulf Coastal Plain (Fenneman, 1938: 109-110), which is characterized
topographically by rounded hills sculptured from the superficial clays
and sands of the region. The subsoil—a sandy clay in various shades of
yellow, orange, and red—is capped by a thin mantle of gray sand which
evidently derived by differential erosion from the sandy clay. The
exposed geological formations recognized in the general region are clays
and sands of the Eocene Claiborne group (Sellards _et al._, 1958:
606-666).

The reservoir is situated in the Austroriparian Biotic Province (Blair,
1950: 93-117). The uplands are thickly timbered, principally with pines,
while the stream valleys sustain heavy stands of mixed hardwoods (oaks,
cypress, gum, walnut, hickory, holly, and others) in addition to some
pines. All the virgin forests were completely timbered out years ago.
Bear and panther, which were formerly common, have long since
disappeared from the area, but a large population of deer, raccoon,
opossum, fox, rabbit, beaver, and other small mammals survives to the
present day. The streams abound with several varieties of fish.

The climate is relatively humid, the annual rainfall at the Gilmer
station averaging 43.5 inches (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, _Climatological
Data, Texas_, V. 63, No. 13: 361). The mean annual temperature for
Upshur County is 65 degrees (_Ibid._: 357).


                            SITE DESCRIPTION

The Harroun Site was situated on the south floodplain of Cypress Creek
on the outside of a large bend (Fig. 1). The only occupational features
visible on the surface were four small mounds, round to slightly oval in
shape, with rounded tops. They were designated Mounds A, B, C, and D. A
long, narrow lake, evidently surviving from an old cut-off channel of
Cypress Creek, lay beside the creek channel in the northwestern part of
the site.

Mound A, located 75 feet south of the creek and 350 feet east of the
lake, was by far the smallest of the four mounds. It measured about 30
feet in diameter and rose to a maximum height of approximately two feet
above the surface of the floodplain. Mound B stood at the south end of
the lake, Mound C was on the west bank of the lake, and Mound D was
situated in a precarious position on the brink of the floodplain at the
creek channel, 150 feet downstream from Mound A. A shallow depression
beside Mound C and two small depressions by Mound B marked possible
borrow areas. Mounds B, C, and D were all approximately the same size,
about 50 feet in diameter and 2.5 to 3.5 feet high.

The floodplain of Cypress Creek in the vicinity of the Harroun Site was
overgrown with an almost impenetrable tangle of underbrush and second
growth timber. Old-timers, however, reported that many years ago, before
the virgin timber was cut, the stream valleys in this region supported a
tall growth of timber with virtually no underbrush.


                           GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

The geology at the Harroun Site may be summarized in tabular form as
follows:

  Zone II. A stratum of sand forming the surface of the floodplain,
  varying from about 5 to 12 feet thick. Zone II was divided into three
  parts, IIa, IIb, and IIc.

  Zone IIc. Humus-stained topsoil, the superficial portion of the Zone
  II sand member, 0.6 to 1.1 feet thick.

  Zone IIb. Grayish to whitish sand with irregular-shaped patches of
  brownish sand. The brown patches probably represent subsurface
  staining of the gray-white sands by iron salts carried by percolating
  water. Zone IIb was 2.0 to 3.1 feet thick where exposed.

  Zone IIa. Grayish to whitish sand similar to IIb, but without the
  patches of brown sand. This zone was heavily saturated with subsurface
  water wherever encountered, and the presence of the water may have
  kept the iron salts in solution, thereby explaining the absence of the
  stains. The thickness of Zone IIa was not determined since seeping
  ground water prevented excavating down to its base.

  Zone I. A reddish clay member observed in natural exposures along the
  edge of the creek channel. The top of Zone I was undulating, and it
  lay at a depth of approximately 5 to 12 feet below the surface of the
  floodplain in the exposures examined. The thickness was not
  determined, but was in excess of 10 feet. The top of Zone I was not
  reached in any of the excavated squares because seeping ground water
  prevented carrying the excavations deeper than 4 to 5 feet.




                    Excavation and Recording Methods


The same general procedure was followed in excavating each of the four
mounds at the Harroun Site. A stake was placed near the center of the
mound and a grid of 5-foot squares was established which tied in with
the centrally located stake. Then each quadrant of the mound was
excavated separately. Beginning at the top of the mound, an entire
quadrant was taken down by regular vertical intervals, usually of 0.5
feet each. The floor of the excavation was cleaned and examined after
each level was removed, and measured drawings were prepared to record
any zoning or occupational features that were observed in the excavation
floor.

The four profiles radiating in the cardinal directions from the central
stake were always left intact until measured drawings had been prepared,
and other profiles were recorded when deemed necessary. Strategically
located check blocks were left at all the mounds, at least until the
structure of the mound was determined. In some cases the check blocks
were ultimately removed in order to completely expose a house floor or
other feature.

For vertical reference, the base stake at Mound A was assigned an
arbitrary elevation of 100.0 feet, and all vertical measurements for the
entire site were keyed to that stake. For horizontal control a separate
grid of 5-foot squares was established for each mound and the area
adjacent to it. While the use of a separate grid for each mound had some
disadvantages, this method was adopted for two main reasons: (1) so that
a key stake with co-ordinates in whole numbers could be located at the
center of each mound, and (2) to avoid the use of unwieldy 4-digit
numbers for co-ordinates. For each grid a base stake, set well away from
the mound, was assigned an arbitrary designation of 0-0, and all other
stakes of that grid were labeled with the co-ordinates measured from the
base stake in the cardinal directions (as N100-W50, N85-W80, etc.). All
the grids were oriented on magnetic north. The designation for each
5-foot square was taken from the co-ordinates at its southeast corner.

Because of the press of time it was impossible to screen all of the
excavated soil. Each structural component was spot screened, however, in
order to obtain a representative sample of artifacts and other material.
Both ⅓-inch and ¼-inch hardware cloth were used for screens.

All artifacts and other specimens were placed in paper bags, on which
were recorded the square, vertical interval, geological or structural
zone (wherever possible), associated features (if any), appropriate
grid, date, and any other pertinent data. For specimens found _in situ_
the exact vertical and horizontal position was also recorded to the
nearest ¹/₁₀th foot.

In addition to work in the mounds themselves, several exploratory
trenches were dug in the immediate vicinity of Mounds A, C, and D. In
each case these tests were tied in to the grid for the appropriate
mound. Small tests were made with a post hole digger or a shovel over
the entire area between the mounds, and also for some distance beyond
the general mound area. These small tests were irregularly spaced from
10 to 100 feet apart. Recording the location of each of them would have
required the clearing of a vast amount of underbrush; consequently,
since they were all unproductive, only the general areas tested were
noted.

Measured drawings, descriptive notes, and photographs were made of the
mounds, the burial at Mound A, the house plans at Mounds B, C, and D,
and the other occupational features. General site notes were also taken,
and a daily log of activities was maintained.




                                Mound A


Mound A, the smallest of the four mounds, was situated 75 feet south of
Cypress Creek and 100 feet west of Mound D (Fig. 1). It was roughly oval
in shape with the long axis running due east and west (Figs. 2 and 11).
The length at the base was 35 feet; the basal width was 28 feet. The
maximum height above the modern floodplain was approximately two feet.
No potholes or other disturbances were evident from the surface.

After several trees and bushes had been cleared away, the Mound A area
was staked on a grid of 5-foot squares. A stake near the base of the
mound on the south side was arbitrarily selected as the base or 0-0
stake, and the designations for the other stakes were determined by
measuring their distance from the base stake in terms of the cardinal
directions. The elevation of the ground surface at the 0-0 stake was
assigned an arbitrary value of 100.0 feet, and all vertical measurements
for the entire site were keyed to that point.

As an initial test, most of the southwestern quadrant of the mound was
excavated to undisturbed sub-mound soil so that two radial profiles were
left standing, one running south, the other west, from the approximate
center of the mound. Since time did not permit complete excavation of
Mound A, the only squares excavated in the remaining three quadrants
were the three 5-foot squares cornering on the approximate center point
of the mound and square N10-E5 which was excavated in order to expose
Burial No. 1 (Fig. 2). Two additional 5-foot squares (N15-W40 and
S25-E0) beyond the limits of the mound structure were carried down
several feet below the surface of the floodplain. Each of the latter
squares was aligned with one of the two major profiles radiating from
the center of the mound. A 1-foot wide check strip, running east-west
along the N20 line, was left standing.

