370 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[BULL. 118 



In the rearrangement given below of this data, by percentages, in 

 an attempt to show relationship it is not to be supposed that any 

 particular significance is to be attached to the absolute value of any 

 percentage relationship. It does appear reasonable, however, to 

 assume that a relatively high percentage of traits held in common 

 by two sites indicates relatively close relationship, and conversely a 

 relatively low percentage would seem definitely to suggest lack of 

 relationship. 



In the following tabulation pairs of sites are arranged in columns 

 under the proper range of their calculated percentage relationship. 



Rearrangement of Percentages to Show Relationship 



High percentage— relatively close 

 relationship 



Low percentage— lack 

 of relationship 



Above 60 

 percent 



60-51 per- 

 cent 



50-41 per- 

 cent 



22 percent or less 



(2)-(5) 

 10—19 



(2)-(9) 

 (4)-(9) 

 (5)-(9) 



(2)— (17) 

 (4>-(5) 

 (5)-(17) 

 (6)-(9) 

 (8)-(9) 

 (9)— (17) 

 10-11 

 11-19 



m-io 

 m-n 



(2)-19 

 (4)-i0 



(4)-ii 



(4)-19 



asy-u 



(9)-19 



as)-w 



(6)-ii 



(6)-19 

 (8)-10 



(S)-ll 

 (S)-19 



If we designate large-log town houses by italics and small-log 

 sites by parentheses it will be seen how this analysis emphasizes that 

 sites showing greatest cultural similarity are those having the same 

 type of house construction, while those sites which have the least 

 cultural affinity are sites having different house types. 



It would thus appear that on some 11 sites, closely associated geo- 

 graphically and having in common many rather unusual customs, 

 it is possible to discern two groups of traits mutually exclusive which 

 seem to have existed simultaneously in this area. Each group of 

 cultural traits seems to follow a definite type of house construction. 



SPECULATIONS 



In the preparation of any scientific report on field work in archae- 

 ology it is obvious that a very clear distinction should be drawn 

 by the author between what he saw and what he thought; between 

 fact and opinion. In the chapter on "Conclusions" the author has 

 presented what appears to him to be inescapable conclusions based 

 on the actual findings in Norris Basin. These conclusions leave 

 much to be desired. No attempt has been made therein to relate 

 any of the early peoples of Norris Basin to any of the historic 

 groups. It is a matter of regret that such connections have not 

 been unmistakably apparent. While having definitely in mind the 



