griffin] ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF NORRIS BASIN 255 



usually the outer rim. My opinion of the texture of sherds was 

 obtained by an examination of the cross section and comprises the 

 texture of the paste itself and the size and amount of the tempering 

 material. It is to be hoped that a more objective means of deter- 

 mining texture will be available in the future. The shape of the 

 rim was determined by the rim itself and not by the angle at which 

 the rim is attached to the body of the vessel. I have considered the 

 rim to be that portion of the vessel adjacent to the lip and the area 

 modifying the oral aperture. On the bowls and salt pans it would 

 be difficult to identify the rim if the lip were not present. On the 

 majority of the jars a clearly defined neck was not present and the 

 rim has usually been considered to be that portion of the vessel 

 above the maximum constriction of the body. The lip has been 

 considered as the area marking the meeting place of the inner and 

 outer surfaces of the vessel. A rounded lip is one which is gently 

 rounded with no perceptible lessening of the width of the rim as the 

 lip is approached. When the width of the lip was noticeably less 

 than that of the rim, but was rounded, the lip was spoken of as 

 being narrowed and rounded. A noticeable flattening of the lip 

 surface without sharp edges is called flattened and rounded. 



I am indebted to Professor Webb for his never-failing helpfulness 

 and courtesy. I have benefited from the experience and advice of 

 Mr. Horace Miner of the Department of Anthropology of the Uni- 

 versity of Chicago, and Mr. Volney H. Jones, of this museum, in 

 my study of the textile fabrics represented on the salt pans. I have 

 followed Mr. Miner's classification of weaves as set forth in his 

 master's thesis. I would also like particularly to express my ap- 

 preciation to Dr. Carl E. Guthe for his suggestions and guidance. 



The pottery from the Norris Basin that is now in the Ceramic Ee- 

 pository can be roughly divided into two major divisions. Two of 

 the sites can immediately be set off as distinct from the rest. These 

 two sites are listed as caves and the pottery from them could not be 

 confused with that coming from the sites located in the valley flats. 



While the pottery complexes from these two sites are similar they 

 are not identical. There are a number of characteristics that they 

 have in common but there are also differences which may be more sig- 

 nificant when more material of the same general character is subjected 

 to this type of analysis. I shall deal with each site separately, then 

 discuss them together, and finally compare this pottery with analo- 

 gous finds. 



Site No. 3 



There are 155 sherds from Site No. 3. They are divided into four 

 major groups, the division being primarily based on differences in 