All squares were dug in 0.5-foot levels. Those squares in the mound
structure were leveled successively on each ½-foot interval of the
vertical reference system, while the two squares dug into the floodplain
near Mound A were dug by 0.5-foot levels measured from the surface of
the ground. All the soil from squares N15-W40 and S25-E0, and an
estimated 50% of the excavated mound fill from other squares, was
screened through hardware cloth of ¼-inch mesh. All digging was done
with shovels except for close work around Feature No. 1 and Burial No. 1
where trowels were used.

In the mound, horizontal plans were drawn to scale at 0.5-foot intervals
as the squares were leveled, all features, soil changes, and major
disturbances being recorded. Representative profiles were also drawn to
scale so as to provide a record of the mound structure and of the
relationship of the mound to the floodplain on which it rested.

The major profiles, the burned area near the center of the mound
(Feature No. 1), and the sub-mound burial (Burial No. 1) were
photographed in both color and black and white.

    [Illustration: Fig. 2

    HARROUN SITE
    41 UR 10
    MOUND A
    contour interval = 0.5 feet
    shading indicates excavated area]


                          STRUCTURE OF MOUND A

The profiles revealed that the bulk of the mound fill comprised a single
structural member composed of dark gray, humus stained, sandy, midden
soil (Fig. 3). It reached a maximum height of 1.4 feet above the surface
of the surrounding floodplain and extended down to an average depth of
1.4 feet below the floodplain surface. The fill of Mound A contained
many tiny fragments of mussel shell, bone, charcoal, and stone chips, as
well as a few potsherds, projectile points, and other artifacts. Some of
the shell and bone fragments showed evidence of burning. The mound fill
was unquestionably derived from an occupational area containing an
appreciable quantity of cultural detritus.

The top of soil Zone IIb in the area surrounding the mound was, on an
average, about 0.7 feet below the surface of the floodplain. The bottom
of the mound structure, however, extended to an average depth of 1.4
feet below the floodplain surface where it terminated within Zone IIb
(Fig. 3). Thus the surface of Zone IIb immediately beneath the mound
formed a shallow, saucer-shaped depression which must have resulted from
digging away of the topsoil before the mound was erected. This shallow
pit (perhaps originally 1.0 to 1.5 feet deep) was approximately the same
size and shape as the base of the mound.


                         OCCUPATIONAL FEATURES

Besides the mound itself, two occupational features were found in the
Mound A area: (1) an area of burned soil within the mound fill (Feature
No. 1), and (2) a sub-mound burial (Burial No. 1). Each is described
separately below.


                            _Feature No. 1_

This was an elongated area of heavily burned, sandy clay lying within
the matrix of the mound fill (Fig. 3). Since the northern end of Feature
No. 1 was not completely excavated, the exact dimensions were not
determined; but the maximum length was evidently between 9 and 10 feet,
while the maximum width was 4.3 feet. The long axis ran approximately
north-south. Profiles revealed a lenticular cross section with a
pronounced thickened area near the mid-point of the east edge. Near the
center the burned zone was 0.5 feet thick; the thickened area near the
east edge reached a maximum thickness of 1.5 feet.

    [Illustration: Fig. 3

    HARROUN SITE—41UR10
    PROFILE OF MOUND A
    (ALONG N20 LINE)
    dark gray, sandy mound fill
    Feature No. 1
    Zone IIb sand, sub-mound
    Zone IIa sand

    HARROUN SITE
    41UR10
    PROFILE OF MOUND B
    (IDEALIZED SECTION THROUGH CENTER OF MOUND)
    floor of House No. 3
    central hearth
    post molds
    stump disturbance
    humus
    gray, sandy mound fill
    whitish, sandy mound fill
    undisturbed sub-mound soil]

The surface of Feature No. 1 was burned to a conspicuous degree of
hardness and was sharply demarcated from the soft, unfired mound fill
which overlay it. Beneath the central portion, heat had produced a thin
zone of reddish sand which merged gradually with the underlying grayish
sand of the mound fill.

Feature No. 1 was situated in the lower portion of the body of the
mound. It did not have the appearance of a carefully prepared hearth,
but the presence of clay in the burned soil suggests that an
irregular-shaped clay base had been laid down where the fire was to be
built. It appears that after a layer of sand about a foot thick had been
piled up to form the base of the mound, further work on the mound was
temporarily interrupted, a crude hearth of sandy clay was prepared near
the center of the basal layer of sand, and a fire of considerable
intensity was kindled on it. The hardness of the burned, sandy clay of
the hearth indicates that the fire was quite a hot one and that it must
have burned—continuously or intermittently—for a period of many hours at
least. After an unknown interval of time the fire was extinguished and
the construction of the mound was resumed and carried to completion. The
sharp definition of the hearth surface and the homogeneity of the mound
fill above and below the hearth indicate that no appreciable time
elapsed between the extinguishing of the fire and the addition of the
upper part of the mound fill: otherwise the surface of the hearth should
have shown evidence of weathering and the two different stages of mound
construction should have been visible in the profiles as separate zones.


                             _Burial No. 1_

Beneath the southeast quadrant of Mound A a single burial was found
(Fig. 12, A). The skeleton lay in extended, supine position, with the
head to the northeast and the feet to the southwest. Preservation of the
bones was poor, and several of them (including the left femur, most of
the arm and hand bones, the lumbar vertebrae, and the foot and ankle
bones) had been destroyed or displaced by gophers whose runs interlaced
the entire burial area. As a result of this disturbance the original
position of the arms could not be determined.

Two pottery vessels—a carinated bowl and a bottle, both of the type
Ripley Engraved (Fig. 12, B-C) had been placed beside the left hip as
burial offerings, and an arrow point of the Perdiz type (Fig. 15, O),
lying near the outer side of the left knee, appeared also to have been
included intentionally with the burial.

The first evidence that a burial was present was the discovery of
several foot and ankle bones in a rodent run in square N10-E0. The
burrow was traced toward the north for several feet where the distal end
of a human tibia was exposed in the northeast corner of square N10-E0.
Since it was apparent that the major portion of the burial lay in square
N15-E5, that square was taken down. At 0.5-foot intervals the floor of
the square was scraped clean with trowels and carefully examined for
evidence of a grave outline. However, none was detected in the mound
fill.

The burial was finally exposed at a depth of 3.6 feet below the surface
of the mound, the floor of the grave lying at an average depth of 1.0
feet below the base of the mound. A vague area of discolored soil (which
contrasted faintly with the surrounding undisturbed IIb sand) marked the
location of the lower portion of the grave. The edges of the burial pit
were quite indefinite, having been considerably disturbed by roots and
rodents, but its appearance—both in flat plan and in profile—suggested
that a shallow grave about a foot deep and just large enough to
accommodate the body had been dug from the floor of the shallow
sub-mound pit, the body had been placed in the grave, and then earth had
been heaped over both the body and the shallow pit to form the mound.

The skeletal remains from Burial No. 1 were examined by Dr. T. W.
McKern, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, The University of Texas. He
has kindly provided the following statement:

“The skeletal material from Burial No. 1, Site 41UR10, Upshur County,
Texas, consists of one skeleton in a state of poor preservation. Not
only are the bones highly fragmented but not one, including the skull,
has escaped the destructive teeth of rodents. The brain case is complete
but the entire face is missing. Only parts of the mandible are present
including both left and right molars (3rd not erupted) and a lower left
2nd premolar. The lower left dentition is _in situ_. No single bone in
the postcranial skeleton is anatomically complete. Also, due to the
young age of the remains, most of the epiphyses are missing.

“So far as possible, metric and morphological observations were taken
and recorded. But because of the incomplete nature of these
observations, they will not be reproduced here.

“The skeleton is that of a 14 year old male with a cranial index of 82
(brachycranic). Although the cranium is slightly distorted there is no
evidence of artificial deformation.

“For pathology, the teeth show very little wear which is consistent with
the observed age. One pronounced cavity was found on the
mesio-disto-occlusal surface of the lower left 2nd molar.

“Because of the almost complete lack of knowledge concerning the range
of physical types for the prehistoric populations of Texas it is
impossible to associate this skeleton with any known Indian group on a
strictly morphological basis.”


