INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from a computer printer.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or asIT a x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6" X 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Accessing thelUMI World's information since 1938 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

Order Number 8824549

Textile attributes and production complexity as indicators of Caddoan status differentiation in the Arkansas Valley and southern Ozark regions

Kuttruff, Jeima Tedrick, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1988

Copyritr' ©19S8 by Kuttruff, Jeima Tedrick. All rights reserved.

UMI SOON. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark ^

1. Glossy photographs or pages.

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3. Photographs with dark background

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy _

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page^

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages _

8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in______spine

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print.

11. Page{s) ______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s) ______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages______15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s receivedy 16. Other ______

UMI

TEXTIUE ATTRIBUTES AND PRODUCTION COMPLEXITY AS INDICATORS OF CADDOAN STATUS DIFFERENTIATION IN THE .ARKANSAS VALLEY AND SOUTHERN OZARK REGIONS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

by

Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff, B.S., M.S.

*****

The Ohio State University 1988

Dissertation Committee: Approved by L. R. Sibley R. \T. Yerkes Adviser H. O. Jackson Department of Textiles and Clothing K. A. Jakes College of Home Economics Copyright by Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff 1988 This work is dedicated in memory of my father, in honor of my mother, and to Carl.

11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Lucy R. Sibley for her encouragement, insight, and guidance throughout this research. The helpful suggestions and comments by the members of my advisory committee, Drs. Richard W. Yerkes, Hazel 0. Jackson, and Kathryn A. Jakes, are also greatly appreciated. Many institutions, organizations, and individuals have contributed to the success of this endeavor. Travel and research expenses were funded by fellowships and grants received from the following institutions and organizations: The Ohio State University, the Department of Textiles and Clothing, Kappa Omicron Phi, Omicron Nu, and the Smithsonian Institution. I wish to thank the National Museum of Natural History, the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, and the University of Arkansas Museum for allowing me access to the textile specimens in their collections. I also express special thanks to the following individuals: Bruce Smith, Adrienne Kaeppler, Candace Greene, Carolyn Rose, Deborah Wood, and Natalie Firnhaber of the Anthropology Department, National Museum of Natural History; Julie Broke and Roberta Pailes of the Oklahoma

iii Museum of Natural History; and Michael Hoffman, Margaret Hoffman, Marvin Kay, Timothy Mulvihill, Jerome Rose, Allyn Lord, Mary McGimsey, John Mintz, and Jerry Hilliard of the University of Arkansas Museum, Department of Anthropology, and Arkansas Archaeological Survey. The efforts of other individuals, in addition to my committee members, who have been involved in the evaluation and pretesting of the two instruments developed for this research are also appreciated. These individuals include Virginia Schreffler, Ruth Truett, Mario Miller, James Liles, Dale Liles, Sadye Wilson, Helen Cobb, Margaret Fernea, Judy Anderson, Harriet Jones, Peggy Lott, Elizabeth Smathers, Linda Theede, Mary Ann Saber, and Allyson Dennis. This research and my graduate studies would not have been possible without the love, support, and encouragement of my family. My mother, sister, and brother all helped in their own ways, and I thank each of them. Above all, however, my gratitude and appreciation go to my husband. Thank you, Carl, for your unshakable faith in me and your willingness to endure my extended absences. Thank you also for your patience, criticism, "secretarial" duties, and cooking while I wrote this dissertation.

IV VITA

1967...... B.S., Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 1970 ...... M.S., Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 1974-1985 ...... Self Employed Fiber Artist, Nashville, Tennessee 1980-1985 ...... Instructor of Clothing and Textiles, Department of Home Economics, Tennessee State University, Nashville, Tennessee 1987...... Smithsonian Institution Short Term Research Appointment at the National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 1987...... Graduate Research Award, Department of Textiles and Clothing, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1987-1988 ...... Kappa Omicron Phi Presidents Fellowship 1987-1988 ...... Omicron Nu Research Fellowship

PUBLICATIONS 1970 A Survev of Apparel Manufacturing in Southern Illinois. Unpublished master's thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1976 Review of Textiles of Ancient Peru and their Techniques. by Raoul D'Harcourt. American Anthropologist 78(2):479. 1980 Prehistoric Textiles Revealed by Potsherds. Shuttle. Spindle, and Dvepot 11(3):40-41 and 80.

V 1985 Osteoporosis; Its Effects upon Elderly Females and their Clothing Needs. Farm and Home Bulletin 27:12- 13. Tennessee State University, Nashville. 1986 Use and Manufacture of Prehistoric Textiles as Evidenced in Mississippian Period Fabric Impressed Pottery. Proceedings of the Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing. 125. 1987 Characterization and Comparison of Archaeological Textile Remains from Two British and American Frontier Forts. Proceedings of the Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing. 22. 1987 A Prehistoric Twined Bag from Big Bone Cave, Tennessee: Manufacture, Repair, and Use. Ars Textrina 8:125-153. In press. Photomicrography and Statistical Sampling of Pseudomorphs after Textiles. With L. R. Sibley, K. A. Jakes, V. S. Wimberley, D. Malec, A. Bajamende. In Archaeological Chemistrv IV. Advances in Chemistry Series No. 220. American Chemical Society. In press. Fort Southwest Point Textile Remains. In Fort Southwest Point Archaeological Project, edited by S. D. Smith. Division of Archaeology, Tennessee Department of Conservation, Nashville. Accepted for publication. A Study of Archaeological Textile Remains from Fort Loudoun, Tennessee. In Fort Loudoun Archaeologv: Historic Occupations, by C. Kuttruff. Tennessee Valley Authority. Accepted for publication. Definitions of Eighteenth Century Textile Terms. In Fort Loudoun Archaeologv: Historic Occupations, by C. Kuttruff. Tennessee Valley Authority. Accepted for publication. Mississippian Textile Evidence in Fabric Impressed Ceramics from Mound Bottom (40CH8), Tennessee. With C. Kuttruff. In Approaches to the Studv of Fiber Perishables: Case Studies from Eastern North America, edited by J. B. Petersen.

FIELDS OF STUDY Archaeological Textiles, Historic Textiles and Apparel, Socio/Cultural Aspects of Textiles and Apparel, Textile Conservation.

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii VITA ...... V LIST OF TABLES ...... X LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Purpose of the S t u d y ...... 2 Research Objectives ...... 4 Justification ...... 5 Limitations of the Study ...... 9 Definition of Terms ...... 10 Overview of Following Chapters ...... 11 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 13 Caddoan Tradition ...... 14 The Spiro Site ...... 18 Southern Ozark Caddoan ...... 22 Spiro and the Southern O z a r k s ...... 24 Burial Practices ...... 25 Attribute Studies ...... 27 Production Step Measure for Ceramics ...... 32 Textile Production Studies ...... 34 Clothing as Non-verbal Communication and Symbols of St atus ...... 37 Textiles and Status in Early Cultures of the New W o r l d ...... 41 Ethnographic Reports of Mississippian Textile Usage ...... 43 Archaeological Textiles ...... 45 Mississippian Textiles ...... 49 Ozark Bluff Shelter Textiles ...... 52 Spiro Textiles ...... 54 Reports on Spiro Textiles ...... 54 Summary of Spiro Textile D a t a ...... 57 Summary and Conclusion ...... 65

vii CHAPTER PAGE III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 67 Hypotheses and Rationale ...... 67 Population and Sampling Procedures ...... 69 Selection of Sites and Burials Included in S a m p l e ...... 71 Instrument Development ...... 77 Textile Attribute Dimensions ...... 78 Production Complexity Index for Textile Manufacture ...... 79 Validity Tests ...... 83 Data Collection and Analysis ...... 84 IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ...... 89 Analysis of Textile Attributes ...... 89 Fabric Dimensions ...... 90 Fabric Structure ...... 92 S c a l e ...... 104 Edge Treatment...... 107 Patterning...... 108 D e s i g n ...... Ill Coloration...... 113 Yarn Structure...... 119 F i b e r s ...... 128 Association of Specific Textile Attributes and S t a t u s ...... 138 Production Complexity Index ...... 141 Ranking of Production Complexity ...... 145 Production Complexity and Burial Rank at S p i r o ...... 149 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... 151 Textile Attribute Analysis ...... 151 Summary of Caddoan Textile Attributes .... 152 Explication of Textile Attribute Patterning. . 155 Textile Production Complexity Ranking ...... 160 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 163 Textile Attributes ...... 167 Textile Production Complexity Index ...... 167 Textile Sample ...... 169 C o n c l u s i o n ...... 170 LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 171

Vlll APPENDICES A. Definition of Terms and Methods of Attribute Determination ...... 184 B. Textile Attribute Dimension Form ...... 190 C. Validity Test for Textile Production Complexity I n d e x ...... 199 D. Computer Codes and Textile D a t a ...... 210 E. Textile Production Complexity Index Data . . . .262

IX LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE 1. Summary of Ozark Bluff Shelter Sites ...... 73 2. Frequencies of Identifiable Original Textile Dimensions ...... 91 3. Measurements of Identifiable Original Textile Dimensions ...... 91 4. Number of Element Sets Per Fabric Structure . . . 92 5. Number of Structural Variations Per Textile . . . 93 6. Number of Element Sets and Type of Interworking ...... 94 7. Twining Attributes ...... 96 8. Oblique Interlacing Characteristics ...... 102 9. Interlacing with Two Sets of Elements ...... 104 10. Fabric Count Per Fabric Structure ...... 106 11. Average Fabric Count Per Textile ...... 106 12. Spacing of Wefts in Open Fabrics ...... 107 13. Structural Patterning Techniques ...... 110 14. Design M o t i f s ...... 112 15. Application and Source of C o l o r s ...... 115 16. Number of Colors ...... 117 17. Color Names ...... 118 18. Classification of Yarn T y p e s ...... 120 19. Number of Yarn Types Per Textile ...... 121

X TABLE PAGE 20. Number of Yarn Components Per Y a r n ...... 122 21. Average Number of Yarn Components PerTextile . . 122 22. Direction of Yarn Twist ...... 124 23. Angle of Yarn Twist ...... 125 24. Yarn and Yarn Component Diameter ...... 126 25. Average Yarn Diameter ...... 127 26. Fiber Classification ...... 132 27. Classification of Fiber Processing ...... 138 28. Relative Association of Textile Attributes and S t a t u s ...... 140 29. Production Complexity Index Values ...... 147 30. Results of Validity Test ...... 209

XI LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE 1. Locations of sites from which textiles included in the sample were recovered ...... 3 Map of the Southeastern United States showing the prehistoric Caddoan area and selected major Mississippian ceremonial centers ...... 15 Brown's paradigm of burial types at Spiro by rank, status, and burial program ...... 27 WPA drawings of twined fabric structures with two sets of elements ...... 98

5. WPA drawings of oblique interlacing 101 6. SEM photomicrograph showing scale patterns of hair fibers ...... 133 7. SEM photomicrograph of bast fiber bundles . . . 134 8. SEM photomicrograph of finely shredded vegetal hard fibers ...... 135 9. Production complexity index for textile manufacture...... 142 10. Frequency plots of production complexity v a l u e s ...... 148

Xll CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The research presented here is based upon an analysis of preserved textiles from burials attributed to high and low status groups within the Caddoan culture. This research characterizes textile attributes and ranks textile production complexity to determine if these characteristics are indicative of status differentiation. According to Sibley, Jakes, and Larson (1985), one of the goals of the analyst of archaeological textile remains is to infer past human behavior relating to those textiles. They state that technical and contextual analyses of textile remains can yield information about the social and behavioral systems which produced and used the textile products. The present research serves as a test of the above premise with an example from the late prehistoric Caddoan culture of the southeastern United States. Large numbers of textiles are rarely preserved in archaeological context at prehistoric sites in the southeastern United States. Much of what is known about prehistoric textiles from this region has been derived from fabric and cordage impressions on pottery or clay hearths. 2 charred textile remains, and partially or fully mineralized textiles (pseudomorphs-after-textiles) preserved in the presence of copper. The majority of preserved textiles in the Southeast have been recovered from dry rock shelters and caves. A notable exception to this is the numerous textiles which were preserved by a unique combination of factors and were recovered from the Spiro site, a major Mississippian Period ceremonial site in eastern Oklahoma. This research is based upon the analysis of textiles from two of the largest bodies of textile data from the eastern United States: Craig Mound, at the Spiro site, and southern Ozark bluff shelters.

Purpose of the Study Differential production and use of textiles by high and low status groups within the Arkansas valley and southern Ozark Caddoan culture (Mississippian Period, ca. A.D. 900 to 1500) are investigated. This investigation is in the form of an analysis of both contextual and specific textile attributes and a ranking of the textiles according to a production complexity index (cf. Feinman, 1980). The textile remains studied were recovered in burial context from Craig Mound at the Spiro Site (high status) and from thirteen Caddoan burials, recovered from eight southern Ozark bluff shelters in Missouri and Arkansas (low status). Figure 1 lists and gives the locations and site numbers of the sites included in the study. MISSOURI

4# KLAHOMA

2# ARKANSAS

50

Figure 1. Locations of sites from which textiles included in the sample were recovered. (1) Spiro 34LF40, (2) Brown Bluff 3WA10, (3) Montgomery Shelters 3 and 4 23BY, (4) Indian Creek Shelter 3BE8, (5) Pine Hollow/Breckenridge Shelter 3CR2, (6) Parker and Fitch Shelter 3MA7, (7) Beech Creek Shelter 3NW637, (8) Bolin Shelter 3NW31. Map by Carl Kuttruff. 4 The purpose of the research is to investigate if textiles were used in the Caddoan culture to reflect social status and to determine if textile attributes and textile production complexity can be used as indicators of that status differentiation within the Caddoan society. The Arkansas River drainage of eastern Oklahoma, where the Spiro site is located, and the southern Ozarks Mountains of Missouri and Arkansas are very close geographically and have a common cultural history. The nearest "Bluff- dweller" site is located only 40 km from Spiro (Brown, 1984a). Caddoan mound sites within the Ozark region of northwestern Arkansas have been excavated, dated, and interpreted as local civic-ceremonial centers (Fritz, 1986; Kay, 1986; Sabo, 1986a, 1986b). Brown (1984b) considers the Ozark bluff shelters to have been subsidiary sites used for specialized foraging activities by small groups during the Caddoan period. According to Caddoan burial practices, as determined from archaeological research, the remains of persons of high social status were placed in burial mounds whereas those of lower social status were placed in open cemeteries or other non-mound locations, such as bluff shelters.

Research Objectives The objectives of this research are (1) to characterize and describe the patterning of Caddoan textile attributes; (2) to rank production complexity as an 5 indicator of production costs and labor input; and (3) to explicate attribute patterning, production complexity ranking, and their relationship to social status differentiation within the Caddoan culture of the Mississippian Period. The study is based upon the assumption that the individuals interred in Craig Mound at Spiro were of the regional elite and therefore of high social status, and those individuals interred in bluff shelters of the southern Ozarks were of low social status (based upon the fact that they were not afforded the privilege of being interred in a burial mound) (Brown, Bell & Wyckoff, 1978). It is expected that some attribute complexes will differ between the two groups and that higher production complexity rankings will be found among the textiles from burial contexts with high social status rankings.

Justification An emphasis of current archaeological research is to move away from mere description of archaeological data and artifacts and to test cultural inferences. An example of research in the area of archaeological textiles which strives to make inferences about social and behavioral systems is "Textiles as Markers of Ohio Hopewell Social Identities" by Church (1984). Here, the author attempts to go beyond earlier works on Ohio Hopewell textiles by Miner (1936) and Willoughby (1938), which were primarily limited 6 to problems of terminology and to description. The Hopewell textiles, which were analyzed, were compared both within a site and between sites to ascertain the degree of variability present. Stylistic attributes that may be used to delineate associated levels of social integration and social differentiation among Hopewell burials were also discussed. Church concluded that "if textiles can be ranked by costs (subsuming availability, ease of procurement, extent of labor input in manufacture and construction, and size or scale), then certain individuals are associated with more costly textiles ... as part of elaborate costumes, than are other individuals" (Church, 1984, p. 11). Schreffler (1988) also uses textiles as evidence for burial status differentiation at Etowah, a Mississippian Period site in Georgia. She states that textile complexity, which represents the number of decisions made during the construction of the textile, reflects the social value or status of the textile. The textiles from the last phase of Etowah Mound C were, therefore, rated for complexity and these ratings analyzed using correspondence analysis for status differentiation among the burials. Church's study is relevant to the current research since it attempted to indicate differences in social status based upon the "costs" of textiles recovered from archaeological burial context. Schreffler's study is also 7 relevant since she relates textile complexity to status differentiation among burials. Neither Church's ranking of textile production costs nor Schreffler's rating of textile complexity were formalized or explicit^* Therefore, in an effort to formalize and make explicit the ranking process and thus overcome a critical weakness of the research cited above and of similar research in the future, it was deemed necessary to develop for the present research a scale by which to rank textile production complexity and use it as a means of ranking production costs. The Spiro site represents the Caddoan tradition within the Mississippian culture period and has produced the richest collection of preserved prehistoric textiles in the southeastern United States. Unique examples of Mississippian textiles have been recovered from this site. Although textiles from.Spiro have been described and reported by various persons (Burnett, 1945; Willoughby, 1952; Rachlin, 1960; Brown, 1976; Hoffman, 1978; and King and Gardner, 1981), Brown (1976) states that the "rich lode of data contained in the textiles has scarcely been exploited..." (p.324). He indicates a need for a thoroughly systematic study to investigate the function of the textiles within the cultural system as well as the

Igchreffler (1988) acknowledged the need for a textile complexity rating scale to facilitate analysis of archaeological textiles and is currently in the process of developing such a scale (personal communication. May 18, 1988) . 8 techniques and resources utilized in producing them. The textile attribute analysis of this study begins to address these stated research needs. Brown (1984b) lists three basic site types for the Caddoan culture: the civic-ceremonial center, the village, and various categories of impermanent camps, including shelters. The centers are distinguished by the presence of public buildings and a buried structure mound or a platform mound and they are arranged in a hierarchy of levels. The Spiro site is the largest and most important civic- ceremonial site in the area. According to Brown, social hierarchy is indicated by differences in the size and wealth of ci^dc-ceremonial centers and by distinctions in the treatment of the dead. The textiles investigated in this study were selected because they constitute an unusually large number of culturally related, preserved textiles from the southeastern United States. Both nearly complete textiles and fragments of textiles are represented in the samples from Spiro and from the Ozark bluff shelters. Therefore, it is felt that attribute analysis and production complexity ranking will produce more meaningful results than would be produced if the samples were smaller in number and/or more disparate in character. 9 Limitations of the Study One limitation of this study lies in the lack of a precise archaeological context for some of the textiles analyzed. The majority of the textiles from Craig Mound were recovered during the commercial excavations by "pothunters" who sold the remains, and, therefore, precise contextual information is not known with certainty. However, J. A. Brown (personal communication, September, 1986) believes that it is reasonable to assume that the textiles from the commercial excavations can be attributed to the "central chamber" of Craig Mound and therefore would have high status burial or mortuary association. Some of the textiles recovered from the Ozark bluff shelters may lack precise archaeological context because of the generally disturbed nature of the bluff shelters. The majority of the bluff shelters are known to have been occupied over a long expanse of time. Disturbance of the remains, by both aboriginal and modern man as well as by rodents or other animals, makes it difficult to be certain of the contemporaneity of artifacts which are recovered in close proximity. A few radiocarbon dates have been obtained that can be directly associated with textile remains and these dates place them within the Caddoan cultural period (A.D. 900 to 1500). However, the majority of the textiles analyzed were selected on the basis of the presence of Caddoan, or Mississippian period, artifacts 10 that have been recovered from the shelters, particularly those that appear to be associated with the burials containing textile remains. Therefore, based upon the interpretation of archaeologists working in the area (M. Hoffman, M. Kay, and J. Hilliard, personal communications, February, 1988), the textiles selected for study are considered to have a high probability of dating to the Caddoan cultural period. Direct dating of the textile samples, which would be necessary to confirm this selection, was not possible at this time but will be pursued in future research. The identification of specific fibers, dyes, and mordants used in the production of the textiles was beyond the scope of the research being reported here. Specialized expertise and sophisticated analytical methods are required for such identifications. This information is valuable, not only to the textile attribute analysis but also to the study of environmental utilization by the textile producers, and will be the subject of continued research.

Definition of Terms Fabric — a generic term which includes all fibrous constructions (Emery, 1966). Textile — a term sometimes used to refer specifically to woven fabrics (Emery, 1966). As used in this study, the term textile includes those fabrics interworked from elements or sets of elements whether or not they 11 are of woven construction. Element — a component part or unit of the structure of an interworked fabric (Emery, 1966), e.g. a yarn. Textile attribute — fundamental entities of a textile artifact or the set of traits or characteristics that represent the modification imposed by human action (Clarke, 1978). Textile complexity — the interrelated parts and processes utilized to make up a textile. Textile complexity is considered to be representative of the number of decisions made during the construction of the textile (Schreffler, 1988; Sibley, Jakes & Larson, 1985). Caddoan tradition — the westernmost extension of the complex Mississippian cultural systems found in much of the eastern United States from around A.D. 900 until after the time of European contact in the sixteenth century (Griffin, 1967; Wyckoff, 1974). Status — relative rank in a hierarchy of prestige; or, individual worth as estimated by a group or class of persons (Secord & Backman, 1964).

Overview of Following Chapters The following chapter presents a review of literature related to the present study and includes the use of clothing and other textiles as symbols of status, archaeological theory and background information, as well as ethnographic and archaeological textile studies. The 12 research design and methodology utilized and the instruments developed for the study are presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV includes the results of the textile attribute analysis and production complexity ranking. A summary and discussion of the results of this study are presented in the final chapter along with recommendations for the direction of future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter explores selected literature which is relevant to the investigation of the use of textile remains as indicators of status differentiation in the prehistoric Caddoan culture. The discussion of relevant literature is divided into several parts. The beginning is an overview of the Caddoan tradition, its relationship to the greater Mississippian tradition, the relationship between the Arkansas valley and southern Ozark Caddoan sub-regions, and Caddoan burial practices. The use of attribute analysis in archaeological textile studies is then investigated. This section is followed by discussions of the development and use of a production step measure for ceramics and textile studies utilized in the development of a textile production complexity index. A look at the use of clothing as a means of nonverbal communication and as symbols of status leads to selected studies that consider the use of clothing and textile items as indicators of status in early cultures of the New World (Western Hemisphere) and to early ethnographic accounts of Mississippian textile usage. Finally, selected reports devoted to archaeological

13 14 textiles of the eastern United States, Mississippian period textiles in general, and Ozark bluff shelter and Spiro textiles in particular, are discussed.

Caddoan Tradition The Caddoan tradition is the westernmost extension of the complex Mississippian cultural systems which were found in much of the eastern United States from around A.D. 900 until after the time of European contact. Griffin (1967) uses the term Mississippian to refer to "the wide variety of adaptations made by societies which developed a dependence upon agriculture for their basic, storable food supply" (p.189). He also described Mississippian societies as having attained an "advanced plateau of cultural development, with fortified towns, an organized priesthood, dominant hereditary chiefs, political and military alliances, and a well-developed class system" (p. 191). Caddoan cultural traditions are similar to Mississippian in organization of communities around civic-ceremonial centers with platform mounds, agricultural technology based on hoe cultivation of maize, ideology, and social integration (Brown, Bell, & Wyckoff, 1978). Geographically, the prehistoric Caddoan area covered adjoining parts of the present day states of Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri (Figure 2). Wyckoff (1974) synthesized the early archaeological data on the Caddoan cultural area as a whole. However, more recent 15 syntheses of archaeological data tend to be based upon modern state boundaries, such as the ones by Bell (1984b) on Oklahoma, by Chapman (1975, 1980) on Missouri, and by Neuman (1984) on Louisiana. Two subregions of the Caddoan area are the focus of this investigation. They are the Arkansas Valley Caddoan and the Southern Ozark Caddoan.

CAHOKIA

ETOWAH

SPIRO

PREHISTORIC CADDOAN AREA

Figure 2. Map of the Southeastern United States showing the prehistoric Caddoan area and selected major Mississippian ceremonial centers. Map by Carl Kuttruff. 16 The settlement patterns of the Arkansas Valley Caddoan have been described by Brown, Bell, and Wyckoff (1978), and the following summary of their findings is based upon that study. This subregional tradition is historically related to the Caddoan traditions to the south in the Red River Valley. The authors state that portions of southwestern Missouri and northwestern Arkansas were also occupied by the Arkansas Valley Caddoan tradition. Even though these areas were not included in the study of settlement patterns, the model and site types should hold true for these areas. Three Caddoan cultural phases existed over a span of approximately 600 years; these include the Harlan phase (between ca. A.D. 1000 and 1200-1250), the Spiro phase (between A.D. 1200-1250 and 1350-1400), and the Fort Coffee phase (postdates ca. A.D. 1400). For further information on these three phases see Bell (1984a), Brown (1984b), and Rohrbaugh (1984). Three major site classes are recognized. The first, extractive activity sites, are special-purpose and seasonal camps that lack evidence of permanent structures. The Ozark bluff shelters in Arkansas, which were used as food processing and storage stations and around which food- procurement activities were centered, were cited as examples of this class of site (Brown, Bell & Wyckoff, 1978, p. 178). The second class of site is that of permanent habitation sites. This class includes sites with 17 evidence of multiseasonal occupation over a number of years, such as houses, storage and other features, burials, and tools associated with hunting and agriculture. The third class of site is that of specialized civic-ceremonial centers. This class includes mound groups and isolated mounds, which are generally located away from permanent habitation sites. A hierarchy of civic-ceremonial centers, based upon mound types, is also recognized. Buried structure mounds, the first type, probably served as mortuaries housing the dead before final interment in burial mounds (Bell, 1972). Burial mounds, the second type, were the depositories for secondary burials and burial offerings taken out of a mortuary facility and were constructed by the accumulation of burials and grave goods in distinct layers. Individuals placed in these mounds after having been in the mortuary for a period of time before final interment are thought to have been "the higher status portions of the population" (Brown, Bell & Wyckoff, 1978, p. 186). A third mound type is the pyramidal mound, which is flat-topped with steep sides and no evidence of a structure on top. The fourth mound type is a substructural mound with two or three lobes and burials placed along the mound flanks. The three-tier hierarchy of civic-ceremonial centers is defined by typical combinations of the above mound types. A first-echelon center, made up of buried structure 18 mounds and burial mounds, was a basic community center which served the specialized social functions of a residentially dispersed group within a small area. This group was presumably made up of related individuals and the center served as a common ancestral shrine. Second- echelon centers included a pyramidal mound in combination with the mortuary structures and indicated a multicommunity service area with more centralized social and ceremonial functions than the minor centers. Third-echelon centers include all four mound types. This type of center is represented only during the Spiro phase and only by two sites (Norman and Spiro). Evidence indicates that the mortuary structure complex of the fourth mound type "is much more important than any other, and is the ancestral shrine of the regional elite" (Brown, Bell & Wyckoff, 1978, p. 189). Craig Mound of the Spiro center was obviously the most complex and included several interment types unique to the site, such as the premier status litter burial (Brown, 1975).

The Spiro Site The Spiro site is located in LeFlore County Oklahoma, along the Arkansas River near the eastern edge of the state. It is the principal and most famous site of the Caddoan tradition and is composed of five major mounds and four minor mounds surrounded by an occupation area which together encompasses at least 32 hectares. Craig Mound is 19 the best known of the major mounds and was built and utilized primarily during the Spiro phase. This phase represents the Caddoan tradition in the Arkansas valley drainage at the peak of social complexity and cultural elaboration (Brown, 1984b). Spiro has earned a reputation of being one of the centers of the Southern Cult, or Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (see Part I of The Waring Papers edited by Williams, 1977), which is represented in the Mississippian tradition by a series of associated iconographie elements and objects that apparently pertained to religious ritual and social status within the culture (Brown, 1975; Knight, 1986). Cult objects and motifs appear most frequently at the large ceremonial centers of Etowah (Georgia), Moundville (Alabama), and Spiro. According to Brown (1984b), most of the cult objects at Spiro were trade goods from the east. An aspect of the Southern Cult which has particular relevance to some of the textiles recovered from Spiro is described by Brown (1984b); One of the most important features of the Southern Cult was the widespread recognition of a falcon impersonation cult that emphasized the warlike qualities of this bird. A specific costume went with this status, and a wide variety of motifs take their inspiration from this bird (e.g., the forked eye). (pp. 257-258) Prior to any scientific excavations of Craig Mound, the mound was "looted" for profit by a few individuals but 20 primarily by the "Pocola Mining Company" which purchased a two year lease, from November 1933 to November 1935, for commercial purposes. The mining company conducted commercial excavations without regard for "the preservation of the more perishable material, the maintenance of a record concerning material found, its location in the site, or facts concerning the structure [of the mound]" (Hamilton, 1952, p. 27) . The majority of the most spectacular artifacts from the mound were exhumed during this period and were sold across the country to collectors. Many artifacts, especially the extremely fragile textiles, were destroyed in the haste of excavation. It is reported that some textiles were divided so that they could be sold to more than one buyer and other textiles were scrubbed from the more saleable copper artifacts. S. C. Dellinger described such actions in 1965 in a personal communication to H. W. Hamilton. Later while I was at the site they uncovered a stack of sheets of copper, all quite uniform, and in size roughly about 7 by 8 1/2 inches. These were wrapped in unusually fine cloth, which was well preserved. I wanted to unwrap them and save the cloth, but they refused to let me do so as they were too anxious to see the eagles, etc., on these plates. The diggers carried them down to a borrow pit and scrubbed off the cloth only to find that the plates were perfectly plain. (Hamilton, Hamilton & Chapman, 1974, p. 4) Several accounts of the excavations of Craig Mound have been written. Clements (1945) includes the most comprehensive general history of the events prior to the Works Project Administration (WPA) excavations in 1936. 21 Clements was active in dealing with the commercial diggers and in acquiring the lease for the subsequent scientific excavations, which he directed. Hamilton (1952) wrote another important account and brought together information about the "central chamber" of the Great Mortuary discovered in Craig Mound by the commercial diggers. Griffin (1952) discussed the place of Spiro in Southeastern archaeology. He suggested that the Mississippian influences which affected Spiro ceremonial life moved to eastern Oklahoma from the Southeast, rather than the reverse situation, and that the linguistic group associated with Spiro is most certainly the southern Caddo. The artifacts excavated from Spiro have been the subject of numerous specialized studies. In addition to the textile studies mentioned previously, Baerreis (1947) described Spiro focus matting and basketry, much of which was recovered from the Spiro site, in the collections of the University of Oklahoma Museum. Bell (1947) discussed trade and the sources of raw materials as indicated by Spiro artifacts; raw materials of Spiro artifacts were obtained from sources as far away as New Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. Hamilton, Hamilton, and Chapman (1974) completed a descriptive report on the embossed copper plates and other copper artifacts from both the commercial excavations and the University of Oklahoma. Phillips and Brown (1975-1982) published six volumes on a 22 stylistic study of shell engravings from Craig Mound. See Brown (1966a) for a more complete review of literature relating to the archaeology and artifacts of the Spiro site. Brown (1966a, 1966b, 1971c, 1976, n.d.) authored several volumes in the Spiro Studies series which explored different aspects of investigations of the archaeology of the Spiro Mound Group. His research was primarily concerned with the materials excavated under controlled conditions by the University of Oklahoma and the WPA. However, materials from the commercial excavations which are in museum collections were also studied. His published volumes include descriptive analyses of the mound group, the graves and their contents, the pottery, and the artifacts. A fifth volume which has not been published is to cover burials, chronology, and an overview of the archaeology of the site.

Southern Ozark Caddoan The bluff shelters of the southern Ozarks were subjected to intensive study during the 1920s and 1930s (Dellinger, 1932; Dellinger & Dickinson, 1942; Harrington, 1924, 1960). Much.of the emphasis of the works by the Museum of the American Indian and the University of Arkansas Museum was to collect perishable remains from the shelters. Following this early work, the Ozark region was viewed as a "marginal" region of "cultural conservatism" 23 with unique archaeological characteristics and was not considered relevant to the "mainstream" patterns of cultural development of the surrounding areas (Harrington, 1960; Willey, 1966; Willey & Phillips, 1958). In recent works, "the Ozarks has been viewed increasingly in relation to the rest of the midcontinental and southeastern United States" (Sabo, 1986b, p. ix), and most archaeologists no longer hold the earlier view of an "Ozark Refugium" (Brown, 1984a; Brown, Bell, & Wyckoff, 1978; Fritz, 1986; Kay, 1986; Sabo, 1986a, 1986b). Caddoan civic-ceremonial sites are located in northwest Arkansas and two of these (Huntsville and Goforth-Saindon) have been partially excavated and dated with radiocarbon assays (Kay, 1986; Sabo, 1986a). Sabo (1986a) proposes a late prehistoric cultural sequence for the upper White River Valley which he compares with the Arkansas River Valley Caddoan sequence (Fig. 21, p. 72). Sabo also presents three possible interpretations of Caddoan culture in the Ozark Highlands. These interpretations are that the mound centers in the region could represent (1) an in situ development of a widespread Caddoan or "western Mississippian" cultural tradition developing out of indigenous Late Woodland cultures, (2) an intrusion of Caddoan population from adjacent areas, most likely the Arkansas River Valley, and (3) the extension of cultural attributes (such as social or ideological forms) 24 from the more southerly Caddoan area which were adopted by indigenous Ozark populations. Due to a lack of sufficient data and appropriate archaeological models for interpreting the data, Sabo does not feel that it is possible to "reliably assess the veracity of these alternative interpretations of Caddoan 'culture' in the western Ozark Highland" (p.72) at this time.

Soiro and the Southern Ozarks Brown (1984a) investigated the relationship of the southern Ozarks with developments in surrounding regions which included the Spiro site. He also argues that evidence points away from the previously accepted idea of a "conservative, isolated, and indigenous Ozark Bluff-dweller culture" (Brown, 1984b, p. 51) and instead indicates that the shelters were ancillary sites which were used for specialized foraging activities by Mississippian as well as earlier groups. The western half of the southern Ozarks is seen by Brown to have a common history with the Caddoan tradition of the Arkansas River valley. Brown suggests that the correspondences in material culture between Spiro and the Ozark shelter assemblages would be even greater than is now evident if ordinary domestic perishables were available from sites in the Spiro vicinity. 25 Burial Practices Brown (1971b) organized a symposium and subsequently edited a volume which focused attention on the components of social behavior represented by burials. In one of the papers, Binford (1971) acknowledged the usefulness of mortuary analyses relative to the study of prehistoric social organization and developed a frame of reference for comparative study of mortuary rites. He noted that mortuary ritual consists of both technical and ritual acts. Technically, burial customs provide for the disposal of the potentially unpleasant body of the deceased. Ritually, mortuary rites consist of the execution of a number of symbolic acts that may vary in two ways: in the form of the symbols employed, and in the number of kinds of referents given symbolic recognition, (p. 16) Binford proposed that the form and structure which characterize the mortuary practices of a society are conditioned by the form and complexity of the organiza­ tional characteristics of that society. Differentiations in mortuary treatment related to social position or status of the deceased were found to be more complex and to exhibit the most variability in form when compared to differences in treatment based upon cause of death, location of death, age, sex, and sub-group affiliation. Very high status persons may be buried in specific locations, after elaborate and unusual preparation of the body, and accompanied with specific material symbols of office and large quantities of contributed goods. Low status persons in the same society may be differentiated by membership group affiliation and sex only, with no specific treatment related to status, (pp. 22-23) 26 Among others presented at the symposium were papers investigating hierarchically organized social systems at three Mississippian period sites in the southeastern United States. The commonalities in status distinctions, presented in the papers on Spiro (Brown 1971a), Moundville (Peebles 1971) and Etowah (Larson 1971), are expressed by (1) location of burial within a site, (2) location of burial within mounds at each site, (3) burial with status accouterments, and (4) incorporation of artifacts with ascribed special importance which are made of exotic materials. Burial practices at Spiro differ from the other two sites in skeletal handling. At Spiro, rank within the burial program is propor­ tional to degree of custodial care represented archaeologically in advanced degrees of dis­ articulation. At Etowah and Moundville, the high ranking burials were primary, although there appear to be some important exceptions. (Brown, 1971b, p. 3) Brown investigated dimensions of status in the Spiro phase burials at the Spiro site based upon the archaeological evidence pertaining to the funerary domain which by its structure "offers a clear indication of the types of possible behavioral correlates and the social structures to which they pertain" (Brown, 1971a, p. 94). The dimensions have been arranged according to (1) the handling of the burials, (2) burial context within the grave, and (3) population profile. Brown then proposed a paradigm of burial types by rank, status, and burial program, see Figure 3. The textiles studied from the Spiro 27 BURIAL PROGRAMS

Litter/conch 1st shell burials Rank Partly Copper Cremation Disarticulated Plate 2nd Extended Burial Rank Partly Disarticulated Jar Rearticulated Flexed Burial 3rd Rank Skull, Bundle Classes A&B Burials Multiple Forms Unspecified Piles

Figure 3. Brown's paradigm of burial types at Spiro by rank, status, and burial program (after Brown, 1971a, Figure 2, p. 100).

WPA excavations with specified burial type (Brown, 1966b) were ranked according to this paradigm.

