Titus Phase Ancestral Caddo Vessels from Sites in the Big Titus Phase Ancestral Caddo Vessels from Sites in the Big Cypress Creek and White Oak Bayou Basins in East Texas Cypress Creek and White Oak Bayou Basins in East Texas

This article is a summary of the findings from the documentation of 889 ancestral Caddo ceramic vessels from 20 sites in the Sulphur River and Big Cypress Creek basins in Camp, Franklin, Harrison, Marion, Morris, Titus, and Upshur counties in East Texas (Figures 1 and 2; Table 1). Four vessels are from an Early Caddo period burial at the J. E. Galt site (41FK2), but the remainder are from Late Caddo period Titus phase (ca. A.D. 1430-1680) burial features. In the comparisons of Titus phase vessel assemblages that follow, the focus will be strictly on the larger Titus phase vessel assemblages in the documentation study (see Perttula 2018), namely those from sites with more than 23 vessels, thus including the vessels from the P. S. Cash (41CP2), Jonah C. Atkinson Farm (41FK1), J. E. Galt, Mattie Gandy (41FK4), R. L. Cason (41MX1), Joe Justiss (41MX2), Hooper Glover (41MX4), Russell Bros. (41TT7), W. O. Reed (41UR1), and J. M. Riley (41UR2) sites.


Introduction
This article is a summary of the findings from the documentation of 889 ancestral Caddo ceramic vessels from 20 sites in the Sulphur River and Big Cypress Creek basins in Camp, Franklin, Harrison, Marion, Morris, Titus, and Upshur counties in East Texas (Figures 1 and 2; Table 1).Four vessels are from an Early Caddo period burial at the J. E. Galt site (41FK2), but the remainder are from Late Caddo period Titus phase (ca.A.D. 1430-1680) burial features.In the comparisons of Titus phase vessel assemblages that follow, the focus will be strictly on the larger Titus phase vessel assemblages in the documentation study (see Perttula 2018), namely those from sites with more than 23 vessels, thus including the vessels from the P. S. Cash (41CP2), Jonah C. Atkinson Farm (41FK1), J. E. Galt, Mattie Gandy (41FK4), R. L. Cason (41MX1), Joe Justiss (41MX2), Hooper Glover (41MX4), Russell Bros. (41TT7), W. O. Reed (41UR1), and J. M. Riley (41UR2) sites.

Vessel Wares in Titus Phase Components
There are three wares in Titus phase vessel assemblages that have been recovered from burial features: plain ware, utility ware, and fine ware.In the larger vessel assemblages documented in this study, fine ware vessels comprise 67.5 percent of the sample (Table 2), followed by utility wares (26.6 percent), and plain ware (5.9 percent).The proportion of fine wares in the various assemblages are highest (77-83 percent) in three sites in the White Oak Bayou and Big Cypress Creek basins, two in the western part of the two stream basins (Figure 3).The utility ware vessels are best represented in assemblages in two groups of sites in the eastern part of the Big Cypress Creek basin (Figure 3), while plain ware vessels are most abundant in assemblages in the western part of the White Oak Bayou and eastern parts of the Big Cypress Creek basin (Figure 3).Taken together, the proportional differences in vessel wares in these Titus phase assemblages suggest the existence of at least four spatial groupings of sites and burial features with associated ceramic vessel funerary offerings (see also below).These spatial groupings of sites and ceramic assemblages correspond to at least two of the proposed Titus phase heartland communities in the Big Cypress Creek basin (see Fields et al. 2014:Figure 8.7), but the westernmost spatial groups on Big Cypress Creek and White Oak Bayou do not.