                               DISCUSSION

Mound A was erected on an alluvial terrace of Big Cypress Creek for the
purpose of covering a grave. Prior to construction of the mound
approximately a foot of humic topsoil was dug away from the surface of
the terrace at the selected spot. A shallow grave was then dug in the
excavated area, the body was placed in the grave along with two pottery
vessels and an arrow point, and the mound was formed over the grave.
When the basal portion of the mound was in place, the work was halted
temporarily while a fire of considerable intensity was kindled on the
incompleted mound—perhaps for ritual purposes. After the fire had been
extinguished work on the mound was resumed and brought to completion.

The presence of artifacts in the sub-mound Zone IIb formation indicates
that the surface of the terrace in the Mound A area had been lightly
occupied prior to construction of the mound. The fill of the mound
contained artifacts similar to those in the sub-mound formation, but
also contained burned bone scraps, mussel shells, and fragments of
charcoal in some quantity. This circumstance shows that the soil of
which the mound was built came from a more intensively occupied area
than any discovered in the terrace around or under the mound. The source
of the mound soil was not determined.




                                Mound B


This low, approximately circular mound was located on the floodplain of
Cypress Creek, about 125 feet south of the stream channel, at the south
end of the lake (Fig. 1). A shallow depression about eight feet across
lay just southwest of the mound, and a similar but smaller depression
was recorded at the northeast edge of the mound. These features probably
are borrow sources. An intrusive pothole, located near the center of the
mound, was three to four feet in diameter at the surface, but
fortunately it proved to be quite shallow and damage to the mound was
slight. The maximum diameter of Mound B, measured north-south, was 55
feet (Fig. 4), and the mound reached a maximum height of 2.8 feet above
the floodplain.

Mound B was staked for excavation with the usual grid of 5-foot squares
oriented on magnetic north. The base stake was 100 feet south and 100
feet east of the approximate center of the mound. Excavation was carried
out by the quadrant method as previously described, the southeast and
northwest quadrants being excavated first, the southwest and northeast
quadrants last. Each quadrant was taken down by ½-foot levels which were
keyed to the vertical reference datum. In addition to work in the mound
itself, the area immediately south of the mound was tested by means of
trenches (Fig. 4). The trenches were dug in ½-foot levels measured from
the surface of the floodplain at each square.

The excavating and recording methods used at Mound B were generally the
same as described for Mound A.


                          STRUCTURE OF MOUND B

The excavations in Mound B revealed clearly its internal structure (Fig.
3). An old soil surface, unmistakably defined by a dark humic zone,
underlay the entire mound at an average elevation of 99 feet, or
approximately the same elevation as the modern surface of the
floodplain. This evidently represents the surface humic zone (Zone IIc)
of the floodplain at the time the mound was built. Yellow-brown sand
(Zone IIb) extended below the buried humic zone to an undetermined
depth. Zones IIb and IIc beneath the mound contained a few scattered
stone chips and an occasional artifact, but there were no concentrations
of cultural material.

    [Illustration: Fig. 4

    HARROUN SITE
    41 UR 10
    MOUND B AREA
    contour interval = 0.5 feet
    shading indicates excavated area]

Resting directly on the old floodplain surface was the basal structural
component of the mound, a rather compact, circular lens of dark brown
sand up to a foot or more thick and averaging about 17 feet in diameter.
This lens, which contained abundant charcoal, burned clay daub, bone,
shell, and a few artifacts, represented the floor level of a house,
designated House No. 3. In and above the floor level were the remains of
several charred poles, presumably derived from the burned framework of
the house. A burned area approximately four feet in diameter in the
center of the lens proved to be the remains of a central fire hearth. It
was filled with complex lenses of various shades and textures. A large
post mold was found beneath the hearth in the approximate center of the
house.

Completely encircling the house outline was a poorly defined zone of
yellow-brown sand which lay directly on the buried surface of the
floodplain and extended upward a foot or two where it gradually blended
into the upper component of the mound fill. This light-colored sand may
have been banked against the outside of the house while it was still
standing; or it may have resulted from uneven, subsurface staining by
charcoal and other organic material of that portion of the mound lying
directly above the house. In any event, it was virtually devoid of
cultural material, only a very few stone chips, widely scattered, being
found in it.

A well defined humic zone, resulting from organic staining after the
mound was built, appeared at the surface of the mound. It averaged about
0.5 feet in thickness.

Except for the clay in the hearth and in the house floor, the entire
mound was constructed of sandy soil like that of the surrounding
floodplain, whence it undoubtedly was derived. The depressions on the
northwest and southeast sides of the mound are probably the borrow
sources for the sandy soil. The clay could have easily been obtained
from exposures in the cut banks at the edge of the creek channel.


                         OCCUPATIONAL FEATURES

Besides the two possible borrow pits mentioned above, the only
occupational feature found at Mound B was House No. 3.


                             _House No. 3_

This house was erected on the surface of the floodplain before the mound
was built. The purpose of the mound apparently was to bury the remains
of the house after it had burned.

Beneath the house floor zone, which was described in the preceding
section, were found 59 post molds measuring from 0.25 to 1.3 feet in
diameter and extending from 0.3 to 2.5 feet below the floor (Fig. 5).
The faint gray stain of the post molds was quite dim and difficult to
distinguish. They were located by cutting a vertical face completely
around the house area, then carefully cutting the face inward from all
sides. As the post molds were located, they were plotted on a horizontal
plan and a measured profile drawing of each was prepared.

Twenty-three of the post molds formed a circular outline representing
the perimeter of a house approximately 17 feet in diameter (Fig. 5). The
peripheral molds averaged 0.5 feet in diameter and were spaced, as a
rule, about two feet apart. At the southeast edge of the house were two
parallel lines of three molds each which defined an extended
entranceway. Because of disturbance in the entranceway area by tree
roots, only the bottom portions of the entrance molds were preserved.
Their arrangement suggests that some of the post molds related to the
original entranceway were not discovered.

Within the external ring of post molds were 30 irregularly spaced molds,
including four very large ones which probably held the bases of
relatively heavy roof supports. Two concentrations of smaller post molds
(one on the northeast side of the house, the other on the southwest
side) possibly mark the location of interior structures such as sleeping
or storage platforms. In the center of the house was a relatively large
post mold, over which the fire hearth had been built. This probably
represented a center post used in construction of the house and then
removed when the house was completed.

The hearth was located in a shallow depression at the center of the
house. It was in the form of a basin about four feet in diameter and one
foot deep. The sandy soil underlying the hearth had been burned to a
deep reddish color.

    [Illustration: Fig. 5

    HARROUN SITE
    41 UR 10
    PLAN OF HOUSE NO. 3
    MOUND B
    post mold, exterior wall
    post mold, interior
    post mold, entrance
    central hearth
    stump disturbance]

From all indications this house was constructed in a manner similar to
that described by early Spanish and French explorers in the Caddoan Area
(Swanton, 1942: 148-154). A ring of poles, each with its base end set in
a deep hole, was placed in upright position around a tall center post
used as a work platform. The tops of the poles were drawn together at
the center and bound. Small tree branches were then woven, horizontally,
between the upright poles, grass thatching was applied, and, in some
cases, the exterior was plastered with a coat of clay mud. (Many pieces
of burned clay daub, some bearing impressions of sticks and grass, were
found on and above the floors of all the houses at the Harroun Site.)
After the house was completed, the center post, used only to facilitate
construction, was removed. Interior support posts may have been added,
and platforms for sleeping or storage were built inside the house.


                               DISCUSSION

House No. 3, a circular, wattle-and-daub structure with a southeastern
entranceway, was built on the surface of the Cypress Creek floodplain.
There were probably four interior roof support posts, two or more
interior platforms for sleeping or storage, and a centrally located,
prepared hearth with a clay base. Possibly, a low embankment of sand was
thrown against the wall around the exterior of the house.

The period of occupation at the house is unknown, but the scarcity of
artifacts suggests that it was of short duration, or else that it was
used for specialized—perhaps ceremonial—purposes. A domiciliary
structure ordinarily would have much more cultural refuse about it than
did House No. 3, unless it was occupied for only a very brief period of
time. Stone chips and a few artifacts in the floodplain beneath the
house floor indicate that the spot had been lightly occupied prior to
the construction of the house.