Attribute Studies Textiles are material artifacts since they are objects which have been selected or modified by humanly imposed attributes. Clarke (1978) considers artifacts to be the main source of data for the archaeologist. These data are observed or perceived information which are based upon attributes of the artifacts. Attributes are a lower level entity than artifacts, and are described as the set of traits or characteristics that represent the modification imposed by human action. 28 There are different types of attributes and information can be gained about contextual attributes that deal with data recovery (i.e., stratigraphie and geographic location and association) and specific attributes or physical qualities that are concerned with analysis and classification. Together, this information is used by the archaeologist to synthesize, generate models, and/or test hypotheses. Artifacts embody two sets of human behavior; the first set is the sequences of actions involved in the fabrication of the artifact, and the second set is involved in its usage or intended usage. Since every artifact contains an infinite number of attributes or variables, it is necessary to select the particular attributes to be studied based to some extent upon the problem being investigated. Clarke (1978, pp. 154-155) recognizes a hierarchy of attributes: (1) inessential attributes are not relevant to the study at hand or are constant throughout; (2) essential attributes are variables which are relevant and whose values or states change; (3) key attributes are correlated clusters of attributes whose values co-vary in some specific relationship with values of other similar attributes. Clarke also states that the selection of attributes is to some extent arbitrary. Essential and inessential attributes may be identified after a preliminary analysis, but key attributes cannot be defined until after a detailed 29 analysis of the data has been completed. Attribute complexes are comprised of clusters of repeatedly and closely intercorrelated attributes. Sibley (1981) incorporated attribute analysis methodology, based upon Clarke (1978), into the development of a descriptive classification method to study fourteen Coptic textiles. A list of attribute dimensions was developed which was generally based upon previous textile history studies of Coptic textiles. Stylistic and structural attribute dimensions were recorded, and both essential and key attributes were identified in each fabric. Nelson (1986) states that the goal of archaeological textile analysis is the characterization of indispensable attributes and the establishment of types that can be utilized for cultural inferences and comparisons. She defined indispensable textile attributes as "those that are necessary, sufficient, and relevant to the description of the whole of textiles produced by a culture" (p. 47). It is not the purpose of the present research to develop a Mississippian textile typology; however, the characterization of indispensable attributes for the Spiro and Ozark textiles is a major part of the research. Nelson listed the following as her indispensable textile modes, i.e. groups of attributes with commonality, (Nelson 1986, pp. 53-54): (1) the material mode which is defined by 30 physical attributes of fiber type, yarn structure, fabric structure, dye and mordant; (2) the technique mode which is defined by the process or processes used and the equipment used to produce a fabric; (3) the motif mode which is defined by attributes related to fabric surface design, including woven designs as well as applied decoration, color and color differential; and (4) the function mode which is defined by use of the article and its dimensions. Two textile classification systems were considered for the attribute analysis of the textile remains from Spiro and the Ozarks, and Emery's, The Primary Structures of Fabrics (1966), was selected. Emery's work is divided into three major parts: the components of fabric structures, primary fabric structures (with their major variations), and structures that are accessory to fabrics. Her work includes classification, description, illustration, and discussion of terminology. Seiler-Baldinger (1976) points out the differences between Emery's structural classification and the Basel system of textile classification, which is based on the process of manufacture. She sees the two systems as complementary rather than as opposing systems. The Basel system (Seiler-Baldinger, 1979), however, appears tc be better suited to ethnographic and historic textile classification because the processes involved can often be observed or determined. In the case of prehistoric 31 archaeological textiles the processes most often may not be determined with certainty. This is particularly true of the Southeastern United States because few textile tools have been preserved and positively identified. Some early accounts (Adair 1930; Du Pratz 1972; Swanton 1911, 1931, 1942, 1946) describe textile production by Southeastern Indians close to the time of first European contact. However, these accounts were written by persons who were not knowledgeable about textile technology and the resulting descriptions are often either very cursory or in some instances appear to include some inaccuracies. Later, 19th and 20th century, ethnographic studies of American Indian textile production may or may not be directly applicable to prehistoric textile production. King (1978), in her discussion of analytical methods for prehistoric textiles, lists the minimal information which should be provided by the textile analyst as: textile structure

Production Step Measure for Ceramics The production step measure for ceramic manufacture (Feinman 1980) provided the inspiration and original guidelines for the development of the textile production complexity index utilized in the research presented in this volume. Feinman's index is based upon the number of steps in the production of ceramics, and was developed as a part of a study of the relationship between administrative organization and ceramic production. This production step measure is an ordinal scale index of the labor input in ceramic manufacture. Its development was based upon a series of ethnographic studies which describe the tasks involved in the production of nonwheel-made pottery. One point is tabulated for each step in the manufacturing process and all manufacturing steps are weighted or ranked equally. The measure does not attempt to account for procurement costs. In the original study of ceramic production in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico (Feinman, 1980; Feinman, 1985), a production step measure was calculated for each ceramic category, and two cumulative production step indices were calculated for each temporal component. The first cumulative measure was calculated for the diagnostic ceramic vessel categories present in each phase, and the second cumulative measure was calculated for all the 33 categories of ceramic bowls present in each phase. This second cumulative index was calculated in order to minimize the role of size and functional variability in the index values. Feinman hypothesized that the mean production step measures would co-vary inversely with the degree of administrative control over ceramic production and distribution. The production step measure has also been used as an aid in the analysis of pottery distributional patterns which are considered to be reflective of status differenti­ ations and exchange configurations (Feinman, Upham & Lightfoot, 1981; Upham, Lightfoot & Feinman, 1981). The authors argue that . . . costly ceramics tend to be associated with locations that exhibit the greatest economic and/or political importance. In other words the distribution of ceramics which require a high input of energy for their production is similar to the distribution of other rare, exotic, or costly items that are usually defined as status related. (Feinman, Upham & Lightfoot, 1981, p. 874) The index is used to compare the relative labor costs of producing different kinds of pottery vessels, and differential distributions of labor intensive ceramic items are used to infer the presence of status differentiation. Using the production step measure, ceramic distributions were interpreted in the Postclassic Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico; the Pine Lawn Valley, New Mexico; and in the plateau region of the American Southwest. 34 Textile Production Studies Just as different types of pottery differ in their complexity and the amount of time and labor involved in their production, so do textiles. There are some studies which describe the processes and steps involved in the manufacture cf textiles similar in materials or structure to Mississippian textiles; however, there are no detailed ethnographic time studies of non-loom textile production. Peruvian spinning techniques have been the subject of several studies, some of which have included time studies. A study of the production rates of handspun yarn in Peru has been reported by Goodell (1968) and Bird (1968) . Although the fibers used (sheep's wool) and the method of spinning (drop spindle) differ from Mississippian textile production, the study is important because it indicates a wide range of differences in yarn production rates as well as product characteristics and appropriate uses. Bird (1968) also attempted to calculate the amount of time involved in the production of a warp patterned woven poncho in Pisac, Peru. Minimum and maximum number of hours, which were calculated based only upon the spinning and plying of the yarn, making the warp and inserting the weft, were given as 508.75 and 523.91 hours, respectively. Omitted from these calculations were fiber procurement and preparation for spinning, dyeing of the yarns, setting up the loom, manufacturing the fringed edge, and final 35 assembly of the poncho. Therefore, the number of hours involved in the total production of such a poncho remains unknown. Bird (1979) summarized the limits of knowledge of fibers, fiber preparation, and fiber spinning in the Andean area. He states that in addition to the principle fibers (hard fibers, bast fibers, cotton, and camelid fibers), everything spinable was utilized prehistorically at one time or another. Sheep’s wool has been added to the fibers used prehistorically in the area. A later study by Franquemont (1986), similar to the one conducted by Goodell in 1967, was conducted in 1977 in Chincero, Peru, and was based upon the goals and laboratory procedures set out by Bird. Yarn production rates and cloth production rates were recorded with yarn production dominating the total manufacture time for all fabric types and reaching as high as 75 percent for plain-weave fabrics. Franquemont noted the differences between the weaving of Bird’s study in Pisac and the weaving of Chincero and concluded that it was the method of weaving rather than the style of cloth that made the weavers faster in Chincero. It was also found that the rate of work on a woven belt pattern is ’’more related to the weaver’s familiarity with it than to the complexity of the design” (p. 318). Some of the problems in attempting to apply the production rates to cloth from other contexts, such as archaeological remains. 36 were pointed out by the author. Vreeland (1986) describes what he sees as the "unbroken history of native cotton fiber and fabric production in traditional north Peruvian coastal communities beginning at least three millennia ago" (p. 371). He investigated the different types of native cotton, fiber preparation, and spinning techniques. A sample of 50 female spinners who were asked to spin prepared cotton nonstop for 20 minutes produced an average of 0.65 meters per minute per spinner. Other studies which describe textile production processes that may have some similarities to Mississippian textile production include studies from several different areas. Crowfoot's (1974) study of hand spinning in Africa describes spinning with the hands alone, hand and thigh spinning, spinning with a hooked sick, and various methods of spinning with a weighted spindle. Dunsmore (1985) describes the steps in fiber procurement, fiber processing, yarn spinning, warping, and weaving of nettle in Nepal. Salish weaving of the Pacific Northwest is the topic of a book by Gustafson (1980). The processes involved in fiber and yarn preparation, dyeing and fabric production are described. The chapters on fibers and yams are of particular interest because the Salish use and combine fibers similar to some of those which have been identified in textiles from Spiro. Fibers used by the Salish include 37 mountain goat hair, cedar bark, fluff from the ripe seed pods of the milkweed, fireweed, cattail and cotton grass; stinging nettle, Indian hemp, canine hair, feathers and fur. Contemporary methods for processing cedar bark are described by Wilson (1969).

Clothing as Non-verbal Communication and Symbols of Status Textiles are the most common constituent of clothing, which is often broadly defined as any body covering. The term dress connotes, in addition to body coverings, the inclusion of personal adornment and encompasses all forms of bodily decoration or alteration (Kaiser, 1985; Roach & Musa, 1980). Both clothing and textiles serve as cultural artifacts or symbols, which speak in a silent language and communicate information visually without benefit of words (Schevill, 1986). Scholars have taken multiple views in the study of textiles; in addition to technical studies, these views include textiles as "an economic commodity, a critical object in social exchange, an objectification of ritual intent, a vehicle of symbolic meaning, and an instrument of political power" (Schneider & Weiner, 1986, p. 178) . As a form of non-verbal communication, clothing provides symbols or cues that people use to understand one another; non-verbal communication takes place when the meanings intended by individuals are shared and received by 38 others. According to Roach and Musa (1980), dress functions as a means of communication because people associate meanings with its form or elements of its form. Various types of socio-personal information such as identity (including social statuses, assigned statuses, relatively fixed statuses, and transitory statuses), mood, knowledge, personal skill, and beliefs are communicated. Storm (1987) states that communication is perhaps the least likely theory to explain the origins of dress, but it may be the most universal result and function of dress. She indicates that dress communicates social information (economic status, social roles and status, group affiliation) and personal information (lifestyle, values, attitudes, moods). As a means of non-verbal communication, "dress enhances society's efficient functioning and facilitates social interaction. Societies with more stable and unvaried fashions have a more precise language of dress" (p. 21). Kuper (1973) refers to clothing as a "bundle of cultural symbols". In her article she focuses on the deliberate use of clothing to demonstrate status and identity at different levels and at different times. Clothing is presented as an intimate part of the total status system which cannot be analyzed in isolation or in terms of only one set of social relations. Her illustrations are drawn from the Swazi of Swaziland in 39 southeast Africa. Clothing in Swaziland is shown to be one means of informing individuals in the social system of their respective roles and positions within that system. Wobst (1977) investigated the formal variability in material culture which can be related to the participation of artifacts in processes of information exchange. He refers to this type of variability as style. According to his expectations of stylistic behavior, he identifies the following relationships: 1) those artifacts are more appropriate for stylistic messages (regardless of other articulations) which are more visible, which enter more information exchanges, and which are potentially encountered by more individuals; 2) those specific stylistic forms will have the widest distribution that are affixed to artifacts which are the most visible and the most accessible to other individuals; 3) specific stylistic forms will be clinally distributed within and between social units if they are seen only by a relatively small number of individuals; 4) social-group-specific stylistic form should occur only among those messages that are most widely broadcast, that broadcast group affiliation, and that enter into processes of boundary maintenance. (Wobst, 1977, p. 330) Wobst states that the functions of stylistic behavior relate to processes of social integration and social differentiation and help to make social intercourse more predictable. He illustrates his theoretical presentation on style and information exchange with ethnographic research on the traditional dress of Yugoslavia and presents examples of message content and stylistic forms in folkdress. 40 Kaiser (1984, 1985) presents a conceptual framework for the study of the social psychology of clothing and personal adornment. She synthesizes the major concepts from cognitive social psychology and symbolic interactionism and views behaviors within the context of their occurrence. According to cognitive theory, clothing is regarded as cues which may be selected by perceivers to understand the person being observed. In the symbolic interactionist approach more emphasis is placed on the role of dress in social communication and both the wearers' and the perceivers' viewpoints are considered. A contextual approach allows for the understanding of appearance in relation to different levels of human behavior (individual or collective) and of social organization. The symbolic interactionist approach is more appropriate to the present study of the use of clothing and other textile items as symbols of status in the Mississippian society because it takes into account meanings of both the wearer and the perceiver. It is possible to learn about societies in which people live or lived by looking at the shared meanings held for these textile products. Kaiser states the following about symbolic interactionism; Clothing symbols, which are widely adopted and which hold shared meanings (for example, symbols of status or cultural values), play a role in the interactions among individuals in society. Meaningful communication, or symbolic interaction, was thus viewed by Mead (1934) as providing the link between 41 the self and society. (Kaiser, 1985, p. 15) Clothing is a sociocultural phenomenon and as such is symbolic of both society and culture. Status expression is a universal phenomenon which displays through visible means such things as wealth, prowess or skill, achievement, station in life or in society, and status within the life cycle. Status symbols function in social contexts which Kaiser (1985, p. 212) defines as the interrelated conditions under which social interactions take place. According to Kaiser, criteria for clothing status symbols which are "context-bound" include (1) scarcity, (2) social desirability, (3) visibility, (4) recognizability, and (5) temporality (p. 373).

Textiles and Status in Early Cultures of the New World In a summary article, Gayton (1961) discussed the cultural significance of Peruvian textiles in the areas of production, function, and aesthetics. She states that the functions relating to the social significance of Peruvian textiles is less obvious than their practical utility as containers, dress, and home furnishings, or the aesthetic pleasures derived from them. According to Gayton (1961) Through form, fabric, color, and design content several sorts of social conditions may be manifest: economic (by quality and amount), political (by prescribed or proscribed materials, colors, or motifs), religious (by materials, colors, and symbolic motifs), and military (by practical adaptations and symbolic motifs). Degrees of social rank, classes of 42 occupation or of servitude can be distinguished by the textile components. Distinctions of sex, age level, and marital conditions are often shown by major or minor differences in dimensions, materials, colors, or motifs. Whether or not these diversities are governed by regulations or merely by custom, the apparel as a totality of the tangible ingredients is also an expression of intangible aspects of the society in which it is worn. (p. 119) Vreeland (1977) investigated textiles from the Peruvian National Museum mummy collection to help shed light upon the economic, social, and religious institutions of that area's prehistoric cultures. Status differences were noted in the funerary textiles not only in the number of textiles but also in the condition, types, and elaborateness of the textile products. He states that fabrics provided a durable, portable material that is unsurpassed as a medium for symbolic communication and may have been the single most important vehicle for abstract, social and religious expression. Murra (1962) looked at cloth and its functions in the Inca State and indicates that "the extraordinary value placed on cloth by Andean cultures and the existence of class differences allowed the manipulative use of this commodity in a variety of political and social contexts" (p. 720). Status differences were indicated by the cloth and ornamentation used rather than by the tailoring of the garments. Anawalt (1981) conducted a detailed study of pre- Hispanic Mesoamerican costumes as depicted in indigenous 43 codices. She focused on the clothing and the context in which it was worn in order to gain a better understanding of the Mesoamerican culture before Cortes. She states that, to the Aztecs and their neighboring societies, dress was identity and the wearing of appropriate ethnic and class apparel was strictly controlled by both custom and law. Clothing was used as a symbol of rank and status as well as cultural affiliation. The textile production that provided the clothing in Mesoamerica was of great socio­ economic importance, and the weaving process and resulting fabrics were an indispensible part of the social framework. Kent (1957) reported upon the use of cotton in textiles of the prehistoric southwestern United states. In her synthesis of data on prehistoric textiles of this area, Kent (1983) states that textiles have played a tremendously important role throughout history and prehistory as "coveted articles of trade, symbols of wealth and high status, and expressions of human ingenuity and art" (p. 3). She also indicates that textiles may have been more important than pottery in the economic and religious life of prehistoric cultures.

Ethnographic Reports of Mississippian Textile Usage Information concerning Mississippian textiles, dress, and adornment has been obtained from early ethnographic accounts as well as from archaeological remains. Adair (1930), Du Pratz (1972), and Swanton (1911, 1931, 1942, 44 1946) describe the dress and adornment of the Indians of the southeastern United States based upon early accounts. They describe differences in dress which were indicative of various ascribed and achieved statuses including sex, age, prowess, and social status. Du Pratz (1972) states that upon the death of a person of high rank the deceased was laid out "on his bed of state, dressed in his finest cloaths [sic], his face painted with vermilion, shod as if for a journey, with his feather-crown on his head" (p. 336). In describing the attire of the natives of Louisiana, Du Pratz makes the following statements: Many of the women wear cloaks of the bark of the mulberry-tree, or of the feathers of swans, turkeys, or India ducks. The bark they take from young mulberry shoots that rise from the roots of trees that have been cut down; after it is dried in the sun they beat it to make all the woody parts fall off, and they give the threads that remain a second beating, after which they bleach them by exposing them to the dew. When they are well whitened they spin them about the coarseness of pack-thread, and weave them in the following manner: they plant two stakes in the ground about a yard and a half asunder, and having stretched a cord from the one to the other, they fastened their threads of bark double to this cord, and then interweave them in a curious manner into a cloak of about a yard square with a wrought border round the edges, (p. 344) Swanton (1911) cites early accounts which describe the use of mulberry bark, the bark of nettles, feathers of swan, duck and turkey, wool of the bison, and fur of the opossum in the manufacture of textiles. He states that feathers were not merely ornaments but often had special significance (Swanton, 1931). 45 Bolton (1987) describes the Hasinais, Caddoan Indians of eastern Texas, based upon early European documentation, however, little information is included on the textile arts. The materials most usually employed by the Hasinais for clothing and bedding were tanned animal hides, especially deer and buffalo, but reed or grass matting is also mentioned. Feather garments were used for protection as well as for ornament and were worn over the shoulder, like a blanket. The dress of a deserter from the La Salle party who had lived with the Indians for a year was described as "a miserable garment which the savages of the district where they had been fashioned from turkey feathers and adjusted with little strings, which they make very well" (Margry, p. 366, as quoted in Bolton, 1987, p. 130). Women are described as having tied their hair with a "slender string made of rabbit's hair, dyed bright red with a plant found everywhere in that country" (Bolton, 1987, p. 132). On ceremonial occasions the Hasinai wore special garments which had symbolic significance and were carefully preserved for these particular uses. Mortuary practices included dressing the body in its best garments before burial.

Archaeological Textiles A brief history of the study of archaeological textiles is presented by King (1975). She states that it is a comparatively young field of study and that Holmes 46 (1884) not only was the first to attempt to analyze the structure of archaeological textiles but also was the first to publish on North American prehistoric textiles. King encourages research which will relate textiles to past cultures and human behavior in addition to the more traditional technical, historical and aesthetic studies. King (1978) also reviews the special problems of textile analysis in archaeology. She lists the stages or levels of textile analysis as (1) the structure of the textile, (2) the structure of the yarns, (3) the nature of the fibers used, and (4) the dyes, mordants, and pigments which may have been used. Conditions which contribute to the preservation of textiles and wear of a textile as a result of its use often increase the difficulties of analysis. Textiles are usually preserved only under a limited number of conditions such as extreme desiccation, immersion in fluid, permafrost, or contact with certain metals such as copper, bronze, iron or silver. Textile evidence may be preserved in impressions in a plastic substance such as pottery, mud or adobe; these impressions impose additional limitations on textile analysis and King (1978) points out the possibilities of error or misinterpretation. Fiber and dye identification requires analysis by specialists and remains difficult even though technology continues to advance. Fiber degradation complicates identification as does the lack of comparative 47 collections of specimens of noncommercial fibers. Comparative collections of natural dyestuffs are also needed for dye identification. Nelson (1986) discusses the limitations of archaeological textile analysis and includes selective sampling, degradation, and the skill of the analyst as the primary limitations. The chemical and physical changes brought about by degradation limit the kind and number of textiles found in archaeological contexts as well as the complete and accurate description of the textile remains. These changes affect the analytical results as does the skill of the analyst and the sophistication of the analytical techniques used. Holmes' (1884) first monograph on prehistoric textiles of the United States was based upon the study of textile impressions on pottery. He discusses fibers utilized, items produced, their functions, and attempts to reconstruct the different fabric types. In later articles. Holmes (1888, 1896, 1901, 1903) considers textiles in relation to the development of form and ornament of other types of material culture, the use of textiles in pottery making and embellishment, and the ethnographic sources for information on style, function, variability and technique. Reports of textile evidence from various time periods throughout the eastern United States have been published. The following is an example of textile evidence from two 48 early horizons (7500-7300 B.C. and 7300-6900 B.C.). Impressions of Early Archaic textiles were recovered from fired clay hearths at Icehouse Bottom, Tennessee (Chapman, 1977; Chapman and Adovasio, 1977). The structures represented include knotted looping of single S-spun yarns and spaced twining of 2-ply, Z-twist yarns. These impressions are among the earliest well dated textile remains east of the Mississippi River. Hopewell and other Woodland period textiles have been the subject of numerous studies from early in this century to the present. Willoughby (1917), among the first, looked at textiles along with other artifacts and art styles of the Ohio Hopewell. He also published a descriptive study of the textiles recovered from Ohio Hopewell and Adena burial mounds (Willoughby 1938). More recently. Church (1983, 1984) published the results of the analysis of textile fragments from three Ohio Hopewell sites, and looked at the textiles as markers of social identities. Hinkle (1984) analyzed textile remains from ten Ohio Hopewell mound sites and studied them as a medium for the exchange of social and stylistic information. Carr and Hinkle (1984) also developed a synthetic theory of artifact design which they applied to Ohio Hopewell weavings. White (1987) surveyed and analyzed textiles from the 1891 Hopewell Mound Group excavations, which are housed in the Field Museum of Natural History. 49 Of particular relevance to the Spiro textiles is the identification by White (1987, p. 70) of five small fragments of compact weft twined tapestry, a technique which was not considered by King and Gardner (1981) to have been used prior to the Mississippian period in the Eastern

U.Ù,

Mississippian Textiles Analyses of fabric impressed Mississippian pottery from numerous sites have been reported. However, the majority of these reports are concerned only with the ceramic and not the textile evidence inherent in the pottery. Holmes (1884) was the first to conduct a detailed study of prehistoric textiles from impressions on pottery. Lewis and Kneberg (1946) reported upon Mississippian textiles from pottery impressions in their report on Hiwassee Island. They included a determination, description and tabulation of the structure and scale of both fabrics and yarns. Wilder (1951) attempted to recreate the textile industry of the Kincaid site through its various periods of occupation from the impressions on pottery vessels. Kuttruff (1986; Kuttruff and Kuttruff 1986) investigated the use and manufacture of Mississippian textiles as evidenced in fabric impressed pottery from Mound Bottom, Tennessee. Textile attributes were analyzed in an attempt to reveal the techniques used by their makers to achieve particular characteristics of utility in the 50 finished textiles. Studies such as those noted above are concerned only with textiles which were selected for use in the manufacturing process of large, utilitarian vessels. Although only a portion of the total Mississippian textile complex may be represented, the study of textile impressions contributes significantly to current knowledge of Mississippian textiles because few textiles are preserved in open sites except in the presence of copper. Copper is most often found in burial context associated with higher status individuals. The textiles which would be considered primarily utilitarian in nature are seldom represented in the archaeological record of such sites except in the form of textile impressions. Thus by combining the information gained from these two sources of textile information, a more accurate understanding of the Mississippian textile complex can be attained. The Etowah Site in Georgia has produced what is probably the largest number of Mississippian period textiles and textile pseudomorphs from any site other than Spiro. Etowah is a major Mississippian site with probable ties to Spiro. Early reports including information on Etowah textiles include Willoughby (1932) and Byers (1962). Sibley and Jakes (1986) characterize six selected fabrics from the Tunacunnhee Mounds, a Middle Woodland site, and Etowah Mounds in Georgia using chemical and 51 physical analyses and technical fabrication studies. They state that the information obtained from the study of direct fabric evidence, either fabric or pseudomorph after fabric, can be used to reconstruct the cultural implications of fabric manufacture and use among prehistoric peoples. Sibley, Jakes, and Larsen (1985) use direct fabric evidence recovered from Etowah to infer related human behavior and fabric function. They discuss the use of textile evidence, both compositional data and archaeological context, to examine how prehistoric people used these products to establish their relative status and to adapt to their environments. Value of the fabric, which relates to associated status, was inferred from the fabric structure, choice of materials, and the effort required to produce it. Schreffler (1988) has completed the most recent study of Etowah textiles from the Wilbanks phase burials of Mound C. She investigated "whether gradations in rank were marked or indicated by differences in the complexity of textiles chosen for inclusion with the interred individuals" (p.l). Based upon the analysis of textile remains along with non­ textile evidence of status differentiation from the burials, Schreffler concluded that the more complex textiles were associated with burials designated as higher status. 52 Ozark Bluff Shelter Textiles Harrington (1924, 1960) described the explorations of certain dry rock shelters of the Ozark mountains which were carried out by the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. One of the primary objectives of these explorations was to obtain examples of perishable materials which had been preserved. His reports include only listings or brief descriptions and a few illustrations of the textile remains which were recovered. Cultural association of the specific textiles is not known. Harrington refers to the "Bluff Dweller culture" and the "Top Layer culture" which now are regarded by archaeologists as being basically comparable to the Woodland and Mississippian periods (Brown, 1984a; Sabo, 1986b). The unpublished original field notes from Dellinger's explorations of Ozark bluff shelters in the 1930's frequently describe the textile remains which were recovered. These textiles, some of which were included in the current research, are presently in the collection of the University of Arkansas Museum. Dellinger (1936) published an article on baby cradles from the Ozark bluff shelters that contains some textile information. Thomas (1968) reported on the Breckenridge Shelter (also known as Pine Hollow Shelter), which had been explored earlier by both Harrington and Dellinger. 53 Included in the report were brief descriptions of textile remains which included one bag fragment, one piece of fabric, 26 pieces of cordage, and the baby cradle described earlier by Dellinger (1936) with its textile remains. Scholtz (1975) completed a detailed structural analysis of Ozark perishable materials, which are in the University of Arkansas Museum and were collected with no intrasite provenience data. Emery's (1966) descriptive classification key was used and expanded in order to describe the total variation found in the Ozark collection. Scholtz looked for intersite relationships and compared her findings with other perishables described in the literature from both the Southwest and the Eastern Woodlands. She states that there is very little technical and formal similarity between the perishable artifacts from the Southwest and those from the Ozarks. It has been demonstrated that the Ozark area was a part of the cultural development of the Eastern Woodlands, but Scholtz also notes differences between perishable materials recovered from the Ozark and from Kentucky caves. Most of the materials from the Ozarks studied by Scholtz have not been given a cultural or chronological designation. Therefore, the Mississippian period textiles were not identified and analyzed separately. 54 Spiro Textiles From the time of their recovery, the textiles from Craig Mound at Spiro have captured the interest of collectors, professional archaeologists, and textile specialists (both analysts and conservators). Numerous articles have included information pertaining to them. The descriptive reports are reviewed below in chronological order and are followed by the conservation reports. The final section synthesizes the published Spiro textile data.

Reports on Spiro Textiles Trowbridge (1938) attempted to salvage as many of the textiles from Spiro as could be rescued from the commercial excavations. In his report, he noted that many of the fabrics appeared to have been folded when placed in the mound. Although he did not attempt a detailed description of the fabrics, he did include a report from the National Bureau of Standards summarizing tests and identifications of fibrous material from the textiles. These included rabbit hair, hair other than rabbit (which could not be identified positively), feathers, and vegetal fibers (which were believed to be of wood or bark rather than grass or straw). Trowbridge also submitted fiber samples to Whitford (1941) who identified the vegetal fibers. Burnett (1945) published brief descriptions and photographs of the Spiro textiles along with other artifacts from the Spiro Mound collection of the Museum of 55 the American Indian, Heye Foundation. Willoughby (1952) examined and described many of the textiles from the Spiro Mound group from the Peabody Museum of Harvard University as well as the private collections of Trowbridge and Hamilton. Willoughby's descriptions were based on the method of construction and/or the function of the textiles. Rachlin (1958) discussed an example of gauzelike fabric recovered from Spiro, which she described as interlocking-diverted warp. In 1960, Rachlin included the Spiro textiles in her synthesis of the eastern fabric complex which was based upon both archaeological and ethnological data. She stated that "the most complicated and least understood of all the prehistoric fabric complexes in the Eastern United States is that of the Spiro Mound Culture" (Rachlin, 1960, p. 86). Further research was recommended to clarify the relationship of Spiro textiles to the preceding Adena and Hopewell textiles, other Mississippian textiles, and the following historic textiles. Brown (1976) undertook to identify Spiro artifacts with established types from other sites, to identify artifact functions, and to relate artifact variability with distribution over the site and stratigraphie position within Craig mound. The classification procedure used was "an imposed classification generated from the class/product space of known relevant dimensions of form, function, and 56 material" (p. vi). In his report. Brown applied Emery's (1966) textile classification system, which is based upon fabric structure. He also attempted to translate the terminology used in earlier reports on Spiro textiles, such as Burnett (1945) and Willoughby (1952), to this descriptive system of classification. The results of an analysis undertaken by M. E. King during the 1970's of the Spiro textiles from several museum collections have not been published. However, some preliminary findings, along with a review of previous reports, were presented in a brief report by King and Gardner (1981). New information which was reported included the identification of madder as one of the dye plants used; spun yarns composed of a combination of vegetable fiber, rabbit hair, and feather and down from the order Galliformes; a "hawk man" motif in twined tapestry; and the possibility of the presence of cotton at Spiro. The new dye and fiber identifications were not given for specific textile specimens, only as having come from Spiro textiles. Hoffman (1978) used an interdisciplinary approach to design systems suitable for application to the conservation of archaeological textiles from Spiro, which are in the collections of the University of Arkansas Museum. An analysis of the structure and fiber content of a total sample of 21 textiles, which represented every available 57 structural and fiber content category in the collection, comprised one part of her study. This information vas used as the basis for selecting and designing appropriate conservation techniques. Gardner (1979, 1980) developed special conservation and mounting techniques for some Spiro textile remains located in the Smithsonian and the Stovall Museums. The textiles were treated with 5% and 10% concentrations of glycerine in distilled water as a means of restoring yarn pliancy and relieving desiccation. This treatment allowed layers of textiles to be separated and the yarns to be realigned. The fragments were then sewn to sheets of Mylar that were sandwiched between two layers of UF3 plexiglass with a clear plexiglass spacer cut out in the general shape of the textile. The mount was designed to keep the specimens clean, protected by an ultraviolet light filter, and visible from both sides. The mounts can be opened if access to the textile is required.

Summary of Soiro Textile Data The following synthesis of Spiro textile data is based upon the reports cited in the previous section. Fiber identifications for Spiro textiles have been reported by Trowbridge (1938), Whitford (1941), Burnett (1945), Willoughby (1952), Brown (1976), and King and Gardner (1981). Vegetal fibers were the most difficult to identify, and Whitford was the only person who presented 58 species identification (Whitford 1941; Burnett 1945). All other specialists, to whom fiber samples were submitted, were unable to determine specific taxonomic classification due, primarily, to the degraded condition of the fibers and the processing involved in the preparation of many plant fibers for use. Those fibers identified by Whitford are Arundinaria tectra (canebrake), Asimina triloba (pawpaw), Nolina georaia (yucca), and Amsonia ciliata (bluestar). King also states that one plain weave fragment appears to be cotton (King and Gardner 1981); however, a positive identification was not made. Animal fibers were identified in all of the reports cited above. The following is a list of fiber identifications as they were presented; bison, rabbit, order Laaomorpha. fox, dog, Canidae (dog, wolf, coyote, fox), squirrel, Rodentia (squirrels, rats), muskrat, Muselidae (skunk, weasel, mink), and possibly bear or horsehair. It should be noted that the horse was introduced to this area by the Spanish early in the 16th century, approximately 200 years after Spiro. Feathers and down were also identified; these include the order Galliformes. turkey down, and goose down. Other than the analysis completed by Hoffman (1978), very little information has been published about yarn construction of Spiro fabrics. King and Gardner (1981, p. 128) refer to yarn which was spun from mammal hair mixed 59 with some vegetal fibers and down, but they do not indicate other information such as the direction of twist or whether it is single or plied. Brown does give some information relating to yarn twist, number of components, and size. However, there were some inconsistencies in the reporting of spin and ply twist direction, a problem which may have resulted from the fact that Brown obtained his data from several different sources. The following list of yarn structures and descriptions was compiled from Brown (1976, p. 31, 326-342): unspun; "thin" yarn 2.5-3.5 mm wide; single ply Z twist; 2 ply S twist; 2 ply Z twist; uneven 2 ply Z twist yarns; Z plied and S spun; soft, loosely twisted Z and S twist ply yarn. Willoughby (1952) did give a general description of the construction of the warp yarns for several mantles. A portion of this description is as follows: Each warp cord was usually made of one or two cords of rather coarse vegetal fiber of proper length for the garment. If two cords were used as was usual, they were laid together side by side, not twisted together. To these cords were attached red, yellow, or black feathers or bunches of rabbit hair by binding their proximal ends to the cord with fine twine. In some instances the feathers or hairs were caught between the two cords making up each warp unit . . ., and then wrapped around the warp cord. The wound ends of this covering were then covered by distal ends of other feathers or hair which were applied in sequence to the cord in the same manner as the work progressed, (p. 112) Hoffman's (1978, pp. 171-192) yarn analysis included 14 examples of spun, 2 ply yarns with a Z ply twist; one example of spun, 2 ply yarns with an S ply twist; one 60 vegetal strip; and four complex yarns. She describes the possible construction of the complex yams as follows: Warps prepared by twisting 2 vegetal fibers (S-twist), then plying 2 plys -Z. Feather prepared-quill split or cut to provide flat, slender section on one side. End caught between Z ply twist of core, then wrapped for part of its length around core. Then secured by some means so that remainder of feather hung free. (p. 186) Core has 2 "elements" each consisting of 2 twisted singles. Twist direction of single is either S or Z (both present). The 2 plies lay parallel, next to one another for long intervals (several cm.) and cross only when the end of a wrapping is inserted. Wrapping consists of narrow strips of fur pelt-one end caught and held by twist in core, then wrapped over core, then loose end caught in another twist in core. Strip of skin/pelt ca. 0.32 cm. wide. Fur ca. 1.5 cm long. Wrapping apparently held in place by 2 sinew? threads wrapped around skin (only discolorations remain to indicate this). (p. 189) Narrow strips of fur, wrapped around core of vegetal fibers. Core contains two sets of 2-ply strands. Each strand— 2 twisted, unspun fibers, S twist. Strands lying parallel to each other, (p. 190) The colors which have been described for Spiro textiles are off-white, natural, tan, brown, brown-black, gray, pink, rose red, red, dark red, yellow, dull yellow, fawn yellow, and yellowish-brown. The only dye identification which has been reported was made by Max Saltzman who determined that the red dye is madder but did not identify the species (King and Gardner, 1981). It was speculated that the brown-black dye was either black walnut or pecan hulls (King and Gardner, 1981), but many different plants yield yellows and browns. Dye analysis and identification is a research area which needs attention in 61 order to determine which colors have been added through a dyeing process and which colors are natural to the fibers used. Fabric structures which have been identified from Spiro textiles are varied; weft twining predominates while wrapping, oblique twining, and plain weave are the least common. Wrapping, a technique which involves two single elements, has been identified by Hoffman (1978). Fabric structures, which make use of only one set of elements and have been identified from Spiro, include oblique interlacing, oblique twining, and braids. Plain oblique interlacing was referred to as "checker weave" by Willoughby (1952. p. 275, Plate 151B). One rather complex, lacy gauze-like fabric was described by Brown (1976) and is said to consist of ... alternating horizontal bands of compact plain twining and single element interlacing. The compact plain twining bands are about five wefts wide (ca. 0.4 cm.) that serve to bind together the broader (ca. 5 cm.) bands of openwork produced by combinations of different techniques of warp interlacing. The two openwork bands differ, one comprising a cross in "circle" and the other a simple "circular" hole. (p. 341) Weft twining involves two sets of elements and Spiro examples include spaced weft twining on single warps, paired warps, and alternate-paired warps, as well as compact weft twining, and compact countered weft twining. Both two and three strand weft twining has been reported. 62 Plain weave also incorporates two sets of elements and was identified in three textile specimens. Two of these were described as "heavy cloth" with 6-7 wefts per cm. and a distance of 0.6 cm between warp centers (Brown, 1976, p. 342). The third example of plain weave was described as "fine cloth" with a density of 13 strands per cm (Brown, 1976, p. 338). In King's discussion of plain weave she also refers to this specimen. One plain weave fragment from Spiro in the collection of the Stovall Museum (A6-39) appears to be cotton and is of quite a different magnitude of technical accomplishment, being almost certainly loom woven. Since this fragment is from the University of Oklahoma excavations, there is no question of its attribution, but it seems likely that it represents trade from the Southwest. (King and Gardner, 1981, p. 137) Textile patterning was accomplished in Spiro fabrics by differing methods. Patterns were created with the use of coloration in twined tapestry, in resist dyeing or painting, and in dyed feather and fur wrapping. Pattern was also created by varying the spacing and the direction of twining twists on weft twining, by combining twined tapestry and "embroidery", and by combining weft twining with openwork oblique interlacing. The majority of design motifs in the textiles are simple geometric patterns. These include concentric circles and concentric half circles, fret-like motifs, squares, rectangles, and "flag" or "key" shapes. Examples of anthropomorphic motifs were discovered by Gardner during the unfolding of twined tapestry fragments at the 63 Smithsonian Institution. These are described as the "weeping eye" and nose of a hawk man figure and it was assumed that "capes with large, full human figures were made" (King and Gardner. 1981, p. 132). Brown (1976, p. 334) also indicates that a twined tapestry fragment at the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, displays a horizontal row of downward pointing feathers which simulate the wings of a bird. It is difficult to know the range of subject matter used in textile design from Spiro because of the limited number of existing textiles and the extremely fragmentary nature of the textile remains. Even the combination and arrangement of motifs is not clear for the twined tapestry fragments. Certainly the "hawk man" figure is found in other Mississippian art media such as shell and copper. The textile remains from Spiro have been categorized by Brown (1976) as to their probable function and include various types of clothing, containers, and textiles of uncertain function. Garment types drawn from engraved shell, copper plates, and carvings include breech cloths, kilt-like skirts, blankets or cape-like mantles, belts, sashes, and a variety of headdress. Several "flexible warp" sacks were identified in the Spiro collections. They are all of weft twined structures with mostly spaced wefts and occasional areas of compact wefts. The color is typically dull red, and fibers have 64

been identified as bison, rabbit, and vegetal. All except one of the mantles or cloaks were weft twined, but they varied in materials and method of decoration used. They included mantles of dyed feathers and fur, resist dyed alternate paired warp twining, plain oblique interlacing, and polychrome twined tapestry. Feather mantles are reported to have had special social significance and were items of dress of the elite (Brown, 1976). Mantles up to 51 inches wide have been recorded, but the lengths are incomplete. Ties are often incorporated into the fabric structure at the two upper corners of the mantles. Brown (1976) states that undoubtedly the collection of dyed cloth and other fabrics from Spiro includes garments designed to be worn around the waist as a kilt or breech cloth, but they are difficult to specify. Kilts are depicted on engraved shell and were made of both decorated and undecorated fabrics. At least four "fringed skirts" have been identified; one measures 39 inches in length. They are dyed red and made of rabbit hair cords hanging free from a belt-like upper margin which terminates in tying cords. Examples of relatively narrow pieces of oblique interlacing have been identified as headbands. Although there are other possible uses for such bands, one example was found still attached to a skull from the Great 65 Mortuary. Other examples were recovered from post-Great Mortuary contexts. At least one example was made of rabbit hair and had a dyed design. Some radial warp foundation pieces were considered to be caps rather than containers. They are multi-colored and at least two were found in a "headdress bundle" from the Great Mortuary. The functional class of other textiles could not be clearly identified. They have been divided into three groups: "fine" cloth, "heavy" cloth, and "dyed" cloth. The techniques used in fabric construction for the fine cloth include oblique interlacing, twining, and plain weave while the heavy cloth examples are of plain weave construction. One example of the dyed cloth of unknown function is weft twined with spaced alternate paired warps and has dye resist decoration.

Summary and Conclusion The textiles from Spiro have been the center of much attention and the subject of numerous reports; however, no systematic study of the textiles as a group has been published. Textiles from the Ozark bluff shelters have been the subject of only one comprehensive study. These two important sources of prehistoric textile information should be tapped to their fullest potential. The Caddoan culture, as a part of the greater Mississippian cultural tradition of the Eastern United States, was a complex society which included hereditary 66 chiefs and a well developed class system. Archaeologists have used analyses of burial practices and pottery distributions as means of inferring status differentiation, and it has been demonstrated that textiles and clothing have served as symbols of status in both prehistoric and historic societies. The present study is designed to determine if textile attribute data and a newly developed index of textile production complexity can be used as indicators of Caddoan status differentiation. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design and methodology developed to explore the use of textile attributes and production complexity as indicators of Caddoan status differentiation. First, the research hypotheses and rationale are presented and discussed. This is followed by the specification of the subject populations and the rationale for sampling procedures. Two instruments for the collection of textile data were developed specifically for this research. Instrument development along with the procedures used in data collection and analysis are presented.

Hypotheses and Rationale As stated in Chapter I, the overall objectives of this research are to describe textile attribute patterning, to rank textile production complexity, and to determine if these characteristics can be used as indicators of Caddoan status differentiation. Two research hypotheses are proposed: (1) textile attributes or attribute clusters vary according to the status level of the burial context,

67 68 (2) textiles with higher ranking on an ordinal index of relative production complexity (labor input) in manufacture occur in burial contexts of higher status. The first hypothesis states that textile attributes will vary according to the status level of the burial context. Because the textiles were all produced within the same culture and included with the remains of the deceased at the time of interment, some attribute similarity is expected. The basic level of technology and the availability of local resources should be comparable for the two status groups. However, certain attributes or clusters of attributes are expected to vary with the status ranking of the two samples. These differences are expected to be revealed in the attribute analysis and should serve as indicators of status differentiation. The textile attributes which serve as the best predictors of status differences are to be determined by measuring the degree of association between specific textile attributes and status designation. The second research hypothesis states that the textiles with higher ranking on an ordinal index of relative production complexity in manufacture occur in burial contexts of higher status. The types and numbers of associated grave goods have been used by archaeologists as one of the indicators of status differences within a society. If textiles are included in both high and low status Caddoan burials, then it would seem logical that 69 there would be differences in those textiles due to status rank within the society. The ranking of textile complexity is one way of distinguishing textiles, and those textiles which require the most labor input in their production are expected to occur more frequently in burials of high status individuals.

