diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 19:39:37 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 19:39:37 -0800 |
| commit | dfe3fe943923b4123a6bb3d19a2e09abf4390f23 (patch) | |
| tree | 89f80789410b942d4f3ae549a525ad899851699f /old/65983-0.txt | |
| parent | 1aed974a1e43594ffcdd7b8eb8c1e0ea4ff08ff3 (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/65983-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65983-0.txt | 2877 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2877 deletions
diff --git a/old/65983-0.txt b/old/65983-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 9fe074c..0000000 --- a/old/65983-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2877 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Harroun Site, by Edward B. Jelks - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Harroun Site - A Fulton Aspect Component of the Caddoan Area, Upshur County, - Texas - -Authors: Edward B. Jelks - Curtis D. Tunnell - -Release Date: August 3, 2021 [eBook #65983] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at https://www.pgdp.net - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HARROUN SITE *** - - - - - - 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_. - - - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HARROUN SITE *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |