BOAS] PROPORTIONS OF BURDEN BASKETS 221 
The variability in size and shape may be attributed partly to the 
fact that women’s hands vary in size, partly to the different types and 
forms of bottoms made, the shapes of which are often somewhat 
deceiving, and partly to the influence of the method of starting 
the coil. In watch-spring coiled bottoms a very slight difference in 
the length or width of the first turn of a coil will create a great differ- 
ence in shape by the time the base is completed. Hence it is to be 
expected that very little satisfaction can be gained from trying to 
determine the ratio of the bottom to the rest of the basket. 
An attempt has been made, however, to construct a synthetic sketch 
of the ends, sides, and mouths of the burden baskets of both A and B 
types, the proportions of which are based on a comparative study 
of the above mentioned measurements (fig. 36, p. 217). It was found 
that for both types the ratio of the width of the mouth to the length 
was 74 per cent.2> The dotted lines show the approximate curves at 
the corners. 
The length and width of the bottom present considerable difficulties. 
Since these two measurements control the form of the trapezoids 
which constitute ends and sides, it would be desirable if an average 
could be found which would be of value. As it is, the variations in 
both are rather large. In Group A the ratio of the width of the 
bottom to that of the mouth lies between 40 and 60 per cent, with an 
average of about 44 per cent. This average has been indicated by 
solid lines in the sketch; the variations and consequent change of 
angle of the slope of sides by dotted lines. The shift in flare of walls 
is also indicated approximately by dotted lines. Since it comes 
somewhere between the upper half and upper third, with considerable 
variation, and exact measurements are not only difficult owing to 
rounded corners, but also of little practical value, the outlines have 
only been roughly indicated. 
The same method of tracing average form and variation was used 
for the projections of the sides of the baskets. Here the lengths of the 
bottoms ranged from 40 to 60 per cent of the lengths of the mouths, 
the greatest number falling between 44 and 59 per cent, with an 
average of about 52 per cent.” 
In Group B the case is a little different. It has been stated that 
the proportions of the mouth were the same for this group as for 
Group A. There is also no material difference in the ratio of the 
height to the mouth measurements.”® 
The lengths and widths of bottoms in relation to their respective 
mouth measurements differ somewhat from those found in Type A. 
The length of bottom in relation to the length of mouth varies from 40 
to 74 per cent, with one case at 84 per cent and a slight preponderance 
28 See appendix, p. 416, 29 See appendix, p. 417. 