Population and Sampling Procedures The unit of analysis in the study was the artifact (individual textile or fragment of a textile). The populations of textiles sampled consist of all the textile remains from Craig Mound and the textile remains associated with burials, which are believed to be Caddoan or Mississippian period, from southern Ozark bluff shelters. The collections from which the samples were drawn are the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (formerly the Stovall Museum of Science and History), and the University of Arkansas Museum. These museum collections were selected because together they contain the greatest number and the greatest variety of textile remains from both the commercial and the scientific excavations at Spiro. The University of Arkansas Museum also has in its collections examples of intact Mississippian burials with textile remains from Ozark bluff shelters, which were selected for comparison. 70 The sampling strategy used is purposeful cluster sampling. Cluster sampling was selected as a means of making the data-gathering procedure more efficient (Sudman, 1976); the selected museum collections served as the clustering units from which the purposeful sample was drawn. The purposeful sample was based upon maximum variation as the selection criteria (Patton, 1980). Sample selection was made to include examples from each visually identifiable elemental, structural, and functional category. The sample included only specimens that exhibited observable interworking of elements (yarns) into a fabric structure and that were a minimum of two square centimeters in size. This sampling strategy is appropriate because of the nature of the archaeological textile remains. Most of the Spiro textiles are extremely fragmented with numerous small fragments, which appear to be from the same original textile. There are also many one-of-a-kind textiles represented in the collections. A random or probability sampling strategy would not necessarily yield the most information on the variety of textiles in the population, and this is considered to be essential to the proposed research. Additionally, probability sampling is not believed to be vital because the textiles which were actually preserved and recovered archaeologically may not be truly representative of the total population of textiles 71 used in Mississippian burial practices. This possible lack of representativeness results from the facts that textiles often preserve differentially and that unique circumstances are necessary in order for textiles to be preserved. Seventy-one textile specimens from Craig Mound at Spiro were selected for examination. Seventeen were from the scientific (WPA) excavations with specific burial provenience, and 54 were from the commercial excavations without specific provenience. All of the specimens from the scientific excavations that could be located at the Stovall Museum and met the sampling criteria were included in the sample. Also, all of the textiles associated with burials from Ozark bluff shelters that were identified as having a high probability of being Caddoan and were accessible were examined; the sample was comprised of 48 textiles.

Selection of Sites and Burials Included in Sample In order to test the usefulness of a newly developed instrument to the study of archaeological textiles and to determine if specific textile attribute characteristics might be useful as indicators of status differentiation, it was felt that a relatively large sample size or data set of prehistoric textiles would be desirable. If the research hypotheses were supported, then this information could be utilized in the study of smaller textile data sets. 72

Aside from being a site of major archaeological importance, the Spiro site (34LF40), in the Arkansas River Valley, was selected for study because it has produced the largest number of preserved textiles from high status burial context in the eastern United States. The textiles included in the sample are both those recovered from the WPA excavations, which have specific provenience designations within Craig Mound, and those recovered during the commercial excavations, which have the general provenience designation of being from Craig Mound. Bluff shelters from the southern Ozark Mountains were selected because they provide the best data set of preserved textiles from low status burial context which can be related to the Caddoan culture at Spiro. Textiles from eight Ozark bluff shelters located in northwest Arkansas and southwest Missouri were included in the sample; these sites are listed in Table 1 and their locations are presented in Figure 1. Information concerning these shelters and their contents was obtained from the records, including Dellinger's (1932) original field notes, and personnel of the University of Arkansas Museum (UAM) and from the Arkansas Archaeological Survey (AAS) site survey forms. Bolin Shelter (3NW31) is located in Newton County, Arkansas, near Big Creek. Two textiles in direct association with a flexed and partially mummified burial 73

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF OZARK BLUFF SHELTER SITES

Site Burial No. of Site Name Number Number Textiles

Bolin Shelter 3NW31 65-14—1 2 Beech Creek Shelter 3NW637 87-155-4 15 Parker & Fitch Shelter 3MA7 38-3-1 1 Indian Creek Shelter 3BE8 32-26-1 2 Brown Bluff 3WA10 32-10-123 1 32-10-17 6 Pine Hollow/Breckenridge 3CR2 32-2-280 6 Montgomery Shelter 3 23BY 32-33-1 2 32-33-17A 5 32-33-35 1 Montgomery Shelter 4 23BY 32-34-19 1 32-34-61 2 32-34-75 2 32-34-94 2

(65-14-1), which was excavated in 1965 by local collectors under the supervision of professional personnel from the AAS and the UAM, were included in the sample. The AAS site survey form gives the tentative identification of uppermost occupation as Marginal Caddoan of Gibson Aspect age. Michael P. Hoffman (personal communication, February, 1988), who was involved in the excavation of the burial, indicates that the burial appeared to be Caddoan. Beech Creek Shelter (3NW637) is located in Newton County, Arkansas. A single desiccated burial (87-155-4) was excavated in the fall of 1987 under the direction of Marvin Kay of the Department of Anthropology. Analysis is 74 in progress and a report of the excavations is being prepared by Kay. Samples from the burial (including textiles) will be submitted for dating, but that information is not currently available. According to Kay and the AAS site survey forms, the cultural association for the site and the burial is late prehistoric, probably Mississippian. Fifteen textiles in association with this burial were examined. Parker and Fitch Shelter (3MA7) is located in Madison County, Arkansas, overlooking War Eagle Creek. It has been specified as having a Mississippian Period cultural affiliation on the 1987 update to the AAS site survey forms. Jerry Hilliard (personal communications, February, 1988) of the AAS believes that the shelter may be related to the Huntsville Mound Site, a Harlan and Spiro Phase Caddoan site located a few miles away on the same drainage (see also Kay, 1986 and Sabo, 1986a). A child burial (38- 3-1) in a grass burial "nest" was recovered from this site in 1938. One textile from this burial was included in the sample. Indian Creek Shelter (3BE8) is located in Benton County, Arkansas. Two textiles were analyzed from a "hamper" burial (32-26-1) recovered from the shelter in 1932 under the direction of S. C. Dellinger of the University of Arkansas Museum. The AAS site survey forms do not assign a cultural affiliation for Indian Creek 75 Shelter, but an unpublished overview of the Southwest District conducted for the Army Corps of Engineers by Sabo and Farley (n.d.) indicate the presence of both Late Woodland and Mississippian occupation at the shelter. Brown Bluff (3WA10) is located in Washington County, Arkansas, on Winn Creek, a small tributary of the West Fork of the White River. A review of the materials and notes from the 1932 excavations at Brown Bluff by the UAM indicate that the site was occupied during the Mississippian Period. Red applied pictographs are present at the shelter that are similar to Petit Jean Painted pictographs in the Arkansas River Valley. Textiles from two burials were examined. One textile was recovered with a cremated, flexed burial (32-10-123) which has been radiocarbon dated as A.D. 1160 + 110 (Crane & Griffin, 1968). Another radiocarbon date obtained from a cache of sunflower seeds, acorns, walnuts, hickory nuts and leaves covered with a fragment of basketry is A.D. 1110 + 110 (Crane & Griffin, 1968). Shell tempered pottery was found near the cache which was dated. Six textiles were associated with another burial from the shelter, that of an adult woman (32-10-17), and were included in the sample. Pine Hollow Shelter (3CR2), also known as Breckenridge Shelter, is located in Carroll County, Arkansas, overlooking the White River. The site has been excavated in 1922 by the Museum of the American Indian Heye /D Foundation (Harrington, 1960) and in 1932, 1960, 1961, and 1962 by the University of Arkansas Museum (Dellinger, 1932; Thomas, 1969; Wood, 1963). Cultural deposits range from early Archaic to late prehistoric. Six textiles from a single infant burial (32-2-280) were included in the sample. This burial has been radiocarbon dated at A.D. 1130 + 110 (Crane & Griffin, 1968) and described in detail by Dellinger (1936) . Montgomery Shelters 3 and 4 (23BY?) are located along Dry Hollow Creek in Barry County, Missouri, near the Carroll County, Arkansas, boarder and when excavated in 1932 were thought to have been in Arkansas. The AAS does not have a complete file on these sites because they are located in Missouri, and site numbers and files could not be found for them in the Missouri archaeological site survey files (M. J. O'Brien, personal communication, June, 1988). Michael Hoffman (personal communication, February, 1988) of the UAM has examined the artifacts, recovered from these shelters in 1932 by Dellinger's crew, and believes that the burials are probably Mississippian Period. The majority of the pottery is shell tempered (Woodard Plain), and a wooden club similar to those recovered from Spiro and included in Mississippian iconography was recovered from Montgomery Shelter 4. Fifteen textiles from 7 burials were examined. The burials from Montgomery Shelter 3 included in the sample are an infant burial (32-33-1) with two 77 textiles, an adult burial that was one of a group of four (32-33-17A) with five textiles, and an adult burial (32-33- 35) with one textile. The burials from Montgomery Shelter 4 included in the sample are an adult burial (32-34-19) with one textile, a youth burial (32-34-61) with two textiles, a child burial (32-34-75) with two textiles, and a youth burial (32-34-94) with two textiles. Ideally, all of these burials should be dated (using conventional or particle accelerator methods) to confirm their assignment to the Mississippian Period and the Caddoan culture. However, archaeologists who are currently working in the area feel that the selected burials have a high probability of dating from this period.

Instrument Development Two instruments were developed by the author for this research. The first is a textile attribute dimension form (Appendix B) and the second is a textile production complexity index (Appendix C). The systematic study of attribute complexes of the textile samples takes into consideration fabric structure, patterning, design, coloration, yarn construction, fibers used, and function of the textiles. The ordinal scale index of production complexity is used to rank production costs of the textiles and is based upon a tally of points assigned for specific attribute dimensions. 78 Textile Attribute Dimensions According to Clarke (1978), the attributes to be studied should be selected primarily on the basis of the problem being investigated. In order to determine the similarity and differences of the attributes of textiles from high and low status contexts, many different attributes were included in the study. Their selection was based partially on the previous work and recommendations of archaeological textile researchers (King, 1978; Nelson, 1986; Sibley, 1981). Two systems of textile classification were considered to serve as the basis of the attribute analysis. Emery's (1966) descriptive classification was selected over the Basel system (Seiler-Baldinger, 1979), which is based upon the process of manufacture. Emery's system was selected because it is considered by this author to be better suited to the study of archaeological remains. It has also served as the basis of many of the more recent archaeological textile analyses in eastern North America and comparisons of textile data would be facilitated by the use of the same classification system. The instrument developed for the current research includes all of the information recommended by King (1978) and includes attributes from all of the four indispensible textile modes listed by Nelson (1986): material, technique, motif, and function. The technique mode is the least represented and is included only in the area of fiber 79 processing, an area which is somewhat speculative in nature. Emery (1966, p. xv) states that structure inheres in the fabric and is almost always ascertainable, but evidence of process is seldom retained. Therefore, it is difficult to deduce the processes or implements used to manufacture a given textile from its structure alone, as almost any textile structure can be achieved by different procedures. The textile attribute dimension form as developed for this research (Appendix B) was designed to record the selected textile attributes and to facilitate computer coding and entry for statistical analysis. Information that was not easily categorized or quantified was added to the instrument as qualitative, descriptive comments. Appendix A lists the definition of terms and the methods of determination used in the recording of the textile attribute dimensions.

Production Complexity Index for Textile Manufacture A systematic measure of production complexity has not been previously applied to the study of prehistoric textiles. Its development was based upon the "production step measure" for ceramic manufacture developed by Feinman (1980, 1985). The ceramic index was developed on the premise that pottery types differ as to their complexity and the amount of time and labor involved in their production. 80 It is not possible to determine the exact amount of time or energy costs involved in the production of specific prehistoric textiles. Therefore, the textile production complexity index was devised as a comparative, ordinally scaled index of the amount of labor involved in the production of a given textile. The complexity of textile fabrication is assumed by this author to be a good indicator of the number of decisions and the amount of labor involved in the manufacture of textiles (see also Schreffler, 1988; Sibley, 1985; Wallace, 1975). The textile production complexity index is based upon related literature (see Chapter II) as well as the author's personal experience and knowledge of nonindustrial textile production. Although there are some studies which describe the processes and steps involved in the manufacture of textiles similar in materials or structure to Mississippian textile remains, detailed ethnographic time studies of non­ loom textile production are not available. As with the production step measure for pottery manufacture, the textile complexity index does not address differences in procurement costs (of the fibers and dyes) or differences in original size. The size of a finished textile has a major direct influence on the labor costs involved in its production. This was difficult to address in the research because the fragmented state of the textile remains frequently made it impossible to determine the 81 original size of the textiles. One way of controlling for size differences is to use this measure to compare the production complexity of textiles within a particular textile class or category. The best example of such a textile category, which was well represented in the samples from the Ozark bluff shelters and from Spiro, is the category of narrow bands and braids. Otherwise, a comparison on a per unit basis (i.e. per square meter or per square centimeter) would have to be made. This per unit comparison is the one adopted and incorporated into the present research. Additionally, the production complexity index was calculated for the narrow bands and braids. Because textile production and the processes and options involved are more complex than those involved in the production of pottery, the measure has been restructured to take these differences into account. A production complexity index should be a better indicator of production costs and time involved in manufacture than a strict tabulation of number of production steps. Textiles generally involve the same basic production steps of the manipulation of fiber (fibrous material), yarn (fabric element), color, patterning, and scale. The major exception to this would be fabrics made of felted fibers such as beaten bark-cloth and felt (see Emery, 1966). But, within the steps listed above, there are many different 82 options or choices and combinations of these options which may be selected by the producer. A consideration in the development of such a measure for textiles was the possibility that differential weights might need to be applied to the different production steps or options within a production step because of the different amounts of time involved in those steps. Weighting of the values was not incorporated into the textile production complexity index in its present form. The production complexity index for textile manufacture as it has been developed takes into consideration fibers, yarns, coloration, patterning and scale (see Appendix C). One point was assigned for each discernable fiber, yarn type, yarn component, color, structural patterning technique, and surface patterning technique as well as for each five elements per square centimeter in a given textile. Additionally, values which range from 1 to 4 were assigned for the degree of fiber processing and degree of twist in a yarn. Averages (means) for each textile were calculated for the amount of fiber preparation or processing when more than one fiber type was used, for the number of yarn components when more than one yarn type was used, and for the amount of yarn twist when more than one yarn type was used. The assigned values for each textile are totaled to obtain a numerical index of complexity. The higher the 83 index value, the greater the complexity of the textile and the greater the number of decisions involved in its manufacture. Higher values are also considered to indicate increased time and labor costs involved in manufacture.

Validitv Tests According to Bohrnstedt and Knoke (1982) validity refers to the extent to which an "operation results in a measure that accurately reflects the concept it is intended to measure" (p. 12). Validity of the textile production complexity index was assessed by a panel of twelve experts who are knowledgeable in the areas of textile analysis and nonindustrial textile production. Validity was evaluated by having the experts rank (based upon their own judgments and prior to examining the instrument) the estimated amount of time they felt would be needed to produce textiles of equal size using the same materials, structure, and production techniques utilized in examples selected from the research sample. This was done using photographs of the textiles, drawings of the fabric structure, and descriptions of the fabric structure, scale, pattern, color, fiber, and yarn. They were then asked to rank the same textiles according to their estimations of production complexity (the number of decisions and steps involved in the original manufacture of the textiles). Appendix C includes the instructions for the validity text and the textile information given to the panel as well as the 84 results of that test. Content validity, the representativeness of the instrument content, and face validity, the appearance of measuring what is claimed to be measured, of the textile attribute dimension form and the textile production complexity index were assessed by experts who were asked to evaluate the instruments in their preliminary forms. The panel who ranked the textiles also evaluated the production complexity index after they had completed the ranking. The complexity index and the attribute dimension form were also evaluated by other experts in the field who were not involved in the ranking process. The instruments were modified as necessary, based upon the panel's evaluations.

Data Collection and Analysis The data were collected by the author at the three museums listed above between November 1987 and February 1988. Data collection included visual or macroscopic examination of the textiles plus the use of stereo, reflected light, polarized light, and scanning electron microscopy. A photographic record of each textile was made using both black and white and color print films with 35 mm cameras. Textile attribute data were collected and coded by the researcher on the textile attribute dimension instrument. Appendix A presents the definitions of terms and methods of determination used in the collection of the 85 attribute data. The majority of the attribute dimensions were obtained by macroscopic and stereomicroscopic examination. The models of the microscopes used varied from one museum to the other. The characterization of fibers utilized bright field, polarized light, and scanning electron microscopy. Permission was obtained from each museum to remove small samples from the different element sets of the textiles for analysis. In some instances a 1 cm sample of a yarn for future dye analysis was obtained. Color was specified, using the Munsell system of color designations, by comparison to color chips in a Munsell Soil Color Chart (1975 edition) under natural light. Measurements recorded for yarn diameters, fabric counts, and angle of twist are the averages of 5 measurements taken on the textiles. Occasionally, due to the small size or condition of the textiles, it was not possible to obtain the desired 5 measurements; in those cases the largest number of accurate measurements were averaged together. In this study, as in other studies of archaeological textile remains, attribute analysis was often hindered by the size and condition of the textiles. Fragmentation precluded the collection of data for the textile as a whole. Degradation, the matting together of a textile or textiles, and the presence of dirt and other debris often interfered with accurate analysis. Because of the fragile nature of the textile remains, handling was kept to a 86 minimum and, as in the case of some of the burials from the Ozarks, burial bundles could not be disturbed to complete the data collection. However, as much information as could be obtained was recorded for each sample specimen. If an attribute dimension was not recorded for a textile, the reason for this was designated as either not applicable, indeterminate, or not analyzed. The designation of not applicable refers to instances when an attribute dimension did not apply to a particular textile; for example, a twining attribute would not be applicable to an oblique interlaced textile. The designation of indeterminate was used when an attribute dimensions appeared to be applicable to a textile but could not be determined with certainty or accuracy. The designation of not analyzed was used when an attribute dimension appeared to be applicable to a textile and could be determined if proper analytical techniques could be employed; for example, fiber classification for textiles which could not be sampled because they were in permanent mounts were designated as not analyzed. The data were entered into a computer for storage and analysis using Minitab Data Analysis Software, release 5.1. These attribute data were then analyzed and production complexity ranked using the textile production complexity index. Frequencies and percentages as well as minimum, maximum, and mean values were calculated for the textile attributes as a total sample and as two sub-sampler, with 87 Spiro data representing high status and Ozark data representing low status. In order to evaluate the degree of association of selected textile attributes to the status designations, a series of contingency tables was created with rows and columns composed of status designation and attribute characterizations, respectively. Cramer's V fohi *) was used as a measure of association between the variables. Cramer's v, which is based upon the chi-square statistic, was selected because the influence of sample size and degrees of freedom is minimized. The range of values of the measure are restricted to those between 0 and 1. This allows a comparison of the relative strength of association between several tables, which was desirable for this study. Numerical values assigned to each category of the production complexity index were summed to obtain the measure of production complexity; higher values indicate greater complexity. The mean complexity value was calculated for the total sample, the Spiro textiles, the Ozark textiles, and for each of Brown's (1971a) burial status rankings assigned to textiles recovered from the WPA excavations. Spearman's rho (rank correlation coefficient) was calculated to measure the relationship between the ranked production complexity index values and status designations. As a means of controlling for textile size, the above analysis of production complexity was also 88 completed on the category of textiles described as narrow bands and braids. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings of the attribute analysis and production complexity rankings of textile remains from mortuary context from the Spiro site and southern Ozark bluff shelters. The attribute data are presented for the sample as a whole, which represents Caddoan textiles as a whole, as well as for the two sample sub-sets. As discussed previously, high Caddoan social status is represented by the Spiro textile data and low Caddoan social status is represented by the Ozark textile data.

Analysis of Textile Attributes All of the attributes recorded for each textile specimen are presented in Appendix D, and definitions of the terms used in the attribute analysis are located in Appendix A. Only those attributes that were identifiable and/or measurable are included in the tables that follow; categories recorded as not applicable, indeterminate, and not analyzed are not included.

89 90 Fabric Dimensions Few of the specimen dimensions are indicative of the original size of the textiles due to the fragmentary state and crumpled nature of the textile remains. Maximum determinable lengths and widths of rectangular pieces and diameters of circular pieces were recorded for all specimens. The lengths of the 119 specimens studied ranged from 2 to 260 cm with a mean length value of 27.5 cm and a median length of 17 cm. The widths ranged from 0.2 to 145.4 cm with a mean of 16.7 cm and a median of 6.0 cm. Original textile dimensions were considered to be identifiable when opposite finished edges were present and the distance between them could be measured with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Table 2 presents the frequencies and percentages of the identifiable original textile dimensions, and Table 3 presents the minimum, maximum, and mean measurements for those dimensions. In both samples, many more widths were identifiable on the textiles than lengths. Complete dimension information was identifiable for only 3 textiles from the total sample. Catalogue number 32-33-1-01, the outer wrap of a burial bundle from the Ozarks, is 120 x 70 cm; catalogue number 32-34-61-02, a bag from the Ozarks, is 32 cm from the base to the rim and 66 cm around the rim; and catalogue number LF40-692, HWH 107G, a flat circular disk from Spiro, is 7.8 cm in diameter. 91

TABLE 2 Frequencies of Identifiable Original Textile Dimensions

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Measurement No. % No. % No. %

None 68 57.1 42 59.2 26 54.2 Length 4 3.4 1 1.4 3 6.2 Width 44 37.0 27 38.0 17 35.4 Length & width 2 1.7 0 0.0 2 4.2 Diameter 1 0.8 1 1.4 0 0.0 TOTAL 119 100.0 71 100.0 48 100.0

TABLE 3 Measurements^ of Identifiable Original Textile Dimensions

Number^ Minimum Maximum Mean

Total Sample Length 8 9.7 120.0 59.3 Width 46 0.2 145.5 15.4 Diameter 1 7.8 7.8 7.8 Spiro Sample Length 3 31.0 102.0 60.0 Width 27 0.2 145.5 20.4 Diameter 1 7.8 7.8 7.8 Ozark Sample Length 5 9.7 120.0 58.8 Width 19 0.6 70.0 8.3 Diameter 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

^ Measurements given in centimeters, b N = 55, 31, 24. 92 Fabric Structure Fabric structures for the sample were classified according to Emery's (1966) classification system. Definitions of terms utilized in the classification and description of the textiles are found in Appendix A. One of the specifications for inclusion into the sample to be studied was the presence of observable interworking of elements. The number of sets of elements incorporated in the fabric structures and the types of interworking were recorded. All of the structures examined were made up of sets of elements rather than single elements. Of the 169 fabric structures identified, for the total sample, 72 were composed of one set of elements and 97 were composed of two sets of elements. As can be seen in Table 4, the Ozark sample included a slightly higher percentage of structures with two sets of elements (60.4 %) than the Spiro sample (56.0 %).

TABIE 4 Number of Element Sets Per Fabric Structure

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Number of Sets No. % No. % No. %

1 72 42.6 51 44.0 21 39.6 2 97 57.4 65 56.0 32 60.4

TOTAL 169 100.0 116 100.0 53 100.0 93 The number of structural variations, or different fabric structures, within a textile ranged from 1 to 4. Of the 48 textiles examined from the Ozarks, three had 2 variations and one had 3 variations. More structural variations were present in the textile specimens from the Spiro site. Among the 71 textiles in the Spiro sample, 27 had 2 variations, 6 had 3 variations, and 2 had 4 variations. Table 5 gives the frequencies and the percentages of textiles which incorporated each number of structural variations.

TABLE 5 Number of Structural Variations Per Textile

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Number of Variations No. % No. % No. %

1 80 67.2 36 50.7 44 91.7 2 30 25.2 27 38.0 3 6.2 3 7 5.9 6 8.5 1 2.1 4 2 1.7 2 2.8 0 0.0

TOTAL 119 100.0 71 100.0 48 100.0

The major categories of fabric structures identified are twining (1 and 2 sets of elements), interlacing (1 and 2 sets of elements), wrapping (2 sets of elements), knotting (1 set of elements) , and twisting (1 set of elements). Table 6 presents the frequencies and 94 percentages for these fabric structures. Twining and interlacing are the most common types of interworking of elements for both samples. Twining with 2 sets of elements and interlacing with 1 set of elements (oblique interlacing) represent over 80 percent of each subcategory for both samples.

TABLE 6 Number of Element Sets and Type of Interworking

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample iNUinD6x of Sets No. %a No. % No. %

1 set of elements Twining 6 8.5 6 12.0 0 0.0 Interlacing 61 85.9 41 82.0 20 95.2 Knotting 3 4.2 3 6.0 0 0.0 Twisting 1 1.4 0 0.0 • 1 4.8 2 sets of elements

Twining 87 8 8 . 8 60 90.9 27 84.4 Interlacing 7 7.1 2 3.0 5 15.6 Wrapping 4 4.1 4 6.1 0 0.0 Both 1 and 2 sets of elements Twining 93 55.0 66 56.9 27 50.9 Interlacing 68 40.2 43 37.1 25 47.2 Knotting 3 1.8 3 2.6 0 0.0 Twisting 1 0.6 0 0.0 1 1.9 Wrapping 4 2.4 4 3.4 0 0.0

Percentages based upon totals of subcategories. 95

Knotting and wrapping were found only among the textiles from Spiro with 3 and 4 examples of each, respectively. Twisting of one set of elements was identified in a bag rim from the Ozarks where warp yarns, ranging from 4 to 8, were twisted together as a group before being joined with a 3-strand braid. Twining attributes, or characteristics, are reported in Table 7. Emery (1956) places twining under the category of interacting elements, as opposed to interlacing elements. Variation and elaboration in twining is found more in the nature and complexity of the interaction than in the order of interworking. Twining is a fabric structure in which one set of active elements spiral or turn about each other, enclosing successive elements of the other passive set in each turn. It does not require a fixed warp, is seldom associated with the use of heddles and, therefore, is often considered a "non-loom" technique. See Figure 4 for illustrations of twined fabric structures with two sets of elements. Structural variation in the twined fabrics was recorded as the type or spacing of elements, direction of twining elements, direction of twining twist, number of active elements working together, amount of twining twist, number of passive elements, and movement of passive elements. Spaced twining was the most common twining type and made up 50 percent or more in both samples. However, 96 TABLE 7 Twining Attributes

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Characteristics No. No. % No. %

Type Spaced 56 60.2 34 50.0 21 87.5 Compact 28 30.1 27 39.7 1 4.2 Combination 9 9.7 7 10.3 2 8.3 Direction of twining elements Warp 5 5.5 5 7.5 0 0.0 Weft 74 81.3 50 74.6 24 100.0 Extra yarns 8 8.8 8 11.9 0 0.0 Single element set 1 1.1 1 1.5 0 0.0 Coiled wefts 3 3.3 3 4.5 0 0.0 Direction of twining twist S 42 55.3 32 60.4 10 43.5 Z 22 28.9 9 17.0 13 56.5 Countered 10 13.2 10 18.8 0 0.0 Reversed 1 1.3 1 1.9 0 0.0 Inconsistent 1 1.3 1 1.9 0 0.0 Number of active elements working together Two 79 97.5 56 96.5 23 100.0 Three 2 2.5 2 3.5 0 0.0 Amount of twining twist One-half 79 96.4 58 100.0 21 87.4 One 1 1.2 0 0.0 1 4.2 Two and one-half 1 1.2 0 0.0 1 4.2 Inconsistent 1 1.2 0 0.0 1 4.2 Number of passive elements One 57 63.3 39 60.0 18 72.0 Two 23 25.6 18 27.7 5 20.0 Three 1 1.1 1 1.5 0 0.0 Twined tapestry 7 7.8 7 10.8 0 0.0 Inconsistent 2 2.2 0 0.0 2 8.0 97 Table 7 (continued)

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Characteristics No. % No. % No. %

Movement of passive elements None 62 66.7 43 64.2 19 73.2 Diverted 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 3.8 Transposed 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 3.8 Interlinked 3 3.2 3 4.5 0 0.0 Alternate paired 12 12.9 9 13.4 3 11.5 Radiating 5 5.4 5 7.5 0 0.0 Twined tapestry 7 7.5 7 10.4 0 0.0 Inconsistent 2 2.1 0 0.0 2 7.7

^ Percentages based upon totals of subcategories. compact twining, which is a more time consuming fabric structure, made up 39.7 percent of the Spiro sample but only 4.2 percent of the Ozark sample. All of the Ozark twined fabrics were weft twined. The direction of twining elements did vary among the Spiro sample, which also included examples of warp twining, twining with single element sets, coiled wefts, and extra yarn sets. The examples of warp twining were primarily narrow bands along the sides of large weft twined textiles. The examples of extra yarn sets were twined outlines on the twined tapestries. The percentages of the direction of twining twist (S, Z, and combinations of S and Z) were different for the two samples. Z twining twist made up 56.5 percent of the Ozark 98

i (I L k

Figure 4. WPA drawings of twined fabric structures with two sets of elements. (A) Expanded view of compact weft twining with S twining twist and single passive elements. (B) Spaced alternate paired weft twining with S twining twist. (C) Expanded view of countered compact weft twined tapestry with vertical outlines. Drawings courtesy of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History. 99 sample but only 17 percent from Spiro. S twining twist made up 60.4 percent of the Spiro sample and 43.5 percent of the Ozark sample. The Spiro sample also included combinations of S and Z twining twist, which made up 22.6 percent of the sample. The most important category which combined both S and Z twining twist was made up of the twined tapestry textiles which were of countered compact twining. The amount of twining twist did not vary from one-half turn in the Spiro sample and varied infrequently in the Ozark sample. Two examples of three twining elements working together were identified only in the Spiro sample. All others appeared to have had two twining elements working together. It is often difficult to count the number of twining elements, particularly if only one side is visible, and if the yarns are compacted. The greatest problem in determining the number of twining elements was in compact twining along the edges of fabrics. Therefore, the number of examples of more than two elements working together may be slightly lower than it should be. A single passive element was enclosed by the twining elements in 60 percent of the twined fabrics from Spiro and in 72 percent from the Ozarks, and two passive elements were enclosed in the twining stitches of 27.7 percent of the twined fabrics from Spiro and 20 percent from the Ozarks. One example from Spiro had three passive elements 100 working together, and two examples from the Ozarks were inconsistent. The twined outlines on the twined tapestries from Spiro twined around areas of weft twining, which may have included both warps and wefts. Movement of passive elements was recorded as none for 64.2 percent from Spiro and 73.2 percent from the Ozarks. Alternate paired arrangement, or movement, of warps was the second most common with 13.4 percent from Spiro and 11.5 percent from the Ozarks. Other arrangements such as diverted, transposed, interlinked, and inconsistent were represented in small numbers (see Table 7). Some passive elements radiated out from the center of circular disks from Spiro (7.5 %) and the twined tapestries were recorded separately (10.4 %). Interlacing is a type of interworking of elements in which each element passes under or over another element which crosses its path. Interlacing with one set of elements is classified as oblique interlacing by Emery (1966). She states that the term braid, which is often used when referring to oblique interlacing, connotes a narrow fabric band or cord. All of the examples of oblique interlacing from the Ozarks were narrow and could be referred to properly as braids. However, some of the examples of oblique interlacing from Spiro were wide flat textiles. Figure 5 contains illustrations of the fabric structure of examples of oblique interlacing. ICI

a D

Figure 5. WPA drawings of oblique interlacing. (A) Flat 1/1 interlacing. (B) Flat 2/1 twill interlacing. (C) Round braid with paired elements. (D) Round 4-strand braid. (E) Flat 3-strand braid. Drawings courtesy of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History. 102 Table 8 presents data on the shape, number of strands, element grouping, and twill interlacement pattern of oblique interlaced textiles. All of the examples of oblique interlacing from the Ozarks were flat rather than round, and 80 percent of them were 3-strand braids. The

TABLE 8 Oblique Interlacing Characteristics

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Characteristics No. %a No. % No. %

Flat 3-strand 25 53.2 9 33.3 16 80.0 4-strand 3 6.4 2 7.4 1 5.0 5-strand 1 2.1 1 3.7 0 0.0 6-strand 1 2.1 0 0.0 1 5.0 7-strand 2 4.3 1 3.7 1 5.0 8-strand 1 2.1 0 0.0 1 5.0 ?-strand 14 29.8 14 51.9 0 0.0 Round 6-strand 5 35.7 5 35.7 0 0.0 8-strand 7 50.0 7 50.0 0 0.0 ?-strand 2 14.3 2 14.3 0 0.0 Element grouping Single 40 65.6 22 53.7 18 90.0 Double 12 19.6 10 24.3 2 10.0 Triple 2 3.3 2 4.9 0 0.0 Quadruple 2 3.3 2 4.9 0 0.0 Inconsistent 3 4.9 3 7.3 0 0.0 Multiple (?) 2 3.3 2 4.9 0 0.0 Twill interlacement 2/1 1 25.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 2/2 2 50.0 1 50.0 1 50.0 2/3 1 25.0 0 0.0 1 50.0

Percentages based upon totals for subcategories. 103 Spiro sample included both flat and round oblique interlacing. Thirty-three percent of the flat examples were 3-strand braids, and 51.9 percent were composed of an indeterminate number of strands (this number included the wide textiles). The determinable number of strands for both samples ranged from 3 to 8. Of the 14 examples of round braids from Spiro, 5 of those were 6-strand, 7 were 8-strand, and 2 were of an unknown number of strands. The elements of the oblique interlacing were sometimes grouped, particularly in the Spiro sample where 53,7 percent were single, 24.3 percent were double, and 20 percent had more than 2 strands grouped together. In determining the number of strands in a braid, the grouped elements were counted as a unit. Thus, a 6-strand braid with tripled elements would contain 18 yarns. Twill interlacement patterns (regular floats) were not common among the oblique interlacing, but two examples were identified from each sample. Spiro had one example of a 2/1 twill and one example of a 2/2 twill. In the Ozark sample there was one example of a 2/2 twill and one of a 2/3 twill. There were only 7 examples of interlacing with two sets of elements, and these made up 7.1 percent of the total number of fabric structures incorporating two sets of elements. All 7 had a 1/1 interlacement pattern and had elements used singly (Table 9). The 5 examples from the Ozarks were unbalanced and weft faced. One example from 104 Spiro was balanced in warp and weft and the other was probably warp faced, but the direction of warp and weft could not be positively identified.

TABLE 9 Interlacing with Two Sets of Elements

Total Sample Spiro :Sample Ozark Sample Characteristics No. %a No. % No. %

Type of interlacement 1/1 7 100.0 2 100.0 5 100.0 Relationship of element sets Balanced 1 14.3 1 50.0 0 0.0 Warp faced (?) 1 14.3 1 50.0 0 0.0 Weft faced 5 71.4 0 0.0 5 100.0 Element grouping Single 7 100.0 2 100.0 5 100.0

^ Percentages based upon totals for subcategories.

Scale Scale, or fabric count (Larsen, 1986), refers to the fineness or coarseness of a textile as indicated by the number of elements in a linear or area unit. For this study, the scale is based upon the number of individual elements per square centimeter. Counts were made for each element set and these were added together to obtain the fabric count or total number of elements per square centimeter. 105 The fabric count was calculated for 152 of the fabric structures identified in the 119 textiles studied (see Table 10) and averaged to obtain the average fabric count per textile (see Table 11). The fabric counts are consistently higher for the Spiro sample than for the Ozark sample with a mean fabric count per textile of 12.8 for Spiro and 4.7 for the Ozarks. The fabric count affects the labor input required for a textile because it is indicative of the compactness of the yarns and the fineness of the yarns. Higher fabric counts would, therefore, indicate greater labor costs in the production of the textiles. Spacing of elements was recorded for open textiles as the average measurement from the center of one element to the center of the adjacent element of the same set. This measurement was taken only if the adjacent elements were not touching and were separated by more than the diameter of the elements. The mean values for the spacing of warps for the total sample is 0.6 cm and for the wefts is 1.8 cm; a similar relationship exists when the Spiro and Ozark samples are examined separately. This relationship is the result of the common use of spaced weft twining. The mean spacing for the wefts of open fabrics from Spiro is 1.4 cm and the comparable value from the Ozarks is 2.4 cm (Table

12) . 106 TABLE 10 Fabric Count^ Per Fabric Structure

Sample Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Total 152 0.6 60.0 10.8 Spiro 102 1.0 60.0 13.9 Ozark 50 0.6 16.4 4.6

^ The number of elements per square centimeter.

TABLE 11 Average Fabric Count^ Per Textile

Sample Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Total 119 0.6 40.0 9.5 Spiro 71 1.0 40.0 12.8 Ozark 48 0.6 16.4 4.7

^ The number of elements per square centimeter. 107 TABLE 12 Spacing^ of Wefts in Open Fabrics

Sample Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Total 50 0.1 10.0 1.8 Spiro 27 0.1 7.4 1.4 Ozark 23 0.3 10.0 2.4

^ In centimeters.

Edge Treatment The types of edge treatments were examined for the 119 textiles. At least one selvage, an edge where elements change direction in a textile, was present in 70 of the specimens. Fifteen textiles had 1 selvage present and visible; 48 had 2 selvages; 6 had 3 selvages; and 1 had 4 selvages. Fourteen textiles had one starting or ending selvage; 46 had a single side selvage; and 10 had at least one side and one starting or ending selvage. Two bags among the Ozark textiles had no side selvages because they were made on folded warps. Fringed edges were found only on textiles from Spiro. Of the 10 textiles with fringes, the yarns of 8 were cut and 6 of those were knotted near the end of the yarn, possibly to keep the yarns from coming unplied. Two examples of braided fringes were also found. Fringe 108 lengths ranged from 0.8 to 37 cm with a mean fringe length of 12.7 cm. None of the textile edges examined were hemmed, and only two examples of stitched edges were found. These were both from Spiro. One was a twined circular disk (Lf40-692, HWH 107G) which had been overcast along the outer edge using a yarn like the twining weft of the last row of twining. The other example was a piece of twined tapestry (423373-2719C) which was overcast with multiple strands of yarns in three colors (black, red, and gold) like the twining weft yarns. It is possible that this edge of the twined tapestry was formed as the textile was being made rather than added after it was completed.

Patterning Patterning in a textile can be achieved through the use of structural patterning techniques, in which the pattern is created as a part of the fabric structure, and through the use of surface patterning techniques, in which pattern is added to the surface of the fabric but not as a part of the fabric structure. There are innumerable possibilities for combinations of structural and surface patterning techniques. The more of these techniques which are used in combination to produce a fabric, the more complex it becomes. Structural patterning techniques which were utilized in the textiles from Spiro and the Ozarks include twining. 109 interlacement, knotting, wrapping, irregular spacing of elements, combining and/or recombining elements, separating elements, twisting of groups of elements, interlinking elements, combining colored elements, tapestry, and twined outlines with an additional element set. The number of structural patterning techniques in individual textiles ranged from 1 to 4. The mean number of structural patterning techniques for textiles from Spiro was 2.1 compared to a mean of 1.4 for textiles from the Ozarks. Frequencies for the different types of structural patterning techniques observed are presented in Table 13. The percentages represent the percentage of individual textiles which incorporated each patterning technique. The most common surface patterning technique utilized in the samples is resist-dyeing, a technique in which pattern is achieved by covering certain areas before dyeing begins or between successive dye baths. All 16 of the examples of resist-dyeing were among the Spiro textiles, were dyed at the fabric stage, and were comprised of the same two colors (red and tan). It appears that the textiles were originally dyed tan and that the pattern was resisted before the textiles were overdyed with red. Large flat textiles in both twining and oblique interlacing as well as narrow braids were resist dyed. The only other type of surface patterning techniques identified was that of added elements. The one example 110

TABLE 13 Structural Patterning Techniques

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Techniques No. %& No. % No. %

Twining 70 58.8 46 64.8 24 50.0 Interlacement 53 44.5 28 39.4 25 52.0 Knotting 2 1.7 1 1.4 1 2.1 Wrapping 4 3.4 4 5.6 0 0.0 Irregular spacing of elements 13 10.9 11 15.5 2 4.2 Combining &/or recombining of elements 26 21.8 18 25.4 8 16.7 Separating of elements 4 3.4 3 4.2 1 2.1 Twisting of groups of elements 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 2.1 Interlinking elements 1 0.8 1 1.4 0 0.0 Combining colored elements 25 21.0 24 3.38 1 2.1 Tapestry 9 7.6 9 12.7 0 0.0 Twined outlines 7 5.9 7 9.9 0 0.0

^ Percentages based upon total number of textile samples (N = 119, 71, 48). Ill from Spiro is a textile with shell beads added to the fabric. The one example from the Ozarks is a textile with leather tabs attached to the textile, but it is not clear if these served a decorative or functional purpose.

Design Design motifs were present on 46 of the 119 textiles examined, absent on 63 textiles, and indeterminate on 10. Charring was the major factor affecting the inability to determine the presence or absence of surface design motifs in the sample. The placement of motifs on the specimens was recorded as being either overall, along the border, centered, in bands, or on the fringes. However, the placement or arrangement of design motifs on a textile fragment may be misleading since the pattern information is not complete. A fragment may exhibit an all-over motif, but that fragment may have come from the edge of a larger textile which had the motif only along the borders. Therefore, the classification has the most meaning in complete or nearly complete textiles. The motifs were characterized as either geometric or figurai. Table 14 presents the design motif data; the percentages given represent the percentage of identifiable or characterizable motifs. The geometric motifs recorded include horizontal bands, lengthwise stripes, circles and half-circles, squares, rectangles, diamonds, chevrons, and frets. Figurai motifs include both bird and human forms. 112 which are probably related to Southern Cult motifs (Brown, 1984a). Only two design motifs were recorded for the Ozark sample, and both were warp striped textiles. One had alternating sections of fur and feather wrapped yarns in the warp and the other had light and darker brown yarns in the warp. All others were from the Spiro sample.