That House No. 3 burned is evident from the charred poles and bits of
heavily burned, wattle-impressed, clay daub lying on and above the house
floor. Shortly after the burning, a mound of sandy soil, undoubtedly
derived from the adjacent surface of the floodplain, was heaped over the
house ruins.

Burial of the house remains beneath a mound implies that the house had a
special significance, possibly of a ceremonial nature. Consequently it
may be conjectured that perhaps House No. 3 was a small temple or chapel
which was ceremonially burned and buried.




                                Mound C


Mound C was situated on the west bank of the lake, 350 feet northwest of
Mound B (Fig. 1). This mound was in the shape of a broad oval with its
long axis oriented in an east-west direction. It measured 62 by 52 feet
at the base and reached a maximum elevation of 102.6 feet, or slightly
more than three feet above the modern surface of the floodplain (Figs. 6
and 11, B).

There was a circular depression approximately nine feet in diameter in
the top of the mound where pothunters had been at work. Excavation
revealed that the pothole had been dug to a depth of 4.8 feet and had
later been partially filled by natural agencies. Unfortunately, the
pothole had destroyed most of the central hearths associated with the
two house floors found at the base of the mound.

After the trees and bushes had been cleared from Mound C the standard
grid of 5-foot squares was established with a base stake set 125 feet
south and 100 feet west of the approximate center point of the mound.
The initial step in excavating the mound was to dig the southwest
quadrant down to elevation 100.0 feet. Next, the southeast quadrant was
excavated to the same level so that an east-west profile remained
standing completely across the mound. After the profile had been studied
and recorded, the other two quadrants were removed and the entire mound
was levelled at elevation 100.0 feet, where a circular zone of dark soil
containing a large amount of charcoal marked the outline of what later
proved to be the remains of two houses, one superimposed on the other.

A narrow east-west trench was next dug across the house area, the north
edge of the trench being on the N125 line so that it matched the bottom
of the major east-west profile which had already been removed. This
trench revealed two thin layers of dark midden soil, each of which
represented the floor level of a house (Fig. 7). The two floor levels
were separated by a layer of clean, yellow sand. The lower floor rested
on undisturbed soil at the base of the mound. Numerous charred segments
of poles lay in a jumble on and just above the upper floor as though the
house walls had burned and collapsed.

    [Illustration: Fig. 6

    HARROUN SITE
    41 UR 10
    MOUND C AREA
    contour interval = 0.5 feet
    shading indicates excavated area]

The house floors were completely excavated, the artifacts and other
material associated with each floor being collected and sacked
separately wherever possible. Two concentric rings of post molds at the
periphery of the house area were exposed and recorded, as were several
interior post molds (Fig. 8). An entrance passageway was delineated at
the west side of the house area.

In order to determine the relationship of the mound to the floodplain
several short trenches were carried from the edge of the mound out into
the floodplain formation (Fig. 6). A depressed area in the surface of
the floodplain between the mound and the lake was also trenched in an
effort to determine whether it may have been a borrow pit. Several other
trenches were dug south and west of the mound in an unfruitful search
for any middens, houses, burials, or other occupational features that
might have been located near the mound.

Throughout the excavation of Mound C, major profiles, horizontal plans
at ½-foot intervals, and occupational features were described in the
field notes and drawn to scale. Major profiles and features were
photographed. Most of the digging was done with shovels, but trowels
were used in part for excavating the two thin floor zones and for
several other situations where close attention to detail was desirable.
Because of time limitations only representative, spot screening was
attempted.


                          STRUCTURE OF MOUND C

Profiles of Mound C revealed remnants of an old stabilized surface with
a well developed soil profile (including a superficial humic zone) lying
immediately beneath the mound fill (Fig. 7). The elevation of the old
surface averaged approximately 99.4 feet which is also the average
elevation of the modern floodplain surface around the mound: therefore
it appears certain that the first of the two houses was built directly
on the floodplain surface and that there has been no appreciable change
in the surface elevation of the floodplain since the mound was built.
The first house burned, after which the second house was built over its
remains; then the second house burned and the mound was erected over the
ruins of the houses.

    [Illustration: Fig. 7

    HARROUN SITE
    41 UR 10
    PROFILE OF MOUND C
    (IDEALIZED SECTION THROUGH CENTER OF MOUND)
    pothole
    floor of House No. 2
    floor of House No. 1
    sterile zone between house floors
    post mold
    humus (note buried humus zone between N130 and N140)
    gray, sandy mound fill
    whitish, sandy mound fill
    undisturbed sub-mound soil

    HARROUN SITE
    41 UR 10
    PROFILE OF MOUND D
    (IDEALIZED SECTION THROUGH CENTER OF MOUND)
    pothole
    floor of House No. 4
    dark brown sand
    gray-brown sand
    post mold
    humus
    gray, sandy mound fill
    whitish, sandy mound fill
    undisturbed sub-mound soil]

A low embankment of sand similar to that at Mound B encircled the house
area just outside the peripheral ring of house post molds (Fig. 7).
Apparently this embankment was built while one of the houses was still
standing since its inner edge is almost vertical in places as though it
had been banked against the outside wall of the house. After the later
house burned, the mound was heaped over both this embankment and the
house ruins.

The geologic structure of the floodplain at Mound C was apparently the
same as previously described although none of the excavations were
carried deep enough to expose Zone I, the basal member of reddish clay.
The mound structure rested on the surface of Zone IIc (Fig. 7) and was
composed of four distinct structural units as follows (in order from
bottom to top):

  1. _The lower house floor zone_ (House No. 1). This zone was composed
  of blackish sand containing a large amount of charcoal and had an
  average thickness of about 0.3 feet. It yielded some artifacts. This
  lower house floor lay just above the surface of Zone IIc (the
  floodplain surface) from which it was separated by a thin
  (approximately 0.1-foot thick) lens of compact sandy clay. The thin
  clay lens was apparently a subsurface formation resulting from the
  deposition of clay by percolating water along the buried surface of
  the floodplain.

  2. _The upper house floor_ (House No. 2). This zone consisted of a
  slightly compacted, brownish sand containing a large amount of
  charcoal and a few artifacts. It lay above the floor of House No. 1,
  and was separated from it by a layer of clean, sterile, yellowish sand
  0.1 to 0.3 feet thick which probably was placed over the burned ruins
  of the first house to provide a clean floor for the second one.

  3. _The embankment of yellow-brown sand encircling the house area._ As
  was previously pointed out, this member had the appearance of having
  been banked against the exterior wall of the house while it was still
  standing. Perhaps this provided extra protection from the winter
  winds, or its primary purpose may have been to serve as a dike to
  protect the house when Cypress Creek overflowed its banks. The maximum
  height of this zone was 2.0 feet above the surface of Zone IIc, upon
  which it rested.

  4. _The final addition to the mound._ This was the sand member which
  had been mounded over the house ruins. It was virtually sterile of
  cultural material.


                         OCCUPATIONAL FEATURES

The only occupational features discovered at Mound C were the two house
patterns.


                             _House No. 1_

The lower house floor at Mound C, designated House No. 1, rested
directly on the old surface of the floodplain (Fig. 7). The floor zone
was a circular lens of dark gray—almost black—sand with a greasy
texture. It averaged 0.4 feet in thickness and measured some 18 feet
across. This floor zone contained numerous bits of charcoal and burned
clay daub, a few stone chips, mussel shells and garbage bones, and a
small number of artifacts.

Around the perimeter of the floor was a ring of post molds representing
the exterior house wall (Fig. 8). Average diameter of the ring was 18
feet. Each post mold extended downward below the floor level into the
sub-mound floodplain. The individual molds ranged from 0.35 to 0.75 feet
in diameter, the bottoms being from 1.3 to 2.0 feet below the floor
level. There was a total of 29 definite molds plus one probable mold in
the peripheral ring, and disturbances on the west and south sides of the
house appeared to have obliterated at least five others. The posts had
been set about 1.5 to 2.0 feet apart on an average. Time did not permit
vertical sectioning of all the molds, but several were carefully
sectioned and studied to determine the level from which they had been
dug. All began at the floor of House No. 1, none extending above that
level.

