BoAs] PROPORTIONS’ OF BURDEN BASKETS 213 
Spa’prnrk 
; Length of | Width Length of | Width of 
Height | “iéuth” | “mouth. | ‘potion! | bottom 
Cm. Cin. Cm. Cm. Cm. 
Ii Wie sessile) anes ena a nce 18 24 18 13 8 
INGY Do 2G IO RES se 16 23 16.5 11 8 
Spa’nék 
INCL S Se eee ene A CIEE SARL 25 36 26 23 11 
Wis 2.72.3) bes jee atten 23 32 23 20 11 
| 
From this table it will be seen that for either type the width of 
mouth and height are very nearly, if not exactly, the same. The 
ratios of the width of the mouth to the length of mouth are, respec- 
tively, 0.73, 0.72, 0.72, and 0.7, averaging 0.72. The width of the 
bottom is a little less than half the height and a little less than half 
the width of the mouth. There is too much variation in the other 
proportions in their relation to each other to admit of any general- 
ized statement, except that in the case of the spa’pEnek the length 
of bottom is about half that of the mouth while with the spa’nék it 
is from five-eighths to two-thirds. 
One of the three informants mentioned above, with two others, 
considered the bottom of the first of the two spa’nék a little too 
narrow for its length, the general appearance of the whole basket 
being too long. Some thought a common spa’nék should be smaller. 
All the women judged by the eye, and made no attempts to measure. 
For the purpose of comparison it is interesting to note the measure- 
ments of another burden basket made in Nicola Valley: height, 31 
em.; length of mouth, 46 em.; width of mouth, 27 cm.; length of 
bottom, 27 cm.; width of bottom, 15 em. 
This was condemned as very badly proportioned, too long for its 
width, although the height was deemed about right for a small 
burden basket (tsi.’a) or one of this general size. Other informants 
said if it was too long it was only slightly so, but that the mouth 
was too narrow. 
Since there is psychologically a vast difference between the ability 
to appreciate the proportions of a finished product and the faculty 
of analyzing such proportions and defining the principles upon which 
they should be judged, it will be interesting to observe the opinions of 
several women as to what constitutes the correct proportions of the 
various types of burden baskets. It will be apparent that they differ 
not only in theory but in their methods of determination. To what 
extent may be more clearly seen from the table on pages 416 et seq. 