TABLE 14 Design Motifs

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample No. %a No. % No. %

Placement Overall 26 74.3 24 72.7 2 100.0 Boarder 6 17.1 6 18.2 0 0.0 Bands 1 2.9 1 3.0 0 0.0 Fringe 2 5.7 2 6.1 0 0.0 Characterization Bands 12 28,5 12 30.0 0 0.0 Stripes 5 11.9 3 7.5 2 100.0 Circles 6 14.3 6 15.0 0 0.0 Squares 2 4.8 2 5.0 0 0.0 Rectangles 8 19.0 8 20.0 0 0.0 Diamonds 1 2.4 1 2.5 0 0.0 Chevrons 3 7.1 3 7.5 0 0.0 Frets 1 2.4 1 2.5 0 0.0 Half-circles 1 2.4 1 2.5 0 0.0 Bird form 2 4.8 2 5.0 0 0.0 Human form 1 2.4 1 2.5 0. 0.0

Percentages based upon totals of subcategories. 113 Coloration The number of colors recorded for each textile was the number of colors that could be differentiated and appeared to have been intentional, either through selection or alteration of color, on the part of the original textile producer. Many factors may have altered the color of the textiles between the time of their production and the present analysis. These color changes may have been brought about by use, by conditions in the archaeological context, and by handling and storage conditions after removal from archaeological context. Therefore, the color designations given are presented for comparative and descriptive purposes and not necessarily as a designation for the original color of the textile. The colors of the textiles were specified using the Munsell system of designations for the three variables of hue, value, and chroma. Notation of hue indicates the relation to red, yellow, green, blue, and purple; notation of value indicates lightness; and the notation of chroma indicates strength or saturation. The notation was obtained by comparison to color chips in the Munsell Soil Color Chart (1975 edition). Those textile specimens that could be moved were evaluated under natural daylight near a window in which the sun was not shining directly (as specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials). If a textile could not 114 be removed from the storage area and was evaluated, the lighting conditions, fluorescent or incandescent, were noted. The cleanest and the brightest colored areas of the textiles were selected for color matching. Because dye analysis was not conducted as a part of the present research, the source of color was determined subjectively by the researcher. Source of color was designated as natural if the color appeared to have been a color naturally occurring in the materials used. The source of color was designated as added if the color appeared to have been unnatural to the materials used and would have required the use of some method of altering the color, such as the use of dye, pigment, or bleaching agent. The designation of the application of color was also somewhat subjective. Color can be applied to a textile at various stages of production, and it is not always possible to determine the stage at which it was applied. Color may be applied to the fibers before they are spun into yarns, to yarns before the fabric is constructed, or to the textile (piece) after the fabric is constructed. In the textiles analyzed for this research those which were resist dyed were designated as piece dyed. Textiles that incorporated different colored yarns, such as striped textiles and the twined tapestries, were designated as yarn dyed. Some of the textiles that incorporated feather and/or fur wrapped complex yarns, those which changed 115 colors along the length of the yarns and had undyed cores, were designated as fiber dyed. Solid colored textiles, which had been designated as having had color added by the producer and were without indicators as to the stage of color application, were designated as indeterminate. Natural colors were included under fiber since the color was a part of the fiber before the yarns were constructed. Table 15 includes the tabulations for color source and application; the percentages are calculated on the basis of the number of identifiable attributes in the two categories.

TABLE 15 Application and Source of Colors

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample No. %a No. % No. %

Application Fiber 106 55.5 33 28.0 73 100.0 Yarn 70 36.7 70 59.3 0 0.0 Piece 15 7.8 15 12.7 0 0.0 Source Natural 80 40.0 8 6.3 72 100.0 Added 120 60.0 120 93.7 0 0.0

Percentages based upon totals of subcategories. 116 None of the textiles from the Ozarks were designated as having had color added as a part of the manufacturing process, but 33.7 percent of the colors from Spiro textiles were designated as having been added. The use of dyes in the textiles from Spiro would increase the complexity and labor input in textile production. It may also indicate that only the elite had control of the knowledge and resources necessary for dying textiles. Therefore, this may be a very important attribute of Caddoan textiles as an indication of status differentiation. The number of colors for the various Ozark specimens ranged from 1 to 3 with a mean value of 1.3 colors. The Spiro specimens ranged in number of colors from 1 to 6 with a mean value of 2.1 colors per textile. Table 16 presents the number of colors for the textiles in each sample. The resist dyed textiles from Spiro were consistently two colors, and the greatest number of colors were incorporated in the twined tapestry specimens and the dyed feather/fur wrapped textiles. 117

TABLE 16 Number of Colors

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Number of Colors No % No. % No. %

1 64 53.8 29 40.8 35 72.9 2 30 25.2 20 28.2 10 20.8 3 14 11.8 11 15.5 3 6.3 4 8 6.7 8 11.3 0 0.0 5 1 0.8 1 1.4 0 0.0 6 2 1.7 2 2.8 0 0.0

TOTAL 119 100.0 71 100.0 48 100.0

The Munsell color designations for individual textiles are listed in Appendix D. Table 17 gives a tabulation of the names for colors given in the Munsell Soil Color Chart; the percentages given are the percentage of textiles which incorporate each color. The broad categories of black, gray, brown, red, and yellow are included. The only two specimens from the Ozarks designated as black were charred, while the Spiro sample included both charred textiles and dyed textiles designated as black. The one specimen from the Ozarks listed as pink was a light tan with a pinkish cast and could have been natural to the fibers used. All of the reds from Spiro appeared to have been dyed, as the color is unnatural to the fibers used. 118 TABLE 17 Color Names

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Colors No. %a No. % No. %

Black Black 35 29.4 34 47.9 1 2.1 Reddish black 2 1.7 2 2.8 0 0.0 Gray Dark gray 2 1.7 1 1.4 1 2.1 Light gray 11 9.2 0 0.0 11 22.9 Light brownish gray 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 2.1 Dark reddish gray 4 3.4 1 1.4 3 6.3 Pinkish gray 3 2.5 0 0.0 3 6.3 Brown Brown 27 22.7 12 16.9 15 31.3 Dark brown 2 1.7 2 2.8 0 0.0 Strong brown 6 5.0 4 5.6 2 4.2 Light brown 10 8.4 3 4.2 7 14.6 Pale brown 5 4.2 1 1.4 4 8.3 Very pale brown 4 3.4 0 0.0 4 8.3 Dark grayish brown 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 2.1 Grayish brown 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 2.1 Dark reddish brown 8 6.7 7 9.9 1 2.1 Reddish brown 8 6.7 4 5.6 4 8.3 Light reddish brown 3 2.5 1 1.4 2 4.2 Yellowish brown 3 2.5 3 4.2 0 0.0 Light yellowish brown 7 5.9 3 4.2 4 8.3 Red Dusky red 4 3.4 4 5.6 0 0.0 Dark red 25 21.0 25 35.2 0 0.0 Red 18 15.1 18 25.4 0 0.0 Weak red 1 0.8 1 1.4 0 0.0 Pink 1 0.8 0 0.0 2.1 Yellowish red 8 6.7 8 11.3 0 0.0 Yellow Yellow 3 2.5 3 4.2 0 0.0 Brownish yellow 4 3.4 1 1.4 3 6.3 Reddish yellow 11 9.2 7 9.9 4 8.3

^ Percentages based upon total textiles, N = 119, 71, 48, 119 Yarn Structure Yarn structure has been classified and described based upon Emery's (1966) system of classification with the addition of the category of complex yarn. Yarn structure was designated as unspun single if a single fiber or fibrous strip that was not twisted was used and as unspun combined if more than one fiber or fibrous strip were used in combination but were not twisted together. Spun yarns are defined as fibers of limited length which have been drawn and twisted together into a continuous strand. A spun single is the simplest unit of spun fibers and a spun plied yarn is formed by twisting together two or more spun single yarns. A spun replied yarn is formed by twisting together two or more spun plied yarns. Only two replied yarns were identified in the sample, one with two 2-ply yarns from the Ozarks and one with one 2-ply and one 3-ply yarns twisted together from Spiro. A complex yarn is defined as a yarn formed of dissimilar parts or is intentionally not uniform in size, color, or surface. The complex yarns identified in the sample are formed of dissimilar parts. They were all wrapped core yarns with the 2-ply, spun, vegetal fiber core yarns ranging in number from 1 to 3. These core yarns were wrapped with strips of fur in an S (\) direction, split feather quills wrapped in both S (\) and Z (/) directions, and tufts of fur and/or feather held in place with a fine 120 binder yarn. The frequencies and percentages of each yarn classification are given in Table 18. Plied yarns are the most numerous among both the Spiro and the Ozark yarns (71.6 % and 56.3 %, respectively), and all of the identified plied yarns were 2-ply. The second most numerous yarn types were complex yarns (10.8 %) for the Spiro sample and combined unspun yarns (22.9 %) for the Ozark sample.

TABLE 18 Classification of Yarn Types

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Yarn Types No. % No. % No. %

Unspun Single 4 2.0 4 3.9 0 0.0 Combined 25 12.6 3 2.9 22 22.9 Spun Single 17 8.6 10 9.8 7 7.3 Plied 127 64.2 73 71.6 54 56.3 Replied 2 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 Complex Wrapped core 23 11.6 11 10.8 12 12.5

TOTAL 198 100.0 102 100.0 96 100.0 121 Table 19 presents the number of yarn types per textile, which ranged from 1 to 4. The Ozark sample included a greater number of textiles with 3 and 4 different yarn types than Spiro. This may have been the result of some of the textiles having been repaired with yarns which differed from those used in the original construction and of textiles being constructed using the yarns available rather than producing all new yarns specifically for the textiles.

TABLE 19 Number of Y a m Types Per Textile

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Number of Yarn Types No. % No. % No. %

1 60 50.4 38 53.5 22 45.8 2 48 40.4 31 43.7 17 35.4 3 8 6.7 1 1.4 7 14.6 4 3 2.5 1 1.4 2 4.2

TOTAL 119 100.0 71 100.0 48 100.0

Table 20 presents the number of yarn components per yarn. The range is from 1 to 7, but 2 components are the most numerous for both Spiro (72.5 %) and the Ozarks (55.2 %). The complex yarns and the replied yarns make up those with 3 or more components. The average numbers of yarn components per textile are given in Table 21. 122

TABLE 20

Number of Y a m Components Per Y a m

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Number of Components No. % No. % No. %

1 48 24.2 18 17.6 30 31.3 2 127 64.2 74 72.5 53 55.2 3 2 1.0 0 0.0 2 2.1 4 2 1.0 2 2.0 0 0.0 5 10 5.1 2 2.0 8 8.3 6 7 3.5 6 5.9 1 1.0 7 2 1.0 0 0.0 2 2.1

TOTAL 198 100.0 102 100.0 96 100.0

TABLE 21 Average Number of Yarn Components Per Textile

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Ave. Number of Yarn Components No. % No. % No. %

1.0 1.49 21 17.7 4 5.7 17 35.4 1.5 - 1.99 9 7.6 3 4.2 6 12.5 2.0 - 2.49 68 57.1 53 74.7 15 31.3 2.5 - 2.99 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 2.1 3.0 - 3.49 5 4.2 2 2.8 3 6.2 3.5 - 3.99 7 5.9 3 4.2 4 8.3 4.0 - 4.49 2 1.7 1 1.4 1 2.1 4.5 - 4.99 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 2.1 5.0 - 5.49 2 1.7 2 2.8 0 0.0 6.0 6.49 3 2.5 3 4.2 0 0.0

TOTAL 119 100.0 71 100.0 48 100.0 123 The direction of twist was recorded for spun yarns and for spun components of multicomponent yarns. Twist direction refers to the direction of the trend to which the spiral of spun or twisted elements conform when held in a vertical direction (Emery, 1966). In S twist yarns the spiral conforms to the central portion of the letter S, or slants down to the right (\); while in Z twist yarns the spiral conforms to the central portion of the letter Z, or slants down to the left (/). This information is presented in Table 22. All of the components of the 2-ply yarns were spun in the opposite direction from the one in which they were plied. The spun singles for the Spiro and Ozark samples were spun equally in both directions; however, the plied yarns were plied in the Z (/) direction much more frequently than in the S (\) direction. This is especially true for the Spiro sample in which 82.2 % of the plied yarns were plied in the Z (/) direction; 63 % of the plied yarns from the Ozark sample were plied in the Z (/)direction. 124

TABLE 22 Direction of Y a m Twist

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample

Twist Direction No. %a No. % No. %

Final twist Single s (\) 7 50.0 4 50.0 3 50.0 z (/) 7 50.0 4 50.0 3 50.0 Plied s (\) 33 26.0 13 17.8 20 37.0 z (/) 94 74.0 60 82.2 34 63.0 Replied s (\) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 z (/) 2 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0

Comnonent twist Plied s (\) 94 74.0 60 82.2 34 63.0 z (/) 33 26.0 13 17.8 20 37.0 Replied s (\) 2 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 z (/) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

^ Percentages based upon totals in subcategories.

Only the final angle of twist in a yarn was measured, using a protractor under low magnification, and the average measurement was recorded. These measurements were classified as loose (less than 10 degrees), medium (10 to 25 degrees), tight (26 to 45 degrees), and crepe (more than 45 degrees). As can be seen in Table 23, the ply-twist angle for the plied yarns (84.8 % with 26 degrees or above) was greater than the angle of spin for the spun singles yarns (92.9 % below 26 degrees). 125

TABLE 23 Angle of Y a m Twist

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Twist Angle in Degrees No. %a No. % No. %

Final twist Single < 10 5 35.7 5 55.6 0 0.0 10 - 25 8 57.2 3 33.3 5 100.0 26 - 45 1 7.1 1 11.1 0 0.0 Plied 10 - 25 19 15.2 12 16.7 7 13.2 26 - 45 101 80.8 55 76.4 46 86.8 > 45 5 4.0 5 6.9 0 0.0 Replied 26 - 45 2 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0

Percentages based upon totals in subcategories.

Yarn diameters for the total sample range from 0.03 to 1.2 cm, with a mean value of 0.29 cm. Diameters were measured for the different yarns in a textile and for the components of the complex yarns; 79.4 % were less than 0.5 cm in diameter. Frequencies and percentages of these diameters are presented in Table 24. Table 25 presents the frequencies, along with the minimum, maximum and mean diameters, for each yarn classification. The mean diameter for the spun plied yarns from Spiro is 0.17 cm which is finer than the 0.30 cm from the Ozarks. 126

TABLE 24 Yarn and Y a m Component Diameters

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Diameter in centimeters No. % No. % No. %

0.00 - 0.09 24 11.5 22 19.3 2 2.1 0.10 - 0.19 57 27.3 51 44.7 6 6.3 0.20 - 0.29 37 17.7 16 14.0 21 22.1 0.30 - 0.39 35 16.7 10 8.8 25 26.3 0.40 - 0.49 13 6.2 2 1.4 11 11.6 0.50 - 0.59 22 10.5 9 7.9 13 13.7 0.60 - 0.69 5 2.4 2 1.4 3 3.2 0.70 - 0.79 5 2.4 0 0.0 5 5.3 0.80 - 0.89 3 1.4 0 0.0 3 3.2 0.90 - 0.99 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 1.0 1.00 - 1.09 6 2.9 2 1.4 4 4.2 1.10 - 1.19 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.20 - 1.29 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 1.0

TOTAL 209 100.0 114 100.0 95 100.0 127 TABLE 25 Average Yarn Diameter^

Number^ Minimum Maximum Mean

Total Unspun Single 3 0.05 0.10 0.67 Combined 23 0.15 0.90 0.53 Spun Single 16 0.03 0.50 0.21 Plied 124 0.05 0.80 0.23 Replied 2 0.25 0.50 0.38 Complex Wrapped core 22 0.30 1.20 0.66 Soiro Unspun Single 3 0.05 0.10 0.67 Combined 1 0.60 0.60 0.60 Spun Single 9 0.03 0.50 0.16 Plied 71 0.05 0.37 0.17 Replied 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 Complex Wrapped core 10 0.40 1.00 0.61 Ozark Unspun Single 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Combined 22 0.15 0.90 0.52 Spun Single 7 0.05 0.50 0.27 Plied 53 0.10 0.80 0.30 Replied 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 Complex Wrapped Core 12 0.30 1.20 0.71

^ Measurements given in centimeters. ^ N = 190, 95, 95. 128 Fibers When possible, fiber samples were obtained for analysis from each yarn set of a textile and each component of a complex yarn. Permission to remove samples was obtained from each of the three museums where the textiles were studied. The nine textiles that were not sampled included those which were framed in permanent frames, textiles which had been treated with adhesives, and individual textiles for which permission to sample was not granted. Some yarn sets or yarn components in the Spiro textiles (i.e. warp yarns in the twined tapestries, wefts and binders in the feather/fur wrapped textiles, and twining wefts in those textiles which have been previously described as "fringed skirts") were so disintegrated that sampling was not possible. A total of 44 yarn sets were not analyzed. Eighty-six fiber samples from Spiro and 111 fiber samples from the Ozarks were examined under the microscope. All of the samples were examined under bright field and polarized light at lOOX and 400X. The microscope used was an American Optical 10, Microstar Binocular Polarizing Microscope with 40X, lOOX, 400X and lOOOX capabilities. The 4OX and lOOOX magnifications were utilized as needed but not in all cases. Instrumentation to measure accurately the fiber diameters was not available; therefore, this attribute was not recorded for the present 129 study. The prepared microscopic slides, however, have been retained for further analysis. Because the use of multiple fiber types in spun yarns has been reported (King and Gardner, 1981), single fiber analysis was not considered to be appropriate. Extraneous fiber contamination was a consideration in the analysis. This contamination came from various sources, such as other textiles which were matted together in archaeological context or stored together after excavation and in some cases the various storage materials used (i.e. cotton batting). In an effort to maximize the identification of fiber variability and to minimize sample contamination, care was taken to examine the fiber samples from each yarn set under a lOX binocular microscope before mounting the selected small number of fibers on a glass slide. Scanning electron microscopy was performed, using a Cambridge Stereoscan 100, on a selected sample of fibers from textiles at the National Museum of Natural History and will be performed on additional samples in future research. The fibers were classified into the categories of animal (fur/hair and feathers) and vegetal (seed hair, bast, and hard fibers). Terminology relating to the classification of plant fibers is often confusing because some words have come to mean different things to those in the textile/fiber industry than to botanists. 130 The greatest confusion relates to those fibers obtained from the leaves, stems, or roots of plants. Commercially important fibers are generally classified as bast fibers, which are taken from the outer part of the stem of dicotyledonous plants, or as leaf fibers, which are taken from the leaf or leaf base of monocotyledonous plants. Bast fibers are often referred to as soft fibers and leaf fibers as hard fibers (Catling and Grayson, 1982) . Ethnographic and archaeological textiles often include fibers that are not important commercially and, therefore, these fibers have not been studied and described in the same detail as commercially important fibers. According to Emery's system (1966) , plant fibers are classified as seed and fruit hairs, leaf fibers, bast fibers, bark and root fibers, and miscellaneous fibers. Scholtz (1975) identified the plant fibers in textiles from Ozark bluff shelters as either bast or hard fibers. She defined bast fibers as being composed of flexible cells from the inner bark of plants and hard fibers as being composed of the comparatively stiff elongated cells from leaves and stems. Distinctive materials, such as corn shucks, were described separately. Schreffler (1988) refers to the differentiation of phloem, or bast fibers, and xylem fibers, found in leaf material, in her analysis of textile remains from Mound C of the Etowah Site. Schaffer (1981) classifies vegetable fibers as seed fibers; 131 bast or soft vegetable fibers; and leaf, structural, or hard vegetable fibers. In the present study, bast fibers were differentiated from hard fibers primarily on the basis of physical morphology and their appearance under polarized light microscopy. Under polarized light, the bast fibers appeared light with bright polarizing colors evident, which is indicative of the crystallinity of the bast fibers. The bast fibers were generally seen as round individual fibers or as bundles of round fibers. Dislocations and cross markings were frequently visible on the bast fibers. The hard fibers were primarily brown in color under polarized light and often were in the form of flat strips. In some instances the bast fibers were not completely separated from surrounding plant parts and both types of fibers were present and obviously from the same plant. Therefore, an additional category was made to indicate bast fibers which were still attached to their surrounding plant parts. In this study, seed hair fibers are defined as the unicellular fibers that surround and are attached to the seeds of certain plants. The only seed hair fiber identified was one example of what appears to be cotton from Spiro, which was classified on the basis of microscopic characteristics (i.e. the presence of convolutions and the flat ribbon-like appearance of the individual fibers). 132 Table 25 presents the classification break down of the fibers that were examined. Of the total of 166 fibers classified, 76 were from Spiro and 90 were from the Ozarks. There was a much higher percentage of animal fibers identified from Spiro (64.5 %) than from the Ozarks (14.4 %). Spun animal fibers, which were common among the textiles from Spiro, were not observed in the Ozark textiles. Only one example of a seed hair fiber (cotton) was identified in the Spiro sample (catalogue number A6- 39). Figures 6, 7, and 8 are SEM photomicrographs of hair fibers, bast fibers, and hard fibers.

TABLE 26 Fiber Classification

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Classification No. % No. % No. %

Animal Fur/hair 48 28.9 44 57.9 4 4.4 Feather 14 8.4 5 6.6 9 10.0 Vegetal Seed hair 1 0.6 1 1.3 0 0.0 Bast fiber 24 14.5 6 7.9 18 20.0 Hard fiber 61 36.8 17 22.4 44 48.9 Bast + hard 18 10.8 3 3.9 15 16.7 TOTALS 166 100.0 76 100.0 90 100.0 133

Figure 6. SEM photomicrograph showing scale patterns of hair fibers. Fibers are from the red wrapping yarns of catalogue number 423372-2718L. Photograph by Bruce D. Smith, courtesy of the National Museum of Natural History. 134

Figure 7. SEM photomicrograph of bast fiber bundles. Fibers are from the weft yarns of catalogue number 423225(a). Photograph by Bruce D. Smith, courtesy of the National Museum of Natural History. 135

1

Figure 8. SEM photomicrograph of finely shredded vegetal hard fibers. Fibers are from the warp yarns of catalogue number 423225(a). Photograph by Bruce D. Smith, courtesy of the National Museum of Natural History. 136 The degree of shredding or separation of the vegetal fibers (little or none, coarse, medium, fine) was noted in an effort to obtain information relating to fiber processing. Although measurements were not taken of the fibers, the degree of shredding was based partially on differences in relative size. Because the microscopic samples often had to be broken or separated to a greater degree than they were found in the yarns, the judgement of the degree of shredding was based upon an evaluation of the fibers in the yarns before they were sampled for microscopic examination. If the vegetal materials did not appear to have been processed beyond the initial removal from the plant source, then the degree of shredding was classified as "little or none". "Coarse" was the classification used when some separation of fibrous strips appeared to have taken place, and "medium" was the classification used when the vegetal material had been separated into thin narrow strips. "Fine" shredding was designated when the vegetal fibers had been separated into very fine narrow strips or when bast fiber bundles had been separated from their surrounding plant parts. The possible effects of degradation resulting in the present state of the fibers were also considered. Degradation may have caused the bast fiber bundles to separate into individual fibers and may have influenced the appearance of the degree of shredding in the hard fibers. 137 The number of vegetal fibers identified was much greater in the Ozark sample than in the Spiro sample, 78 as compared to 27. However, the percentages of fibers that were processed to the medium and fine states are similar, with a slightly higher percentage of fine fibers in the sample from Spiro. Feather processing was classified as either split quill, in which the quill or shaft of the feather is split and the barbs with downy barbules are still attached, or stripped quill, in which the barbs and downy barbules have been removed from the quill or shaft. All of the feathers used in the Ozark sample were split quill, but the Spiro sample was half split quill and half stripped quill. See Table 27 for the results of classification of fiber processing. Additional discussion of fiber processing is found in a following section on the production complexity index. Note was also made when different fibers were combined in a yarn. Of the 154 yarns sampled, 19 (12.3 %) were made up of more than one fiber type. For Spiro, 10 yarns (14.9 %) contained more than one fiber type and for the Ozark sample the number of yarns with more than one fiber type was 9 (10.3 %). 138

TABLE 21 Classification of Fiber Processing

Total Sample Spiro Sample Ozark Sample Classification No. %a No. % No. %

Vegetal shredding Little/none 2 1.9 2 7.4 0 0.0 Coarse 15 14.4 1 3.7 14 18.2 Medium 62 59.6 17 63.0 45 58.4 Fine 25 24.1 7 25.9 18 23.4 Feather Split quill 10 76.9 3 50.0 7 100.0 Stripped quill 3 23.1 3 50.0 0 0.0

^ Percentages based upon totals in subcategories.

Association of Specific Textile Attributes and Status A selected group of textile attributes (those which were most revealing about the textile as a whole and had a frequency count of 15 or higher) were assessed to determine the relative degree of association between the specific attribute and status designation. A series of contingency tables were created with rows and columns composed of status designation and attribute characterizations, respectively. Cramer's V ( p h i j .) was then calculated from the chi-square statistic for each contingency table. Because the status dimension for the tables was 2, Cramer's V is equal to the phi coefficient, which is generally used for 2 by 2 contengency tables. This statistic was used because chi-square itself is not a good measure of the 139 degree of association between two variables (Norusis, 1983). Phi and Cramer's V are measures of association based upon the chi-square statistic but the influence of sample size and degrees of freedom is minimized and the range of values of the measure is restricted to those between 0 and 1. This allows a comparison of relative strength of association between several tables. Twenty-two textile attributes were selected for this analysis. They are listed in Table 28 along with the corresponding number (sample size), chi-square value, degrees of freedom, alpha level (level of significance of the chi-square statistic), and phi'. The textile attributes are ordered in the table from highest to lowest phi' value; this order is reflective of the relative strength of association between the attributes and status designation. Those textile attributes with a 0.50 or above phi' value should be the most useful textile attributes as indicators of Caddoan status differentiation. These include source of color, application of color, the type of surface patterning technique, general color description, presence or absence of design motifs, fiber classification, characterization of design motif, and average fabric count (number of elements per square centimeter). Two textile attributes that should be considered as indicators of status differentiation and are not included on Table 26 are the presence of fringed and stitched edges. 140 All examples of textiles with fringe or stitched edges were recovered from Spiro. Because there was no variability, a chi-square statistic could not be computed and, therefore, they were not included in the table. However, the phi coefficient for complete association is 1.0, and these two attributes should be ranked at the top of the list based upon strength of association.

TABLE 28 Relative Association of Textile Attributes and Status

Attribute No. Chi2 D.F.a Sig.b Phi'

Color source 200 168.75 1 .001 .919 Color application 191 94.75 2 .001 .704 Surface pattern tech. 18 8.47 1 .005 .686 Color description 227 98.81 7 .001 .660 Design motif presence 109 46.75 1 .001 .655 Fiber class 165 61.69 5 .001 .611 Design motif type 42 15.54 11 NSC .608 Average fabric count 119 34.34 8 .001 .537 Interworking type 169 40.04 12 .001 .487 Average yarn twist 119 26.13 4 .001 .471 Ave. no. yarn components 119 24.54 5 .001 .454 No. str. pattern tech. 119 20.52 3 .001 .415 Ave. degree fiber proc. 119 19.30 2 .001 .403 Structural pattern tech. 217 33.89 13 .005 .395 No. str. variations 119 18.40 3 .001 .393 Number of colors 119 15.04 5 .025 .357 No. surf, pattern tech. 107 12.37 1 .001 .340 Yarn type 198 21.69 5 .001 .331 Number of yarn types 119 9.08 3 .05 .276 Number of fiber types 119 9.05 4 .1 .275 Motif placement 35 0.73 3 NS .144 No. sets of elements 169 0.28 1 NS .041

^ Degrees of freedom. ^ Alpha level for Chi^ statistic. ^ Not significant. 141 Production Complexity Index As stated earlier, the purpose of the textile production complexity index is to formalize and make explicit the ranking process used to differentiate the complexity and production costs of preindustrial textiles. This index was designed specifically for the analysis of archaeological textile remains from the southeastern United States, but its use, with some possible revisions or refinements, should be applicable to a wider range cf nonindustrial textiles (e.g. ethnographic textiles). Data from the textile attribute dimension form are used in the textile production complexity index (see Figure 10) which is a tally of points assigned for specific attribute dimensions. The index does not include values for procurement costs of fibers and dyes, differences in the original size of the textiles, or labor involved in the manufacture of tools or equipment used in textile production because this information is seldom known and difficult to estimate for archaeological textile remains. Neither is a measure of the amount of skill necessary for the execution of different textile processes included because this is difficult to objectify. However, based upon the evaluations of knowledgeable individuals in the textile field, the production complexity index is a valid method of ranking the number of decisions and the relative amount of labor involved in preindustrial textile 142 PRODUCTION COMPLEXITY INDEX FOR TEXTILE MANUFACTURE

Textile number Burial rank --

Scale average number cf elements per cm^ (1 = 0-4.9, 2 = 5-9.9, 3 = 10-14.9, 4 = 15-19.9, 5 = 20-24.9, 6 = 25-29.9, 7 = 30-34.9, 8 = 35-39.9, etc.) Patterning number of structural techniques (1 for each variation) number of added surface techniques (1 for each variation) Coloration number of differentiated colors (1 for each color) Yarn number of different yarn types (1 for each yarn type) average number of yarn components (1 for each yarn component) average amount of yarn twist (0 = none, 1 = <10 degrees, 2 = 10-25 degrees, 3 = 26-45 degrees, 4 = >45 degrees) Fiber number of different fibers used (1 for each fiber) average amount of fiber preparation or processing (1 = minimum, 2 = moderate, 3 = extensive, 4 = very extensive)

TOTAL VALUE

Figure 9. Production complexity index for textile manufacture. An ordinal scale index of the number of decisions and the relative amount of labor involved in pre-industrial textile manufacture. 143 manufacture. In all but the category of the amount of fiber preparation or processing, values are assigned for attributes which can be measured or counted objectively. The amount of fiber preparation or processing was estimated and ranked based upon the type of fibers utilized and other attributes of those fibers which are observable. In the textiles examined for this study, fiber attributes, which were recorded and influenced the ranking of the amount of fiber processing, were the degree of shredding or separation of vegetal fibers, the type of processing of feathers (split quill or stripped quill), the method of use of the fibers (unspun, spun, wrapped, or used in clumps), and the combining of different fibers in a yarn. The number of steps involved in the preparation of fibers for use in textiles vary from one fiber type to another. The processing of bast fibers to remove them from the surrounding plant parts involves minimally separating the outer bark from the woody stems, boiling or retting, beating or breaking, and separating the fiber bundles (Gustafson, 1980). Cedar bark and basswood are prepared similarly and would require stripping the bark from the trees and separating or shredding the bark into fine long strips (Wilson, 1969; L. Rippy, personal communication. May, 1988). If the bark is allowed to dry, it must be soaked to soften it during handling and is sometimes soaked 144 to facilitate the separation of the thin strips. Seed hair fibers (e.g. cotton) require minimally removing the fibers from the seeds and some initial preparation to make the fibers lie in such a way that they can be drafted during the spinning process; usually the fibers are beaten with sticks or switches to fluff them before spinning (Bird, 1979) . Animal hair fibers would require removing the fibers from the animal or pelt and some type of fluffing or arranging of the fibers before spinning; narrow strips of fur and skin (which may have been tanned) would need to be cut in order to be used as wrapping in complex yarns. Feathers either had the quills split and were used as wrapping around core yarns or the barbs were removed from the quills before they were used in yarn construction (bound in clumps to a core or spun). In the present study, the values assigned for the degree of fiber preparation or processing (1 to 3 or little, moderate, extensive) were rated with the higher number indicating increased processing. They were specified as follows: fur fibers, split feathers, and seed hair fibers were all rated 2; stripped feathers were rated 3; the ratings of bast fibers, hard fibers, and combinations of bast and hard fibers (bast which had not been separated from the surrounding plant parts) were rated according to the degree of shredding with no shredding or coarse shredding rated 1, medium shredding rated 2, and 145 fine shredding rated 3.

Ranking of Production Complexity The independent rankings of the panel of experts, who ranked specific textiles as a part of the instrument validity test, were compared with the rankings obtained using the textile production complexity index (see Chapter III and Appendix C) . The order of ranking by the panel of experts was the same when based upon the estimated amount of time necessary to produce the textiles and the estimated production complexity. This indicates that the panel felt that the complexity of a textile is highly associated with the amount of time necessary for its production. Five out of six of the panel's rankings matched the rankings based upon the complexity index. The two textiles which were ranked as the most complex were switched in the order of ranking by the panel and the complexity index. This may indicate that the more complex a textile is, the more difficult it is to make judgments concerning the amount of time involved in its production. As stated in the second research hypothesis, it was expected that textiles with higher production complexity index ranking would be associated with higher status burial ranking. Analysis of the textile production complexity index ratings was based upon two groups of textiles (the entire sample and the class of textiles described as narrow bands and braids). The narrow bands and braids were 146 analyzed separately as a means of controlling for size differences of the textiles in the total sample. The original widths of the narrow bands and braids ranged from 0.6 to 6.0 cm; lengths were not complete. See Appendix E for the complete listing of textile production complexity data and assigned textile values. Table 29 presents the mean production complexity values, and Figure 10 shows the frequency plots of production complexity index ratings for these two groups of textiles. Although the production complexity values for the Spiro textiles (high status) and the Ozark textiles (low status) do overlap, the frequency distributions differ for all of the textiles as well as for the narrow bands and braids. The mean values also differ for both textile groups. The difference between the mean production complexity values for Spiro and the Ozarks is greater for the narrow bands and braids (6.5) than it is for the entire sample (4.9). Both the frequencies and the mean values support the research hypothesis. Spearman's rho (rank correlation coefficient) was calculated as a means of measuring the relationship between the ranked production complexity index values and status designations. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for the total sample is 0.483, which indicates a moderately strong association between high status rank and high production complexity rank. The Spearman's rank 147 correlation coefficient for the category of narrow bands and braids is 0.782; this coefficient indicates a very strong positive association between the two variables. The higher correlation coefficient of this sub-group, which included only those textiles of a specific class or category, may indicate that the lower correlation of the total sample is at least partially due to the combinations of several different categories of textiles. However, both correlation coefficients indicate an association which supports the research hypothesis that textiles with higher production complexity index values occur in burial contexts of higher status.

TABLE 29 Production Complexity Index Values

Number Minimum Maximum Mean

All textiles Total 119 7.0 32.5 16.2 Spiro 71 12.5 32.5 18.1 Ozark 48 7.0 24.1 13.2 Narrow bands and braids Total 39 7.0 22.0 13.2 Spiro 22 13.0 22.0 16.0 Ozark 17 7.0 14.0 9.5 143

ALL TEXTILES

B

10 15 20 25 30

NARROW BANDS AND BRAIDS

10 15 20 25 30

Figure 10. Frequency plots of production complexity values. Plots represent the following groups of textiles: (A) Total sample, (B) Spiro sample, (C) Ozark sample, (D) Total narrow bands and braids, (E) Spiro narrow bands and braids, (F) Ozark narrow bands and braids. 149 Production Complexity and Burial Rank at Spiro It had been thought that a separate analysis of the textiles recovered from WPA excavations at Craig Mound, using the status ranks from Brown's (1971a) paradigm of burial types at Spiro (see Figure 3, Chapter II), would be revealing. This would serve as a measure of association between Brown's status ranks and production complexity values of the textiles recovered from particular burial types. Seventeen textiles from the WPA excavations were analyzed. This number was smaller than originally anticipated because not all of the textiles listed by Brown (1966b) were a part of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History's collections, some could not be located in the collections, and others which were located did not meet the sampling criteria of size and observable interworking of elements. Also, not all of the burials which had textile remains were given designations by Brown (1966b) that would allow them to be placed in the burial paradigm. Others included more than one burial type and it is not known which burial type contained the associated textile remains. As a result of all of the above, only six textiles in the sample could be associated with one of Brown's burial designations and two textiles were associated with more than one burial designation. These are as follows: 1st and 2nd rank (B155-14); 2nd rank (A6-24b, A6-39, B122-27); 2nd and 3rd rank (B51-18b); 3rd rank (A22-1, A22-lb, 150 A22-le). The mean textile complexity index values for the six textiles, which were clearly assigned, are 19.67 for the 2nd rank and 17.67 for the 3rd rank. This is consistent with the expected associations of higher production complexity ratings with higher status ratings; however the sample number is extremely small. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was also calculated for the same six textiles and for the eight textiles (using an average burial rank of 1.5 and 2.5 when more than one rank was designated). These correlations do not show a strong association. When the six textiles were evaluated, a positive correlation of 0.101, between higher complexity ratings and higher burial rank, was obtained; but when the eight textiles were evaluated, a negative correlation of -0.203 was obtained. This negative correlation was due to the fact that the textile given the highest burial rank (1.5) had the relatively low production complexity rating of 14. If the sample size could be increased by including textiles recovered during WPA excavations from other museum collections, then perhaps more meaningful results could be obtained. CHAPTER V SUMMARY f DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The research which has been presented here is exploratory in nature and presents one test of the premise that technical and contextual analyses of textile remains can yield information about the social and behavioral systems that produced them. Textile attributes and production complexity rankings of Caddoan textiles, an example from the late-prehistoric southeastern United States, were explored to determine if they are indicative of status differentiation within the Caddoan society. If this is so, then one more class of archaeological evidence would be established as being useful for making inferences about Caddoan, and perhaps other Mississippian, social and behavioral systems. This final chapter presents a summary and discussion of the research findings along with recommendations for directions of future research.

Textile Attribute Analysis The first research hypothesis, which stated that textile attributes or attribute clusters would vary according to the status level of the burial contexts, was supported. Based upon the findings presented in the

151 152 preceding chapter, certain textile attributes appear to be highly indicative of status differentiation within the prehistoric Caddoan society. As was expected, certain attributes (e.g., the number of sets of elements) were relatively consistent between the two status groups and would not serve as good indicators of status differenti­ ation and, therefore, would not provide a strong basis for making cultural inferences relating to social status. However, those textile attributes which remain consistent between the two status groupings are useful for defining or characterizing the Caddoan textile complex as a whole.

Summary of Caddoan Textile Attributes The following description of the Caddoan textile complex is based upon the analysis of textiles in burial context from Craig Mound at the Spiro site and selected Ozark bluff shelters. Twining with two sets of elements and oblique interlacing were the two most common Caddoan fabric structures identified, but twining with one set of elements and interlacing with two sets of elements were also present. Knotting and wrapping were found in minor frequencies only at Spiro. The most typical character­ istics of twined fabrics were spaced weft twining with two active elements working together and a one-half turn twining twist in the S direction spiraling around single passive elements. There were a greater variety of twining characteristics identified in the textiles from Spiro than 153 from the Ozarks. Both wide and narrow, and flat and round examples of oblique interlacing were identified from Spiro, but only narrow, flat oblique interlacing was identified from the Ozarks. The fabric count, or average number of elements per square centimeter, for the total sample ranged from 0.6 to 40.0 with a mean of 9.5. The average fabric count was higher for the textiles from the Spiro sample than from the Ozark sample with means of 12.8 and 4.7 elements per square centimeter, respectively. The spacing of wefts in open twined fabrics ranged from 0.1 to 10.0 cm with a mean of 1.8 cm. The mean weft spacing for the two subsamples are 1.4 cm for Spiro and 2.4 cm for the Ozarks. A variety of structural patterning techniques were identified, with a greater number of patterning techniques present in the Spiro sample. The most commonly occurring types of structural patterning techniques, listed in the order of the frequency of their occurrence, include the following: twining, interlacing, combining and/or recombining elements, combining colored elements, and irregular spacing of elements. All but one example of the combining of colored elements were identified in the Spiro sample. Resist dyeing was the most common type of surface patterning technique and was found only among the Spiro textiles. 154 Design motifs for Caddoan textiles include both geometric and figurai forms. Warp stripes were identified in both samples, but all other motifs were found only in the Spiro sample. These include, in order of frequency, bands, rectangles, circles, chevrons, squares, bird forms, diamonds, frets, half-circles, and human forms. The colors in Caddoan textiles were achieved by utilizing different colored fibers in their natural state as well as by adding colors through the use of dyes. Dyeing appeared to have been used only at Spiro and the dyes were applied at the fiber, yarn, and piece stages of textile production. The number of colors per textile fragment ranged from 1 to 6 in the Spiro sample but ranged only from 1 to 3 in the Ozark sample. Color designations included various blacks, grays, browns, reds, and yellows. The utilization of spun yarns and complex yarns was relatively consistent between the two subsamples of Caddoan textiles. However, the use of unspun yarns did vary, as the only examples of unspun single yarns occurred in the Spiro sample, and the majority of unspun combined yarns occurred in the Ozark sample. Two-ply spun yarns were the most frequently used yarn type with the diameters ranging from 0.05 to 0.80 cm; the mean diameter of two-ply yarns from Spiro was 0.17 cm as compared to 0.30 cm from the Ozarks. The direction of twist in spun single yarns from both subsamples was equally divided between S (\) and Z (/) 155 twists, but a Z-ply twist was used more frequently than an S-ply twist (74 % and 26 %, respectively) in the total sample. Fiber types used in Caddoan textiles included both animal (fur/hair, feather) and vegetal (seed hair, bast, hard) fibers. A higher percentage of animal fibers was identified in the Spiro sample (64.5 %) than in the Ozark sample (14.4 %), and spun animal fibers were found only from Spiro. The use of feathers was similar for both subsamples. Only one example of a seed hair fiber (cotton) was identified from Spiro. Hard fibers were utilized more frequently than bast fibers in both subsamples.