The large pothole observed in the top of the mound continued downward
entirely through the floor of House No. 1, although it had narrowed to a
diameter of less than four feet where it intercepted the floor (Fig. 8).
Unfortunately the pothole had destroyed the major portion of a centrally
located hearth that must have been associated either with House No. 1 or
the overlying House No. 2. Actually, there was probably a hearth for
each house, the later one constructed directly above the earlier one.
But since only a narrow segment of burned soil remained to mark the
eastern margin of the hearth (or hearths), the structural details could
not be ascertained. As nearly as could be estimated by the surviving
portion of the hearth, it must have been approximately three feet in
diameter.

    [Illustration: Fig. 8

    HARROUN SITE
    41 UR 10
    PLAN OF HOUSES NO. 1 & 2
    MOUND C
    post mold, House No. 1
    post mold, House No. 2
    post mold, House No. 1 or House No. 2
    probable post mold
    remnant of central fire pit
    ash lens
    disturbance
    disturbance
    pothole]

Beneath the pothole—which luckily terminated a foot or so below the
floor of House No. 1—were the bottom portions of two post molds (Fig.
7). These were undoubtedly from the center posts used during
construction of Houses No. 1 and 2. Although the exact circumstances
could not be reconstructed because of disturbance, the center posts
presumably were removed when the houses were completed and the hearths
placed over the molds.

In addition to the two center molds, there were two other post molds
within the interior of the houses at Mound C. One was just east of the
hearth area, the other was northwest of the hearth (Fig. 8). Both were
exposed in the excavation floor at the level of House No. 1, and since
they were not encountered above that level both probably relate to the
earlier house.

An extended entranceway on the west side of the houses was delineated by
an elongated area of organically stained soil and by two parallel rows
of post molds (Fig. 8). The stained area was clearly discernible in the
mound fill above both house floors. Despite extremely careful excavation
of this stained area, however, only the bottom portions of the post
molds—well below the floor level of House No. 1—could be seen.
Consequently the level from which the entranceway post holes were dug
could not be determined and it is uncertain to which of the two houses
they belonged. House No. 2 must have had its entranceway on the west
side because the organically stained outline showed clearly in the mound
fill well above the House 2 floor level. Possibly both houses had their
entranceways in this same area.


                             _House No. 2_

House No. 2 was represented by a distinct floor zone and by a circle of
post molds. The floor zone (Fig. 8) consisted of a lens of brownish sand
averaging about 15.5 feet in diameter, with a maximum thickness near the
center of almost a foot. It lay directly above the floor of House No. 1,
but was separated from it by a thin layer of clean, sterile sand 0.1 to
0.3 feet thick. The sterile sand layer was possibly placed over the
burned ruins of House No. 1 in order to provide a clean floor for House
No. 2.

The peripheral ring of post molds (Fig. 8) averaged a little less than
14 feet in diameter (or almost four feet less than that of the
underlying House No. 1) and lay entirely inside the exterior wall of
House No. 1. The two rings were not quite concentric, however, the
center point of House No. 2 being slightly to the west of the center
point of House No. 1. The post molds of House No. 2 were from 0.45 to
0.85 feet in diameter, and they extended from 1.6 to 2.0 feet below the
level of the related house floor. Several of the molds were sectioned
vertically to determine the level from which they had been dug. They
could be clearly traced from the floor of House No. 2 down through the
floor of House No. 1 into the sub-mound floodplain.

As was pointed out above in the description of House No. 1, there was
probably a circular, centrally located hearth associated with House No.
2, and one of the two center posts whose molds were found beneath the
hearth area must have been used in the construction of the later house.
There appeared to be no other interior post molds associated with House
No. 2. The entranceway was probably on the west side.


                               DISCUSSION

Excavation of Mound C revealed that a circular house (House No. 1) was
built on the south bank of the Harroun Site lake, was occupied for an
unknown period of time, then was burned—perhaps intentionally. After a
thin layer of sand had been strewn over the burned ruins, a second,
smaller house (House No. 2) was erected on the remains of the earlier
house. House No. 2 was likewise destroyed by fire, after which the
remains of both houses were buried under a mound of sand.

Both houses probably had centrally located hearths, and one or both of
them had an entranceway opening to the west. As at Mound B, a low pile
of sandy soil may have been banked around the outside of one or both
houses before they were destroyed. Architecturally the houses at Mound C
were quite similar to the one at Mound B.

The sparse occurrence of artifacts and other cultural refuse suggests
that neither House No. 1 nor House No. 2 was an ordinary domicile. It
appears likely, rather, that both were ceremonial structures of some
sort. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the houses were
considered important enough to be afforded burial beneath a mound,
probably after having been ceremonially “cremated.”




                                Mound D


This low circular mound was located on the south bank of Cypress Creek
about 150 feet east of Mound A (Fig. 1). It was perched at the very edge
of the floodplain overlooking the creek channel. In recent years the
channel had been migrating laterally and had begun to encroach on the
north edge of the mound. The average diameter of Mound D at the base was
about 60 feet, and its highest point was at a relative elevation of
100.6 feet, or about 2.5 feet above the surface of the surrounding
floodplain (Fig. 9). A shallow depression about 12 feet across in the
top of the mound marked the location of the usual pothole. This pothole
had originally been only 5 to 6 feet in diameter, but had been
considerably enlarged at the surface of the mound by recent erosion.

Excavation of Mound D was begun shortly before the end of the 1958 field
season. It was dug, like the other mounds, by the quadrant method; but,
because there was not enough time for thorough excavation, only the
southwest quadrant was carried down to the sub-mound level in 1958. The
other three quadrants were taken down to the 98-foot level, however,
where a circular zone of dark, organically stained soil, 19.8 feet in
diameter, clearly outlined the location of a house structure (House No.
4) similar to those at Mounds B and C. During the final work at Harroun
in February, 1959, the entire northwest quadrant was exposed, excavated,
and recorded. Only the peripheral ring of post molds was exposed in the
other two quadrants.

The southwest quadrant of the mound was excavated in 0.5-foot levels;
all other portions were taken down in 1.0-foot levels. Horizontal plans
were recorded at all levels and photographs were taken. Vertical walls
1.5 feet thick were preserved across the mound along the W100 and N100
lines (Fig. 9), and trenches three feet wide were extended north, south,
and west of the mound in order to obtain complete vertical profiles.
Excavation and recording methods were generally the same as previously
described for the other mounds.

    [Illustration: Fig. 9

    HARROUN SITE:
    41 UR 10
    MOUND D AREA
    CYPRESS CREEK]


                          STRUCTURE OF MOUND D

The structure of Mound D was clearly indicated by the vertical cross
sections (Fig. 7). An old humus-stained surface underlying the marginal
portions of the mound was sharply defined at an average elevation of
98.0 feet. No artifacts or cultural refuse were found in the floodplain
below this surface. Prior to construction of the mound a shallow,
circular pit had been excavated in the surface of the floodplain to an
average depth of 1.5 feet. The sides of the pit sloped sharply downward,
and the floor was approximately level. An embankment of yellow-brown
sand, possibly composed of back-dirt from the pit, was mounded up about
1.5 feet high and four to six feet wide around the perimeter of the pit.
This light sand zone contained a few artifacts but little or no
charcoal.

A hard-packed house floor about 0.2 feet thick lay on the bottom of the
pit. This floor zone was composed of compact sandy clay which contrasted
sharply with the overlying mound fill. Charcoal, ash, and burned clay
daub were found in quantity in the floor zone, but only a few artifacts
were recovered. Just above the house floor was a 1-foot thick layer of
dark gray-brown sand containing several charred poles and a large amount
of charcoal, ash, and burned clay daub. Above that was the sandy fill
making up the bulk of the mound. A mantle of surface humus from 0.2 to
0.8 feet thick covered the mound.

A ring of post molds was discovered around the edge of the floor, and
other molds on the west side of the house marked the position of an
extended entranceway (Fig. 10). No interior post molds were discovered.

The pothole, which extended downward through the center of the floor,
had apparently removed a centrally located hearth, only slight evidence
of burning at the edge of the pothole remaining to show that the hearth
had been there.

The entire mound fill, including the embankment around the house, was
composed of various shades and textures of sand. All of this material
was probably derived from the sandy floodplain surrounding the mound.
Small quantities of clay around the hearth and on the house floor could
have been acquired at nearby outcrops in the stream channel.

