pip. N*o!'24T SSEEP ISLAND — OSBORNE, BRYAN, CRABTREB 297 



6. None of us has been able to follow Garth's reasoning in his 

 comparison of point types (p. 52). The old Wilson-California 

 Strong system of point classification is too insensitive to bear a 

 comparative load such as Garth puts upon it. Furthermore, it is 

 hardly necessary to point out that complexes from individual sites 

 should be compared, not isolated aspects such as points judged simi- 

 lar. The second column in the table makes an approach toward the 

 reduction of site remains to percentages. A careful reading of the 

 material following the table helps little. Garth discredits a com- 

 parison of a low total site with a high total but accepts the reverse. 

 It would not seem that there would be an appreciable difference in 

 significance. The low totals and type of processing (fig. 41) should 

 cast doubt enough. His statement that the "similarity between 

 Wallula and Berrian's Island seems also to be significant" (column 

 1, middle) is reversed at the bottom of the same column where he 

 states that "Sheep Island and Wallula culture manifestations are 

 decidedly different from those of the historic cedar cist people" 

 (Berrian's Island, Osborne, 1957). The closest percentage corre- 

 spondence that he has is, as a matter of fact, the Sheep Island burials 

 and the Berrian's Island (45-BN-3 lumped by Garth with 45-BN-53) . 



7. Garth's assignment of the differing cedar cist and Sheep Island 

 burials to different linguistic groups is close to being anthropological 

 sin. Cedar-lined grave cists, polished celts, thick-stemmed heavy 

 pipes, and sandstone arrow smoothers do not, without further dig- 

 ging and distributional studies, point to the Salish of the upper 

 Columbia. As a matter of fact sandstone and tufa arrow smoothers 

 are not conspicuous in the sites excavated so far in historic Salish 

 territory, and, furthermore, long thin-stemmed pipes are found in 

 the cedar cists. Of course Lewis and Clark did not report bands of 

 Salish and Sahaptin interspersed along the Columbia from The 

 Dalles to the Snake (p. 52, column 2). True, the peoples were not 

 warlike, and trading and visiting Salish groups must have often 

 appeared along that part of the river. However, a bold statement 

 that would lead one to believe co-existence in the area is not in order. 

 Garth was wise to use a question mark when he described Hunt's 

 "Akiechies" as Salish (Rollins, 1935, pp. 302-304) . He was, of course, 

 following Teit (1928, p. 94). Ray et al. (1938, p. 393) state that 

 "Akai-cliie seems to be a'Tcaitei^ 'people who eat salmon,' a Bannock 

 word for Sahaptins. . . ." Again Ray et al. (1938) should have been 

 consulted as well as Teit (1928, p. 94) before accepting the latter's 

 equation of '■'■Stia'TcEtux or Tia'hEtux''' (the former is properly Stia 

 'hETEmux) with Akieches. Ray's (Ray et al., 1938, p. 393) Umatilla, 

 Kittitas, and Wenatchi informants interpreted these terms independ- 

 ently as reference to a "semi-mythical people 'from the North, who 

 appear at night in heavy fur clothing and steal things, then disap- 