Explication of Textile Attribute Patterning One of the previously stated research objectives is to explicate attribute patterning and the relationship to social status. The degree of association between specific textile attributes and status was measured and ranked to determine which attributes would best serve as a basis for making cultural inferences. The following paragraphs present a discussion of the ten attributes with phi' values above 0.5, which are considered to indicate substantial association between variables. These attributes, listed in order of relative association with status rank, are: fringed edges, stitched edges, color source, color application, surface pattern technique, color description, presence of design motif, fiber class, type of design 156 motif, and average fabric count. The two attributes with complete association with high status are both types of edge finishes other than a selvage. Fringed edges are generally considered to be decorative in nature and require the use of additional amounts of yarn beyond that which is required for the body of the textile. Long fringes (like those present on the Spiro textiles) are visible from a distance and, therefore, would provide a possible means of visual communication of status. Fringes tend to emphasize body movement and, therefore, may have been an important part of dance or ceremonial costume. The two examples of stitched edges represented in the Spiro sample were very different. One would have been highly visible, since it was multi-strand and multi­ colored, and may have been done for decorative effects. The other would not be highly visible, because it was very fine and done with a yarn that matched the edge it stitched. The fine stitching would require the use of a fine needle or awl and may indicate a higher levels of technology, skill, and labor input. Three of the ten attributes relate to color. They are the source of color, application of color, and general description of color. The Spiro sample included textiles with colors that appeared to be both natural and added, but the Ozark sample did not include examples with added color. 157 The stage of application of color was related to some extent to the source of color, and since all natural colors were coded as the fiber stage, all of the colors from the Ozarks were designated as such. The color red, which was found only in Spiro textiles, was the attribute designation most influential in the association of color and status. Therefore, in this study, the attributes of added color, yarn dyed, piece dyed, and the color red have complete association with high status and could be used as indicators of status differentiation. Resist dying is the surface patterning technique associated exclusively with Caddoan textiles from high status context and can be logically related to the color attributes discussed above. The addition of color to a textile requires additional resources (e.g., dyes), knowledge, skill, and time. The technique of resist dyeing requires that the dyeing process be done in more than one step and involves a method of preventing the dye from being absorbed in some areas. The addition of color, especially the color red, would be highly visible. Unlike the colors of yellow and brown, the number of possible sources of red dye is limited in North America (Brunello, 1973), and its use may have been restricted to individuals of higher status. The presence and type of design motifs are attributes of Caddoan textiles that may also be indicative of status 158 differentiation. Over 95 percent of the textiles with design motifs present were from the Spiro sample. All design motifs other than warp stripes, which is perhaps one of the simplest forms of textile patterning, were also from the Spiro sample. Certain design motifs may serve as symbols and as a means of communicating status. This is particularly true of the recognizable figurai motifs from Spiro of a human form with a weeping or forked eye and of a bird form. These would be associated with the falcon impersonation cult that has been recognized as a feature of the Southern Cult (Brown, 1984a). General fiber classification is associated with status. Only one textile identified as being composed of seed hair fibers (cotton) was found at Spiro, and it is thought to have been a trade item, since there is no evidence of prehistoric cotton cultivation in the eastern United States. Thus, the possession of exotic textile goods may have been restricted to individuals of high status. There is also a difference in the use of fur fibers between the samples from the two status groups. Fur/hair fibers were used in nearly 60 percent of the Spiro textiles but in less than 5 percent of the Ozark textiles. There were no examples of spun fur from the Ozarks. The spinning of the short and relatively slippery fur fibers is more similar to cotton spinning than to the spinning of longer bast and hard vegetal fibers. The spinning of fur 159 fibers would be facilitated by the use of a spindle, which may or may not include a whorl. If a spindle was used, it could represent another technological advancement. Fabric count, or the number of elements per square centimeter, also appears to be associated with status designation. The mean average fabric count for the Spiro textiles is 12.8 and 4.7 for the Ozark textiles. The maximum fabric count for the Ozark textiles was 16.4, but 19 textiles from Spiro had a fabric count of 20 or more. Even though there were overlaps in the fabric counts of the textiles from high and low status contexts, high fabric counts (20 or more elements per square centimeter) could be used as an indicator of high status. Yarns must be fine in order to achieve high fabric counts, and the production of fine yarns may require increased processing of fibers and indicate a higher level of spinning skill. Also, the higher the fabric count, the greater the amount (length) of yarn that must be prepared. All of these factors involve increases in production time/costs. Other textile attribute characteristics, in addition to the ones discussed above, are found only in the Spiro sample. These include the presence of round braids, balanced 1/1 interlacing, wrapping, twined tapestry, the grouping of more than two elements, unspun singles yarns, more than three colors in a single textile, the color black in textiles that are not charred, and shell beads 160 incorporated into the fabric. No comparable sets of attribute characteristics were found in only the Ozark sample. Thus, it appears that all of the materials and technology available and utilized in low status contexts were also available and utilized in high status contexts. Brown, Bell, and Wyckoff (1978), when discussing the hierarchy in Caddoan ceremonial centers, refer to the principle that ranks or echelons in a hierarchy are defined by a cumulative set of component elements. In much the same way, the textiles from Craig Mound at Spiro (high status) have all of the features of the textiles from the Ozark bluff shelters (low status) plus additional features which make them distinctive. Similarities in some of the textiles and textile attributes from both high and low status Caddoan burial contexts support the statement made by Sibley and Jakes (in press) that high social value cannot be automatically assumed about a fabric recovered from a high status burial. They state that fabric traits, or attributes, should be used along with other information to make inferences about the fabric's function as a social regulator.

Textile Production Complexity Ranking The second research hypothesis, which stated that textiles with higher ranking on an ordinal index of relative production complexity in manufacture would occur 161 in burial contexts of higher status, was also supported. Production complexity values for the textiles analyzed from Spiro and from the Ozarks do overlap (see Figure 8, in Chapter IV) , but the lowest values on the complexity scale are from the Ozarks and the highest values are from Spiro. There is less overlap in complexity ratings between the two groups of textiles when textile size is controlled by analyzing narrow bands and braids separately. The mean production complexity values and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients also indicate that higher complexity ratings are associated with higher status burial context. There may also be a relationship for textiles similar to the one found by Feinman, Upham and Lightfoot (1981) for ceramics, which indicates that ceramics with high production step measures were found more at large centers, but ceramics with low production step measures were found at all sites. This is not completely supported by the sample examined in this study, but according to accounts of the commercial excavations, the more ordinary textiles from Craig Mound were not likely to have been saved. This would affect the results of the analysis; therefore, further research should investigate this possibility. Higher production complexity values are indicative of a greater number of decisions required in production and of higher production costs in the form of labor input. These 162 factors are thought to increase a textile's social value and thus are considered to be more related to high status than to low status. However, one observation that was made during the analysis of production complexity was that consistency or inconsistency in a textile affects the production complexity rating and may also relate to status. The following examples are given as an illustration of this point. A textile from Spiro (37-1-131) is made of spun fur which has been dyed red and tan. The two-ply yarn structure is the same for both warp and weft, 2 fabric structures are utilized, and fringe is present on the side. A textile from the Ozarks (32-34-61-02) incorporates 1 fabric structure, 4 yarn structures, 5 fibers, and 3 colors which have not been dyed. The textile from Spiro is consistent in its use of fibers and yarns, it appears to have been well planned and executed, and also is similar to other textiles from Spiro; its production complexity rating is 16. The textile from the Ozarks appears not to have been planned but to have been made from bits and pieces of available fibers and yarns. This inconsistency resulted in the highest complexity rating (24) for a textile from the Ozarks. This illustration is intended to point out that the textile production complexity index should be used as a tool for making comparisons, but should not be used in 163 isolation for inferring the status associated with a textile. Even though the textile from Spiro described above has a lower complexity index rating, it incorporates several attribute characteristics (i.e. spun fur, red dye, and fringe) which would indicate that it should be associated with high status. Another factor to be considered in the interpretation of production complexity values is the possibility of repairs to a textile. Repairs that are made to a textile using different yarn and or fiber types would increase the production complexity index value assigned to that textile. In the present study, repair yarns were included in the calculation of the production complexity index. However, the author now feels that it would be better to record information relating to textile repairs separately on the attribute form and not to include them in the textile production complexity index. This would assure that the production complexity index values would be indicative of original production costs and, thus, they would be comparable for textiles both with and without repairs.

Recommendations for Future Research As perishable artifacts, the survival rate of textiles in archaeological context is much lower than that of some other classes of artifacts such as lithics or ceramics. However, archaeological textile remains may in many ways be comparable to archaeobotanical remains, which are also 164 highly perishable. With the development of modern recovery and analytical techniques, studies of archaeobotanical remains (e.g. Fritz and Smith, in press) have revealed a great deal of information resulting in a better under­ standing of the use and domestication of plants through time in the eastern United States. As archaeologists develop an increased awareness of different types of textile evidence and as recovery and conservation techniques are improved, then more textile evidence will become available for analysis. Sophisticated analytical methods which can be applied to the study of textiles are continuing to be developed and refined. These analytical methods should be applied to the textile remains currently located in museum collections as well as to textile remains recovered in future excavations. An increase in the cooperation between archaeologists and textile specialists, similar to that between archaeologists and other specialists such as botanists or geologists, will increase the knowledge and information recovered from archaeological textile data. It is the opinion of this author that an important research goal, for both archaeologists and textile specialists, is the accumulation a coordinated or common body of data on prehistoric textiles in the eastern United States. The basic or minimum information to be recorded by analysts of archaeological textile remains should become 165 more standardized. All other types of textile evidence should continue to be studied (e.g. textile impressions, pseudomorphs after textiles, and representations of textiles in other art forms such as engravings and sculpture) in addition to organic remains. This coordinated body of knowledge could then form the basis of a better understanding of the use and importance of textiles in the prehistoric eastern United States, and also form the basis from which more meaningful cultural inferences could be made. The present study compared textile attributes and production complexity rankings between textiles from archaeological contexts designated as high status and low status within the same cultural tradition and the same general geographic region. Knowledge and understanding of textile production and use in the prehistoric eastern United States could be greatly expanded if additional studies of a similar nature were conducted. In addition to comparisons based upon social status differences within a single society, other types or levels of comparisons, should also be made (e.g. different age and sex associations in burial contexts, different contexts within a site, different types of sites within a settlement system, through time within the same geographical area, and between different geographical areas). One important example is the comparison of textile attributes and 166 production complexity rankings from sites which functioned similarly within the same cultural period but were located in different geographic regions, such as the Etowah and Spiro sites. Textile remains recovered from Hopewell mounds (ca. 300 B.C. - A.D. 300) should also be compared with those from Mississippian mounds to obtain information on similarities and changes over time. Experimental textile production studies are another type of research which could lead to the accumulation of important knowledge relating to prehistoric textile production. Replication of textiles would have been particularly revealing and useful in the development of the textile production complexity index utilized in the present study. Fiber samples should be collected from the wide range of fiber sources in the eastern United States for use as a comparative collection in the identification of prehistoric fibers. This collection should include fibers of different stages of maturity that have been processed to different degrees, using a variety of methods, as well as unprocessed fibers or fibrous materials. Both reflected light and scanning electron photomicrographs of these various identified fibers would serve as a valuable tool in the identification of fibers from archaeological textile remains. 167 Textile Attributes The textile attribute data collection form as it was developed for this research should be revised to further facilitate computer coding. Categories on the form may need to be revised or expanded in order to make it applicable to a wider variety of data sets. Not all of the data collected during this study of the Spiro and Ozark textiles have been included in the present analysis. Therefore, continued analyses are planned, such as more detailed studies of fibers and dyes. The qualitative data, which was not included in the computer coding, will also provide a basis for future research and study.

Textile Production Complexitv Index The textile production complexity index which has been developed for the present research should be refined and tested further in future studies. A major consideration in the development of the index was to make it applicable to archaeological textile remains. Therefore, the criteria used for ranking the textiles needed to be determinable from archaeological evidence. Another consideration in the development of the index was to make it as explicit and as objective as possible, so that the results obtained by different researchers on different data sets would be comparable. Simplicity and ease of use or application to data sets were also considered desirable qualities for the 168 index. A separate scale designed to rank the amount of fiber preparation and/or processing should be developed and applied to the textile production complexity index. This would help insure the reliability of the rankings and thus insure the reliability of the textile production complexity index. The ranking process would need to be based upon the fiber identification, fiber measurements (particularly measurements of the plant fibers that require breaking down or shredding to various degrees), and an estimated minimum number of steps required for processing. It may also be helpful to increase the number of possible rankings utilized in this study. There are also other considerations which could be taken into account when ranking the complexity of textiles; these include the types of tools utilized, the level of skill necessary, and the differential amount of time required for certain techniques. It may be possible to develop other ranking scales which would consider the stage of technological development and differences in the level bf skill and/or time required for different textile processes, structures, or techniques. Another application of the textile production complexity index to archaeological evidence would be to use specific portions of it in the analysis of fabric impressions. Values assigned to yarn characteristics 169 (number of different yarn types, average number of yarn components, average amount of twist), number of structural patterning techniques, and fabric count are often determinable from fabric impressions. This would provide a means of ranking complexity based upon those characteristics which are observable within a specific class of textile evidence. If the same set of values were calculated from the textile production complexity index that had been applied to organic textile remains, then it would also provide a means of comparing these two different classes of textile evidence. An example of how this could prove to be useful is in a comparison of textiles from Mississippian ceremonial or nonutilitarian contexts with textile impressions on Mississippian pottery, which would represent a utilitarian context.

Textile Sample Cultural association for textiles from the Ozark bluff shelters, if they cannot be accurately dated by other means, should be more definitely established using accelerator mass spectroscopy. This dating method requires that only a very small sample of the textile be sacrificed for the determination. Other collections of textiles from the Ozark bluff shelters and the Spiro site exist. If these textiles were also analyzed, it would increase the data set and should result in increased knowledge and accuracy in interpretation. 170

Conclusion The Caddoan culture, as a part of the greater Mississippian cultural tradition of the Eastern United States, was a complex society which included hereditary chiefs and a well developed class system. Archaeologists have used analyses of burial practices and pottery distributions as means of inferring status differentiation, and textiles and clothing have served as symbols of status in both prehistoric and historic societies. The present study demonstrates how textile attribute data and a measure of textile complexity can be used as indicators of Caddoan status differentiation. The insights gained from this study of two important bodies of textile data, is important in the continuing quest for a better understanding of the importance and use of textiles by prehistoric peoples of the eastern United States. LIST OF REFERENCES

Adair, J. (1930). History of the American Indians. S. C. Williams (Ed.), originally published in 1775. New York: Promontory Press. Anawalt, P. R. (1981). Indian clothing before Cortes. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Baerreis, D. A. (1947). Spiro focus basketry. The Museum of the University of Oklahoma, Information Series II. Norman, OK. Bell, R. E. (1947). Trade material at Spiro mound as indicated by artifacts. American Antiquity. 12(2), 181- 184. Bell, R. E. (1972). The Harlan site, a prehistoric mound center in Cherokee County, eastern Oklahoma. Oklahoma Anthropological Society. Memoir 2. Bell, R. E. (1984a). Arkansas Valley Caddoan: The Harlan Phase. In R. E. Bell, (Ed.), Prehistory of Oklahoma. New York: Academic Press. Bell, R. E. (Ed.). (1984b). Prehistory of Oklahoma. New York: Academic Press. Binford, L. R. (1971). Mortuary practices: Their study and potential. In J. A. Brown (Ed.), Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuary practice (pp. 6-29). Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology Memoirs, No. 25. Bird, J. B. (1968). Handspun yarn production rates in the Cuzco region of Peru. Textile Museum Journal. 2.(3) , 9- 16. Bird, J. B. (1979). Fibers and spinning procedures in the Andean area. In A. Rowe, Benson, & Schaffer (Eds.), The Junius B. Bird pre-Columbian textile conference. 13-17. Washington, DC: The Textile Museum.

171 172 Bohrnstedt, G. VI., & Knoke, D. (1982). Statistics for social data analysis. Itaska, II.: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. Bolton, H. E. (1987). The Hasinais, southern Caddoans as seen by the earliest Europeans. Edited by Russell M. Magnaghi. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Brown, J. A. (1966a). Soiro studies: Vol. 1. Description of the mound group. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Research Institute. Brown, J. A. (1966b). Spiro studies: Vol. 2. The graves and their contents. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Research Institute. Brown, J. A. (1971a). The dimensions of status in the burials at Spiro. In J. A. Brown (Ed), Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuarv practice (92-112). Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 25. Brown, J. A. (1971b). Introduction. In J. A. Brown (Ed.), Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuarv practice (pp. 1-5). Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 25. Brown, J. A. (1971c). Spiro studies: Vol. 3. Potterv vessels. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Research Institute. Brown, J. A. (1975). Spiro art and its mortuary contexts. In E. P. Benson (Ed.), Death and the afterlife in pre- Columbian America (pp. 1-32). Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections. Brown, J. A. (1976). Spiro studies: Vol. 4. The artifacts. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Research Institute. Brown, J. A. (1984a). Arkansas Valley Caddoan: The Spiro Phase. In R. E. Bell (Ed.), Prehistory of Oklahoma (pp. 241-263). New York: Academic Press. Brown, J. A. (1984b). Prehistoric southern Ozark marginalitv: A mvth exposed. Missouri archaeological society special publications. No. 6. Columbia, MO: Missouri Archaeological Society. Brown, J. A. (n.d.). Spiro Studies. Volume 5: Burials, chronology and overview. Norman, OK: Stovall Museum of Science and History, University of Oklahoma. 173 Brown, J. A., Bell, R. E., & Wyckoff, D. G. (1978). Caddoan settlement patterns in the Arkansas River drainage. In B. D. Smith (Ed.), Mississippian settlement patterns (pp. 169-200). New York; Academic Press. Brown, J. A., & Hamilton, W. H. (1965). Spiro and Mississippian antiquities from the McDannald collection. Houston, TX: Museum of Fine Arts. Brunello, F. (1973). The art of dveina in the history of mankind (B. Hickey, Trans.). Vicenza, Italy: Neri Pozza Editore (Original work published 1968). Burnett, E. K. (1945). The Spiro mound collection in the museum. Contributions of the Museum of the American Indian. Heve Foundation. 14. 48-68. Burnham, D. K. (1980). Warp and weft: A textile terminology. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. Byers, D. S. (1962a). The restoration and preservation of some objects from Etowah. American Antiquity. 28(2) . 206-218. Byers, D. S. (1962b). Two textile fragments and some copper objects from Etowah, Georgia. XXXV Conqreso International de Americanistes Mexico, Actas v Memorias. 1, 591-604. Catling, D., & Grayson, J. (1982). Identification of vegetable fibers. New York: Chapman and Hall. Carr, C., & Hinkle, K. (1984). A synthetic theory of artifact design applied to Ohio Hopewell weavings. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland, OR. Chapman, C. H. (1975). Archaeology of Missouri. I. Columbia: University of Missouri Press Chapman, C. H. (1980). Archaeology of Missouri. II. Columbia: University of Missouri Press Chapman, J. (1977) . Archaic period research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valiev. Report of Investigations No. 18. Knoxville, TN: Department of Anthropology, The University of Tennessee. Chapman, J., & Adovasio, J. M. (1977). Textile and Basketry Impressions from Icehouse Bottom, Tennessee. American Antiquity. 4^(4), 620-625. 174 Charlevoix, P. de (1966a). Journal of a voyage to North- America. Vols. I & II. Originally published in 1744, first English translation published in 1761. Readex Microprint. Church, F. A. (1983). An analysis of textile fragments from three Ohio Hopewell sites. Ohio Archaeologist. 33(1):10-15. Church, F. A. (1984). Textiles as markers of Ohio Hopewell social identities. Mid Continental Journal of Archaeology. 9, 1-25. Clarke, D. L. (1978). Analytical archaeology (rev. ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Clements, F. E. (1945). Historical sketch of the Spiro mound. Contributions of the Museum of the American Indian, Heve Foundation. 14, 48-68. Crane, H. R., & Griffin, J. B. (I960). University of Michigan radiocarbon dates V. Radiocarbon. 2, 31-48. Crowfoot, G. M. (1974). Methods of hand spinning in Egypt and the Sudan. Reprinted from the original Bankfield Museum Notes. (Second series) 12., 1931, Halifax, England. Bedford, England: Ruth Bean. Dan River. (1980). A dictionary of textile terms. (13th ed.). New York: Author. Dellinger, S. C. (1932). Original unpublished field notes from the Ozark bluff shelters, on file at the University of Arkansas Museum, Fayetteville. Dellinger, S. C. (1936). Baby cradles of the Ozark bluff dwellers. American Antiguitv. 1, 197-214. Dellinger, S. C., & Dickson, S. D. (1942). Pottery from the Ozark bluff shelters. American Antiguitv. 2, 276- 318. Dunsmore, S. (1985). The nettle in Nepal, a cottage industry. Tolworth Tower, Surbiton: Land Resources Development Centre. Du Pratz, M. L. (1972). The history of Louisiana, or of the western parts of Virginia and Carolina. (T. Becket, Trans.), originally published in 1774. Baton Rouge, LA: Claitor's Publishing Division. 175 Emery, I. (1966). The primary structures of fabric. Washington, DC: The Textile Museum. Feinman, G. M. (1980). The relationship between administrative organization and ceramic production in the valley of Oaxaca. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. City University of New York, New York. Feinman, G. M. (1985). Changes in the organization of ceramic production in prehistoric Oaxaca, Mexico. In B. A. Nelson (Ed.), Decoding prehistoric ceramics (pp. 195- 223). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Feinman, G. M . , Upham, S., & Lightfoot, K. G. (1981). The production step measure: An ordinal index of labor input in ceramic manufacture. American Antiguitv. ^(4) , 871- 884. Fran^emont, E. M. (1986). Cloth production rates in Chincerno, Peru. In A. P. Rowe (Ed.), The Junius B. Bird conference on Andean textiles (pp. 309-338). Washington, DC: The Textile Museum. Fritz, G. J. (1986). Mounds in northwest Arkansas: A more positive approach to the late prehistory of the Ozarks. In G. Sabo (Ed.), Contributions to Ozark prehistory (pp. 49-54). Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 27. Fayetteville, AR. Fritz, G. J., & Smith, B. D. (in press). Old collections and new technology: Documenting the Domestication of Chenopodium in eastern North America. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology. Gardner, J. S. (1979). Pre-columbian textiles from Ecuador: Conservation procedures and preliminary study. Technology and Conservation. 4(1), 24-30. Gardner, J. S. (1980). Conservation of fragile specimens from the Spiro mound. Le Flore county. Oklahoma. Contributions from the Stoval Museum, No. 5. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. Gayton, A. H. (1961). The cultural significance of Peruvian textiles: Production, function, aesthetics. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers. No. 25. Goodell, G. (1968). A Study of Andean spinning in the Cuzco region. Textile Museum Journal. 2.(3) , 2-8. 176 Griffin, J. B. (1952). An interpretation of the place of Spiro in southeastern archaeology. Missouri Archaeologist. 14. 89-106. Griffin, J. B. (1967). North American archaeology: A summary. Science. 156. 175-191. Gustafson, P. (1980). Salish weaving. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Hamilton, H. W. (1952). The Spiro mound. Missouri Archaeologist. 14, 18-88. Hamilton, H. W., Hamilton, J. T., & Chapman, E. F. (1974). Spiro mound copper. Missouri Archaeological Society Memoir No. 11. Columbia, MO. Harrington, M. R. (1924) . The Ozark bluff-dwellers. American Anthropologist. 26, 1-21. Harrington, M. R. (1960) . The Ozark bluff-dwellers. Indian Notes and Monographs, Volume XII. New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. Hinkle, K. A. (1984). Ohio Hopewell textiles: A medium for the exchange of social and stylistic information. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. Hoffman, M. J. (1978). Conservation systems for the Spiro textiles. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. Holmes, W. H. (1884). Prehistoric textile fabrics of the United Stated derived from impressions of pottery. Third Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, (pp. 393-425). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Holmes, W. H. (1896). Prehistoric textile art of the eastern United States. Thirteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, (pp. 3-46). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Holmes, W. H. (1901). Use of pottery making and embellishment. American Anthropologist. 3{3), 397-403. Holmes, W. H. (1903). Aboriginal pottery of the eastern United States. Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology fl898-991■ 20, 1-237. 177 Howard, J. H. (1968). The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex and its interpretation. Missouri Archaeological Society Memoir, No. 6. Columbia, MO. Hughes, J. T. (1974) . Prehistory of the Caddoan-speaking tribes. In D. A. Horr (Ed.), Caddoan Indians III. New York: Garland Publishing. Kaiser, S. B. (1984). Toward a contextual social psychology of clothing: A synthesis of symbolic interactionist and cognitive theoretical perspectives. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 2, 1-8. Kaiser, S. B. (1985). The social psychology of clothing and personal adornment. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Kay, M. (1986). Caddoan mound construction chronologies of the western Ozark Highland, Arkansas. In G. Sabo (Ed.), Contributions to Ozark prehistory (pp. 76-79). Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 27. Fayetteville, AR. Kent, K. P. (1957). The cultivation and weavingof cotton in the prehistoric southwestern United States. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 47, (Part 3). Kent, K. P. (1983). Prehistoric textiles of the southwest. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico, Sante Fe School of American Research. King, M. E. (1975). Archaeological textiles. InP. L. Fiske (Ed.), Archaeological Textiles. Proceedings from the Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles, (pp. 9- 16). Washington, D.C.: The Textile Museum. King, M. E. (1978). Analytical methods and prehistoric textiles. American Antiguitv. 43. 89-96. King, M. E. & Gardner, J. S. (1981). The analysis of textiles from Spiro mound, Oklahoma. In A. E. Cantwell, J. B. Griffin, & N. A. Rothschild (Eds.), The research potential of anthropological museum collections (pp. 123- 139). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 376. Knight, J. V., Jr. (1986). The institutional organization of Mississippian religion. American Antiguitv. ^(4), 675-687. Kuper, H. (1973). Costume and identity. Comparative studies in society and history. i5(3), 348-367. 178

Kuttruff, J. T. (1986). Use and manufacture of prehistoric textiles as evidenced in Mississippian period fabric impressed pottery. Proceedings of the National Meeting of the Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing. 125. Kuttruff, J. T., & Kuttruff, C. (1986). Mississippian textile evidence in fabric impressed ceramics from Mound Bottom (40CH8), Tennessee. In J. B. Petersen (Ed.), Approaches to the study of fiber perishables; Case studies from Eastern North America. Accepted for publication. Larson, L. H. (1971). Archaeological implications of social stratification at the Etowah site, Georgia. In J. A. Brown (Ed.), Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuarv practice (pp. 58-67). Memoir for the Society for American Archaeology, No. 25. Lewis, T. M. & Kneberg, M. (1946). Hiwassee Island. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Mead, G. H. (1934) . Mind, self, and society. Chicago. IL: The University of Chicago Press. Miner, H. (1936). The importance of textiles in the archaeology of the eastern United States. American Antiguitv. 1, 181-192. Munsell Soil Color Charts. (1975). Baltimore, MD: Munsell Color, Macbeth a Division of Kollmorgen Corporation. Murra, J. V. (1962) . Cloth and its function in the Inca state. American Anthropologist. 64. 710-723. Nelson, C. N. (1986). A methodology for examining ancient textiles and its application to VI-XIX century textiles from Akhim. Egypt. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Neuman, R. W. (1984). An Introduction to Louisiana archaeology. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. Norusis, M. J. (1983). Introductory statistics guide. SPSSX. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 179 Peebles, C. S. (1971). Moundville and surrounding sites: Some structural considerations of mortuary practices II. In J. A. Brown (Ed.), Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuarv practice, (pp. 68-91). Memoirs for the Society for American Archaeology, No. 25. Phillips, P. & Brown, J. A. (1975-1982). Pre-Columbian shell engravings from the Craig mound at Spiro. Oklahoma (Vols. I-VI). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Rachlin, C. K. (1958). Historical reconstruction from fossil fabrics at Angel Mounds Site. Indiana History Bulletin. 15(6), 69-79. Rachlin, C. K. (1960). The historic position of the Proto- Cree textiles in the eastern fabric complex, an ethnological-archaeological correlation. Contributions to Anthropology 1958. National Museum of Canada. Bulletin 167. (pp. 80-89). Ottawa: Queen's Printer. Roach, M. E., & Eicher, J. B. (1973). The visible self: Perspectives on dress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. Roach, M. E . , Musa, K. E. (1980). New perspectives on the historv of western dress. New York: NutriGuides, Inc. Rohrbaugh, C. L. (1984). Arkansas Valley Caddoan: Fort Coffee and Neosho Foci. In R. E. Bell (Ed.), Prehistory of Oklahoma (pp. 265-285). New York: Academic Press. Rowe, A. P. (1984). Costumes and featherwork of the Lords of Chimor. Washington, DC: The Textile Museum. Sabo, G. , III. (1986a). Preliminary excavations at the Huntsville Site: A Caddoan civic-ceremonial center in northwest Arkansas. In G. Sabo (Ed.), Contributions to Ozark prehistory (pp. 55-76). Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 27. Fayetteville, AR. Sabo, G., III. (Ed.). (1986b). Contributions to Ozark prehistory. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 27. Fayetteville, AR. Sabo, G., III, & Farley, B. (n.d.). Overview of the Southwest District for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Unpublished manuscript on file in the Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Schaffer, E. (1981). Fiber identification in ethnological textile artifacts. Studies in Conservation. 26. 119-129. 180

Schevill, M. B. (1986). Costume as communication. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Schneider, J., & Weiner, A. B. (1986). Cloth and the organization of human experience. Current Anthrooolocrv, 27(2), 178-184. Scholtz, S. C. (1975). Prehistoric plies: A structural and comparative analysis of cordage, netting, basketry, and fabric from Ozark bluff shelters. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 9. Fayetteville, AR. Schreffler, V. L. (1988). Burial status differentiation as evidenced by fabrics from Etowah Mound C. Georgia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus. Secord, P. P., & Blackman, C. W. (1964). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Seiler-Baldinger, A. (1976). Problems of textile classifi­ cation. In I. Emery & P. Fiske (Eds.), Ethnographic textiles of the Western Hemisphere. Proceedings from the Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles (pp. 85-86). Washington, DC: The Textile Museum. Seiler-Baldinger, A. (1979). Classification of textile technigues. Ahmedabad, India: Calico Museum of Textiles. Sibley, L. R. (1981). Coptic textiles at the Nelson Gallery of Art, Kansas City: A stylistic and structural analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia. Sibley, L. R. (1986). Use of pseudomorphic evidence inthe reconstruction of ancient fabric technologies. In J. S.. Olin and M. J. Blackman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th international archaeometry symposium. 153-163. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Sibley, L. R. & Jakes, K. A. (1986). Characterization of selected prehistoric fabrics of southeastern North America. In H. L. Needles & S. H. Zeronian (Eds), Historic textile and paper materials conservation and characterization. 253-275. Advances in Chemistry Series 212. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Sibley, L. R., & Jakes, K. A. (in press). Etowah textile remains and cultural context: A model for inference. The Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 181

Sibley, L. R. , Jakes, K. A., & Larson, L. H. (1985). An Etowah fabric incorporating feather: Inferring behavior and function from direct fabric evidence. In J. B. Petersen (Ed.), Approaches to the study of fiber perishables: Case studies from eastern North America. Accepted for publication. Smith, B. D. (1986). Archaeology of the southeastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500-500 B.P. In Advances in world archaeology. Vol. 5 . (pp. 1-92). New York: Academic Press. Storm, P. (1987). Functions of dress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Sudman, S. (1976). Applied sampling. New York: Academic Press. Swanton, J. R. (1911). Indian tribes of the lower Mississippi valley and the adjacent coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, No. 43. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Swanton, J. R. (1931). Source material for the social and ceremonial life of the Choctaw indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin. No. 103. WAshington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Swanton, J. R. (1942). Source material on the history and ethnology of the Caddo indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin. No. 132. Washington, B.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Swanton, J. R. (1946). The indians of the southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, No. 137. Washington, B.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Thomas, R. A. (1969). Breckenridge: A stratified shelter in northwest Arkansas. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Trowbridge, (1938). Analysis of Spiro Mound textiles. American Antiguitv. 4, 51-52. Upham, S., Lightfoot, K. G., & Feinman, G. M. (1981). Explaining socially determined ceramic distributions in the prehistoric plateau southwest. American Antiguitv. 46(4), 822-833. Vreeland, J. (1977). Ancient Andean textiles, clothes for the dead. Archaeology. 30. 167-178. 182

Vreeland, J. M. (1986). Cotton spinning and processing on the Peruvian North Coast. In A. P. Rowe (Ed.), The Junius B. Bird conference on Andean textiles (pp. 363- 383). Washington, DC: The Textile Museum. Wallace, D. T. (1975). The analysis os weaving patterns: Examples from the early periods in Peru. In P. L. Fiske (Ed.), Archaeological Textiles. Proceedings from the Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles, (pp. 101-116). Washington, DC: The Textile Museum. Wallace, D. T. (1979). The process of weaving development on the Peruvian coast. In A. P. Rowe, E. P. Benson, & A.Schaffer (Eds.), The Junius B. Bird pre-Columbian textile conference (pp. 27-50). Washington, DC: The Textile Museum & Dumbarton Oaks. White, E. P. (1987). Excavating in the Field Museum: Survey and analysis of the 1891 Hopewell Mound Group Excavation. Unpublished master's thesis, Sangamon State University, Springfield, IL. Whitford, A.C. (1941). Textile fibers used in eastern aboriginal North America. Anthropological Papers, The American Museum of Natural History. (part 1), 5. Wilder, C. G. (1951). Kincaid textiles. In F. Cole (Ed.), Kincaid a prehistoric Illinois metropolis (pp. 366-376). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Willey, G. R. (1966). An introduction to American archaeology. Vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. Willey, G. R . , & Phillips, P. (1958). Method and theory in American archaeology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Williams, S. (1977). The Warring papers: The collected works of Antonio J. Waring. Jr. (rev. ed.). Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Willoughby, C. C. (1917). The art of the great earthwork builders of Ohio. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1916. pp. 489-500. Washington, DC. Willoughby, C. C. (1932). In W. K. Moorehead (Ed.), Etowah Papers. (pp. 7-66). New Haven, CT: Yale University. 183 Willoughby, C. C. (1938). Textile fabrics from the burial mounds of the great earthwork builders of Ohio. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly. 47. 273-287. Willoughby, C. C. (1952). Textile fabrics from the Spiro mound. In H. H. Hamilton (Ed.), The Spiro mound (pp. 107-125). The Missouri Archaeologist 14, Columbia. Wilson, P. (1969, Summer). Cedar bark a versatile natural weaving material. Handweaver and Craftsman, pp. 7 and 38. Wobst, H. M. (1977). Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In C. E. Clealand (Ed.), For the director: Research essays in honor of James B. Griffin (pp. 317- 342). Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 16. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Wood, W. R. (1963). Breckenridge Shelter - 3CR2: An archaeological chronicle in the Beaver Reservoir Area. Arkansas Archaeology 1962. pp. 66-96. Wyckoff, D. G. (1974). The Caddoan cultural area: An archaeological perspective. In D. A. Horr (Ed.), Caddoan Indians I (pp. 25-279). New York: Garland Publishing. APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF TEEMS AND METHODS OF ATTRIBUTE DETERMINATION

184 185 DEFINITION OF TERMS AND METHODS OF ATTRIBUTE DETERMINATION

Methods of attribute determination VIS - visual or macroscopic examination STM - stereomicroscopic examination BFM - bright field microscopy PLM - polarized light microscopy SEM - scanning electron microscopy Note: Definitions of fabric and yarn structure classifications are derived from Emery (1966) whenever possible. Order of definitions is based upon order of occurrence in the attribute dimension form (Appendix B). Fabric dimensions - VIS Length - warp direction if identifiable, otherwise designated as A direction. Width - weft direction if identifiable, otherwise designated as B direction. Fabric structure - VIS, STM Element - a component part or unit of the structure of an interworked fabric. Set of elements - a group of components all used in a like manner. Twining - fabric structure in which one set of active elements spiral or turn about each other, enclosing successive elements of the other passive set in each turn. Spaced twining - twining in which the rows of active twining elements are spaced more than the diameter of the twining elements apart. Compact twining - twining in which the rows of active twining elements are spaced no more than the diameter of the twining elements apart. Warp twining - twining in which the lengthwise set of elements is the active twining or spiraling set. Weft twining - twining in which the crosswise set of elements is the active twining or spiraling set. S twining twist - twining in which the direction of the twining twist, when the active elements are held in a vertical position, conforms to the slant of the central portion of the letter S; (\) slants down to the right. 186 Z twining twist - twining in which the direction of the twining twist, when the active elements are held in a vertical position, conforms to the slant of the central portion of the letter Z; (/) slants down to the left. Inverted twining twist - twining in which the direction of twining twist is changed at intervals along twining groups. Countered twining twist - twining in which the direction of the twining twist is changed in each successive twining group. Reversed twining twist - twining in which the direction of the twining twist is changed at intervals across the fabric instead of in successive twining groups. Diverted passive elements - twining in which certain passive elements cross over others which retain their normal positions and courses; the crossing is not equalized and the faces of the structure are dissimilar. Transposed passive elements - twining in which certain passive elements are interchanged (when those diverted in one direction always cross others oppositely diverted); the crossing can be described as reciprocal and the two faces of the structure are identical. Interlinked passive elements - twining in which passive nontwining elements are joined with a simple link connection between groups of active twining elements. Alternate paired passive elements - twining in which the active elements enclose two passive units at a time in a pairing that alternates from one active group to the next. Interlacing - interworking of elements in which each element passes under or over other elements that cross its path. Plain balanced - fabric structure in which the interlacing elements consistently pass over-one, under-one, and the elements are equally spaced and approximately equal in size and flexibility. Plain unbalanced - fabric structure in which the interlacing elements consistently pass over-one, under-one, but the elements are either not equally spaced or not equal in size or flexibility. Thus one set of elements is predominant. Multipie-element units - fabric structure in which the interlacing elements are not used singly. Float - interlacing which deviates regularly from the consistent alternation of plain interlacing and results in a float or skip. 187 Twill - a float fabric structure which is characterized by a diagonal alignment of floats; the numerical designation of a twill gives its basic float-span ratio. Wrapping - winding around or encircling, may be done with two single elements or with sets of elements. Knotting - interlacing of one or more flexible bodies forming a lump or knob. Scale - VIS, STM Fabric count - the fineness or coarseness of a textile as indicated by the number of elements per square centimeter. Spacing of elements - average measurement from the center of one element to center of adjacent element of the same set, measured in centimeters. Edge treatment - VIS, STM Selvage - either a longitudinal or transverse edge of a textile closed by loops where elements change direction of movement (weft or warp loops respectively in fabrics composed of two or more sets of elements). Fringe - edge finish consisting of hanging straight or twisted yarns. Hem - edge finish where fabric is folded back and stitched down. Stitched - finish where stitches over-sew the edge of a textile but the fabric is not folded back. Patterning - VIS, STM Tapestry - the use of discontinuous wefts to create a pattern; generally in a weft-faced fabric. Painted - the application of colored pigment to the surface of a textile. Resist dyed - patterning of yarns or textile by covering certain areas before dyeing begins or between successive dye baths. Embroidered - decorative stitches applied to fabric after it is constructed; generally done with a needle or needle-like tool (awl). 188 Coloration - VIS Number of colors - number of differentiated colors which appear to have been intentional on the part of the original textile producer. Standard color designation - Munsell system of designation for the three variables of hue, value, and chroma; made by visual comparison in natural daylight to color chips in the Munsell Soil Color Chart (1975 edition). Natural source - color which occurs naturally in the fibers used. Added source - color which has been altered by the textile producer. Color application - VIS, STM Fiber - color added before fibers are spun into yarns. Y a m - color added to yarns before fabric is constructed. Piece - color added to fabric after it is constructed. Yarn structure - VIS, STM Yarn - any assemblage of fibers or filaments which has been put together into a continuous strand suitable for weaving or other fabric construction. Spun y a m - fibers of limited length that have been drawn and twisted together into a continuous strand. Spun single - the simplest unit of spun fibers that is suitable for fabric construction. Spun plied - yarn formed by twisting together two or more spun single yarns. Spun replied - yarn formed by twisting together two or more spun plied yarns. Spun combined - yarn composed of two or more spun yarns used as a unit but not twisted together. Complex - yarn which is formed of dissimilar parts or is intentionally not uniform in size, color or surface. Twist direction - direction of the trend to which the spiral of spun or twisted elements conform when held in a vertical position. S twist - spiral of elements conform to the central portion of the letter S; (\) slants down to the right. Z twist - spiral of elements conform to the central portion of the letter Z; (/) slants down to the left. Angle of twist - the average angle that the slant of the twist makes with the vertical axis of the yarn; measured with a protractor under the stereo microscope. Loose - angle measures less than 10 degrees. Medium - angle measures from 10 to 25 degrees. Tight - angle measures from 26 to 45 degrees. Crepe - angles measures more than 45 degrees; yarn is inclined to twist back on itself. 189 Fibers Fiber identification - BFM, PLM, SEM Animal Fur/hair - external outgrowth of the epidermis of a mammal. Feather - epidermal outgrowth that forms an external covering of the body of a bird. Vegetal Seed hair - unicellular fibers that surround and are attached to the seeds of certain plants. Bast fibers - fibers composed of flexible cells from the inner bark of plants. Hard fibers - comparatively stiff elongated cells from leaves and stems of plants. Combination - bast fibers still attached to their surrounding plant parts (hard fibers). Type of processing Shredding - to cut, tear, or separate into long narrow strips. Degree of shredding of vegetal fibers Little or none - vegetal materials are not processed further than as they are removed from plant. Coarse - some separation of vegetal materials into strips after having been removed from plant. Medium - vegetal material have been separated into thin narrow strips. Fine - vegetal fibers have been separated into very narrow fine strips or bast fiber bundles have been separated from surrounding plant parts. Category of Primary Function - VIS Utilitarian - artifacts with which man copes with the physical environment and manipulates the material sphere of technology and economics. Nonutilitarian - artifacts which function primarily in the societal and ideational spheres of the cultural system; serve primarily as vehicles which express values, ideas, beliefs, social relations, and spiritual beings. APPENDIX B TEXTILE ATTRIBUTE DIMENSION FORM

