griffin] ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF NORRIS BASIN 309 



SITE NO. 12 



Type I. — Surface tooled with cord-wrapped paddle 



Type II. — Net impression (?) on surface 



Type III. — Textile impression 



Miscellaneous 



18.8 

 18.8 

 26.9 

 35.5 



100.0 



Percentage Relationship of the Major Types of 



Vessels at the Valley Sites 





Site No. 11 



Site No. 10 



Site No. 19 



Site No. 5 



Site No. 9 



Site No. 17 



Major types of vessels 

 present 



u co 



fa 



3 GO 



o 



Ph 



o 



<- co 



05X3 



3 co 



o 



CD 



o 



U CO 



II 



3 co 



o 



ag 



CD 



Ph 



t-l CO 



<B*3 



Is 



3 co 



o 



a2 

 go 



CD 



Ph 



t- CO 



CD'O 



asi 



3 co 



o 



CD 



Ph 



o 



U CO 



p 



3 co 



o 



aS 

 go 



CD 



Ph 



Salt pans 



80 

 17 

 17 

 32 

 89 

 129 



16 



20 



52 



17.8 

 3.7 

 3.7 



7.1 

 19.7 

 28.6 



3.5 



4.4 



11.5 



30 

 9 



19.6 

 5.9 







15 

 9 



10.5 

 6.4 



25 

 10 



7.4 

 3.0 



14 



22.2 



Bowls 



27 



23.1 





Jars with pointed rims 







Jars with rim bosses 















2 



2 



198 



1 



85 

 12 



.6 



.6 



59.1 



.3 



25.4 

 3.6 







Jar-type A 



20 



74 



13.1 

 48.3 







4 



76 



2.8 

 54.0 







Jar-type B 



34 



13 



1 



41 



29.3 



11.2 



.9 



35.5 



49 



77.8 



Jar-type B with strap 

 handles. 





Jar-type B with loop han- 

 dles 







37 



26.3 







Jar-type B with lug han- 

 dles 



20 



13.1 

















Total 



452 



100.0 



153 



100.0 



116 



100.0 



141 



100.0 



335 



100.0 



63 



100.0 







As was stated at the beginning of this concluding section, it is rather 

 difficult to compare the pottery on which this report was based with 

 the data available in many of the earlier reports. Certainly the closest 

 resemblances with which the writer is familiar can be found in the 

 pottery remains from the upper Tennessee Kiver that have been called 

 "Cherokee." There are, however, quite a number of differences, 

 namely, the decoration of the jar shapes, the much more common ef^gy 

 vessels, and the addition of new pottery types such as the water bottle, 

 which prompt me to forbear making any generalization until that 

 material can be examined in detail. Excavation by Tennessee Valley 

 Authority workers in northern Alabama along the Tennessee Kiver 

 has brought to light at a number of sites pottery which almost certainly 

 can be related to the valley sites in the Norris Basin. The writer feels 

 that the rather loosely defined Tennessee-Cumberland "culture" is the 

 next logical area to examine if one is to seek for ceramic cousins. 

 Quite a distance away, both geographically and from the pottery 

 standpoint, are those sites in western Kentucky, excavated by the Uni- 

 versity of Kentucky, which resemble the Tennessee-Cumberland area. 

 The Fort Ancient Aspect is about equally removed along another line. 

 My hesitancy about attempting to place the Norris Basin in the South- 

 eastern cultural picture is due to my unfortunate lack of familiarity 

 with that area. At present I cannot see that these sites have much in 

 common with such well-known sites as Nacoochee, Etowah, or 

 Moundville. Time and further study will remedy this defect. 



