fdnkhodseb] ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF NORRIS BASIN 



247 



the skeletal material from this site does not conform at all with that 

 from the other sites. This is easily seen if the mean measurements of 

 some of the important bones are tabulated in parallel columns. Such 

 a tabulation shows the following contrasts : 





Site No. 20 



Other sites 



Skull: 



Maximum length __ __ 



Millimeters 



174 



141 



149 



76 



304 



248 

 238 

 436 

 344 

 342 



Millimeters 

 165 



Maximum breadth 



156 



Height 



140 



Cephalic index- ____ 



92 



Long bones: 



Humerus 



321 



Ulna 



267 



Radius _ _ 



249 



Femur __ 



450 



Tibia 



376 



Fibula 



362 







The above comparison certainly indicates that the individuals 

 from Site No. 20 were distinctly dolichocephalic in character with a 

 long narrow head with a high dome; these skulls also showed no 

 artificial deformation. The skulls from the other sites agree in being 

 brachycephalic with a low dome and with generally both frontal and 

 occipital flattening. 



The long bones show that the individuals from Site No. 20 were 

 low in stature, the probable average height being not over 1,600 milli- 

 meters, the anthropological group of "below medium" in stature. 

 It has been pointed out that the individuals from other sites, as indi- 

 cated by the above measurements, were above average in height. 



Another comparison which we believe to be of interest is that of 

 the Norris Basin material with prehistoric skeletons from other 

 parts of the Mississippi Valley. 



The writer has had the opportunity to study and measure many 

 hundreds of skeletons, mostly from Kentucky, and the greater part 

 of this material belongs to a group which we have called "pre- 

 Algonquin" and which certainly represents a group of Algonquian 

 stock. Careful records have been kept over a considerable period of 

 years of the anthropometry of this material, so that we have a series 

 of measurements which are so extensive that we believe the averages 

 and means are reliable. It has been interesting to compare these 

 records of Kentucky material with the data from Tennessee. In 

 making this comparison the means rather than averages are used, 

 since we believe that while in most cases there is practically no dif- 

 ference, the mean is somewhat more reliable, since it is less influenced 

 by an occasional fluctuating variation. 