As at Mounds B and C, the circular shape of the house at Mound D was
outlined by an area of organically stained soil which extended upward
from the house floor almost to the surface of the mound. The flanks of
all three mounds were of light colored sand which contrasted sharply
with the dark, circular house outlines. The only reasonable conjecture
thus far advanced to explain this circumstance is that a low embankment
of relatively clean sand had been piled against the exterior wall of
each house. Thus when a house burned the embankment would remain
standing, well above the house floor, as a sort of mold of the lower
portion of the house. Then when a mound was erected over the burned
house remains and the standing embankment, the outline of the house
might appear in the mound fill as a cast of the house, delineated by the
circular embankment.


                         OCCUPATIONAL FEATURES

House No. 4 was the only occupational feature discovered at Mound D.


                             _House No. 4_

This house was circular in shape, with an exterior wall formed of
upright poles, wattle, and clay daub. Post molds indicated that there
were at least 27 of the upright poles in the exterior wall (Fig. 10).
They were 0.3 to 0.6 feet in diameter at the base and were set about two
feet apart on an average. An interior hearth near the center of the
house was probably circular in shape and an estimated three to four feet
in diameter. Its exact dimensions could not be determined because of
disturbance by the pothole. No interior post molds were found.

Remains of an extended entranceway on the west side of the house
consisted in five post molds which outlined the two parallel sides of
the entranceway. The entranceway was slightly less than three feet wide,
and it sloped downward from the surface of the floodplain into the house
pit.

Burned poles and burned clay daub with wattle impressions showed that
House No. 4 had been destroyed by fire.


                               DISCUSSION

Investigation of Mound D revealed that the following sequence of events
had taken place. A round, Caddoan type of house (House No. 4) with an
extended entranceway on the west side was built in a shallow, excavated
pit on the south bank of Cypress Creek. Architecturally the house was
quite similar to those at Mounds B and C. Sand was probably banked
against the outside wall of the house to a height of somewhat more than
a foot. After an unknown period of time the house was destroyed by fire,
and then the house remains and the surrounding embankment of sand were
buried beneath a mound of sandy soil. This duplicates essentially the
events reconstructed for Mounds B and C, the only unique feature at
Mound D being the pit in which the house was built.

    [Illustration: Fig. 10

    HARROUN SITE
    41 UR 10
    PLAN OF HOUSE NO. 4
    MOUND D
    post mold
    unexcavated
    burned area
    pothole]

Probable ceremonial burning, burial beneath a mound, and a scarcity of
domestic artifacts and refuse suggest that House No. 4 was not an
ordinary residence, but a small temple, chapel, or similar structure
used for ceremonial purposes.




                      Description of the Artifacts


A total of 610 artifacts was recovered from the Harroun Site, consisting
of ceramics, chipped stone implements, and a few milling stones and
pitted stones. The first step in ordering the artifacts was to lump them
all together in one heap. Then they were separated into general groups
such as pottery, dart points, arrow points, scrapers, pitted stones,
etc. Next, each group was further divided and subdivided into as many
categories as seemed warranted until a number of small groups resulted,
each containing a series of individual specimens with similar basic
characteristics.[1] Finally, each of the small groups was compared to
similar material from other sites and identified with specific types
wherever possible.

The artifacts are described below by groups. Provenience of the groups
and types within the site is discussed in the succeeding section.


                                CERAMICS

In addition to the two vessels from the burial at Mound A, ceramic
specimens comprise a total of 562 sherds. The paste of these sherds is
characteristically sherd tempered, occasionally with the addition of
small quantities of sand and/or bone particles. There is no shell
tempering. Study of the sherds indicates that bottles, jars with
outcurved rims, carinated bowls, and possibly other forms are
represented. Exterior surface treatment includes brushing, smoothing,
polishing, and red filming; smoothing and red filming also occur as
interior surface treatments. Techniques used in applying decorations are
incising, engraving, appliquéing, and punctating.

The small quantity of sherds did not permit reconstruction of any
vessels nor of any complete design elements: consequently correlations
between techniques of decorating, design elements, vessel shapes and
surface treatment were impossible as a rule, and a comprehensive
typological analysis of the ceramics could not be made.

The ceramics were separated on the basis of decorative technique into
six groups: brushed, incised, appliquéd, punctated, engraved, and plain.
Each group is described separately below.


                           _Brushed Pottery_

Of the 141 brushed sherds, 13 are rimsherds and 128 are from body areas.
The brushing is always on the exterior surface, the interior surfaces
being poorly to fairly well smoothed. Wall thickness ranges from 5 to 9
mm. Lips are rounded and slightly everted.

Clay lumps of varying sizes—evidently ground up sherds are visible in
the paste of most sherds, and 39 of the 141 brushed sherds also contain
bone tempering. There are particles of sand in all the sherds, a few
having so much that their surfaces have a distinctly sandy feel when
rubbed between the fingers. Paste colors range from creams and buffs to
fairly dark grays, with most sherds falling into the lighter shades of
buff, brown, and gray—indicative of oxidation during firing. Some sherds
have light exterior surfaces and dark interior surfaces, suggesting that
the vessels stood upside down during firing.

Most of the brushed sherds could not be definitely identified with any
specific pottery types; however, several sherds were assigned to the
types Bullard Brushed of the Frankston Focus (Suhm _et al._, 1954: 252
and Pl. 9) and Pease Brushed-Incised of the Bossier Focus (Webb, 1948:
110-113 and Pls. 11 & 12; Suhm _et al._, 1954: 338 and Pl. 53).

There are 17 Bullard Brushed sherds, 13 of them from the body of a
single vessel, the other four from the rim of another vessel (Fig. 13,
A-B). All were found at Mound C. Both vessels were barrel-shaped with a
slight, evenly curved constriction in the neck area. There were one or
more horizontal rows of punctations made with a blunt stick separating
the body area from the rim area on both vessels, but there was no angle
at the juncture of the body and the rim. On the vessel represented only
by body sherds, the brushing consisted of short, overlapping strokes in
random directions, creating a roughened exterior of uneven appearance.
The rim treatment of this vessel could not be determined. The other
Bullard Brushed vessel was represented by four rimsherds which fitted
together. The rim of this vessel curved outwardly and was evenly brushed
in a diagonal direction. A horizontal row of punctations appeared at the
bottom of the rim. Both Bullard vessels were relatively large with wide
mouths.

Six of the brushed body sherds (Fig. 13, C, D, G) were identified as
type Pease Brushed-Incised because they have vertically brushed sections
separated by vertical appliqué strips. Five are from Mound D, the other
from Mound A. Five of the six have closely spaced punctations or
indentations pressed into the strips. One of the Pease body sherds (Fig.
13, D) is attached to a portion of the rim which is brushed
horizontally. On this sherd there is a marked angle at the juncture of
the body and the rim, and a horizontal row of small punctations made
with the blunt end of a stick is impressed along the line of the angle.
Other Pease sherds with incising instead of brushing are described
later.

The other 118 brushed sherds were not assigned to definite types, but
will be described here as a group. In all or most of the vessels
represented by the miscellaneous brushed sherds the coiling method was
employed. Fractures along coil lines, and vessel curvature on some of
the larger sherds, made it possible to orient 30 of the brushed body
sherds with respect to the vessels from which they came. The brushing on
all 30 is in an approximately vertical direction (Fig. 14, C-D). The
nine rimsherds, in contrast, are all brushed horizontally (Fig. 14, A-B)
except for one which is brushed diagonally. On one sherd containing
portions of both body and rim, the body is brushed vertically and the
rim horizontally. The body and rim areas are separated on this sherd by
a horizontal row of small, closely spaced punctations made with a
pointed instrument. On three of the nine rimsherds there are similar
single rows of punctations just below the lip.

The miscellaneous brushed sherds appear to have come, by and large, from
jars with outcurved rims, the bodies brushed vertically and the rims
brushed horizontally. The body and rim areas were probably separated in
most cases by a horizontal row of closely spaced punctations made with
the end of a stick, and similar rows of punctations were placed on some
rims just below the lip at the top of the brushed zone. The juncture of
the body and the rim usually formed a distinct angle. There is the
possibility that some vessels with brushed bodies had plain or incised
rims, or, conversely, that some with brushed rims had plain or incised
bodies. The horizontally brushed rims, some with punctations, are quite
similar to the rims of type Pease Brushed-Incised, and it is quite
likely that some of the brushed sherds came from Pease vessels. It is
also possible that some of the brushed body sherds are from vessels with
incised rims of the Maydelle Incised type (Suhm _et al._, 1954: 324 and
Pl. 46) described later.