Vessel Forms in Titus Phase Assemblages
There are eight different vessel forms represented in the ceramic vessels from the Titus phase sites documented in this study (Table 3).The four most common forms include carinated bowls (43.9 percent), jars (30.2 percent), bottles (11.0 percent), and compound bowls (6.5 percent).The less common vessel forms-bowls, deep bowls, compound vessels, and ollas-together comprise only 8.4 percent of the assemblages (Table 3).The highest proportion of carinated bowls and bottles in the assemblages are in sites in the northern part of the Big Cypress Creek basin, two sites in the southern part of the basin, and in one site in the White Oak Bayou basin (Figure 4).Jars are most frequent in vessel assemblages from eastern Big Cypress Creek Titus phase sites, while compound bowls are more common in sites in the middle and western parts of the Big Cypress Creek basin (Figure 4).
Deep bowls are most abundant in western Big Cypress Creek basin Titus phase sites, while ollas are more common in sites in the eastern and northern parts of the Big Cypress Creek basin (Figure 5).Compound vessels-i.e., conjoined vessels of different forms-are only relatively well represented at the J. M. Riley site (41UR2) in the eastern part of the Big Cypress Creek basin.The highest proportion of bowls in these vessel assemblages are in two other sites in the eastern part of the Big Cypress Creek basin (Figure 5).

Use of Tempers in Titus Phase Vessel Manufacture
Grog (i.e., crushed sherds) was the preferred temper used by Titus phase Caddo potters in the study area, as 71.6 percent of the vessel assemblage has grog temper (Table 4).Another 22.7 percent of the vessels are grog-tempered along with bone and/or hematite-temper.

___________________________________________________________________________
G=grog; G-H=grog-hematite; G-B=grog-bone; B=bone; G-H-B=grog-hematite-bone; B-H=bone-hematite; SH=shell Vessels with hematite temper inclusions, either in combination with grog, bone, or grog and bone, were used in 15.4 percent of the Titus phase vessels, and vessels with burned bone temper, as the sole temper as well as in combination with grog or hematite, comprise 11.9 percent of the vessel assemblage (see Table 4).Vessels of non-local origin (i.e., on the Red River in McCurtain phase communities) manufactured with burned mussel shell account for 2.7 percent of the Titus phase vessel assemblage.
The highest proportion of Titus phase vessels with grog temper are in western, northern, and eastern sites in the study area (Figure 6).Grog-hematite-tempered vessels are best represented in western and eastern Big Cypress Creek sites, while grog-bone-tempered vessels are most abundant in the northern Big Cypress Creek sites.
Shell-tempered vessels are most common in western Titus phase sites in the White Oak Bayou and Big Cypress Creek basins (Figure 7).Both grog-hematite-bone-tempered and bone-tempered vessels are best represented in eastern and northern Titus phase sites in the study area.

Vessel Sizes (in Liters)
In addition to manufacturing vessels in a variety of forms, Titus phase potters made vessels of different sizes within each of the recognized forms.These size differences in the vessels likely relate to "variation in activities connected with their use and eventual discard" as well as to "various purposes like cooking, storage, and display" (Shott 2018:1).
In the case of the carinated bowls, the Titus phase potters made them in four size ranges (Table 5).The principal size peak is between 0.1-1.6 liters, as more than 64 percent of the carinated bowls fall in this small to moderate volume range.A second but lesser peak (17.9 percent) of the carinated bowl volumes is between 3.2-4.0liters.Even larger carinated bowls occur in the assemblages, with volumes ranging from 4.0-5.6 liters, but such vessels only account for 4.1 percent of the vessel assemblages (Table 5).Moderate to large carinated bowls with volumes ranging between 1.6-3.2liters comprise 13.8 percent of the vessel assemblages in these Titus phase sites.

___________________________________________________________________________
The largest vessels made and used by Titus phase potters in these assemblages include a number of jars, almost all utility wares, with volumes ranging from 5.3-12.8liters (Table 6), although these represent only 10.1 percent of the jars from the sites.Instead, most of the jars placed in burial features at the sites are small to moderate in size (0.1-1.6 liters), accounting for 56.6 percent of the jars in the assemblages.Smaller groups of jars are moderate to large in size (1.6-3.6 liters), accounting for 27.5 percent of the sample, or large in size (3.6-5.2 liters).This group of jars represents only 5.9 percent of the Titus phase jar assemblage (Table 6).

