probable that the impressions upon the fragments are from nets of native
manufacture.

Wyman states that nets or net impressions have not been found among the
antiquities of Tennessee. I have found, however, that the pottery of
Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland furnish examples of netting in great
numbers. In many cases the meshes have been distorted by stretching and
overlapping so that the fabric cannot be examined in detail; in other
cases the impressions have been so deep that casts cannot be taken, and
in a majority of cases the fragments are so decayed that no details of
the cords and their combinations can be made out.

In Fig. 103 we have a thoroughly satisfactory restoration from a small
fragment of pottery picked up in the District of Columbia. It is shown
a little larger than natural size in the drawing. The impression is so
perfect that the twist of the cord and the form of the knot may be seen
with ease. Most of the examples from this locality are of much finer
cord and have a less open mesh than the specimen illustrated. It is
a noteworthy fact that in one of these specimens an incised pattern
has been added to the surface of the soft clay after the removal
of the net.

Recent collections from the mounds of Western North Carolina have
brought to light many examples of net-marked pottery. Generally the
impressions are quite obscure, but enough can be seen in the cast to
show clearly the character of the fabric. The restoration given in
Fig. 104 represents an average mesh, others being finer and others
coarser. Another specimen from the same collection is shown in Fig. 105.
The impression is not very distinct, bat there is an apparent doubling
of the cords, indicating a very unusual combination. It is possible that