                           _Incised Pottery_

Thirty-nine sherds with incised lines were found at the Harroun Site, 31
of them body sherds and the other eight from rims. The incised sherds
are all sherd tempered with varying amounts of sand included in the
paste. Bone tempering is also present in eight. Surface colors are
predominantly light browns and grays, indicating an oxidizing atmosphere
during firing. The characteristic surface treatment of the exteriors is
smoothing (done before incising), and all the interiors are smoothed.
Wall thickness varies from 4 to 8 mm. Two sherds have red slips.

Eleven of the incised sherds have vertical or diagonal appliqué strips
marking off the vessel body into panels, each panel being decorated with
parallel incised lines (Fig. 13, E-F). These have all the
characteristics of Pease Brushed-Incised body sherds, and they have all
been assigned to that type.

One sherd (Fig. 14, E) with punctation-filled incised panels is
unmistakably from a bowl of type Crockett Curvilinear Incised of the
Alto Focus, Gibson Aspect (Newell and Krieger, 1949: 98-101 and Fig.
36). This sherd has a straight rim with a squarish lip; the exterior was
smoothed before decorating and the interior is poorly smoothed.
Decoration consists of a portion of one curvilinear panel outlined with
incised lines and filled with small, crescentic punctations. Part of a
crack-lacing hole is retained on one edge of the sherd. This specimen
was found in a disturbed area at Mound B.

A sharply incurving rimsherd (Fig. 13, H) with four parallel incised
lines in the broad, flat lip is from a vessel which was not of
traditional Caddoan shape or decoration. It was found over four feet
deep in Zone IIb of the floodplain near Mound A. The incurving rim, the
flat lip, and the position of the incised lines are all quite similar to
styles of the Lower Mississippi Area—especially as exemplified by the
types Coles Creek Incised and Chase Incised (Ford, 1951: 74-77). Another
interesting feature of this sherd is a bright red slip which covers both
the interior and the exterior surfaces.

A second sherd (Fig. 13, I) with characteristically Lower Mississippi
design is also from Zone IIb of the floodplain. This sherd came from the
neck area of a jar and has portions of a decorated rim and a plain body.
The decoration consists of two sets of parallel lines crossing each
other at an angle so as to form a series of diamond-shaped elements.
Inside each diamond is a triangular punctation made with the corner of
an angular instrument. There is an abrupt decrease in wall thickness at
the bottom of the rim so that a typically Lower Mississippian
“overhanging line” effect is produced. In design and general execution
this sherd is similar to the type Beldeau Incised (Ford, 1951: 81-83) of
the Coles Creek period in the Lower Mississippi Area, but its paste
appears to be more in the Caddoan than in the Baytown tradition.

The 25 incised sherds not assignable to any specific type comprise five
rimsherds and 20 body sherds. Fifteen of the body sherds bear thin lines
sliced into the plastic clay with a sharp instrument; the other 10 were
incised with a blunt-tipped implement which gouged out, rather than
sliced, the lines. Two sherds (Fig. 14, G) have a horizontal row of
closely spaced punctations in the neck area. Of the five rimsherds, one
has three widely spaced, horizontal, incised lines; three (Fig. 14, F)
have a design of widely spaced, cross hatched incised lines; the fifth
bears traces of two horizontal incised lines on the lower part of the
rim above a plain body. Some of the smaller body sherds could have come
from Pease Brushed-Incised vessels and the three rimsherds with cross
hatched design could well be from Maydelle Incised vessels.

Thus the 39 incised sherds include at least 11 from vessels of type
Pease Brushed-Incised, one is type Crockett Curvilinear Incised, and two
appear to be intrusions from the late Coles Creek period of the Lower
Mississippi Area. The unidentified sherds are all typically Caddoan in
their general characteristics, and three of them may represent type
Maydelle Incised of the Frankston Focus.


                          _Appliquéd Pottery_

The decorative technique of appliquéing occurs commonly at the Harroun
Site, principally in combination with brushing and incising on the type
Pease Brushed-Incised described above. However, there are five sherds
with appliqué strips but with no traces of brushing or incising (Fig.
14, J). Paste characteristics of these sherds are the same as for the
previously described appliquéd sherds of the Pease type, and it is
believed that they are from vessels similar to Pease Brushed-Incised
except that the panels on the body were left plain instead of being
filled with brushing or incised lines.


                          _Punctated Pottery_

As stated in previous sections, horizontal rows of punctations occur
commonly in combination with brushing on the rims of jars, and
punctations also appear in vertical rows on appliqué strips applied to
the bodies of Pease Brushed-Incised jars. Thus punctations seem to occur
most commonly in association with incising, brushing, and appliquéing.
However, eight sherds have punctations as the only decorative technique.
Four of them have sections of single rows of closely spaced punctations,
all made with the ends of sticks or similar implements (Fig. 14, H). The
other four sherds (Fig. 14, I) are covered with small, free punctations.
On one of the latter the punctations were made with a blunt stick; the
other three have paired fingernail impressions.

The punctated sherds are all similar in paste characteristics. All are
sherd tempered and one also has a small amount of bone temper. Exterior
colors are light to medium brown and gray, while the interiors tend
toward darker shades of the same colors. The exterior surfaces were
smoothed before the punctations were applied; the interiors are also
smoothed.

The punctated sherds are not distinctive enough for typological
identification.


                           _Engraved Pottery_

Only two complete pottery vessels were found at the Harroun Site, a
carinated bowl and a bottle, both engraved and both associated with the
burial beneath Mound A.

The carinated bowl (Fig. 12, B) has a flat, round base and a compound
rim which turns sharply inward at the shoulder to form a narrow, almost
vertical panel approximately 1.5 cm. high. Above this panel the rim
turns sharply outward to form a second panel extending to the lip. Four
equally spaced peaks rise from the upper panel of the rim. The bowl
stands 9.5 cm. high and measures 21.0 cm. wide between opposing rim
peaks. Both the exterior and the interior surfaces have been well
smoothed, and marks of the smoothing tool are clearly visible both
inside and outside the vessel.

The lower rim panel of the carinated bowl bears a stylized version of
the interlocking scroll design, featuring broad, deep, engraved lines
with small excised zones. The upper rim panel has elongated triangular
designs on the rim peak areas with broad, parallel, vertical, engraved
lines within the triangles. An almost identical bowl is pictured by Suhm
_et al._, (1954: Pl. 57, I) as an example of the type Ripley Engraved.

The engraved bottle (Fig. 12, C) has a broad, squat body and a tall neck
with expanded rim. Total height is 23.1 cm. The body is 12.8 cm. high by
18.3 cm. wide; the height of the neck is 10.3 cm., its minimal diameter
is 4.5 cm., and the oral diameter is 5.5 cm. An interlocking scroll
design is repeated twice (slightly asymmetrically) on the body, and some
of the engraved lines have small, pendant triangles which are hachured
or excised. There are also several cross hatched, triangular elements.
The exterior surface is dark gray in color and has been well smoothed.
The bottle has been identified as an example of type Ripley Engraved
(Suhm _et al._, 1954: 346 and Pl. 59).

In addition to the two vessels from Burial No. 1, examples of the
engraving technique appear on 107 sherds from the Harroun Site. The
paste of these sherds is fairly consistent in being fine grained and
relatively hard, and all appear to have sherd temper. The paste of the
engraved sherds also contains moderate amounts of sand, and 23 of them
have bone particles added as a supplementary tempering agent. Surfaces
are smoothed, both on the interior and exterior, and the exterior
surfaces of several sherds are highly polished. Fractures along coil
lines indicate that manufacture was by the coiling method. Wall
thickness ranges from 3 to 7 mm.

A big majority of the engraved sherds are from the rims of carinated
bowls with rounded, out-turned lips, but several are from the bodies of
bottles and one is from the rim of a jar. Most of the sherds are small,
having sections of from one to four engraved lines which are too
incomplete to reveal any distinctive design elements: consequently no
typological affiliations can be determined for them. There are some,
however, which can definitely be assigned to previously recognized
typological categories.

On four sherds (Fig. 14, L) are small, excised, diamond-shaped elements
enclosed by concentric diamond-shaped lines, and two sherds (Fig. 14, K,
M) are decorated with swastikas enclosed by circles. Both of these
designs are known only on the type Ripley Engraved; therefore there is
no hesitation in identifying these six sherds as Ripley. Two other
sherds with portions of Ripley-like designs were assigned to the same
type.