___________________________________________________________________________
The compound bowls from the Titus phase vessel assemblages fall into three size groups: 0.1-1.6 liters or small to moderate in size, 1.6-3.6 liters or moderate to large in size, and 4.8-9.2liters or large to very large in size (Table 7).The small to moderate-sized compound bowls comprise 46.9 percent of the compound bowl sample, and the moderate to large compound bowls represent only 10.1 percent of the assemblage.The large to very large compound bowls represent 42.8 percent of these vessels, almost the same proportion as the small to moderately-sized compound bowls (Table 7).

___________________________________________________________________________
Bottles and bowls in the Titus phase vessel assemblages tend to have small volumes (less than 0.4 liters).More than 64.5 percent of the bottles at the sites are less than 0.4 liters in volume, and 72.2 percent of the bowls are less than 0.4 liters in volume (Table 8).Only 1.4 percent of the bottles and 5.6 percent of the bowls are more than 0.8 liters in volume.

___________________________________________________________________________
Deep bowls in these Titus phase vessel assemblages occur in two size groups: 0.4-2.0liters, small to moderate in size, and 2.8-4.4 liters, large in size (Table 9).Most of the ollas have volumes that range from 1.6-2.0liters, but comprise a single size group with volumes between 1.2-2.8liters.Compound vessels are small to moderate in size (Table 9).

Fine Ware Types and Varieties
There is considerable diversity in the identified fine ware types in these selected Titus phase assemblages (Table 10), including a few vessels (5.5 percent) that are of non-local manufacture, having been made, traded, or exchanged by contemporaneous McCurtain phase, Belcher phase, and Frankston phase potters living on the Red River to the north and east of these Titus phase sites, or living in the upper Neches River basin to the south.Approximately 78.4 percent of the identified fine ware types and varieties are Ripley Engraved vessels, particularly var.Galt (13.0 percent of the identified fine wares), var.Gandy (13.0 percent), var.McKinney (12.6 percent), var.Carpenter (8.4 percent), and var.Gandy-Pine Tree (7.5 percent) (Figure 8a-e)., var. Galt, var. Gandy, var. McKinney, var. Carpenter, and var.Gandy-Pine Tree vessels in selected Titus phase assemblages.

Utility Ware Types
Utility ware vessels, almost always jars, are a common feature of the Titus phase vessel assemblages documented in this study.The most common identified and locally manufactured utility wares in these sites are La Rue Neck Banded (21.1 percent), Mockingbird Punctated (20.5 percent), Harleton Appliqued (19.8 percent), Maydelle Incised (12.4 percent), and Bullard Brushed (7.4 percent) (Table 11 and Figure 15a-c).The five most common utility wares in the documented assemblages have different proportions across the study area (Figure 16).La Rue Neck Banded is best represented in Titus phase sites in the  16).Maydelle Incised jars are most common in northern Titus phase sites, while Bullard Brushed jars are best represented in eastern Titus phase vessel assemblages (Figure 16).The less common utility ware types (with only 1.9-5.0percent by type of the utility wares from all the sites, see Table 11) are mostly represented in northern, middle, and eastern Titus phase vessel assemblages (Figure 17).

Use of Red and Black Slips and Clay Pigments
The use of slips on certain fine ware vessels is a notable feature of these Titus phase vessel assemblages, particularly red-slipped vessels in one site in the White Oak Bayou stream basin and in two sites in the upper Big Cypress Creek basin, all in Franklin County, Texas (Table 12 and Figure 18).In those sites between 12.3-26.3percent of the fine ware vessels have a red slip; in the larger assemblage as a whole, only 9.5 percent of the fine ware vessels have a red slip.
The assemblages with the highest proportion of red pigment use on fine ware vessels (15.8-20.7 percent) are in the western part of the Big Cypress Creek and White Oak Bayou basins and in the middle to eastern part of the Big Cypress Creek basin (Figure 19).Fine ware assemblages with the highest proportions of white pigment use (27.6-41.7 percent) occur in sites in the same general area, except not in the one site in the White Oak Bayou basin (Figure 19).The two sites with fine ware vessels that have both red and white pigments on them are in the western and eastern parts of the Big Cypress Creek basin (Figure 19).

