Chris
The Caddos had novaculite as a primary source of material. They traded it out of the area into Okla, La/ Tx and other places. What I cannot figure out is why they excluded it and choose local cherts when manufacturing Hayes points. The major outcropping for novacullite is near Hot Springs and the layer is about 10 feet deep. It is this material the Caddos had access to in abundence just as the Saudis have oil.
Agee and Homan predate them and were made out of heat treated as novaculite. It is too tough in its natural state to knapp effectively. Both of these types are almost always made out of heat treated novaculite. I have found many ugly efforts when sw Ark. that efforts to make dart points out of it w/o heat treating. They wind up about as thick s they are wide. This was from the mid 70s just a few years ago when plowing ceased in the area and land started getting posted. I found many caddo utility arrow points the were heat treated but not the class one would long to collect.
Point is the caddos had the technology and novaculite but for some reason chose to avoid it when making Hayes points. Why is a mistery to me and everone else I have discussed tthis with.
I would like to see the points referenced if you can post them. Caddo material is just now receiving the attention it deserves but in 1954 many of the caddo points were not even typed and many mis-classified.
I still say look at the richest burial reported Mound C burial Q in Crenshaw and you will see my point. This is the best evidence we have or will have.
Keep in mind many of the points posted on this internet site are "transitional" ie Homan into Hayes and will show the blade shape changing as well. The Crenshaw Hayes are the early ones that show the Homan shape but are not made out of heat treated novaculite. Other the guys have posted are post Hayes " fulton aspect points". they are authentic but are not classic Hayes.
One thing that I would like to point out is Agees and true Homans have only been found and documented in two sites Kidd & Crenshaw. Glen pointed this out and I very much agree. Once you get out of these two spots I have not seen any documented points of these types I could buy off on. I wish I could be more "optomistic" about their numbers but there are less than 1,000 - per GK- Agees dug and even fewer true Homans. They are rare points.
True Hayes are a bite more common but are still sought after. Caddo flint generally declined in craftmanship over time. Agrees ( pre Caddo or Coles Creek) being the best and the decline contuing until the Maud and Talco points came along in east Texas. These are almost always made out of a heat treated mud chert and the knapper dont seem to want to bother with the hassel. When you see the real keen long Hayes points be careful as they are "now" showing up in collections but were not found in sites like Mineral Springs and Crenshaw.
There area two time period for the Caddo Gibson aspect and Fulton aspect. Fulton aspect material (flint) is later and is generally not as high quality as Gibson material ie Homan and Hayes. The pottery on the other hand moved in the opposite direction. I only speculate that as the Caddo became more efficient at farming the empasis on hunting declined and it shows in the flint. The earlier Hayes are superior to the authentic latter Hayes. Look at the two posted by Jack Bates relative to other s posted and you will see.
The diamond shaped base shows but the increasing number of Hayes you see that are so perfect, much over 1.5 inches long with the "cricket base are mmmmmmmmmmm very suspect relative to the documented evidence available. The shape of the cross section, base, flake pattern and length just dont show up in the documented artifacts. In fact I never saw one until about the early to mid 1990s in collections. A vast majority of the too long and perfect to be true ones are made by one guy. Dont take my comments out context but only a reason to compare the flake pattern, style, length and cross section to documented points and then let your gut feeling make your decision.
Chris I appreciate your efforts on the report you referenced. It took both of us quite a bit of time to prepare the posts. In a previous post I stated that my intent is to suggest the collector base their acquisition of expensive points on existing evidence and not what they see in larger collections. Over the last 25 years I heard some interesting stories about the Caddo stuff and I bet I'll hear more. It one guy avoids spending hard earned money on the increasing number of repos my time is well spent.
Regards
Scott
