pip. No^; 2^lY" TEXARKANA RESERVOIR — JELKS 71 



relationships between traits cannot be achieved until their total 

 distributions are known. 



Lest the foregoing be construed as a criticism of the methodology 

 employed by the Caddoan Area specialists who formulated the pres- 

 ent classification of aspects and foci, I should like to point out that 

 all of them are well aware of the diverse distribution patterns of 

 the traits and are, I think, in essential agreement with the ideas 

 expressed above. I simply wish to set down explicitly here what 

 has been implied but not emphasized in previous publications. Be- 

 fore distribution patterns can be accurately determined, a great deal 

 of fieldwork must be done. Any inaccuracies that may exist in pres- 

 ent concepts of Caddoan Area archeology are due to the fact that 

 the data are meager — not to inadequate or erroneous interpretation 

 of those meager data. 



To reiterate, the present classification of Caddoan Area archeology, 

 based on the McKern system of classification, is suitable and ade- 

 quate for general ordering of data. But the foci or complexes, in 

 most or all cases, do not consist of closely knit clusters of types and 

 other traits: individual distribution patterns actually extend beyond 

 the focal boimdaries in many directions, both spatially and tempo- 

 rally, cutting across the various foci in the process. When working 

 with the McKern system this should be kept in mind. 



The Knight's Bluff and Sherwin Sites offer little data that can 

 add to present interpretations of Caddoan Area archeology. The 

 diversity of typological distribution patterns is borne out by the 

 differences in quantitative representation of types at Kjiight's Bluff, 

 Sherwin, and the Hatchel Site (type site of the Texarkana Focus). 

 Quantitative and qualitative data related to those types have been 

 herein recorded for what they are worth to future studies. The 

 Snipes Site offers no significant data regarding intra-area problems. 

 It will be considered, along with certain data from Kiiight's Bluff 

 and Sherwin, in the following section on inter-area relationships. 



Inter-area relationships. — Evidence of relationships between the 

 Caddoan Area and other regions consists largely of pottery types 

 identified with the Baytown Period of the Lower Mississippi Valley. 

 No direct indication of contacts in other directions was found. The 

 Snipes Site contained both Caddoan and Lower Mississippi ceramics, 

 and promised at first to provide a link between complexes of the two 

 areas. However, the site had been so badly disturbed that the exact 

 relationship between the two ceramic traditions could not be deter- 

 mined. Principal occupation at the Snipes Site was apparently by 

 Lower Mississippi affiliates closely related to the period E-D (or 

 Troyville). Caddoan ceramics found at Snipes include both Fulton 

 Aspect and, to a lesser extent, Gibson Aspect typesy which could 

 represent: (1) Separate occupation by Caddoan peoples, either be- 