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Counties in East Texas with ancestral Caddo sites with vessels documented in this study.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Location of selected Titus phase components with ceramic vessel assemblages in the Big Cypress Creek and Sulphur River basins in East Texas.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Distribution of Titus phase sites in the study area with the highest proportion of fine ware, utility ware, and plain ware vessels.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Highest proportions of carinated bowls, jars, bottles, and compound bowls in selected Titus phase vessel assemblages.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Highest proportions of deep bowls, ollas, bowls, and compound vessels in selected Titus phase vessel assemblages.

Figure 9 .
Figure 9.The distribution of sites with the highest proportion of Ripley Engraved, var.Galt, var.Gandy, var.McKinney, var.Carpenter, and var.Gandy-Pine Tree vessels in selected Titus phase assemblages.

Figure 10 .
Figure 10.The distribution of sites with the highest proportion of Ripley Engraved, var.McKinney-Enis Smith, var.Richey, var.Ripley, and var.Russell vessels in selected Titus phase assemblages.

Figure 11 .
Figure 11.The distribution of sites with the highest proportion of Turner Engraved, var.Horton and var.Turner and Wilder Engraved, var.Ebenezer and var.Wilder vessels in selected Titus phase assemblages.

Figure 12 .b
Figure 12.Turner Engraved and Wilder Engraved vessels in the study area: a, Turner Engraved, Vessel 20 at 41MX4; b, Wilder Engraved, Vessel 109 at 41TT7.

Figure 14 .
Figure 14.The distribution of sites with the highest proportion of Avery Engraved, Bailey Engraved, Simms Engraved, and Taylor Engraved vessels in selected Titus phase assemblages.

Figure 15 .
Figure 15.Selected utility ware types in the study area: a, La Rue Neck Banded, Vessel X3 at 41MX1; b, Mockingbird Punctated, Vessel 1 at 41TT7; c, Harleton Appliqued, Vessel.western parts of the White Oak Bayou and Big Cypress Creek basins and in a northern Big Cypress Creek Titus phase site.Mockingbird Punctated jars are commonly distributed across much of the western and eastern Big Cypress Creek basin, as are Harleton Appliqued vessels (Figure16).Maydelle Incised jars are most common in northern Titus phase sites, while Bullard Brushed jars are best represented in eastern Titus phase vessel assemblages (Figure16).The less common utility ware types (with only 1.9-5.0percent by type of the utility wares from all the sites, see Table11) are mostly represented in northern, middle, and eastern Titus phase vessel assemblages (Figure17).

Figure 16 .
Figure 16.Distribution of the highest proportions of La Rue Neck Banded, Mockingbird Punctated, Harleton Appliqued, Maydelle Incised, and Bullard Brushed vessels in selected Titus phase assemblages.

Figure 17 .
Figure 17.Distribution of the highest proportions of Killough Pinched, Cass Appliqued, Moore Noded, Karnack Brushed-Incised, and Pease Brushed-Incised vessels in selected Titus phase assemblages.

Figure 18 .
Figure 18.Distribution of the highest proportion of red-slipped fine ware vessels in sites in the study area, and the one site with black-slipped fine ware vessels.

Figure 19 .
Figure19.Titus phase vessel assemblages with the highest proportion of red and white pigments on fine ware vessels, and the distribution of sites with vessels with both red and white pigments.

Figure 20 .
Figure 20.Recognized site-vessel clusters among the selected Titus phase vessel assemblages, and presumed interrelationships between the site-vessel clusters.

Table 10 . Fine ware types and varieties in selected Titus phase ceramic assemblages, cont.
*non-locally manufactured fine ware type

Table 10 . Fine ware types and varieties in selected Titus phase ceramic assemblages, cont.
*non-locally manufactured fine ware type