190 191

TEXTILE ATTRIBUTE DIMENSIONS © 1987 Jenna Tedrick Kuttniff

C photo __ , B&W photo , F samp , D samp __ , Card __ , Color__

Date ______CODE Researcher ______Museum Textile number _____ Artifact number______Site number______storage location______Burial rank______Provenience ______Fabric Dimensions Fabric specimen dimensions in cm Length or "A" direction _____ Width or "B" direction _____ Number of original identifiable dimensions (none, length, width, both length & width)______Fabric Structure Number of structural variations within fabric specimen (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or more)______* Additional information needed for each structural variation Scale Average fabric count (PCI) Average number of elements per cm^ ______PCI value = 1 point for each 5 elements per cm^ _____ -Additional information needed for each structural variation Edge Treatment Selvage Number of selvages present and visible (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) ______Type of selvage (specify) (none, 1 starting/ending selvage, 1 side selvage, 1 end & 1 side, l end & 2 sides, 2 ends & 2 sides, 2 ends & 1 side) Fringe Number of fringed edges (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) Type of fringe (cut, uncut, knotted, corded, plied, other ______(part of fabric, attached) Hem Number of hemmed edges (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) Type of hem (specify) ______Stitched Number of stitched edges (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) Type of stitches (specify) ______Other (specify) ______Indeterminate 192 Artifact number ______Patterning Structural patterning (PCI) Number of structural patterning techniques (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ____ )______Types of structural patterning techniques (twining, tapestry, interlacement, irregular spacing of elements, combining &/or recombining elements, separating elements, combining colored elements, combining y a m types, twined outlines, knotting, wrapping, other ______, indeterminate) _____ Surface patterning (PCI) Number of added surface pattern techniques (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ____ , indeterminate)______Types of surface techniques (painted, resist dyed, embroidered, added elements, other ______, indeterminate) _____ Design Design motifs (absent, present, indeterminate) _____ Placement of motifs (overall, border, centered, bands, other______, indeterminate) _____ Pattern repeat Number ______Location . ___ Characterization of motifs Geometric (bands, stripes, circles, squares, rectangles, diamonds, chevrons, other ______) Figurai (bird form, human form, other______) Indeterminate Coloration Dumber of colors (PCI) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ____ ) * Additional information needed for each color Yam Structure Number of different y a m types (PCI) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or more) Average number of y a m components (PCI) ______Average angle of twist in degrees (PCI) * Additional information needed for each y a m type Fibers Number of fiber types (PCI) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ____ ) Average amount of preparation/processing (PCI) (little or none, moderate, extensive) * Additional information needed for each fiber type 193 Artifact number ______Function Category of primary function (utilitarian, nonutilitarian, indeterminate) Type of item Clothing (mantle/cape, skirt/kilt, headdress, breech cloth, belt/sash, footwear, other______) Narrow band Container Other (specify) ______Indeterminate Additional Information References in literature:

Photo references:

Condition report:

Description and shape:

Comments: 194 Fabric Structure * Information needed for each structural variation Artifact number Structural variation number ____ Location of structural variation Number of sets of elements (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ____ , indeterminate) Type of interworking Twining Type of twining (spaced, compact, combination of S & C) Direction of twining elements (warp, weft, both warp and weft, indeterminate) Direction of twining twist (S, Z, inverted, countered, reversed, indeter.) Number of active elements working together (2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or more, indeterminate) Amount of twining twist (1/2, 1, 1 1/2, 2, other ____ , indeterminate) Number of passive elements working together (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ____ , 1+2, other ______indeterminate) Movement of passive elements (none, diverted, transposed, interlinked, alternate paired, other______, indeterminate) Interlacing Plain Balanced Unbalanced (warp faced, weft faced, indeterminate) Number of strands/yarns working together (1/1, 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 3/3, 4/4, other____ indeterminate) Regular floats (twills) (2/1, 3/1, 2/2, 2/3, 3/3, 4/4, other ______indeterminate) Irregular floats Specify ______other (specify) ______Indeterminate

Additional comments: 195 Scale * Information needed for each structural variation Artifact number ______Structural variation number ______Location of structural variation _____ Spacing of elements in cm Distance between warps ______Distance between wefts ______Distance between additional elements Distance between element set A _____ Distance between element set B _____ Distance between element set C _____ Number of elements per cm warps ______wefts ______element set A ______element set B ______Fabric count (PCI) Total number of elements per cm^

Additional comments: 196 Coloration * Information needed for each color Artifact number ______Color number ______Location of color Standard color designation ______Hue Color name ______Value Chroma Description (off-white, tan, brown, grey, black, yellow, red, other ______) Charring (none, complete, partial) Application (fiber, yam, piece, indeterminate) Source (natural, added, not evaluated, indeterminate) Dye identification Mordant identification

Additional comments: 197 Yarn Structure * Information needed for each y a m type Artifact number Y a m type number ____ Location of y a m type Y a m diameter in mm Number of components (PCI) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ____ , indeterminate) Arrangement of components Unspun (single, combined) Spun Single Plied (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ____ , indeterminate) Replied ( 2:2, 2:3, 3:2, other ______, indeterminate) Combined Complex (specify) ______Other (specify) ______Indeterminate Final twist direction (no twist, s, Z, indeterminate) Twist direction of components (no twist, S, Z, indeterminate, not evaluated) Final angle of twist in degrees (PCI) (no twist, <10, 11-25, 26-45, >45, indeterminate) Angle of twist of components in degrees (no twist, <10, 11-25, 26-45, >45, indeterminate, not evaluated)

Additional comments: 198 Fibers * Information needed for each fiber type Artifact number ______Fiber type number _____ Location of fiber sample Fiber classification Animal Fur/hair Feather Vegetal Hard fiber (leaf/stem/root) Bast fiber Combination of hard & bast Seed hair Indeterminate Fiber identification ______(from references)______

Source/availability ______(local, regional, extra-regional, indeterminate) Degree of shredding of vegetal fibers (little or none, coarse, medium, fine)

Type of processing of feathers (split quills, stripped quills, other ______) Combining of different fibers in a y a m (present, absent) Degree of preparation/processing (PCI) (little, moderate, extensive, indeterminate) Additional comments: APPENDIX C VALIDITY TEST FOR PRODUCTION COMPLEXITY INDEX

199 200 INSTRUCTIONS TO PANEL

I. Please examine the photographs and descriptions of the six archaeological textile specimens and rank them according to the estimated amount of time necessary to produce textiles of equal size using the same materials, structures, and production techniques utilized in the specimens. Assume that the skill and familiarity with the necessary textile techniques of the producer and the availability of raw materials remain constant for each textile. Specimen number Least time 1. _____

2 . _____ 3. _____ 4. _____ 5. _____ Most time 6. _____ 201

II. Please rank the same specimens according to your estimation of production complexity (the number of decisions and steps involved in the original manufacture of the textiles). Specimen number Least complex 1. _____

2 . ____ 3. _____ 4. _____ 5. _____ Most complex 6. _____ 202

III. Please evaluate the validity of the following instrument. Validity refers to the extent to which the instrument accurately reflects the concept it is intended to measure. The TEXTILE PRODUCTION COMPLEXITY INDEX was developed as a comparative, ordinally scaled index of the amount of work needed to produce pre-industrial textiles. Please write any comments, questions, or recommendations directly on the instrument.

PRODUCTION COMPLEXITY INDEX for TEXTILE MANUFACTURE (c) 1987 Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff This production complexity index is an ordinal index of the number of decisions and the relative amount of labor involved in pre-industrial textile manufacture.

Textile number ______Fiber number of different fibers used (1 for each fiber) average amount of fiber preparation or processing (l=little or no, 2=moderate, 3=extensive, 4=very extensive) Yarn number of different yarn types (1 for each yarn type) average number of yarn components (1 for each yarn component) average amount of twist (O=none, l=low, 2=medium, 3=high, 4=crepe) Coloration number of added colors (1 for each color) Patterning number of structural techniques (1 for each variation) number of added surface techniques (1 for each variation) Scale fabric count - total number of elements per cm^ (2=coarse, 4=medium, 6=fine, 8=very fine) TOTAL VALUE 203

Textile number; 11 Fabric structure: Balanced plain oblique interlacing (under-1/over-1 with one set of elements). There are approximately 6.5 yarns per square inch. Pattern and color: The fabric color is the natural color of the fibers used. Fiber and y a m : Thick flat strips of structural vegetal fibers (stems/leaves) compose the unspun yarns.

% 204

Textile number: 13 Fabric structure: Balanced twill oblique interlacing (under-2/over-2 with one set of elements). There are approximately 22.5 yarns per square inch. Pattern and color: The fabric color is the natural color of the fibers used. Fiber and yam: Finely shredded structural vegetal fibers (stems/leaves) are spun into 2-ply yarns, 2 mm in diameter, with a final angle of twist between 26 and 45 degrees.

11 11111111 > 11 M : 1 ‘ 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1111 iiiij 11II1II II 1 III 1 nil nil nii|iiii nil nil nil 1111111,11:

; 1 12 13 4 5 le 7 8 9 1 0 311 '-Z 1 ; 205

Textile number: 62 Fabric structure: Spaced, alternate pair weft twining. Two twining wefts encircle alternating pairs of warp yarns in each row of twining in the body of the textile. The side selvages consist of 3 rows of compact warp twining around paired wefts and a fringe composed of extended wefts and additional yarns. The two tabs are of balanced plain oblique interlacing (over-l/under-1 with one set of elements). The average number of yarns per square inch is 15.5. Pattern and color: There is a resist dyed patterns along the fabric edges, fringes, and tabs in red and tan. Fiber and y a m : All of the yarns are composed of fur fiber and are approximately 3.7 mm in diameter. They are 2-ply yarns with a final angle of twist between 26 and 45 degrees. 206

Textile number: 77 Fcibric structure: Twined tapestry of compact countered (alternating rows have different direction of twining twist) weft twining with two active elements twining around single warps and 1/2 twist between warps. Some color areas have twined outlines in black. There are approximately 52 yarns per square inch. Pattern and color: Face with weeping eye motif in dyed yarns of red, yellow, black and brown. Fiber and yam: The warp yarns are single unspun strips of vegetal material, 1 mm in diameter. The wefts are spun fur, 1 mm in diameter. The wefts are 2-ply with a final angle of twist between 26-45 degrees. 207

Textile number: 89 Fabric structure: Spaced weft twining around single warps, There are approximately 6 yarns per square inch. Pattern and color: The textile is the natural color of the fibers used. Fibers and yams: Both the warp and the weft are bast fibers. The warp yarns are more highly processed and are composed of fiber bundles with no woody portions, but woody portions are present in the wefts. The warp yarns, 6 mm in diameter, are combined unspun fibers. The weft yarns, 2.5 mm in diameter, are spun singles with less than a 10 degree angle of twist.

ill 208 Textile number: 98 Fabric structure: Oblique twined openwork in two different patterns (one set of elements, similar to bobbin lace) with narrow bands of compact weft twining. There are approximately 60 yarns per square inch. Pattern and color: Pattern formed by openwork fabric structure. Original color is unknown because the piece has been burned and is now black. Assume that the natural color of the fibers was used. Fibers and yams: Fibers are finely processed bast fibers. All yarns are 0.75 mm in diameter and are spun 2-ply yarns with the final angle of twist between 11 and 25 degrees.

$ 209

TABLE 30 Results of Validity Test

Textile Number Time& Complexity^ Tpcib

11 1.00 1.00 1 89 2.25 2.25 2 13 2.75 2.75 3 62 4.33 4.58 4 98 5.67 5.67 5 77 5.00 4.75 6

^ Average rankings by 12 panel members. ^ Ranking based on the textile production complexity index.

Note: Validity test textile descriptions include photographs by the author and WPA fabric structure drawings courtesy of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History. APPENDIX D COMPUTER CODES AND TEXTILE DATA

210 211

KEY TO ASSIGNED TEXTILE NUMBERS

University of Arkansas Museum Assigned Number Museum Accession Number 1 87-115-000-001 2 87-115-001-001-001 3 87-115-002-006/7-001 4 87-155-002-006/7-002 5 87-155-003-001 6 87-155-004-001 7 87-155-004-002 8 87-155-004-003 9 87-155-005-001 10 87-155-005-002/3 11 87-155-005-004 12 87-155-005-005 13 87-155-005-006/9 14 87-155-005-007 15 87-155-005-008 16 65-14-01 17 65-14-02 18 38-3-1-01 19 32-2-280-01 20 32-2-280-02 21 32-2-280-03 22 32-2-280-04 23 32-2-280-05 24 32-2-280-06 25 32-10-17-01 26 32-10-17-02 27 32-10-17-06 28 32-10-17-03 29 32-10-17-04 30 32-10-17-05 31 32-10-123 32 32-26-1-01 33 32-26-1-02 34 32-33-1-01 35 32-33-1-02 36 32-33-17A-01 37 32-33-17A-02 38 32-33-17A-03 39 32-33-17A-04 40 32-33-17A-05 41 32-33-35-01 42 32-34-19-01 43 32—34—61—01 44 32—34—61—02 45 32-34-75-01 212 University of Arkansas Museum (continued)

Assigned Number Museum Accession Number 46 32-34-75-02 47 32-34-94-01 48 32—34—94—02 49 37-1-01-01 50 37-1-01-02 51 37-1-131 52 37-1-132(a) 53 37-1-132(b) 54 37-1-133 55 37-1-140 213 National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution

Assigned Number Museum Accession Number 56 378240(a) 57 378240(b) 58 378240(c) 59 378240(f) 60 378240(g,h) 61 423225(a) 62 423353 63 423354A 64 423355-2743 65 423358A 66 423358-2720Bi, 63 67 423359-2749 68 423360 69 423361 70 423363 71 423364-2717 72 423365(a) 73 423369-2724S 74 423369-2724T 75 423370(f), Box 1 76 423372-2718L 77 423373(a) 78 423373(b) 79 423373-2719C 80 423373-2719F,L 81 423373-2719F,H,L 82 423373-2719F,H,L(a) 83 423373-2719F,H,L(b) 84 423373-3719M 85 423379-2787 86 423380-2834A,B,C 87 423382-2716G 88 423384-2782 89 448913 90 448915 91 448916(a) 92 448917 214 Oklahoma Musuem of Natural History (formerly the Stovall Museum of Science and History)

Assigned Number Museum Accession Number 93 A6-24b 94 A6-39 95 A22-1 96 A22-lb 97 A22-le 98 A28-6 99 B50-13A 100 B50-14B 101 B50-14C,D 102 B51-18b 103 B122-27 104 B155-14 105 D96 106 D314-7(a) 107 D314-7(b) 108 D315-2 109 D317 110 Lf40-692, HWH 107B 111 Lf40-692, HWH 107C 112 LF40-692, HWH 107G 113 LF40-692, HWH 107J 114 LF40-692, HWH 107La 115 LF40-692, HWH 108B 116 LF40-692, HWH 108C 117 LF40-768 118 LF40-824 119 LF40-957(a) 215

KEY TO COMPUTER CODES

ALL COLUMNS 0 = none or absent * = not applicable 97 = not applicable 98 = indeterminate 99 = not evaluated

LOCATION OF COLORS, YARNS, FIBERS 1.0 = all (warp & Wi A & B) 2.0 = warp number 1 -.1 = warp core -.2 = warp wrap -.3 = warp binder 3.0 = warp number 2 4.0 = warp number 3 5.0 = warp number 4 6.0 = weft number 1 7.0 = weft number 2 8.0 = weft number 3 9.0 = weft number 4 10.0 = weft number 5 11.0 = element set A 12.0 = element set B 216

KEY TO BASIC-1 DATA

Column 1 - Textile number Column 2 Site number 1 = Spiro, 34LF40 2 = Beech Creek Shelter, 3NW637 3 = Bolin Shelter, 3NW31 4 = Pine Hollow/Breckenridge Shelter, 3CR2 5 = Brown Bluff, 3WA10 6 = Parker and Fitch Shelter, 3MA7 7 = Indian Creek Shelter, 3BE8 8 = Montgomery Shelter 3, 23BY? 9 = Montgomery Shelter 4, 23BY? Column 3 - Burial rank 1 = high status 2 = low status Column 4 - Length or measurement in "A" direction in centimeters Column 5 - Width of measurement in "B" direction in centimeters Column 6 - Number of identifiable original dimensions 1 = length 2 = width 3 = both length and width 4 = circle diameter Column 7 - Number of structural variations within fabric specimen Column 8 - Average number of elements per cm^ Column 9 PCI codes for average number of elements per cm' 1 = 0 - 4.9 6 = 25 - 29.9 2 = 5 - 9.9 7 = 30 - 34.9 3 = 10 - 14.9 8 = 35 - 39.9 4 = 15 - 19.9 9 = 40 - 44.9 5 = 20 - 24.9 Column 10 - Number of selvages present Column 11 - Type of selvage 1 = starting/ending 2 = side 3 = 1 end & 1 side 4 = 1 end & 2 sides 5 = 2 ends & 2 sides 6 = 2 ends & 1 side 217

Column 12 - Number of fringed edges Column 13 - Type of fringe 1 = cut 2 = uncut 3 = knotted 4 = corded 5 = plied 6 = braided Column 14 - Type of fringe 1 = part of fabric 2 = attached Column 15 - Number of stitched edges Column 16 - Type of stitches 1 = overcast Column 17 - Other edge treatment 1 = cut 2 = no side selvages (bag made on folded warps) 218 BASIC-1 DATA Colimn numbers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 2 13 14 5 16 17 1 2 2 19.0 2.0 2 1 0.6 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 2 2 2 19.0 12.0 0 1 5.7 2 1 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 2 2 2 * * ** ******* * ** 3 2 2 12.0 1.4 2 2 2.1 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 3 2 2 * ** * **** * ***** 4 2 2 8.0 0.7 2 1 4.3 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 5 2 2 73.5 1.0 2 1 3.0 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 6 2 2 15.0 10.0 0 1 4.5 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 97 6 2 2 * ** * * *** ** ** ** 7 2 2 15.0 7.0 0 1 0.7 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 7 2 2 * * ** ****** ** ** 8 2 2 3.3 5.6 0 1 5.0 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 8 2 2 * * ** *** * ** ** ** 9 2 2 11.5 9.5 0 1 6.0 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 9 2 2 * ** * ** ** ** ** ** 10 2 2 12.5 11.0 0 1 6.7 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 10 2 2 * * ** ****** ** ** 11 2 2 9.8 1.0 2 1 3.0 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 12 2 2 10.5 2.5 0 1 5.0 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 12 2 2 * ** * **** ** ** * * 13 2 2 15.0 0.8 2 1 8.7 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 14 2 2 3.5 1.0 0 1 7.0 2 1 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 15 2 2 50.0 42.0 0 1 1.2 1 1 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 15 2 2 * ** * * * ** ** ** ** 15 2 2 * * ** ******* * ** 15 2 2 * * ** **** ** ** * * 16 3 2 104.0 40.0 0 1 2.6 1 1 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 16 3 2 * ** * *** * ****** 17 3 2 60.0 50.0 1 1 1.5 1 2 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 17 3 2 * ** * * * ** *** * ** 18 6 2 9.7 7.0 1 2 3.8 1 2 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 18 6 2 * ** * ** * ***** * * 18 6 2 * * ** **** ****** 19 4 2 17.5 30.0 0 1 8.4 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 1 19 4 2 * ** * * ** * **** ** 20 4 2 76.5 0.9 2 1 9.0 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 21 4 2 49.0 1.5 2 1 4.0 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 22 4 2 48.5 1.0 2 1 3.0 1 2 2 0 97 97 c 97 97 23 4 2 20.0 0.7 2 1 4.3 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 24 4 2 28.0 18.0 0 1 1.6 1 2 3 0 97 97 0 97 97 24 4 2 X * ** **** **** ** 24 4 2 * * ** ***** *** ** 25 5 2 52.0 63.0 0 1 6.4 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 25 5 2 * * * * ** ** *** * ** 26 5 2 30.0 1.1 2 1 2.7 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 27 5 2 260.0 0.6 2 1 5.0 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 28 5 2 4.0 2.5 0 1 12.3 3 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 219 28 5 2 * *** *** *** * * ** 29 5 2 11.5 11.0 01 2.8 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 29 5 2 **** *** *** **** 29 5 2 **** *** ** * * * * * 29 5 2 **** ** * *** *** * 30 5 2 17.5 11.0 0 1 3.0 1 1 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 30 5 2 **** ** * *** * * ** 30 5 2 * * ** ** * * ** * * ** 30 5 2 ** * * **** * * ** ** 31 5 2 13.0 10.0 0 1 6.8 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 31 5 2 **** *** *** * * ** 32 7 2 31.0 4.5 2 2 2.2 1 3 4 0 97 97 0 97 97 32 7 2 **** *** *** * * ** 33 7 2 41.0 14.0 0 1 1.3 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 33 7 2 ****** * * * * *** * 33 7 2 **** *** *** * * ** 34 8 2 120.0 70.0 3 1 1.6 1 4 5 0 97 97 0 97 97 34 8 2 **** * * * *** *** * 34 8 2 **** * * * *** *** * 34 8 2 * ** * **** ** * * ** 35 8 2 65.0 62.0 0 1 12.0 3 2 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 35 8 2 **** *** *** * * ** 35 8 2 * ** * ** * * ** * * ** 36 8 2 27.0 10.0 0 1 0.8 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 36 8 2 **** * * * *** * * ** 36 8 2 ****** * * ****** 37 8 2 9.5 1.0 2 1 3.0 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 38 8 2 16.0 4.0 0 1 16.4 4 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 38 8 2 * ******* *** * * * 39 8 2 36.0 1.5 2 1 4.0 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 40 8 2 7.5 15.0 0 1 15.0 4 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 40 8 2 * ** * * * * * * * * * ** 40 8 2 **** * * * *** * * * * 41 8 2 88.0 87.0 0 1 5.9 2 3 6 0 97 97 0 97 97 41 8 2 **** *** *** * * ** 41 8 2 * ** * ** * * ****** 41 8 2 **** ** * * ***** * 42 9 2 22.0 1.6 2 1 1.9 1 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 43 9 2 64.0 66.0 3 2 5.6 2 1 1 0 97 97 0 97 2 43 9 2 **** *** ****** * 43 9 2 *** * ** * * ****** 44 9 2 77.0 40.0 0 1 1.4 1 2 3 0 97 97 0 97 97 44 9 2 **** * * * *** * * ** 44 9 2 * * ** *** *** * *** 44 9 2 ****** * ** ** * ** 44 9 2 **** **** ** * *** 44 9 2 **** ** * * ** * *** 44 9 2 **** ** * * ** * *** 44 9 2 * *** *** ** ** *** 45 9 2 30.0 18.0 0 1 1.6 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 46 9 2 20.0 0.7 2 1 5.7 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 47 9 2 40.0 30.0 1 3 3.4 1 2 1 0 97 97 0 97 2 220

47 9 2 * * * *** *** * * * * * 47 9 2 * * *** ** ** * ** ** 47 9 2 ***** ** ** * ** ** 48 9 2 18.0 38.0 0 1 2.4 1 2 3 0 97 97 0 97 97 48 9 2 * **** ** ** * ** ** 48 9 2 **** ** * * * * * * ** 48 9 2 * * * ** ** ** * ** ** 49 1 1 33.0 6.5 0 1 4.2 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 49 1 1 * * ** ** * ** * * * ** 49 1 1 **** ** * * * * * * * * 49 1 1 **** ** * * * * ** * * 49 1 1 * * * * ** *** * * * ** 49 1 1 * * * * ** *** * **** 50 1 1 16.0 23.0 0 1 1.4 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 50 1 1 * *** ** *** * **** 50 1 1 *** ** ** * * * ** ** 51 1 1 32.0 15.0 0 2 7.1 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 97 97 51 1 1 **** * ** * * 3 2 * * * 52 1 1 8.0 2.0 2 1 8.0 2 3 4 0 97 97 0 97 97 52 1 1 * * * ** ** ** * * * * * 53 1 1 5.8 1.0 2 1 24.0 5 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 54 1 1 36.5 1.2 2 2 20.0 5 2 2 1 6 2 0 97 97 54 1 1 **** ** * * * * * * ** 55 1 1 46.0 5.5 2 1 11.0 3 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 56 1 1 10.5 24.0 0 2 6.6 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 97 97 56 1 1 * * * *** * ** 3 ** * * 56 1 1 **** ** *** * * * ** 57 1 1 17.5 1.3 2 2 7.6 2 2 2 1 6 1 0 97 97 57 1 1 * * * ** ** * * * * * ** 58 1 1 8.5 2.4 2 2 22.5 5 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 58 1 1 * * * ** ** *** **** 58 1 1 *** *** *** * * * ** 58 1 1 * * * ** ** * * *** ** 59 1 1 17.5 7.0 0 1 2.3 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 59 1 1 **** ** *** *** ** 59 1 1 *** *** * * * * * * ** 59 1 1 * * * ** ** ** ***** 60 1 1 8.5 2.3 0 1 8.5 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 60 1 1 * * * *** * * * *** ** 60 1 1 * **** ** ** * ** ** 61 1 1 3.4 4.7 0 1 20.0 5 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 97 61 1 1 * * * *** *** * * *** 62 1 1 40.0 142.0 2 4 6.1 2 3 4 2 1 1 0 97 97 62 1 1 * *** *** ** 3 ** ** 62 1 1 * * * *** * * * ** * ** 62 1 1 * * * ** * *** * **** 63 1 1 67.5 133.0 2 2 5.3 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 97 97 63 1 1 ***** * *** 3 * *** 63 1 1 * * *** * ** ** **** 64 1 1 102.0 71.0 1 2 7.7 2 3 6 2 1 1 0 97 97 64 1 1 ** * *** *** 3 ** * * 64 1 1 ** ** ** * *** ** ** 221 65 1 1 47.0 145.5 2 1 6.8 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 65 1 1 * *** * ***** * *** 66 1 1 33.0 51.0 0 1 6.4 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 66 1 1 * *** * *** ** * *** 67 1 1 31.0 80.5 2 3 5.6 2 3 4 2 1 1 0 97 97 67 1 1 * *** **** * 3 * *** 67 1 1 * *** ***** * **** 68 1 1 43.0 18.0 0 1 5.0 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 68 1 1 * *** **** ** **** 69 1 1 50.0 18.0 0 1 4.5 1 1 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 69 1 1 * *** **** ** **** 70 1 1 44.5 17.0 0 1 5.0 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 70 1 1 * * * * **** ** **** 71 1 1 23.5 6.0 0 1 5.4 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 71 1 1 * *** **** * ***** 72 1 1 23.0 6.8 0 1 4.5 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 72 1 1 * * ** * *** ** **** 72 1 1 * *** **** ** **** 72 1 1 * *** **** ** **** 72 1 1 * *** **** * ***** 73 1 1 23.0 2.3 2 1 7.8 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 73 1 1 * * * * **** * ***** 74 1 1 24.0 3.0 2 1 6.6 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 97 97 74 1 1 * * * * ******* ** * 75 1 1 32.0 15.0 0 1 1.6 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 75 1 1 * * * * **** * ***** 75 1 1 * *** ****** **** 76 1 1 11.0 4.0 0 1 10.4 3 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 76 1 1 * * * * **** * * * * * * 76 1 1 * *** * *** ** **** 77 ■ 1' 1 - 15.S 17.0 0 2 20.4 5 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 77 1 1 * * * * **** * ** * ** 77 1 1 * *** **** * ***** 77 1 1 * * * * ****** **** 78 1 1 13.0 9.0 0 2 18.2 4 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 78 2_ 1 * * * * ****** **** 78 1 1 * *** ** * *** * * ** 78 1 1 * * * * ****** **** 79 1 1 12.3 7.0 0 2 21.0 5 1 2 0 97 97 1 1 97 79 1 1 * *** ***** ** * ** 79 1 1 * * * * ****** * * ** 79 1 1 * * ** **** * * **** 80 1 1 18.0 43.0 0 2 22.0 5 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 80 1 1 * * * * **** * * * * ** 80 1 1 * *** ****** ** ** 80 1 1 * * ** ** ** * * ** ** 81 1 1 17.0 11.0 0 2 8.0 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 81 1 1 * * * * *** ** * * * ** 81 1 1 * *** ***** * ** * * 81 1 1 * *** * *** * * ** ** 82 1 1 8.8 0.7 2 1 10.0 3 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 83 1 1 8.5 0.6 2 1 8.3 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 222 83 1 1 * *** * *** * ** * * * 84 1 1 14.5 6.0 0 2 16.0 4 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 84 1 1 * *** *** * *** ** * 84 1 1 * *** *** ** ** *** 85 1 1 4.5 7.4 0 2 26.8 6 1 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 85 1 1 * * * * *** *** * *** 85 1 1 * *** *** ** ** *** 86 1 1 8.0 5.5 0 3 8.8 2 1 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 86 1 1 * *** **** *** *** 86 1 1 * *** **** * * * ** * 87 1 1 173.0 1.5 2 1 10.7 3 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 88 1 1 24.0 4.5 2 3 8.0 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 88 1 1 * * ** **** *** ** * 89 1 1 21.5 11.0 0 1 2.4 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 89 1 1 * *** *** *** * * ** 90 1 1 10.8 6.5 0 2 12.5 3 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 90 1 1 * *** *** *** * * ** 90 1 1 * *** *** * *** ** * 91 1 1 5.5 3.5 0 2 13.5 3 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 91 1 1 * *** *** ** ** *** 92 1 1 15.0 1.2 2 1 13.3 3 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 92 1 1 * * * * * *** *** ** * 93 1 1 3.5 4.0 0 2 20.0 5 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 93 1 1 * *** *** * ■k * * ** * 93 1 1 * *** *** **** ** * 93 1 1 * *** *** ** ** ** * 93 1 1 * *** *** * *** ** * 93 1 1 * *** * * * * *** * ** 94 1 1 5.4 3.4 0 1 28.0 6 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 95 1 1 21.8 52.5 0 4 33.0 7 0 97 1 1 1 0 97 97 95 1 1 * *** *** * *** *** 95 1 1 * *** *** * *** *** 95 1 1 * *** *** ***** * * 96 1 1 2.0 4.0 0 2 18.5 4 1 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 96 1 1 * *** *** ** ** * k * 96 1 1 * *** *** ** ** ** * 97 1 1 3.5 0.8 0 2 31.0 7 1 1 0 97 57 G 97 97 97 1 1 * *** *** ** ** ** * 98 1 1 16.5 43.8 0 2 23.5 5 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 98 1 1 * *** **** * ** *** 98 1 1 * *** *** * * ** * * * 98 1 1 * *** *** ** ** *** 99 1 1 22.5 5.8 0 2 13.7 3 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 99 1 1 * *** *** ** ** ** * 100 1 1 11.0 2.7 2 1 11.0 3 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 3 101 1 1 5.0 6.0 2 1 9.0 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 102 1 1 6.3 1.0 2 3 5.0 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 102 1 1 * * ** ***** ** * * * 102 1 1 * * ** **** * * * ** * 103 1 1 6.0 0.2 2 3 40.0 9 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 103 1 1 * * ** * ** ** ** * * * 103 1 1 * *** **** * ** ** * 223 104 1 1 25.2 4.4 2 112.0 32 2 097 97 0 97 97 105 1 1 8.0 11.0 0 1 1.4 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 105 1 1 **** * * ****** ** 105 1 1 **** * ******* ** 105 1 1 * ** * *** * ** * * * * 106 1 1 7.6 1.6 2 1 7.5 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 107 1 1 5.5 4.5 0 1 13.0 3 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 107 1 1 ** * **** **** * ** 107 1 1 ******* * * **** * 108 1 1 5.7 1.0 2 1 24.0 5 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 108 1 1 ********** * * ** 108 1 1 ********** * * * * 109 1 1 7.5 1.1 2 2 21.0 5 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 109 1 1 ****** ******* * 110 1 1 4.3 17.5 0 2 20.5 5 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 110 1 1 ****** * ****** * 110 1 1 ** ** * ******** * 110 1 1 ********** * * ** 111 1 1 9.6 16.5 0220.5 50 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 111 1 1 **** *** * ** * * ** 111 1 1 * * * ** * ******* * 111 1 1 ********** * * ** 111 1 1 ** ***** * ** * * * * 111 1 1 ** • k ******* * * * * 112 1 1 5.6 7.8 4 1 19.0 4 0 97 0 97 97 1 1 97 112 1 1 ****** ** ** * * * * 112 1 1 ********** * * ** 113 1 1 20.0 6.0 0 1 6.6 2 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 113 1 1 * **** * ****** ** 114 1 1 11.3 3.3 2 3 6.0 2 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 114 1 1 ********** * * ** 114 1 1 **** ** ** * **** * 115 1 1 13.0 1.3 2 2 25.4 6 2 2 0 97 97 0 97 97 115 1 1 *** * ****** * * ** 115 1 1 ******** * *** ** 115 1 1 ********** * * * * 116 1 1 10.0 2.7 0 1 4.2 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 116 1 1 ************ ** 116 1 1 *** * ****** * * * * 116 1 1 * ******* * ** * * * 117 1 1 11.0 7.8 0 1 2.5 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 117 1 1 *********** * * * 117 2 1 ** ******* **** * 118 1 1 17.0 9.5 0 3 36.0 8 1 1 0 97 97 0 97 97 118 1 1 *** * *** * *** * * * 118 1 1 * * * ******** * ** 119 1 1 15.0 7.0 0 1 1.0 1 0 97 0 97 97 0 97 98 119 1 1 ******* ** **** * 119 1 1 ******* ** ** * ** 119 1 1 **** ** **** * * ** 224

KEY TO BASIC-2 DATA

Column 1 - Textile number Column 2 - Number of structural patterning techniques Column 3 - Types of structural patterning techniques 1 = twining 2 = tapestry 3 = interlacement 4 = irregular spacing of elements 5 = combining &/or recombining elements 6 = separating elements 7 = combining colored elements 8 = combining yarn types 9 = twined outlines 10 = knotting 11 = combining amounts of twining twist 12 = twisting of warp yarns 13 = wrapping 14 = combining twining twist directions 15 = interlinking elements Column 4 - Number of added surface pattern techniques Column 5 - Types of surface patterning techniques 1 = painted 2 = resist dyed 3 = embroidered 4 = added elements Column 6 - Design motifs 0 = absent 1 = present Column 7 - Placement of design motifs 1 - overall 2 = border 3 = centered 4 = bands 5 = fringe 225 Column 8 - Characterization of design motifs Geometric 1.1 bands 1.2 stripes 1.3 circles 1.4 squares 1.5 rectangles 1.6 diamonds 1.7 chevrons 1.8 frets 1.9 concentric half-circles Figurai 2.1 bird form 2.2 human form Column 9 - Number of colors Column 10 - Number of different yarn types Column 11 - Average number of yarn components Column 12 - Average angle of twist in degrees 1 = <10 2 = 10-25 3 = 26-45 4 = >45 Column 13 - Number of fiber types Column 14 - Average amount of fiber preparation/processing 1 = little 2 = moderate 3 = extensive 226 BASIC-2 DATA Column numbers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13i 14 1 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 1.0 2 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 1.5 3 1 1.5 2 * * ** ** * *** ** * 3 2 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 2.0 3 * 10 * ** * ** ** *** 4 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 2.0 5 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 2.0 6 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 1.0 0 1 1.0 6 * ** *** **** * * * 7 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 1.0 0 1 1.0 7 * * *** * ** ** *** 8 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 1.5 2 1 2.0 8 * ** ** * * *** * * * 9 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 2 1.5 3 1 2.0 9 ** * *** ** ** ** * 10 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 1.5 3 1 2.0 10 * * ** ** ** ** ** * 11 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 2.0 12 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 1.0 0 1 1.0 12 * * * ** * ** * * ** * 13 1 3 0 97 0 97 97". S' 1 1 2.0 3 1 3.0 14 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 3.0 15 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 3 3 3.7 3 3 2.5 15 * * * * ** * • k ** ** * 15 * * ** ** * * ** ** * 15 * * * *** * *** * * * 16 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 1.5 1 1 2.0 16 * ** ** * ** ** ** * 17 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 2 4.0 3 3 2.3 17 * * ** ** ** ** ** * 18 2 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 3 1.0 0 * * 18 * 3 ** ** * *** * 1 1.0 18 * * ** ** ** ** * ** 19 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 2 1.0 1 2 2.5 19 * * ** ** ** ** * * * 20 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 3.0 21 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 22 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 1.0 23 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 1.0 24 1 1 1 4 0 97 97.0 2 2 4.5 3 2 2.0 24 * * ** ** ** ** * * * 24 * * ** ** * *** ** * 25 2 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 2 2.0 3 2 2.5 25 * 5 * ** * ** * * * * * 26 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 1.0 27 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 28 2 7 0 97 1 1 1.2 2 2 2.0 3 1 2.0 227 28 * 98 * * ** * ** **** 29 2 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 3 4 2.8 3 3 2.0 29 * 5 ** ** * **** * * 29 ** * * * * * ****** 29 ** ** ** * * ***** 30 2 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 3 2.3 3 3 1.8 30 * 4 * * ** * ****** 30 **** ** * ** **** 30 ** * * * * * **** * * 31 2 11 98 97 98 97 97.0 98 2 2.0 3 1 2.0 31 **** ** * ** * *** 32 2 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 1.0 32 * 5 * * ** * ** * *** 33 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 2 3.5 3 2 2.0 33 **** * * * ** *** * 33 ** ** ** * ****** 34 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 3 3.0 3 2 2.3 34 ** * * * * ****** * 34 ** * * * * * ****** 34 ** ** ** * ***** * 35 3 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 1.5 3 1 3.0 35 * 4 ** ** * ***** * 35 * 5 * * ** * ***** * 36 1 1 98 97 98 97 97.0 1 2 3.5 2 2 2.0 36 * *** ** * ***** * 36 ** * * ** * ** * ** * 37 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 1.0 38 2 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 2 1 2.0 38 * 5 * * ** * ****** 39 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 40 3 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 2 1 3.0 40 * 5 ** ** * * ***** 40 * 6 * * * * * ** * ** * 41 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 3 3.0 3 3 2.3 41 ** ** ** * * * *** * 41 ** ** ** * ** ** * * 41 ** * * ** * * * *** * 42 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 1.0 43 3 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 3 2.0 3 1 2.3 43 * 3 ** ** * ** *** * 43 * 5 * * * * * ** * ** * 44 2 1 0 97 1 1 1.2 3 4 3.8 3 5 2.3 44 * 8 ** ** * ** * ** * 44 * *** ** * ** * ** * 44 * *** ** * ***** * 44 **** ** * ** * ** * 44 **** ** * * ** ** * 44 * ** * ** * *** ** * 44 * ** * ** * **** * * 45 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 46 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 3.0 47 3 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 2 2.3 228 47 * 3 * * * * ** * * * * * 47 * 5 * *** ** * * * * * 47 * 12 * * * *** * **** 48 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 3 3.0 3 3 2.3 48 *** *** ** * * * * * 48 *** ** *** * * * * * 48 **** * *** * * * * * 49 2 1 0 97 1 1 1.1 6 2 3.5 2 3 2.3 49 * 7 ** * *** * * *** 49 *** ** *** **** * 49 **** * * * *** * * * 49 * * * ** *** **** * 49 **** * *** * * * * * 50 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 5.0 2 2 2.0 50 * * * ** *** ***** 50 **** * * * *** * * * 51 2 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 51 * 5 * *** * ***** * 52 2 3 98 98 98 98 98.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 52 * 13 ** * * * ***** * 53 1 3 98 98 98 98 98.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 54 2 3 1 2 1 1 1.1 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 54 * 6 * *** X ***** * •X 55 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 4. 2 . G 56 3 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 56 * 4 ** * *** * * * * * 56 * 5 ** * *** * * * * * 57 2 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 57 * 6 * ** * * * * * * * * 58 3 3 0 97 1 1 1.7 4 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 58 * 5 ** * *** * * * * * 58 * 7 * *** ** *** * * 58 **** * * * * * *** * 59 2 1 0 97 1 98 1.5 2 2 4.0 2 3 2.3 59 * 7 ** * * * ***** * 59 ** * *** * ****** 59 **** * *** * * * * * 60 2 7 0 97 1 1 1.1 3 2 1.5 2 2 1.5 60 * 13 * *** * ****** 60 ** * ********** 61 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 2 2 3.0 61 ** * * * * * * * *** * 62 3 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 62 * 4 * ** 5 1.8 * * * * * * 62 * 5 * * **** ***** 62 ****** **** * * * 63 3 1 1 2 1 5 1.5 2 2 2.0 3 1 2.0 63 * 4 * * **** ***** 63 X 5 * *** * ** ** ** 64 3 1 1 2 1 2 1.9 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 64 * 4 * ** *** ** * ** 64 * 5 * * ** * * * ** * * 229

