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: