10 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 179 



cross-cut the distribution patterns of the types and foci in various 

 directions, making for still greater complexity. Thus there is a crazy 

 patchwork of distribution patterns of artifact types, motifs, and foci, 

 which overlap each other in many directions, yet maintain enough 

 consistency so that clusters of types, at certain points, can be definitely 

 recognized as significant complexes. 



The greatest problem of the moment, with regard to intra-area re- 

 lationships, is to trace the threads of continuity presented by arti- 

 fact types, motifs, and complexes of associated types, and, when the 

 character, direction, and dimensions of the various threads have been 

 determined and can be viewed with more clarity than at present, to 

 study their relationships, one to another, and seek any interpretative 

 conclusions to which they may lead. Such a detailed study may be 

 expected to produce more accurate definition of the foci, clarify their 

 chronological positions, and shed light on their relationships with 

 each other. 



Relationships between Neo-American complexes in the Caddoan 

 Area and complexes of other areas have received much attention. 

 Broad similarities in basic culture and in artifact typology, especially 

 in ceramics, have been noted between Caddoan Neo-American mate- 

 rial and archeological complexes of the Lower Mississippi Valley 

 (Ford, 1952). Certain parallels between Caddoan and Southwestern 

 United States archeological complexes have also been noted (Krieger, 

 1946), particularly with respect to certain vessel shapes and decora- 

 tive techniques. 



Krieger (Newell and Krieger, 1949) has suggested the possibility 

 that the Gibson Aspect may have arisen as a result of stimuli diffused 

 more or less precipitously from Mesoamerica. Ford (1952) offers an 

 alternative hypothesis: that the entire Caddoan sequence is an out- 

 growth of the Lower Mississippi tradition, which, in turn, may have 

 its roots in Mesoamerica. 



With respect to the Lower Mississippi chronology, the relative date 

 of Gibson Aspect's appearance is uncertain, to say the least. Perhaps 

 it should be alined with Marks ville as suggested by Krieger (Newell 

 and Krieger, 1949, pp. 223-224), with Coles Creek as suggested by 

 Griflm and Phillips (Phillips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, p. 455, foot- 

 note), or with Plaquemine as suggested by Ford (ibid,). Both 

 Gibson Aspect and Lower Mississippi components are present in some 

 quantity in southwestern Arkansas, and it appears to the writer that 

 the best opportunities for making a positive alinement between the 

 two areas lie in the sites of that region. 



Relationships between the Fulton Aspect and the Lower Mississippi 

 Area appear to have been somewhat more intimate than in the case 

 of Gibson Aspect. Ceramics of the two areas, at any rate, appear to 



