g^];/^?^f • IjY' TEXARKANA RESERVOIR — ^JELKS 9 



OUTSTANDING PEOBLEMS 



A number of unsolved problems confront workers in the area of 

 Caddoan prehistory. Some of the most urgent of those problems will 

 be discussed briefly in terms of two broad categories: (1) Those 

 concerned with intra-area relationships between cultural units, and 

 (2) those regarding relationships between Caddoan Area peoples 

 and peoples of other areas. 



Of prime importance is the need for exploration and definition of 

 Paleo- American and Archaic complexes in the Caddoan Area. Paleo- 

 American complexes have been particularly ignored in the past, but 

 the desirability of intensive search for sites of that stage is obvious 

 in view of the consistency with which Paleo-American projectile 

 points occur in local collections. 



Knowledge of the Archaic is somewhat more advanced than that of 

 the Paleo-American, but typological, distributional, and associational 

 studies of Archaic artifacts are needed. Particularly germane to a 

 clear picture of Caddoan Area prehistory are determination of 

 Archaic affiliations with related complexes in surrounding areas and 

 relationships with local Neo-American complexes, some of which may 

 have developed out of the Archaic. 



Most field research and interpretative analysis have been devoted 

 to the Neo-American Stage, with the result that many intricate prob- 

 lems related thereto have arisen. With regard to intra-area ques- 

 tions, there is an urgent need for clarification of relationships be- 

 tween the various foci. Krieger's recognition of two aspects, the 

 earlier Gibson and the later Fulton, is based on substantial arche- 

 ological data. The several foci of the two aspects likewise have 

 solid foundations of concrete data. However, intricate interrelation- 

 ships exist between the aspects and foci, one to another, thereby 

 posing numerous problems. 



Positive relationships between foci, for example, are indicated in 

 both aspects by sharing of ceramic and lithic artifact types. The 

 type-sharing — an extremely complex network cross-cutting the dif- 

 ferent foci in almost as many directions as there are types — presents a 

 complicated situation that apparently reflects not only simple con- 

 tact between local groups, but also geographical and temporal factors. 

 Each focus, as defined, has a more or less definite areal distribution, 

 but each of its characteristic artifact types usually has its own peculiar 

 distribution pattern which does not necessarily coincide with the 

 distribution pattern of the focus. Nor do the distribution patterns 

 of the various types correspond to one another in most cases. In 

 addition, there are a number of decorative motifs that occur in more 

 than one ceramic type. These are frequently modified from type to 

 type by variations in execution. Distribution patterns of the motifs 