65 1 3 1 2 1 1 1.3 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 65 * * * **** * * ** * * 66 1 3 1 2 1 1 1.0 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 66 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 67 3 1 1 2 1 98 98.0 2 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 67 * 3 * * * * *** * * * * 67 * 5 * * * * *** * * * * 68 1 1 1 2 1 98 98.0 2 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 68 *** * * *** * *** * 69 1 1 1 2 1 98 98.0 2 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 69 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 70 2 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 70 * 5 * ** * *** * ** * 71 1 1 1 2 1 98 98.0 2 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 71 * * * * * * * * * *** * 72 2 1 0 97 1 1 2.1 4 2 3.5 2 2 2.0 72 * 7 * * * * *** ** ** 72 * * * * * * * * * *** * 72 * ** ****** * ** * 72 * * * * * * * * * *** * 73 1 3 1 2 1 98 1.1 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 73 ** * * * * *** *** * 74 2 1 1 2 1 98 1.1 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 74 * 6 * *** * * * *** * 75 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 5.0 3 3 2.0 75 * ** *** * * * *** * 75 * * * * * * *** *** * 76 2 7 0 97 1 1 1.1 3 2 1.5 2 2 1.5 76 * 13 * * * * 2.1 * * * * 76 * * * * * * * * * * * 77 4 2 0 97 1 1 2.2 4 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 77 * 2 * * * * * * * *** * 77 * 7 * * * * * * * *** * 77 * 9 ** ***** *** * 78 4 1 0 97 1 1 98.0 3 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 78 * 2 * * * * * * * *** * 78 * 7 * ** * *** *** * 78 * 9 * *** * ** ** ** 79 4 1 0 97 1 1 98.0 3 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 79 * 2 * * * * *** *** * 79 * 7 * *** * ** ** ** 79 * 9 * *** * * * **** 80 4 1 0 97 1 1 98.0 4 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 80 * 2 * *** * ** * * ** 80 * 7 * * * * * * * *** * 80 * 9 * ** * * ** ** ** 81 3 1 0 97 1 1 1.2 3 4 2.0 3 3 2.3 81 * 2 * * * * 1.3 * * * *** 81 * 7 * *** * * * **** 81 * * * * * * * * * * *** 82 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 4 1 2.0 83 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 1 2.0 4 2 2.5 230 83 * **** * * ** * * * * 84 2 1 0 97 1 1 1.3 3 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 84 * 7 * *** * * ** *** 84 * ** ** * * ** * ** * 85 3 1 0 97 1 2 1.1 1 2 1.5 3 2 2.5 85 * 4 * ** * ** ** ** * 85 * 13 * ** * * ** * *** 86 3 1 98 98 98 98 98.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 86 * 3 * ** * *** * ** * 86 * 5 ** ** * ** * *** 87 1 3 98 98 98 98 98.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 88 2 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 3.0 3 1 3.0 88 * 5 * ** * *** * ** * 89 1 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 1.0 2 2 2.5 89 * * * *** * ** * *** 90 3 1 0 97 1 1 1.2 3 3 3.0 3 2 2.0 90 * 3 * *** 1.3 ** * ** * 90 * 7 * ** * *** * ** * 91 2 1 98 98 98 98 98.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 91 * 4 * ** * * ** * ** * 92 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.1 2 1 2.0 3 2 2.0 92 * ** ** * * ** * ** * 93 4 1 0 97 1 1 1.5 5 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 93 * 2 * ** * * ** * ** * 93 * 7 * * * * * ** * * * * 93 * 9 * *** ** * * ** * 93 * ** ** * * ** * ** * 93 * * * * * * ** * * *** 94 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 3 1 2.0 95 3 1 0 97 1 2 1.1 1 1 2.0 2 1 2.0 95 * 4 * ** 98 98.0 * * * ** * 95 * 5 * *** * ** * ** * 95 * * * *** ** * * ** * 96 3 1 98 98 98 98 98.0 1 1 2.0 2 1 2.0 96 * 4 * *** ** * * ** * 96 * 5 * * * * * * ** *** 97 2 1 98 98 98 98 98.0 1 1 2.0 2 1 2.0 97 * 4 * *** ** ** *** 98 4 1 98 98 1 4 1.1 1 1 2.0 2 1 2.0 98 * 3 *** * 1.3 ** * *** 98 * 4 * *** 1.6 ** * ** * 98 * 5 * * ** * ** * ** * 99 2 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 2 2 2.0 4 2 2.0 99 * 3 * * * * * ** * ** * 100 1 10 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 4 1 2.0 101 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 102 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 2 2.0 3 1 1.0 102 * ** ** * * ** * ** * 102 * ** *** * *** ** * 103 2 3 1 4 0 97 97.0 1 1 1.0 0 1 2.0 103 * 5 * * * * * *** ** * 103 * ** * * * * *** ** * 231 104 1 3 98 98 98 98 98.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 105 2 1 0 97 1 98 98.0 4 2 6.0 2 2 2.5 105 * 7 * * ** * ****** 105 * ** * * * * ****** 105 * * ** * * * ****** 106 1 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 107 3 1 0 97 1 98 1.1 3 2 2.0 98 2 2.0 107 * 2 ** * * ** * * * ** 107 * 7 * * * * ** * * * ** 108 2 3 0 97 1 1 1.7 3 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 108 * 7 * ** * ******* 108 ** * * * * * ****** 109 2 3 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 109 * 5 * * * * ******* 110 4 1 0 97 1 1 1.4 4 2 2.0 3 3 2.3 110 * 2 * * * * 1.5 ****** 110 * 7 * * * * * ****** 110 * 9 * * ** ** * ** * * 111 4 1 0 97 1 1 1.4 6 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 111 * 2 * * * * 1.5 ****** 111 * 7 * ** * ** * ** * * 111 * 9 * * * * * ****** 111 ** * * ** ** ***** 111 * ** * * * * ****** 112 2 1 0 97 1 1 1.3 3 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 112 * 7 * * ** * * * * *** 112 ** * ** * * * **** * 113 2 1 1 2 1 98 98.0 2 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 113 * 5 ** * * ** ***** 114 3 1 0 97 0 97 97.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 114 * 3 * * * * * ****** 114 * 5 * * * *** ***** 115 3 3 0 97 1 1 1.7 4 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 115 * 5 * * ** ** ***** 115 * 7 * ** * * * * * *** 115 ** * * * * * ***** 116 2 1 0 97 1 1 98.0 4 2 3.5 1 4 2.3 116 * 7 * ** * * * * * *** 116 * ** * * * * ****** 116 ** * * ** * * * * *** 117 2 1 0 97 1 1 1.2 3 2 6.0 2 3 2.0 117 * 7 * * * * ** **** * 117 * ** * * * ** ***** 118 3 1 98 98 1 98 98.0 1 1 2.0 3 1 2.0 118 * 4 * * ** * ***** * 118 * 15 ** * * * ** ** * * 119 2 1 0 97 1 98 98.0 2 2 6.0 2 2 2.0 119 * 7 * * ** * *X *** * 119 * ** * * * * * * *** * 119 ** ** * * * ** *** * 232 KEY TO FABRIC STRUCTURE DATA Column 1 - Textile number Column 2 - Structural variation number Column 3 - Number of sets of elements Column 4 Type of interworking 1.10 = spaced twining 1.20 = compact twining 1.30 = combination of spaced & compact twining 2.10 = plain interlacing 2.20 = twill interlacing 3.11 = wrapping 3.12 = knotting 3.13 = warp ends twisted together 3.20 = flat, oblique interlacing - 1/1 3.21 = flat, oblique interlacing - 2/1 twill 3.22 = flat, oblique interlacing - 2/2 twill 3.31 = 3 strand, flat braid - single elements 3.32 strand, flat braid - paired elements 3.33 strand, flat braid - tripled elements 3.40 strand, flat braid 3.42 strand, flat braid paired elements 3.50 strand, flat braid 1/1 3.60 strand, flat braid 1/1 3.62 strand, round braid - paired elements 3.64 strand, round braid - quadrupled elements 3.70 7 strand, flat braid - 2/2 twill 3.80 strand, flat braid - 2/3 twill 3.81 strand, round braid - single elements 3.82 strand, round braid - paired elements 3.83 strand, round braid - tripled elements 3.89 strand. round braid - inconsistent number of multiple elements 3.90 = indeterminate number of strands, round braid - multiple elements Column 5 - Direction of twining elements 1 = warp 2 = weft 3 = both warp and weft 4 = extra yarns 5 = single element set (A) 6 = coiled weft 233 Column 6 - Direction of twining twist 1 S (\) 2 Z (/) 3 inverted 4 countered 5 reversed 11 = inconsistent Column 7 Number of active elements working together Column 8 Amount of twining twist Column 9 Number of passive elements working together 1-5 = 1-5 10 = twined tapestry 11 = inconsistent Column 10 - Movement of passive elements 1 = diverted 2 = transposed 3 = interlinked 4 = alternate paired 5 = radiate from center ■ 6 = twined tapestry 11 = inconsistent Column 11 - Type of interlacing 1 = balanced 2 = unbalanced Column 12 - Prominent element set of unbalanced interlacing 1 = warp faced 2 = weft faced Column 13 - Number of strands working together (grouping of elements) 1 1/1 2 2/1 3 2/2 4 2/3 5 3/3 6 4/4 Column 14 - Twill interlacing arrangement 1 = 2/1 2 = 3/1 3 = 2/2 4 = 2/3 5 = 3/3 6 = 4/4 234 FABRIC STRUCTURE DATA Column numbers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 1 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 2 1 2 2.10 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 2 2 1 97 2 * ** * * * * ** **** 3 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 3 * * * ** * * ** * *** 4 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 5 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 6 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 6 * * * ** **** **** 7 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 7 * * * ** ** ** **** 8 1 2 2.10 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 2 2 97 97 8 * * ** * **** **** 9 1 2 2.10 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 2 2 97 97 9 * ** * * ** * * *** * 10 1 2 2.10 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 2 2 97 97 10 * * * ** **** **** 11 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 12 1 2 1.00 2 2 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 12 * * ** * **** **** 13 1 1 3.70 97 97 97 97.0 97 2 97 97 1 3 14 1 2 2.10 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 2 1 97 97 15 1 2 1.10 2 2 1 1.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 15 * * ** * ** * * **** 15 * * ** * **** **** 15 * * * ** **** **** 16 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 16 ** * ** ** ** *** * 17 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 17 * ** * * ** * * **** 18 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 18 2 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 18 * * *** **** **** 19 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 19 * * ** * **** * *** 20 1 1 3.80 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 4 21 1 1 3.32 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 3 97 22 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 23 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 24 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 2.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 24 * ** ** * * ** **** 24 * *** * **** **** 25 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 25 * *** * * ****** * 26 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 27 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 28 1 2 98.00 9 8 98 98 98.0 98 98 2 98 98 98 235 28 * * ** * * ** ** * * * 29 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 0.5 11 11 97 97 97 97 29 * * ** * * * ** *** * 29 * * * * * * ** ** ** * 29 * * * * * * ** ** ** * 30 1 2 1.30 2 2 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 30 * * * * * * ** ** ** * 30 * * ** * * ** ** ** * 30 * * * * * * *** ** * * 31 1 2 1.20 98 2 2 11.0 2 0 97 97 97 97 31 * * * * * * * ** ** * * 32 1 1 3.60 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 32 2 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 33 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 33 * * * * * * ** ** ** * 33 * * * * * * *** ** * * 34 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 34 * * * * * * *** ** * * 34 * * * * ** ** ** ** * 34 * * * * ** ** * ** * * 35 1 2 2.30 2 2 2 0.5 1 1 97 97 97 97 35 * * * * ** ** ** ** * 35 * * * * * * ** * * ** * 36 1 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 36 * * * * * * ** ** * * * 36 * * * * * * * ** ** * * 37 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 38 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 38 * * * * * * ** ** ** * 39 1 1 3.32 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 3 97 40 1 2 1.10 . 2 99 - 2 0.5 11 n 1 97 97 97 9.7 40 * * * * * * ** ** ** * 40 * * * * * * ** * * ** * 41 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 41 * * * * * * ** * * ** * 41 * * * ** * ** ** * * * 41 * * * * ** ** * ** * * 42 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 43 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 43 2 2 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 43 * * * * ** ** ** * * * 44 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 44 * * * * ** ** ** * * * 44 * * * ** * ** ** * * * 44 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 44 * * * * ** ** ** * * * 44 * * * * * * *** * * * * 44 * * * * ** ** ** * * * 44 * * * * * * **** * * * 45 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 0.5 2 0 97 97 97 97 46 1 1 3.40 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 47 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 236 47 2 1 3.13 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 47 3 1 1.10 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 47 * ** * * * *** * * * * 48 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 48 * *** * ** ** ** * * 48 * ******** * * * * 48 * ******** * * * * 49 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 49 * * ** * * *** * * ** 49 * ****** ** * * * * 49 * ** ****** * * * * 49 * * **** *** * ** * 49 * ******** * * ** 50 1 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 50 * **** * *** ** * * 50 * ******** * * * * 51 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 51 2 2 1.20 1 2 3 0.5 2 0 97 97 97 97 52 1 1 3.20 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 52 * ***** *** * ** * 53 1 1 3.90 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 98 97 54 1 1 3.90 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 98 97 54 2 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 55 1 1 1.30 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 1 1 56 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 56 2 2 1.20 1 1 2 0.5 2 0 97 97 97 97 56 * ***** *** * * * * 57 1 1 3.62 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 3 97 57 2 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 58 1 1 3.89 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 98 97 58 2 1 3.89 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 98 97 58 * *** •X **** * ** * 58 * ****** * * * * * * 59 1 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 59 * *** * * *** * ** * 59 * ***** *** * * * * 59 * * * ****** * * ** 60 1 2 3.11 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 60 * *** * * ** * * * * * 60 * * * * ***** * ** * 61 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 61 * * * *** ** * * ** * 62 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 62 2 2 1.20 1 1 2 0.5 2 0 97 97 97 97 62 3 2 1.20 2 1 2 0.5 2 0 97 97 97 97 62 4 1 3.20 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 63 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 63 2 2 1.20 1 5 2 0.5 2 0 97 97 97 97 63 * *** * * *** * *** 64 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 64 2 2 1.20 1 4 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 64 * ** * *** ** **** 237

65 1 1 3.20 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 65 **** ******* * * 66 1 1 3.20 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 66 * ** *** ** ** *** 67 1 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 98 0 97 97 97 97 67 2 1 3.20 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 67 3 * 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 68 1 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 68 *** *** ** * *** * 69 1 2 1.10 2 98 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 69 * ** *** ** ** * * * 701 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 70 ** * * * * ** * **** 71 1 2 1.10 2 98 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 71 ** * * * * ** * *** * 72 1 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 72 ** * *** ** * **** 72 * * ** * * * * ***** 72 * ** *** ******* 72 **** * * * * ***** 73 1 1 3.20 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 73 **** ** ** ** ** * 74 1 1 3.20 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 74 ** * *** * * ***** 75 1 2 1.10 2 2 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 75 **** *** * ** ** * 75 **** * * ******* 76 1 2 3.11 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 76 **** *** * ** ** * 76 *** *** ** * **** 77 1 2 1.20 2 4 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 77 2 1 1.30 4 98 2 0.5 10 10 97 97 97 97 77 **** *** * *** * * 77 *** **** * *** * * 78 1 2 1.20 2 4 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 78 2 1 1.30 4 98 2 0.5 10 10 97 97 97 97 78 **** * * ******* 78 * * * *** **** * * * 79 1 2 1.20 2 4 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 79 2 1 1.30 4 98 2 0.5 10 10 97 97 97 97 79 *** *** ** ** * ** 79 **** ** ** **** * 80 1 2 1.20 2 4 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 80 2 1 1.30 4 1 2 0.5 10 10 97 97 97 97 80 **** *** * **** * 80 *** *** ****** * 81 1 2 1.20 6 1 2 0.5 1 5 97 97 97 97 81 2 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 81 *** **** *** ** * 81 * *** * * * * * * ** * 82 1 1 3.70 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 83 1 1 3.50 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 238

83 ** * * ** * *** * * * 84 1 2 1.20 6 1 2 0.5 1 5 97 97 97 97 84 1 2 1.20 6 4 2 0.5 1 5 97 97 97 97 84 2 2 1.20 98 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 85 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 85 2 2 3.11 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 85 ** * * **** * * * * * 86 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 97 97 97 97 97 86 2 1 3.32 97 97 97 97.0 97 4 1 97 5 97 86 3 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 87 1 1 3.82 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 3 97 88 1 1 3.42 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 3 97 88 2 2 3.11 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 89 1 2 1.10 2 2 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 89 *** ******* ** * 90 1 2 1.20 2 1 2 0.5 1 5 97 97 97 97 90 2 1 3.32 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 3 97 90 ** * * **** * * ** * 91 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 91 2 2 1.20 2 98 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 92 1 1 3.82 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 3 97 92 *** * **** * * * * * 93 1 2 1.20 2 4 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 93 2 1 1.30 4 1 2 0.5 10 10 97 97 97 97 93 **** * *** v * *** 93 ** ****** * * * * 93 *** * **** * * * * * 93 *** * ** ***** * * 94 1 2 2.10 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 95 1 2 1.10 2 T_ 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 95 2 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 3 97 97 97 97 95 3 2 1.20 2 1 2 0.5 2 0 97 97 97 97 95 4 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 3 97 97 97 97 96 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 96 2 2 1.20 2 1 2 0.5 3 0 97 97 97 97 96 *** ******* ** * 97 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 97 2 2 1.20 2 98 2 0.5 2 0 97 97 97 97 98 1 2 1.20 2 1 2 0.5 2 0 97 97 97 97 98 2 1 1.10 5 2 2 0.597 97 97 97 97 97 98 2 1 3.20 97 2 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 98 2 1 3.20 * * *** * 1 * 3 * 99 1 2 1.20 98 11 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 99 1 2 2.10 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 2 98 1 97 100 1 1 3.12 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 101 1 1 3.20 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 102 1 1 3.31 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 102 2 1 3.32 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 3 97 102 3 1 3.12 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 103 1 1 3.81 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 1 97 103 2 1 3.33 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 5 97 103 3 1 3.12 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 239 104 1 1 3.22 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 3 3 105 1 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 105 * * ** * * * ** * ** * 105 * * ** * * * ** * * ** 105 * * * * * * * ** ** ** 106 1 1 3.62 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 3 97 107 1 2 1.20 2 4 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 107 ** ** * * * ** * ** * 107 * * ** * * * * * * ** * 108 1 1 3.64 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 108 * * ** * * *** * ** * 108 * * ** * * * ** * ** * 109 1 1 3.62 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 97 97 109 2 1 3.64 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 6 97 110 1 2 1.20 2 4 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 110 2 1 1.30 4 2 2 0.5 10 10 97 97 97 97 110 * * ** * * * ** ** * * 110 * * ** * * * ** ** * * 111 1 2 1.20 2 4 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 111 2 1 1.30 4 2 2 0.5 10 10 97 97 97 97 111 * * ** * * *** * ** * 111 * * * * * * * ** ** ** 111 * * ** * * * ** ** * * 111 * * ** * * ** * * ** * 112 1 2 1.20 2 1 2 0.5 1 5 97 97 97 97 112 * * ** * * ** * * * ** 112 * * ** * * * ** * * * * 113 1 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 2 4 97 97 97 97 113 * * ** * * * ** * ** * 114 1 1 3.20 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 114 2 98 98.00 4 2 98 98.0 98 98 97 97 97 97 114 3 1 3.40 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 1 97 1 97 115 1 1 3.89 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 98 97 115 2 1 3.83 97 97 97 97.0 97 97 97 97 5 97 115 * * ** * * * ** * * * * 115 * * ** * * * ** * * ** 116 1 2 1.10 2 98 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 116 * * ** * * * ** ** ** 116 * * ** * * ** * * * * * 116 * * ** * * ** * * * * * 117 1 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 117 * * ** * * * ** * * * * 117 * * ** * * * ** * * * * 118 1 2 1.20 2 1 3 0.5 98 0 97 97 97 97 118 2 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 3 97 97 97 97 118 3 2 1.10 2 1 2 0.5 1 0 97 97 97 97 119 1 2 1.10 2 98 98 98.0 1 0 97 97 97 97 119 * * * * * * * ** * * * * 119 * * ** * * * ** ** * * 119 * * ** * * * ** * ** * 1 240 KEY TO SCALE DATA Column 1 - Textile number Column 2 - Structural variation number Column 3 - Distance between warps Column 4 - Distance between wefts Column 5 - Distance between element set A Column 6 - Distance between element set B Column 7 - Number of warps per centimeter Column 8 - Number of wefts per centimeter Column 9 - Number of element set A per centimeter Column 10 - Number of element set B per centimeter

Column 11 - Total number of elements per cm2 241 SCAIÆ DATA

Column numbers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IG 11 1 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.G 97.G 97.0 G.6 97. G G.6 2 1 97.0 97.0 97 97.G l.G 4.7 97.0 97.G 5.7 2 *** *** * * * * 3 1 97.0 97.0 0 97. G 97. G 97.0 2.1 97.0 2.1 3 *** *** * * * * 4 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.G 97. G 97.0 4.5 97.0 4.5 5 1 97.0 97.0 G 97.G 97.G 97.0 3.0 97.0 3.G 6 1 0.0 1.5 97 97.G 3.5 l.G 97. G 97.G 4.5 6 *** * * * ** ** 7 1 0.0 98.0 97 97.G G.6 G.l 97.G 97.G G.7 7 ** * * **** ** 8 1 0.6 0.0 97 97. G l.G 4.G 97.G 97.G 5.G 8 *** * * * ** ** 9 1 0.5 0.0 97 97.G l.G 5.G 97.G 97.G 6.0 9 * ** * ** * * ** 10 1 0.5 0.0 97 97.G 1.5 5.2 97.G 97.G 6.7 10 *** *** *** * 11 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.G 97.G 97.G 3.G 97.G 3.G 12 1 0.0 1.7 97 97.G 3.G 2.G 97.G 97.G 5.G 12 *** *** ** ** 13 1 97.0 97.0 0 97. G 97.0 97.0 8.8 97.G 8.8 14 1 0.0 0.3 97 97.G 5.0 2.0 97.G 97.G 7.G 15 1 98.0 6.0 97 97.G 0.9 0.3 97.G 97.G 1.2 15 * * * ** **** * 15 *** *** * * * * 15 **** ***** * 16 1 0.0 2.0 97 97.G 1.6 l.G 97. G 97.G 2.6 16 1 * * * ***** * 17 1 0.0 3.0 97 97.G G.9 G.6 97.G 97.G 1.5 17 **** ***** * 18 1 0.0 1.4 97 97.0 2.5 1.4 97.0 97.G 3.9 18 2 97.0 97.0 0 97.G 97.G 97. G 3.8 97.G 3.8 18 ** * * ***** * 19 1 0.0 0.7 97 97.G 6.0 2.4 97.0 97.G 8.4 19 ** * ****** * 20 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.G 97.0 97.G 9,0 97.G 9.G 21 1 97.0 97.0 G 97.G 97. G 97. G 4.G 97.G 4.G 22 1 97.0 97.0 G 97.0 97.0 97. G 3.G 97.G 3.G 23 1 97.0 97.0 G 97.G 97.0 97.G 4.3 97.G 4.3 24 1 1.5 5.0 97 97.G 1.2 G.4 97. G 97.G 1.6 24 ** * *** * * ** 24 *** * * * **** 25 1 0.0 1.1 97 97.G 4.8 1.6 97.G 97.G 6.4 25 * * * * * * **** 26 1 97.0 97.0 G 97.G 97.0 97. G 2.7 97. G 2.7 27 1 97.0 97.0 G 97.G 97.0 97.G 5.G 97. G 5.G 28 1 97.0 97.0 G G.3 97.0 97.G 11.G 1.3 12.3 CVJ

-K CO * * * O * •X •X CO •X CO O CO ■X X VO X XX o X X CO X X o X o o XX cn XXX cn VO X X X XXX X X X VO CV) n VO rH CO H rH CM o CO VO in in rH m rH rH in CO H rH rH * O ■K * * o ■X ■X •X in •X O O o ■X X O X XX o X X o XX o O X o O XX o XXX O o X X O XX XX XXX o o o f ' H r ' r ' C' r» r ' m a t CTl cn cn cn cn a t cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn * O * * * o •X •X •X CO •X CO o o •X X o XXX o XX a XX o O X o O XX o X XX cn o X X o XXXXXXX o C' o in rH CO n« CO r' r- rH m 0\ a\ cn cn ov cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn * O * •K •K o •X ■X ■X o O o VO X X in XXX o XX o X X o X o o XX VO X XX O VO XXXXX X XXX CM o o rH (N o o CO r' VO CO M* H o o rH ov a t cn cn cn cn cn cn ■K CO ■K * * o * ■X •X o ■X o o X X rH XXX o X X CO X X o o X o o X X CO X X X O o X X o XX XX XX X o HH r ' r- o rH CO o o r- CM rH rH H r» CM ov a t cn cn H cnrH cn cn •K O * * •K o •X * •X in ■X o o oHi X O XXX o XX o XX o O X o O XX O X X X o o X X O XX X XX XX o o O o r- CT» cr> a t cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cncn cn cn cn cncn •K ** •K 4( •X •X o •X o o •X X r- XXXXX X X o X o XXXXX o X X XX X XX XX o m at cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn * o * * * in -X * •X o * o o o XX rH XXX X X o X X o CO X o CO X X CO X X X o H X X in XXX XX XX o o o H o CO CO o CO o o H o CM a t ov cn cn cn cn cn rH cn * O « ■K ■X o 4: •X o * o o o XX in X XX o X X o XX o o X o o XX in X XX o o X X in XXXXXXX o o o O a t o o o o o o o o o rH r ' o at m a\ cn O O o o rH 1—1 CN CM CO CO CO in in inVO VO VO CO CO cn O o o rH rH rH rH CM CO CO CO Tf 'H* Tf in VO (N CM N CM

83 * ** * ** * * * * 84 1 99.0 0.0 97 97.0 4.0 12.0 97.0 97.0 16.0 84 2 97.0 97.0 0 99.0 97.0 97.0 12.0 4.0 16.0 84 * ** * * *** * * 85 1 0.0 0.1 97 97.0 13.0 11.6 97.0 97.0 24.6 85 2 0.0 0.0 97 97.0 13.0 16.0 97.0 97.0 29.0 85 * ***** * * * * 86 1 0.0 3.6 97 97.0 6.0 4.0 97.0 97.0 10.0 86 2 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 7.5 97.0 7.5 86 3 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 7.5 97.0 7.5 87 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 10.7 97.0 10.7 88 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 8.0 97.0 8.0 88 2 97.0 97.0 98 97.0 97.0 97.0 98.0 97.0 98.0 89 1 0.0 1.5 97 97.0 1.4 1.0 97.0 97.0 2.4 89 * * ** * * * * * * 90 1 99.0 0.0 97 97.0 5.0 14.0 97.0 97.0 19.0 90 2 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 6.0 97.0 6.0 90 * **** ** 4.0 * * 91 1 99.0 0.5 97 97.0 6.0 2.4 * 97.0 8.4 91 2 99.0 0.0 97 97.0 6.0 12.5 97.0 97.0 18.5 92 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 13.3 97.0 13.3 92 * ***** * * * * 93 1 0.2 0.0 97 97.0 4.0 16.0 97.0 97.0 20.0 93 2 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 12.0 97.0 12.0 93 * * ** * * * * * * 93 * ** * * * * * * * 93 * ** * * *** ** 93 * ** * * *** * * 94 1 97.0 97.0 99 99.0 97.0 97.0 13.0 15.0 28.0 95 1 0.0 0.1 97 97.0 15.0 16.0 97.0 97.0 31.0 95 2 0.0 0.1 97 97.0 15.0 16.0 97.0 97.0 31.0 95 3 0.0 0.0 97 97.0 15.0 24.0 97.0 97.0 39.0 95 4 0.0 0.1 97 97.0 15.0 16.0 97.0 97.0 31.0 96 1 0.0 0.4 97 97.0 12.0 4.0 97.0 97.0 16.0 96 2 0.0 0.0 97 97.0 9.0 12.0 97.0 97.0 21.0 96 * * •k * * ** * * * 97 1 0.0 0.1 97 97.0 12.0 14.0 97.0 97.0 26.0 97 2 0.0 0.0 97 97.0 10.0 26.0 97.0 97.0 36.0 98 1 0.0 0.0 97 97.0 10.0 25.0 97.0 97.0 35.0 98 2 97.0 97.0 98 97.0 97.0 97.0 12.0 97.0 12.0 98 * ** * * ** * * * 98 * * **** * ** * 99 1 97.0 97.0 0 99.0 97.0 97.0 12.0 1.7 13.7 99 * **** ** * ** 100 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 11.0 97.0 11.0 101 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 9.0 97.0 9.0 102 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3.9 97.0 3.9 102 2 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 6.0 97.0 6.0 102 ****** *** * 103 1 97.0 97.0 0 97.0 97.0 97.0 40.0 97.0 40.0 103 * * ** ** *** * 103 * * * * ** **** VO (VJ

o T|' * Ht Ht in O Ht Ht O Ht Ht O O in Ht Ht Ht in Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht O Ht Ht VO Ht O Ht Ht O CO Ht Ht fM Ht Ht Ht in Ht Ht O O O o Ht Ht Ht

N rH M to M* O CM o O en VO VO O O Vf (M O Vf Vf rH I-) H rg (VJ CM CM CM rH CM CM VO CM CM

O O * Ht Ht o O Ht Ht o Ht Ht O O o Ht Ht Ht O Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht O Ht Ht O Ht O Ht Ht O O Ht Ht O Ht Ht Ht O Ht Ht OO O O Ht Ht Ht

M M M M MMM f v M M M t^ O ' l ' ­ m OV en en a\ en en en en en en en en en en en enen en en

o O * Ht Ht in o Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o o Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht Ht Ht h : o Ht Ht o Ht o Ht Ht o CO Ht Ht o Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o o oHt Ht Ht

(N M V f o CM r- MM VO o o M t'­ t'­ t'­ I—1 c n en (VJ CM CM en en en en CM CM en en en enen en

o o H< Ht Ht o o Ht Ht o Ht Ht o O o Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht CM Ht o Ht Ht o o Ht Ht in Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o o oHt Ht Ht

r- CO r ' en M VO VO V f CM M M r- I—1 CO CO o o 00 CT> cn en en en en rH 1— 1 rH en en en en V f rH rH ov

o ■K Ht Ht o o Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o inHt Ht Ht in Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht O Ht Ht V f Ht o Ht Ht o o Ht Ht o Ht Ht Ht in Ht Ht OO O o Ht Ht Ht

rH M M Vf V f in Vf M CM CM Vf Vf V f rH OV en en o\ en en en m rH rH rH

o O * Ht Ht o o Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o O Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht o Ht o Ht Ht o o Ht Ht O Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht O O O o Ht Ht Ht

r» M M MMMMM M r ' t'­ C'­ C'­ t'­ C'­ m cn en en en en en en en en en en en en m en en en en en

o Ht Ht Ht o M Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o r ' Ht Ht Ht r- Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht r- Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht t^ Ht Ht t'­ O' t'­ t'­ Ht Ht Ht cn en en en en en en en en en en ai o o Ht Ht Ht o o Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o o Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht Vf Ht o Ht Ht o o Ht Ht CM Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht o CM CM o Ht Ht Ht

r ' CO M o o o o r~ rH CO o o o00 m cn en en en en en en en en

o o Ht Ht Ht o o Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o o Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht o Ht o Ht Ht o o Ht Ht O Ht Ht Ht o Ht Ht o o o o Ht Ht Ht r ' o M en M en en en o M r» O o o oo o ov en en en enoven en en en en en

rH rH Ht Ht Ht rH rH Ht Ht rH Ht Ht rH CM rH Ht Ht Ht 1—1 Ht Ht Ht Ht Ht rH Hf Ht rH Ht rH Ht Ht rH CM Ht Ht rH Ht Ht Ht (—1 Ht Ht rH CM CM H Ht Ht Ht

in in in inVO n»CO CO CO en en O OO O rH rH H H rH 1—1 CM CM CM n n Vf Vf V f in if) in inVO VO VO VO t^ t-' 00 CO 00 en 0\ enen O o OOOOOOO O OO o o rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH I—1 rH rH rH rH rH rH 1—1 1—1 rH rH 1—1 I—1 rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH H rH H cH rH rH rH rH rH rH H rH rH rH rH I—1 rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH H H (—1 rH rH rH rH rH rH 1—t 1—1 rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH (—1 rH rH H rH 247 KEY TO COLOR DATA Column 1 - Textile number Column 2 - Color number Column 3 - Location of color Column 4 - Munsell hue designation 1 = 7.5R 2 = lOR 3 = 2.5YR 4 = 5YR 5 = 7.5YR 6 = lOYR 7 = 2.5 Y 8 = 5 Y Column 5 - Munsell value designation Column 6 - Munsell chroma designation Column 7 - Color description 1 = off-white 2 = tan 3 = brown 4 = gray 5 = black 6 = yellow 7 = red Column 8 - Charring 1 = complete 2 = partial Column 9 - Application of color 1 = fiber stage 2 = yarn stage 3 = piece stage Column 10 - Source of color 1 = natural 2 = added COM* CM

o rH rH ■K rH •X rH rH H •X rH -X rH He rH rH rH He rH rH He rH rH rH rH rH rH rH He rH rH H He He rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH H I m H H •X rH HC rH rH H •X rH He rH He H H rH He rH cH He rH rH rH rH rH rH rH He rH rH rH He He rH H rH H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH CO O O •K O •X OO O ■X O He O He OO O He OO He OO O OOOO He O O O He He O OOOO O OOOOOO OO

CO CO •X CO •X CO CO CO He CO He He CN CO CO He CO CO He iN CO CO CN CN CN CO He "N " CN CO He He VO CN CO CN CN CO CN CN CO CN CO CO CO I VO O O •X O •X O O o •X O He O He O o O He O o He O O o OO O O He OOO He He O O OO OO OOO OO O OO n CO CO m CN CN CN CO CN CN VO CN CO VO CO CN CN VO CN VO CO rH m in o in * o * o o o * o M O He O O O He o O He o o o o o O O He in o O He H< O o o o oo o o oo o o o o

i n vj* VO VO i n 10 cn VO VO in VO CO in VO r> in r-* VO in VO VO m VO CO in VO VO VO VO cn

T f i n -K T f * i n i n * cn -x i n -K co i n i n -K m m * m m m vococom * ^com * * cocovocovocommvom^vovom u cn CO o O He O He O O O He O He O He O O O He O O He O O CN rH O o O He CN O O HS He O OOOOO CN rH OOO o o O

rH rH rH rH rH H rH rH CN in H rH rH rH rH CNCN in VO rH CN in H CN in rH rH rH rH CNCN in CN in H rH H

CN rH rH He rH He H rH rH He rH He H He H CN rH He rH rH He rH rH rH CN COCO rH He rH CN rH He He rH CN rH rH rH rH rH CN CO rH CN rH rH rH

H rH CN CN COCO in VOVO r- CO CO cn cnO O rH CN CNCO in in in inVO VO 0 0 CO CO cn cnO rH CN CO in inVOCO rH H rH rH rH rH rH rH H rH rH rH rH rH rH H rH rH rH H CNCN CNCN CN CN CNCNCN CN CNCN 5 249 28 2 1.0 6 4.0 2.0 3 0 1 99 29 1 2.0 6 7.5 2.0 1 0 1 1 29 2 3.0 5 6.0 4.0 2 0 1 1 29 3 6.0 6 7.0 2.0 1 0 1 1 29 3 7.0 6 7.0 2.0 1 0 1 1 30 1 2.1 5 7.0 2.0 2 0 1 1 30 1 5.0 5 7.0 2.0 2 0 1 1 30 2 3.0 4 5.0 4.0 3 0 1 1 30 3 2.2 6 7.0 1.0 4 0 1 1 31 1 1.0 5 2.0 0.0 5 1 98 98 31 •k * **** * ** 32 1 1.0 4 4.5 2.0 3 0 1 1 32 * * * **** * * 33 1 2.2 4 3.0 3.0 3 0 1 1 33 2 2.1 5 5.0 4.0 3 0 1 1 33 2 5.0 5 5.0 4.0 3 0 1 1 34 1 1.0 6 7.0 2.0 2 0 1 1 34 2 2.2 4 4.0 3.0 3 0 1 1 34 * ****** ** 34 * ****** ** 35 1 1.0 6 6.0 2.0 4 0 1 1 35 * * * **** ** 35 ** ** *** * * 36 1 2.2 5 4.0 3.0 3 0 1 1 36 2 2.1 5 5.0 4.0 3 0 1 1 36 * * * **** ** 37 1 1.0 6 6.0 4.0 3 0 1 1 38 1 1.0 5 4.0 2.0 3 0 1 1 38 * ****** ** 39 1 1.0 4 4.0 1.5 4 0 1 1 40 1 1.0 5 4.0 2.0 3 0 1 1 40 ** * *** * ** 40 * ****** * * 41 1 2.2 4 4.0 2.0 4 0 1 1 41 2 2.1 6 6.0 6.0 2 0 1 1 41 3 5.0 6 7.0 2.0 2 0 1 1 41 * ****** * * 42 1 1.0 5 7.0 6.0 3 0 1 1 43 1 1.0 6 6.0 3.0 2 0 1 1 43 ******* * * 43 * *** ** * ** 44 1 2.2 4 7.0 1.0 4 0 1 1 44 2 2.1 6 6.5 3.5 2 0 1 1 44 2 5.0 6 6.5 3.5 2 0 1 1 44 * ***** * ** 44 * * * **** ** 44 * * *** ** * * 44 * **** ** ** 44 ** * **** ** 45 1 1.0 6 7.0 6.0 6 0 1 1 46 1 1.0 6 8.0 4.0 2 0 1 1 47 1 1.0 5 5.0 5.0 3 0 1 1 250

