From Selden, et al. (2018, e00080):

Newell and Krieger (1949, 173-174) originally termed the large thin bifaces from contexts at the George C. Davis site to be similar in form, but not technology, to the Copena points discovered in northern Alabama and described by Webb and DeJarnette (1942, 301–306). The chronological placement of Gahagan bifaces is Late Prehistoric with a distribution that includes central, east-central, and east Texas with a limited presence in south Texas and Louisiana (Turner et al., 2011, 230). Previous mortuary occurrences of Gahagan bifaces have been reported from Gahagan Mound (Webb and Dodd, 1939) and Mounds Plantation (Moore, 1912) in northwestern Louisiana. Clarence H. Webb later suggested Gahagan as a typological term to replace Copena at the 1970 Caddo Conference (Shafer, 1973, 229); however, it was not until 2006 that a morphological and technological description was advanced (Shafer, 2006, 22):

Gahagan bases are either slightly concave or straight, and the lateral edges are slightly recurved, contracting slightly below the base and reaching maximum width about mid-length on the less-reduced examples. Lateral edges are finished and retouched by fine pressure flaking. Thinning flakes expand out from the platform and terminate near the middle of the blade rather than carrying across, indicating well-controlled thinning skill. Cross sections are faintly lenticular to almost flat. Retouching reduces the size and curvature of the blade to the extent that the blades may become almost triangular but usually retain the recurved blade form. Bevelling along the lower part of the left edge is a rare, uncharacteristic method of resharpening. The knives may display moderate to extensive use wear in the form of microflake damage or ‘nicking’ and edge abrasion. The overall size depends largely on the degree of retouch.

Researchers consider the majority of Gahagan bifaces to have been manufactured of Edwards chert, but subsequent studies have documented a greater diversity of raw materials in addition to Edwards, including sources in the Kiamichi Mountains of southeastern Oklahoma, and Woodford, Battiest, Big Fork, and Ogallala cherts (Banks and Winters, 1975).

Gahagan bifaces found in the southern Caddo area and central Texas differ significantly in size shape, and form (shape + size), and while Gahagan bifaces found in the southern Caddo area do exhibit beveling, beveling is more pronounced on the Gahagan bifaces found in central Texas (Selden et al. 2020). The southern Caddo area and central Texas samples also differ in terms of both their geography and temporal span (Selden et al. 2020). The size discrepancy represents an inversion of current theoretical constructs that posit a decrease in tool size thought to articulate with an increase in distance from the raw material source (Selden et al. 2020). It is posited that the contrasting morphologies represent two discrete communities of practice; one (emergent Caddo horticulturalists) where Gahagan bifaces were enlisted primarily for burial and ritualistic activities, and the other (central Texas hunter-gatherers) where Gahagan bifaces were utilized over a longer time span in more practical and utilitarian contexts (Selden et al. 2020).