290 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuU. 179 



blade, at least 4 inches long, was also picked up on the surface. 

 Obsidian is not found on the shingle beaches of the Columbia, as are 

 most of the cryptocrystallines that were used. 



The small mortar and short pestle (pi. 51, &, /5a and /5b) are not 

 unusual items. The mortar was flattened on the bottom but had no 

 pecked depression as has the illustrated surface. The depression 

 shows a use surface, so the object is not merely an unfinished piece. 



As far as materials are concerned jasper leads for the burials: 

 Jasper (6), chalcedony (5), basalt (4), opal (3), and jasp-opal, 

 obsidian, chert, and agate each have 1 occurrence. For the cremation 

 pits, basalt (6) , jasper (4) , opalite (3) , and chalcedony, flint, obsidian 

 and petrified wood, 1 each, is the order of preference as reflected by 

 our data. It appears that these are aspects of the same series although 

 if all chipped artifacts, flakes, scrapers, and other artifacts are con- 

 sidered, it is noted that basalt and opalite were preferred by the 

 cremators, while the people who buried had more catholic tastes. 

 This count does not fit with our belief that basalt was preferred in 

 the older periods and calls attention to the need for f uither examina- 

 tion of the concept. 



The weights unanimously indicate smaller and lighter points and 

 blades for the later cremation period. This is also true if the various 

 large blades are eliminated from consideration, largely because of the 

 large points /136 and /137, the Mule Ears /6, /32, and /12 and the 

 large basalt point /ll. However, the general run of points, crypto- 

 crystalline, with burial 17 ran heavier than the basalt series from 

 cremation pit 1. There can be small doubt that this indicates a 

 process of change in wea^ns, probably a refinement of the bow and 

 arrow complex. 



CREISIATION PITS 



Superimposed upon figure 43 are outlines of the cremation pits as 

 furnished us by Garth in 1951. Garth has in his possession profiles of 

 these pits, and has given us copies of them. There is little that we 

 can add to these figures and to Garth's report (1952, pp. 40-43). 

 There were, when the Eiver Basin Surveys crew opened the site, some 

 undisturbed portions of the two cremation pits remaining. They 

 were near stakes 6 and 7CL (Garth's pit 1) and near stake 9CL (pit 2) . 

 The remnant of pit 1, a fragment of the periphery or edge, was a 

 rough rectangle about 2i^ feet by 2% feet. This fill was arbitrarily 

 divided into two levels (A and B) which were up to 10 to 12 inches 

 thick. The undisturbed remains of pit 2 lay below 12 to 14 inches of 

 disturbed soil. This small deposit was only about 1 foot by 9 inches 

 by 6 inches deep. 



The number of objects found in the pits (20 in pit 2, 122 in pit 1) 

 form an insufficient base for a discussion of that aspect of burial cul- 



