308 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[BULL. 118 



I would say that Sites Nos. 11 and 10 would fall into one group 

 in spite of the fact that Site No. 11 is much richer ceramically than 

 is Site No. 10. The similarity is quite marked. Site No. 19, I feel, 

 is distinct enough from this first group and from the third group to 

 be considered as an unique site. Sites Nos. 5, 9, and IT can be classed 

 together, and on the basis of the small amount of material available 

 Sites Nos. 2 and 4 also belong to this third division. I believe that 

 the charts and the determinants listed show the same relationships. 

 They are an attempt to express objectively, and make available for 

 comparative research, the ceramic picture at these sites from the 

 Norris Basin. 



The listing of the detailed characteristics of the various types of 

 vessels shows the relationships of which I have spoken in the fore- 

 going paragraph. To simplify the site-by-site comparison, I have 

 prepared a percentage relationship of the principal types of vessels at 

 each of the components. This analysis brings out the main points of 

 similarities and differences. At the cave sites we find that while 

 sherds with a net impression comprise 18.8 percent of the total at 

 Site No. 12, they are absent at Site No. 3. On the other hand, Site 

 No. 3 has the grilled stamp design on 35.5 percent of the sherds found 

 there, but this design is grouped under the miscellaneous heading at 

 Site No. 12. 



One of the major distinctions between Sites Nos. 11, 10, and 19, 

 and Sites Nos. 5, 9, and 17, is that the first group has a preponder- 

 ance of lug handles, while the second group has a majority of loop 

 handles. While the salt pan was not absent at Site No. 19 it was 

 so rare that it does not figure in this general presentation of the 

 major types, nor were bowls completely absent at Site No. 17. Jars 

 with pointed rims, and those with rim bosses only figure promi- 

 nently at Site No. 11. Jar-type A is conspicuous at Sites Nos. 11 and 

 10. This final tabulation is of value only in a general way. From 

 it one could not hope to accurately compare the ceramic complexes. 



Percentage Relationships of the Ceramic Types at the Cave Sites 



site NO. 3 



Percent of 

 total 



Type I. — Surface tooled with cord- wrapped paddle 



Type II. — Grilled stamp design 



Type III. — Textile impression 



Miscellaneous 



13. 5 

 35.5 

 26.0 

 25.0 



100.0 