One sherd (Fig. 14, O) from a small carinated bowl is decorated with a
curvilinear interlocking scroll design characteristic of the type Taylor
Engraved (Suhm _et al._, 1954: 360-362 and Pl. 65). Another sherd (Fig.
14, N) from an engraved bottle appears also to be of the Taylor type, as
does an engraved rimsherd (Fig. 14, P) from a jar.

Four sherds came from the lower neck region of a bottle. A single,
fairly heavy, engraved line filled with red pigment encircled the base
of the neck, and the neck contracted sharply toward the top in typically
Gibson Aspect style. The paste is fine grained in texture and almost
black in color. The exterior is well smoothed and polished, but the
interior is very poorly smoothed, as is usual for Caddoan Area bottles.
The wall of the neck is 6 mm. thick. This bottle is almost certainly a
Gibson Aspect form, possibly type Hickory Fine Engraved of the Alto
Focus (Newell and Krieger, 1949: 90-91 and Fig. 33; Suhm _et al._, 1954:
294 and Pl. 31). It was associated with the floor of House No. 3 at
Mound B.

The other 92 engraved sherds could not be identified with any specific
types. However, they all are from carinated bowls and bottles
characteristic of the Fulton Aspect, the forcefully engraved lines of
many suggesting Titus Focus in particular. An interesting note is the
occasional widening of an engraved line by a series of closely spaced,
gouged out lines, creating small zones which are not quite completely
excised (Fig. 14, K). The identical technique was noted by E. Mott Davis
(1958: 61) at the Whelan Site, located on Cypress Creek about 15 miles
below the Harroun Site. This treatment is similar in a general way to
that of the type Poynor Engraved of the Frankston Focus, but the design
elements on which it occurs, both at Harroun and Whelan, are
characteristic of Titus Focus (types Ripley, Taylor, and Wilder
Engraved) and not of Frankston Focus.

In general, the engraved pottery at the Harroun Site indicates Titus
Focus affiliation, the only exception being the one Gibson Aspect bottle
fragment. Ripley Engraved is the most common type, but type Taylor
Engraved and probably type Wilder Engraved are also present.


                            _Plain Pottery_

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.


                    _Miscellaneous Ceramic Objects_

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.


                            STONE ARTIFACTS

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
Harroun Site. The sandstone and hematite employed for the other stone
artifacts were most likely collected from local sources also.


                             _Dart Points_

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; Suhm _et
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; Baerreis _et 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; Suhm _et 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 area is 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; Suhm _et 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 (Suhm _et 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; Suhm _et 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 (Suhm _et 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 (Suhm
_et al._, 1954: 404 and Pl. 81). Extreme varieties of the Yarbrough and
Morrill types also approach the form of this specimen.


                             _Arrow Points_

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 (Suhm
_et 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
remarkably uniform 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.


                           _Bifacial Blades_

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.


                            _Worked Nodules_

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.


                                _Drills_

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.


                 _Fragmentary Chipped Stone Artifacts_

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.


                            _Milling Stones_

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.


                            _Grooved Stones_

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.


                            _Pitted Stones_

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.


                 _Miscellaneous Ground Stone Artifacts_

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.




                      PROVENIENCE OF THE ARTIFACTS


The provenience of the artifacts at the Harroun Site is summarized in
Table 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
another way, 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.




                                Table 1
                     _Provenience of the Artifacts_


  Column Headings
  Mound A
    A1—Sub-Mound (Zone IIb)
    A2—Intermediate Zone
    A3—Mound Fill
    A4—Bur. 1 Assoc.
    A5—Grave Fill, Bur. 1
    A6—Feature 1
    A7—Disturbed Areas Etc.
  Mound B
    B1—Sub-Mound
    B2—Mound Fill
    B3—House No. 3
    B4—Disturbed Areas Etc.
  Mound C
    C1—Sub-Mound
    C2—Mound Fill
    C3—House No. 1
    C4—House No. 2
    C5—Disturbed Areas Etc.
  Mound D
    D1—Sub-Mound
    D2—Mound Fill
    D3—House No. 4
    D4—Disturbed Areas Etc.
  Floodplain Trenches
    F1—Zone IIa
    F2—Intermediate Zone
    F3—Zone IIb
  T—Totals

                              A1 A2 A3  A4 A5 A6 A7 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D1 D2 D3 D4 F1 F2 F3  T

 Ripley Engraved Vessels                 2                                                            2
 Potsherds:
   Miscellaneous Brushed      11 10  24     4  1  4  5  4  2  8  —  3 14 10 12     2           1  3 118
   Miscellaneous Incised       4  2   5     2  1        4  —  1  1  —  1  1                          22
   Miscellaneous Appliquéd     —      —                 1  1  1     1  1  —                           5
   Miscellaneous Punctated     2  —   3     —  —  —           1     1  —  1  —  —  —              —   8
   Miscellaneous Engraved      9  4  16     5  1  2  2  4  3  5     5 12  8  6  3  5     —     —  2  92
   Plain                      27 31  64     6  1 10  3 16  6 32    19 14  2  8  4  3     3     6  5 260
   Bullard Brushed             —      —                    —        1  1  1 14     —              —  17
   Pease Brushed—Incised       2      3                    5  —     2  2  1        1              1  17
   Crockett Curv.—Incised                                     1                                   —   1
   Coles Cr. or Chase Incised  —                                    —                             1   1
   Maydelle Incised (?)        1      1                             1                                 3
   Ripley Engraved             2  1   2           —     —     —        1  1  1  —  —  —     —  —      8
   Taylor Engraved                                —  —  1  —  1           1     —  —     —  —         3
   Gibson Aspect, Engraved                        —  —     2  2     —     —  —  —  —  —  —     —      4
   Beldeau Incised (?)         —  —               —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  1  —   1
 Perforated Ceramic Disc       —  —         —  —  —  —  —     —  —  —  —  —  1  —  —  —  —  —  —  —   1
 Conical Ceramic Object                           —     1                       —  —     —            1
 Dart Points:
   Gary                           2            —  —  1  —              1  1        1  1        1  —   8
   Wells                                          —     1                          —  —           1   2
   San Patrice                 —                  —     1                          —     —            1
   Trinity (?)                 1                  —  —                 —              —               1
   Ellis                                       —  —  1                             —  —               1
   Palmillas (?)               —                        —     —     —  —     —  —  —  1  —  —  —      1
   Unident. Contract. stem     1                     —  1     1                 1                     4
   Rectangular Stem                            —     1                    —           —     —         1
 Arrow Points:
   Perdiz                      1      —  1        —        —  1                             1         4
   Unident. expanding stem            1        —           1     —                 —                  2
 Bifacial Blades               —               —  —  —     —     1        —     —  1           —  —   2
 Worked Nodules                                —  —  1     1                    2        —     1  1   6
 Chipped Stone Drills                             —                                —              1   1
 Fragmentary chipped
   St. Arts.                   1            —     —                 1  —  —     —           —     1   3
 Milling Stones                                —  —           —                    —  —  —        1   1
 Pitted Stones                                 —  —           1     —     —  —  —     —           2   3
 Grooved Stones                —  —   —  —  —  —  —              —  1     —     1                 —   2
 Ground Stone Fragments        —  —   —     —  —  —  —  —  —  —  1  1  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  1   3
 TOTALS                       62 50 119  3 17  4 16 14 34 21 55  3 36 47 27 42 11 13  2  3  1 10 20 610




                         Summary and Discussion


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.




                              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._

    [Illustration: 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.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 12. _A_, Burial No. 1, Mound A, looking
    northwest; _B_ and _C_, pottery vessels of type Ripley Engraved,
    associated with Burial No. 1.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 13. _A_ and _B_, 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.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 14. _A_ and _B_, brushed rimsherds; _C_ and _D_,
    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; _H_ and _I_, 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.]

    [Illustration: 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 (specimen _O_ was associated
    with Burial No. 1); _S_ and _T_, expanding stem arrow points.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 16. Stone artifacts. _A-D_, worked nodules; _E_
    and _F_, bifacial blades; _G_, drill; _H_ and _I_, grooved stones;
    _J_, mano; _K_, pitted stone.]




                               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_.