47 ** ** *** ** 47 ** * ** ** * * 47 ** ** ** * * * 48 1 2.2 4 5.0 3.0 3 0 1 1 48 2 2.1 5 6.0 4.0 3 0 1 1 48 2 5.0 5 6.0 4.0 3 0 1 1 48 * * *** ** ** 49 1 2.2 3 2.5 0.0 5 0 1 2 49 2 2.2 6 7.0 6.0 6 0 1 2 49 3 2.2 6 5.0 6.0 6 0 1 2 49 4 2.2 5 4.0 2.0 3 0 1 2 49 5 2.2 4 4.0 1.0 4 0 1 2 49 6 2.2 2 3.0 6.0 7 0 1 2 50 1 2.2 1 3.0 7.0 7 0 1 1 50 ** ** * ** ** 50 ** ** * ** ** 51 1 1.0 2 3.0 6.0 7 0 3 2 51 2 1.0 5 5.0 4.0 2 0 98 2 52 1 11.0 5 2.0 0.0 5 1 98 98 52 ** ** * * ** 53 1 11.0 5 2.0 0.0 5 1 98 98 54 1 11.0 2 3.0 6.0 7 0 3 2 54 2 11.0 6 6.0 4.0 2 0 98 2 55 1 11.0 3 4.0 6.0 7 0 98 2 56 1 1.0 1 3.5 6.0 7 0 3 2 56 2 1.0 4 4.5 6.0 2 0 98 2 56 * *** * * ** * 57 1 1.0 1 3.0 2.0 7 0 98 2 57 ** ** ** * ** 58 1 11.0 3 3.0 6.0 7 0 2 2 58 2 11.0 5 6.0 4.0 6 0 2 2 58 3 11.0 3 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 58 4 11.0 5 5.0 3.0 6 0 2 2 59 1 2.2 1 3.0 8.0 7 0 1 2 59 2 2.2 2 2.5 1.0 5 0 1 2 59 * *** ***** 59 ** * * ** *** 60 1 12.0 2 3.0 6.0 7 0 2 2 60 2 12.0 4 4.5 6.0 6 0 2 2 60 3 12.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 61 1 1.0 6 5.0 4.0 3 0 1 1 61 ** ** *** * * 62 1 1.0 99 99.0 99.0 7 0 3 2 62 2 1.0 99 99.0 99.0 2 0 98 99 62 ** ** ***** 62 ** ** * ** ** 63 1 1.0 99 99.0 99.0 7 0 3 2 63 2 1.0 99 99.0 99.0 2 0 98 99 63 ** *** * *** 64 1 1.0 2 3.5 6.0 7 0 3 2 64 2 1.0 6 5.0 4.0 2 0 98 99 64 * *** ** ** * 251

65 1 1.0 99 99.0 99.0 7 0 3 2 65 2 1.0 99 99.0 99.0 2 0 98 99 66 1 1.0 3 3.0 6.0 7 0 3 2 66 2 1.0 5 5.0 6.0 2 0 98 99 67 1 1.0 2 3.5 6.0 7 0 3 2 67 2 1.0 5 5.0 4.0 2 0 98 99 67 * ** * ** V * * 68 1 1.0 2 3.0 6.0 7 0 3 2 68 2 1.0 5 5.0 6.0 2 0 98 99 69 1 1.0 3 4.0 6.0 7 0 3 2 69 2 1.0 4 5.5 5.0 2 0 98 99 70 1 1.0 2 4.0 6.0 7 0 98 2 70 * ** ** *** * 71 1 1.0 1 3.5 8.0 7 0 3 2 71 2 1.0 5 6.5 4.0 2 0 98 99 72 1 2.2 1 3.0 4.0 7 0 1 2 72 2 2.2 6 6.5 4.0 6 0 1 2 72 3 2.2 2 2.5 1.0 5 0 1 2 72 4 2.2 5 4.0 4.0 3 0 1 2 72 * ** **** * * 73 1 1.0 3 3.0 6.0 7 0 3 2 73 2 1.0 5 5.5 4.0 2 0 98 99 74 1 1.0 2 4.0 7.0 7 0 3 2 74 2 1.0 5 4.5 4.0 2 0 98 99 75 1 1.0 1 3.0 8.0 7 0 2 2 75 * ** * * *** * 75 * * * * *** * * 76 1 12.0 2 4.5 6.0 7 0 2 2 76 1 12.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 76 1 12.0 5 5.5 6.0 2 0 2 2 77 1 5.0 2 3.5 6.0 7 0 2 2 77 2 5.0 5 5.5 6.0 6 0 2 2 77 3 5.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 77 4 5.0 4 4.5 2.0 3 0 2 2 78 1 5.0 1 3.5 6.0 7 0 2 2 78 2 5.0 4 4.5 6.0 6 0 2 2 78 3 5.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 78 * ** ****** 79 1 5.0 2 3.0 6.0 7 0 2 2 79 2 5.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 79 3 5.0 4 5.0 6.0 6 0 2 2 79 * * * * *** * * 80 1 5.0 2 3.0 6.0 7 0 2 2 80 2 5.0 4 4.5 6.0 3 0 2 2 80 3 5.0 5 6.0 6.0 6 0 2 2 80 4 5.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 81 1 6.0 2 3.5 6.0 7 0 2 2 81 2 2.0 4 5.5 6.0 6 0 2 2 81 3 2.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 81 * ***** * * * 82 1 11.0 2 3.0 4.0 7 0 98 2 83 1 11.0 4 4.0 4.0 3 0 98 99 252 83 2 11.0 4 3.0 2.5 3 0 98 99 84 1 5.0 2 3.5 6.0 7 0 2 2 84 2 5.0 4 5.5 6.0 6 0 2 2 84 3 5.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 85 1 1.0 5 3.0 2.0 3 0 1 1 85 * ** * *** * * 85 * ** * *** ** 86 1 1.0 5 2.0 0.0 5 1 98 98 86 * * * * * * * * * 86 * * * * *** * * 87 1 1.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 1 98 98 88 1 1.0 * 6.5 4.0 3 0 1 1 88 * ** * * * * ** 89 1 1.0 5 5.0 3.0 3 0 1 1 89 * * * * * ** * * 90 1 5.0 3 3.0 5.0 7 0 2 2 90 2 5.0 5 5.0 6.0 6 0 2 2 90 3 5.0 8 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 91 1 1.0 5 2.0 0.0 5 1 98 98 91 * * * * * * * ** 92 1 11.0 3 3.0 6.0 7 0 3 2 92 2 11.0 5 5.0 6.0 3 0 98 2 93 1 5.0 3 3.0 6.0 7 0 2 2 93 2 5.0 5 6.0 6.0 6 0 2 2 93 3 5.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 93 3 11.0 4 2.5 1.0 5 0 2 2 93 4 5.0 4 3.0 2.0 3 0 2 2 93 5 5.0 2 4.0 3.0 3 0 2 2 94 1 1.0 6 6.0 3.0 1 0 1 1 95 1 1.0 1 2.5 0.0 5 1 98 98 95 * * * * • k ** * * 95 * ** * ** * * * 95 * * * * *** ** 96 1 1.0 3 2.5 0.0 5 1 98 98 96 * ** * ** * * * 96 * ** * *** * * 97 1 1.0 3 2.5 0.0 5 1 98 98 97 * ** * ** * * * 98 1 1.0 3 2.5 0.0 5 1 98 98 98 * ** * • k * * * * 98 * ** * *** * * 98 * ** * ** * * * 99 1 11.0 3 2.5 6.0 7 0 2 2 99 2 12.0 98 98.0 98.0 5 0 2 98 100 1 1.0 3 3.0 6.0 7 0 2 2 101 1 1.0 2 3.0 6.0 7 0 98 2 102 1 1.0 3 2.5 0.0 5 0 1 1 102 * ** * *** * * 102 * ** * *** ** 103 1 1.0 5 3.0 2.0 2 0 1 1 103 * * * * ** * ** 103 * ** * ** * ** n in ni

o\coninim ninininim ninininininininininaninininininininininini^i* nininininininiN njninico-na\ -K mni-K* coHHHHnininininininininininaninininjninonininjnininicocoiininininirHrHH*HrHrHrHCO*Km H OO O o OOOOOOOOO O O o O OOO O OOOO OOO O * HC O OO o O O O OOO O rH HC HC O O HC HC in 1^ VO in cn VO in in cnC^ cn VO in cn C"VO in cn CO cn VO in C' CM CM HC He VO in cn VO in cn VO in inHC HC r- CM HC HC o OO o o OOOOOOOO o O O o O O OO o OOO o o OO O H< HC O O o o O OO o OO o o HC HC O O HC HC

o VO in t-l CMCM•M* o O VO VO VO rH VO VO rH cn VO VO VO rH VO VO in VO o VO VO O CMVO VO rH rH VO M*

in O o in o in inO in O O o O o O O in o O O m o O o O o in O O O HC HC OO in o O O in o OO in in HC HC O O HC HC

ni n in ni cnCM CM CM cn CM cn "M* VO CM VO VO CM cn in «H* VO CM cn inVO CM cn VO CM cn cnVO CM CM cn VO

in rH in cn in cnCM in incn inCM m ■M* CM in v f ■M* cn CM in •M* cn '4* ■M* * He cn in cn inCM VO cn CM in HC HC rH HC HC

o nim ni CM o o oo o o o o oO o o OOOO O o o O o o o OO ■K HC o o o o CMCM CMCM CMCMCMo HC HC CMCM HC HC

rH ni nim CM rH in in inrH rH rH rH rH in in in in inLO m in in in in inin rH rH rH rH rH HH CMCMCMCMCMCMCM 1—1 CM CM rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH

rH rH ni cnM* rH rH CM cn rH CM cn (—I CM rH CM cn H CM cn inVO rH CM cn rH CM (—1 HC He H CM cn T f rH CM cn rH CM cn rH HC HC rH CM HC HC

in in inin VO CO CO CO m a\ O o o orH rH H rH rH rH CM CM CM cn cn■M* in in in inVO VO VO VO COCOCO cn cn cn m O o o oo O o o o OO O o O rH rH rH I—1 rH I—1 rH rH rH rH rH t—i I—1 rH rH rH rH rH rH rH I—1 rH rH rH rH 1—1 rH 1—1 rH rH rH rH rH rH rH 1—1 rH rH rH H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH H rH rH rH H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH H rH rH rH rH rH rH (—1 rH rH H rH rH rH rH rH 254 KEY TO YARN STRUCTURE AND FIBER DATA YARN STRUCTURE Column 1 - Textile number Column 2 - Yarn type, number Column 3 - Location of yarn type Column 4 - Yarn diameter in centimeters Column 5 - Number of yarn components Column 6 - Arrangement of yarn components 1.1 = unspun single 1.2 = unspun combined 2.1 = spun single 2.2 = spun 2-ply 2.3 = spun 3-ply 3.0 = complex wrapped core 3.1 = complex with single core 3.2 = complex with double core 3.3 = complex with triple core Column 7 - Arrangement of replied yarn components 1 = 2:2 2 = 2:3 3 = 3:2 Column 8 - Final twist direction 1 = S (\) 2 = Z (/) Column 9 - Twist direction of components 1 = S (\) 2 = Z (/) Column 10 - Final angle of twist in degrees 1 = <10 2 = 10-25 3 = 26-45 4 = >45 255 FIBER

Column 11 - Fiber type number Column 12 - Location of fiber sample Column 13 - Fiber identification Animal 1.1 = fur/hair 1.2 = feather Vegetal 2.1 = hard 2.2 = bast 2.3 = seed hair 2.4 = combination of hard & bast Column 14 - Degree of shredding of vegetal fibers 1 = coarse 2 = medium 3 = fine 4 = very fine Column 15 - Type of processing of feathers 1 = split quills 2 = stripped quills Column 16 - Combining of different fibers in a yarn 0 = absent 1 = present Column 17 - Amount of fiber preparation/processing 1 = little 2 = moderate 3 = extensive tOtOtOtOtOtvJtOtvJtOWNJNJHHMHHh'HHHHHMHHHHHHMH OJ'JCr>UlUl*J^it»it»WWMOU5VDOOCOCO'-)-v)a\a>U1UlU1U1iP>-WtOWHOOVOVDa)C»'J'v]0>0\U1it^WWtON) H

(-ij-jHtOHWHHHHHHtOHWWHNiHtvJHWWHHHHNJHHtOHWHNJHNJHtOHHHX-HtOH H M M HHH 0 1 tOUltOtOHHHHUlWHU 1 tOU1 tOU1 N)CTiU1 N>N>HHUltOHUlN>UlW 0 1 tOUltOUlN>HH HCntO H OOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSt-OOO o

###########»#*#$$###########*#«#$#########OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oooo# # # *‘w 'w ‘ OlMW45«WOJO1^WHI-'f-*OlWJ^WK>WcnU>WtOWN>N)rOWUlWtO4i.mülU>00'^tvJU>U1UI VO O U1OOUIOOOOOUlUlOUlOOOOOOOOOOOOOUIOlOOUIOOOOOOtvJOOOM-OOO o

tOW HtOW tOtO'JHHW tOHHHHHW OVtOHtOtONJ'JtOtOHHHHW HtOHtOHHHHHHX-HHtOH

t o t o H to t o t o t o VO MMtOtOtOHMHHtOVOtOMtOtOtOVOtOtOMHHtOtOtOtOCOtOHHHHHH H to to H ########$#######$####### $###*#*### t o t o t^j to t o t o t o VO totofotoHtototototovotototototovotototototototoHtoHtototototoiotoX- to H to to Os

VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VOVOVOVDVOVOVOVOVOVOVOVOVOVDVDVOVOVOVDVDVOVOVOVOVOVDVOVO VO VO VO VO «0 'O -o '0 -ov j Vj ^ *v] -O "O "O *o X- ^ *0 Vj ^ v4

VO t o t o o to t o t o t o >0 OOtOtOtOOOOOtOtOtOOtOHHHtOHOOOMtOHtOHtOOOOOOOX-OHtOO 03

VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO 'O M H H H H >0 ^ H H ^ •O^'OMHH'JHtOtO^HtO X- "J '-J H -o VO VO VO H VO VO O VO VO to VO OOWtJtOOOOOVOVOMOWVOVOVOlOW O O O tJWtOUtOWOO o o o o X- o to to O o H H H toH W tOHHHHHtOH* X-HWtOHtOHtJtO.tOHHH X- H H tOHtOMtOMtOH X- H H H X- H to H (-» H H H H H H M H ^ H H H H H H H H H a\ to ov to to H H H H (TV to HCTVtOtOOVtO'OCTvtOtOHH H H cn to m to (Tv to m to 1 -j H H OV to H • •••••«••••• •• H O O O O o o to HO O O O O O X-OOtOHOOOOHtOOO X-OO o o o o o o o o x-ooo x-oooo to to toto to to toH to to toto toto to to toH to toto to to toH to to to to toto to toVO VO to to to to to to toto to H H H H to HH to H H to to H X-H to to H HH to to W to H X- H HH H H H o o H H X- HH X- H H H H W to toH 10 to to X- to HH to w to to X-H to X- to toto to to toX- to to X- H to to to to toX- X- H H X- H to to X- to H to H iN VOVO VO VOVOVO VOVO VO VOVOVO VO VOVO VOVOVO VO VOVO VO VO VOVO VO VOVOVO VOVO VO VOVO VOVO VOVO H «0 -O •o H 'J «0 >o «0 X- 'O «0H >0 vj -0 'O «0 'OH vj X- 'O «0'0 vj X- X- 'O X- 'J vj X- vj «0 «0 U1 o o O o o oH OOO o o o o X-o o HH O o o o HH o o X-o o o oo o X- X- o o X-O O o X- o O o o OV U1to to toH LO to toto toHH to 10 to to "i" H to to to toto toto to to to to X- H to to toto to X- X- H H X- H to to X- to H to H vj as ONCNCMfNMCJMHcgM-K H-)f nirjcMcncNOJoJco-x •X (N (\) * H(N-X OJfO-X * CM CM CO CM H CO CM CM CM CM CM CM to CM CO CM CM to CM in (N -K OOOOOOOOO-K O-X OOHHOOHO-X fHH-XOO-XOO-X* H H o O o O O o HH HHH H o O OO O •K r^-x Mt^coi^r-'MHr'-x * r'cot^t^t^-x M -X -Xh ' H r ' r-» M H r ~ 1^ m m m m m m m m m c\ m o\ m m m m m m m o\

•X HH'd''j'<'H<'t)'(N-X H-x HH(\)n]<''«f(N(\-X •X HOJ-X HH-X HCM-X * H CM CM H CM " tf TfH HH CM CM CM H H CM H ######$$# « njC'JMC'JoiHMnjrg m MNHMMfMHM CM H CM rg H CM CM H CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM HH CM H CM CM CM CM CM

o o o o H CM o o H O CM H o O CM o •X -X H CM -X o o -X O O -X -X H CM o OO O o o H H CM CM H CM o o o o O

CM CO CD t" CM CM CO CD H CM CO CM CM VO CM H CM CM H H H H CM CM VO C^ H CM VO H CM CO CM CO VO H H CM H H H HHH

H CM CO CO H CM CO H HH CM H H H CM H •X -X H CM -X HH-X H H -X -X H CM CO HH HHH CM CO CO in CM HHH

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO r ' CM CO CO CO CO * M CM CO O CM -X CO CM -X -X CO CO CM O CO CM CO CO CO CO cn cnCO CO CO cn cn cn C\ cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn H H CM H CM H CM HH HHH CM M * M H CO M -X CM CM -X * HH CM CM CM CM H r - l HHH H CM cn

r' CM t" r ' r' * M M CO r~ -X * » t^ r- MM cn cncn cnin cncn cn cn cn cncncn cn cna\ o\

CM CM CM CM CO CM CM CM CO CM CM CO CM CM CM CM CM CO CM CO H CM CM CM CO CM CM CM H CM CM CM CO CM CO CM CO CM CM CM CM CM CM cn

CM CM CM in CO CM CM CM m CM CM in CM CM CM CM m CM CO H H - X CM CM -X 4C in CM CM CM H CM CM CM in r-j CO CM in CM CM H CM CM CM cn o o oin o O o o o in o CO o O o o o in oo in * in o -X * o O o O Oin in O o o o ino O CO o O in O in CO CM in O CO CO o CM CO in CM CO vj*H O CM o CD O CM H o CM CO CO CO CM H VO r i CO in CM CO CO CM o*

o o o o o cno o H o o oO O o o H O CO o o o o H O o O O o o O o o o to oOO o o o o cn cn o o o o oH o o o H o o 1—1O o o OHO O O It O O -X it O H o o O o o O o [—1 o H o H O o o o o

CM CO CO CM CM CO in CM CM in CM CM VO CM CM CM in H H (—I H CM CM VO r>H CM in H CM CM CO to o* VO HH CM H

H CM CO H H CM CO H H CM HH CM CM H HHCMHHX HH-X i t HH CM CO H H CM CO HH CM CM CO CO in HH H

cn cncn cnO o o o CO CO CO •tl* o* in cococDt^cococnoooHHHHCMCOCOCO'f'f\f

47 2 5.0 0.30 2 2.2 97 1 2 3 2 6.0 2.2 3 97 0 3 47 **** **** * 1 11.0 2.1 2 97 0 2 47 **** * ** *** *** ** * 48 1 2.0 1.00 5 3.2 97 97 97 97 1 2.1 2.1 2 97 1 2 48 1 2.1 0.40 2 2.2 97 1 2 3 2 2.2 1.2 * 1 1 2 48 2 6.0 0.30 2 2.2 97 1 2 3 3 6.0 2.2 3 97 0 3 48 3 7.0 0.40 2 2.2 97 1 2 2 1 7.0 2.1 2 97 0 2 49 1 2.0 0.50 6 3.2 97 97 97 97 1 2.1 2.1 2 97 1 2 49 1 2.1 0.15 2 2.2 97 1 2 2 1 2.3 2.1 2 97 1 2 49 1 2.3 0.03 1 2.1 97 2 97 2 2 2.2 1.1 * 97 1 2 49 2 5.0 0.10 1 2.1 97 1 97 1 3 2.2 1.2 * 2 1 3 49 ***** *** ** ** *** * 49 ** ** * * * ** * ** *** * 50 1 2.0 0.50 5 3.2 97 97 97 97 1 2.1 2.1 2 97 1 2 50 1 2.1 0.20 2 2.2 97 2 1 2 2 2.2 1.2 * 1 1 2 50 2 5.0 98.00 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 * ** **** 51 1 1.0 0.30 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 1.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 51 ** ** * *** .* * **** * * 52 1 11.0 0.15 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 99.0 * ** * 52 ** ** * **** * **** * * 53 1 11.0 0.06 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 99.0 *** * 54 1 11.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 54 ***** ** *** ** ** ** 55 1 11.0 0.05 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 56 1 1.0 0.37 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 1.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 56 ** ** * * * ** *** *** * 56 ***** ** *** **** * * 57 1 1.0 0.30 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 57 * * ** * * * ** * * * *** * 58 1 11.0 0.15 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 58 ** •k * * **** * ** * * * * 58 **** *** *** ** *** * 58 * * ** *** *** ** ** ** 59 1 2.0 0.50 98 3.0 97 97 97 97 1 ‘2.1 2.1 2 97 1 2 59 1 2.1 99.00 2 2.2 97 1 2 2 2 2.2 1.1 * 97 1 2 59 1 2.3 98.00 1 98.0 97 98 98 98 3 2.2 1.2 * 2 1 3 59 2 5.0 98.00 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 * ** ** ** 60 1 11.0 98.00 1 1.1 97 0 97 0 1 11.0 2.1 0 97 0 1 60 2 12.0 0.08 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 2 12.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 60 *** * ** * * * ** ** ** * 61 1 1.0 0.08 1 2.1 97 1 97 2 1 2.0 2.1 3 97 0 3 61 * * ** ** *** 2 6.0 2.2 3 97 0 3 62 1 1.0 0.37 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 1.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 62 * * * * *** ** **** * * * 62 ** ** ** * * ** * * ** * * 62 ****** * *** * * ** * * 63 1 2.0 0.30 2 2.2 97 2 1 4 1 1.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 63 2 5.0 0.34 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 * * ** ** * 63 * * * * ** * ** ** * ** * * 64 1 1.0 0.23 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 1.0 99.0 ** * * 64 * * * * *** ** **** * * * 64 * * * *** * ** ** *** * * 00 03 0 0 03 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 ' J •O -0-O•O-O-O-0 •O -O-O - 0 «0 •O 'O - o v j - J 03 03 03 03 03 03 0303 03 03 03 w t o HH HH O o o O VD VD VD VD 03 00 00 00 <1 • o •o 03 03 03 VJl V31 O l W w to t o to t o t o HH OO VD VD 00 CO vJ 03 03 01 O l

H M X- VO to H X- t o H*X- to t o HX- t o MH X- X- to H X- to MH to H X- M X- H t o H M H to H X- H to H to M X- to H X- H X- H

H HH H HHH HH H*H 10 t o 03 t o H O l H U1 to to l-> V31 to tJ1 H t o t o V31 to H H O l to t o t o to O l to H O l t o O l to O l to HH

OO X- o o O X- o O O X- O O O X- O O O X- X- o O X- O OO O H X- O X- O o VO H H O OO X-OO OOOX- o O X- O X- O

VO VO OO o O O o O O o O O OOO OO 03 O HO VD O o o O O OO OO o O OO O o O O O

HH O l OHHHMHH H H HH H H O H O H O t o t o H O H H in O 10 to O 10 O t o o lO to t o O O X- 00 vJ O X- O O O X- VJl v ;i O X- O U1 U1 O OX- O O O i n O X- i n X- i n o 03 i n i n o vJ U1 X- to i n O i n i n X- i n O X- O X- 03

VD VO VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VO to t o X- 03 03 t o X- 00 t o t o X- t o t o 00 X- 00 t o t o 03 t o X- H t o in 03 to X- to X- t o HH t o to 03 00 to X- to 00 t o 03 to X- 00 to X- to X- t o

VD VD VO VD VD VO VD VD VD VD VD toto w 00to 00to t o t o to 00 00 t o t o 03 t o H to VO 03 t o t o t o 03 t o to t o 10 00 to t o 00 t o 00 t o 00 t o t o t o to t o X- o O t o X-O t o t o X- to t o OX-O to t o O to X- to t o to o to X- to X- t o o H t o t o t o O to X- t o o t o O to X- o to X- t o X to

VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VO VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VO VD VO VD VD VO VD VD VD VD •O -O 0 3 «0 X- 0 0 • o X- -o 0 0 X- 0 0 -O >0 00 •O X- ■O -O -o 03 -O X- 'O X- vJ - o - 0 03 'O X- 03 'O 00 vJ X- 0 3 vJ X- •JX •O

VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD to t o X- >0 03 t o X- 00 t o t o X- t o t o 03 X- 00 t o t o 00 t o X- O to ■o 03 t o X- to X- t o 00 03 t o H • o 00 to X- t o 03 t o 03 to X- 03 to X- t o X t o

VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD HH X- •O 03 H X- 0 3 HH X- HH 00 X- 03 MH» 03 M X- - 0 H 00 M X- M X- H 03 00 H to 00 H X- H 00 H 00 H X- 03 H X- H X H

VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD X- •O 00 VO X- 03 VO VO X- VO VO 00 X- 00 W VO 00 VO X- O 10 •O 00 10 X- VO X- VO 00 03 t o t o •O 03 10 X- 10 00 lO 00 10 X- 00 10 X- 10 X lO

HH X- VO t o H X- X- t o H X- H t o H X- X- t o H t o H X- to H VO to H X- H X- H X- X- t o HH t o H X-H t o H t o H X- t o H X- H X H

HH HH H H H H H H HHH 03 t o t o 0 3 0 3 t o H 03 t o m to to H m to to H H to to to 03 to H 03 to 03 to 03 to H H

O O X- O O O X- X-O OX- O o OX- X- OO X- * o o X- o o oto H X- O X- O X- to 10 H OOXOO O OOXOO X- O X- O

VO VO VD VO Vf VD VD VD VO VO VO VD VD VD VD VD HH VO VD VD VD H VD VD H VD VD VO VO H t o VO I t o HH H to to VD H H VD H ID H VO VD H H

HH X- O OOX-X- O H X- O O H X- X- OO ff * o o X- H H O H X H X H HHHOH X H O H O H XO VO X- H X- H

X- X-X-X- X- X- X- X- » X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- * X- X- X- X- H X- to X X X X X to to XXXX X XXXXXX X- X- X- X-

VD VD VD VD VO VO VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VD VO VO •O 'OX-X- X- X- X- X- X- >0 » * X- «J X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- 'O 'O X- - 0 X 'O X 'O «0 >0 'O X «0 X •O X -J X «0 X X X X- 'J X- *0 H OX-X-X-X-X-X-X-OX-X- X- OX- X-X-X- X- X- X- X- X- o O X- H X O X O HHHX OXO XOXOXXX X- O X- O U1to t o t o X- X- X- X- X- X- X- t o X- X- X- to X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- to H X- t o X t o X t o to to to X to X to X to X to XX X X- to X- to VO 260 83 * * ** * * *** 2 11.0 2.2 3 97 1 3 84 1 5.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 6.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 84 2 2.0 0.10 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 2 2.0 99.0 * ** * 84 * * * * ** ** * * * * * * ** 85 1 2.0 0.08 2 2.2 97 1 2 3 2 6.0 2.4 2 97 0 2 85 2 5.0 0.05 1 1.1 97 2 97 3 1 2.0 2.2 3 97 0 3 85 * * ** ** **** * ** * * * 86 1 1.0 0.18 2 2.2 97 1 2 3 1 1.0 99.0 * ** 2 86 * * ** ** ** * * * ** ** * 86 * * ** * * **** * ** ** * 87 1 1.0 0.20 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 99.0 * ** 2 88 1 11.0 0.17 2 2.2 97 1 2 2 1 11.0 2.2 3 97 0 3 88 2 11.0 0.50 4 2.0 1 2 1 3 * * * * ** * 89 1 2.0 0.60 1 1.2 97 0 97 0 1 2.0 2.2 3 97 0 3 89 2 5.0 0.42 1 2.1 97 2 97 1 2 6.0 2.4 2 97 0 2 90 1 5.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1, 3 1 6.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 90 2 2.0 0.08 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 90 3 11.0 0.50 4 3.0 98 98 98 98 2 2.0 99.0 * 97 * * 91 1 1.0 0.17 2 2.2 97 1 2 3 1 2.0 99.0 * * * * 91 * * ** ** ** * 2 6.0 99.0 * * * * 92 1 1.0 0.17 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 92 * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * 93 1 2.0 0.10 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 1 2.0 99.0 * ** * 93 2 5.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 2 6.0 99.0 * ** * 93 * * * * * * **** * * * * * * 93 * * * * ** *** * * ** * * * 93 * * ** ** ** ** * ** ** * 93 * * * * * * **** * * * ** * 94 1 1.0 0.50 1 2.1 97 3 97 3 1 1.0 2.3 0 97 0 2 95 1 1.0 0.05 2 2.1 97 1 2 2 1 98.0 2.0 2 97 * 2 95 * * * * ** ** ** * ** 97 * * 95 * * ** ** *** * * ** * * * 95 * * * * ** *** * * ** * * * 96 1 1.0 0.13 2 2.2 97 1 2 2 1 2.0 99.0 * ** * 96 * * ** ** ** * 2 6.0 99.0 * * * * 96 * * * * ** *** * * * * * * * 97 1 1.0 0.05 2 2.2 97 1 2 2 1 2.0 99.0 * ** * 97 * * ** ** ** * 2 6.0 99.0 * * * * 98 1 1.0 0.08 2 2.2 97 1 2 2 1 2.0 99.0 * ** * 98 * * ** ** ** * 2 6.0 99.0 * ** * 98 * * ** * * *** * * ** ** * 98 * * ** * * ** ** * * * ** * 99 1 11.0 0.15 2 2.2 97 2 1 4 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 99 2 12.0 0.17 98 98.0 98 93 98 98 2 12.0 2.1 2 97 0 2 100 1 1.0 0.20 2 2.2 97 2 1 4 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 101 1 1.0 0.17 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 102 1 11.0 0.25 2 2.2 97 1 2 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 1 102 2 11.0 0.25 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 * * * * ** * 102 * * ** ** *** * * ** ** * 103 1 1.0 0.05 1 1.1 97 0 97 0 1 11.0 2.4 2 97 0 2 103 ** * * * **** * * * * ** * 103 * * * * ** * * ** * * * ** * 261 104 1 1.0 0.17 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 99.0 ** * * 105 1 2.0 0.60 6 3.2 97 97 97 97 1 2.1 2.1 2 97 1 2 105 1 2.1 0.20 2 2.2 97 2 1 2 2 2.2 1.2 * 2 1 3 105 1 2.3 99.00 1 1.2 97 0 97 0 ** ** ** * 105 2 5.0 98.00 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 ** ** ** * 106 1 1.0 0.20 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 107 1 2.0 98.00 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 1 2.0 99.0 ** ** 107 2 5.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 98 2 6.0 99.0 ** ** 107 * * * * * * ** * ** * *** * 108 1 1.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 108 * * * * ** * ** ** **** * 108 * * * * ** *** ** *** ** 109 1 11.0 0.12 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 109 * ** * * * ** * * * **** * 110 1 2.0 0.10 1 1.1 97 97 97 0 1 2.0 2.1 2 97 0 2 110 2 5.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 2 6.0 1.1 * 97 1 2 110 2 11.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 3 6.0 2.2 3 97 1 3 110 * ** * ** * ** ** **** * 111 1 2.0 0.10 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 1 2.0 2.1 2 97 0 2 111 2 5.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 2 6.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 111 2 11.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 * * **** * 111 * * * * ** * ** ** **** * 111 * * * *** ** * ** ** ** * 111 * * * * ** ** * ** ** ** * 112 1 2.0 0.05 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 1 2.0 99.0 * ** * 112 2 5.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 2 6.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 112 * ** * ** * ** * ** *** * 113 1 1.0 0.20 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 1.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 113 * * * * ** * ** * * **** * 114 1 1.0 0.20 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 114 * ** ** * * ** * *** *** 114 * * * * ** ** * ** **** * 115 1 1.0 0.10 2 2.2 97 2 1 3 1 11.0 1.1 * 97 0 2 115 * ** * ** * ** * *** ** * 115 * ** * ** * ** * * **** * 115 * * * * ** ** * * ***** * 116 1 2.0 0.50 6 3.0 97 97 97 97 1 2.1 99.0 *** * 116 1 2.1 99.00 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 2 2.2 99.0 ** * * 116 1 2.3 99.00 1 2.1 97 99 97 1 3 2.3 99.0 *** * 116 2 5.0 0.06 1 2.1 97 2 97 1 4 6.0 99.0 *** * 117 1 2.0 0.40 6 3.2 97 97 97 97 1 2.1 2.1 2 97 1 2 117 1 2,1 0.15 2 2.2 97 1 2 2 2 2.2 1.1 * 97 1 2 117 1 2.3 0.10 1 2.1 97 99 97 1 3 6.0 99.0 **** 118 1 1.0 0.05 2 2.2 97 1 2 3 1 6.0 99.0 *** * 118 * ** ** * ** * * * **** * 118 * * * *** *** * X **** * 119 1 2.0 1.00 6 3.2 97 97 97 97 1 2.1 2.1 2 97 1 2 119 1 2.1 0.20 2 2.2 97 2 1 2 2 2.2 1.1 * 1 1 2 119 1 2.3 0.05 1 98.0 97 98 98 98 3 6.0 99.0 **** 119 2 5.0 98.00 98 98.0 98 98 98 98 * * **** * APPENDIX E TEXTILE PRODUCTION COMPLEXITY INDEX DATA

262 263

KEY TO TEXTILE PRODUCTION COMPLEXITY INDEX DATA

Textile number Cl Burial rank C2

Scale average number of elements per cm^ C3 (1 = 0-4.9, 2 = 5-9.9, 3 = 10-14.9, 4 = 15-19.9, 5 = 20-24.9, 6 = 25-29.9, 7 = 30-34.9, 8 = 35-39.9, etc.) Patterning number of structural techniques C4 (1 for each variation) number of added surface techniques C5 (1 for each variation) Coloration number of differentiated colors 06 (1 for each color) Yarn number of different yarn types 07 (1 for each yarn type) average number of yarn components 08 (1 for each yarn component) average amount of yarn twist 09 (0 = none, 1 = <10 degrees, 2 = 10-25 degrees, 3 = 26-45 degrees, 4 = >45 degrees) Fiber number of different fibers used CIO (1 for each fiber) average amount of fiber preparation or processing Oil (1 = minimum, 2 = moderate, 3 = extensive, 4 = very extensive)

TOTAL VALUE 012 264

TEXTILE PRODUCTION COMPLEXITY INDEX DATA

Column numbers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 4 1 1 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 1.0 7.00 2 4 2 1 0 1 2 1.50 3 1 1.5 13.00 3 4 1 2 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 2.0 9.00 4 4 1 1 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 2.0 8.00 5 4 1 1 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 2.0 8.00 6 4 1 1 0 1 2 1.00 0 1 1.0 8.00 7 4 1 1 0 1 2 1.00 0 1 1.0 8.00 8 4 2 1 0 1 2 1.50 2 1 2.0 12.50 9 4 2 1 0 2 2 1.50 3 1 2.0 14.50 10 4 2 1 0 1 2 1.50 3 1 2.0 13.50 11 4 1 1 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 2.0 8.00 12 4 2 1 0 1 2 1.00 0 1 1.0 9.00 13 4 2 1 0 1 2.00 3 1 3.0 14.00 14 4 2 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 3.0 14.00 15 4 1 1 0 3 3 3.70 3 3 2.5 20.20 16 4 1 1 0 1 2 1.50 1 1 2.0 10.50 17 4 1 1 0 2 2 4.00 3 3 2.3 18.30 18 4 1 2 0 1 3 1.00 0 1 1.0 10.00 19 4 2 1 0 2 2 1.00 1 2 2.5 13.50 20 4 2 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 3.0 14.00 21 4 1 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 12.00 22 4 1 1 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 1.0 7.00 23 4 1 1 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 1.0 7.00 24 4 1 1 1 2 2 4.50 3 2 2.0 18.50 25 4 2 2 0 2 2 2.00 3 2 2.5 17.50 26 4 1 1 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 1.0 7.00 27 4 2 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 13.00 28 4 3 2 0 2 2 2.00 3 1 2.0 17.00 29 4 1 2 0 3 4 2.80 3 3 2.0 20.80 30 4 1 2 0 2 3 2.30 3 3 1.8 18.10 31 4 2 2 0 1 2 2.00 3 1 2.0 15.00 32 4 1 2 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 1.0 8.00 33 4 1 1 0 2 2 3.50 3 2 2.0 16.50 34 4 1 1 0 1 3 3.00 3 2 2.3 16.30 35 4 3 3 0 1 2 1.50 3 1 3.0 17.50 36 4 1 1 0 1 2 3.50 2 2 2.0 14.50 37 4 1 1 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 1.0 7.00 38 4 4 2 0 1 1 1.00 2 1 2.0 14.00 39 4 1 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 12.00 40 4 4 3 0 1 1 2.00 2 1 3.0 17.00 41 4 2 1 0 2 3 3.00 3 3 2.3 19.30 42 4 1 1 0 1 1 1.00 0 1 1.0 7.00 43 4 2 3 0 1 3 2.00 3 1 2.3 17.30 44 4 1 2 0 3 4 3.75 3 5 2.3 24.05 45 4 1 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 12.00 46 4 2 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 3.0 14.00 265 47 4 1 3 0 1 1 2.00 3 2 2.3 15.30 48 4 1 1 0 2 3 3.00 3 3 2.3 18.30 49 1 1 2 0 6 2 3.50 2 3 2.3 21.80 50 1 1 1 0 1 2 5.00 2 2 2.0 16.00 51 1 2 2 1 2 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 16.00 52 1 2 2 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 14.00 53 1 5 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 16.00 54 1 5 2 1 2 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 19.00 55 1 3 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 14.00 56 1 2 3 1 2 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 17.00 57 1 2 2 0 .1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 14.00 58 1 5 3 0 4 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 21.00 59 1 1 2 0 2 2 4.00 2 3 2.3 18.30 60 1 2 2 0 3 2 1.50 2 2 1.5 16.00 61 1 5 1 0 1 1 1.00 2 2 3.0 16.00 62 1 2 3 1 2 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 17.00 63 1 2 3 1 2 2 2.00 3 1 2.0 18.00 64 1 2 3 1 2 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 17.00 65 1 2 1 1 2 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 15.00 66 1 2 1 1 2 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 15.00 67 1 2 3 1 2 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 19.00 68 1 2 1 1 2 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 17.00 69 1 1 1 1 2 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 16.00 70 1 2 2 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 14.00 71 1 2 1 1 2 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 17.00 72 1 1 2 0 4 2 3.50 2 2 2.0 18.50 73 1 2 1 1 2 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 15.00 74 1 2 2 1 2 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 16.00 75 1 1 1 0 1 2 5.00 3 3 2.0 18.00 76 1 3 2 0 3 2 1.50 2 2 1.5 17.00 77 1 5 4 0 4 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 24.00 78 1 4 4 0 3 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 22.00 79 1 5 4 0 3 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 23.00 80 1 5 4 0 4 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 24.00 81 1 2 3 0 3 4 2.00 3 3 2.3 22.30 82 1 3 1 0 1 1 2.00 4 1 2.0 15.00 83 1 2 1 0 2 1 2.00 4 2 2.5 16.50 84 1 4 2 0 3 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 20.00 85 1 6 3 0 1 2 1.50 3 2 2.5 21.00 86 1 2 3 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 15.00 87 1 3 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 14.00 88 1 2 2 0 1 2 3.00 3 1 3.0 17.00 89 1 1 1 0 1 2 1.00 2 2 2.5 12.50 90 1 3 3 0 3 3 3.00 3 2 2.0 22.00 91 1 3 2 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 15.00 92 1 3 1 1 2 1 2.00 3 2 2.0 17.00 93 2 5 4 0 5 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 25.00 94 2 6 1 0 1 1 1.00 3 1 2.0 16.00 95 3 7 3 0 1 1 2.00 2 1 2.0 19.00 96 3 4 3 0 1 1 2.00 2 1 2.0 16.00 97 3 7 2 0 1 1 2.00 2 1 2.0 18.00 98 1 5 4 0 1 1 2.00 2 1 2.0 18.00 266 99 1 3 2 0 2 2 2.00 4 2 2.0 19.00 100 1 3 1 0 1 1 2.00 4 1 2.0 15.00 101 1 2 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 13.00 102 1 2 1 0 1 2 2.00 3 1 1.0 13.00 103 1 9 2 1 1 1 1.00 0 1 2.0 18.00 104 1 3 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 14.00 105 1 1 2 0 4 2 6.00 13 2 2.5 32.50 106 1 2 1 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 13.00 107 1 3 3 0 3 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 20.00 108 1 520312.00 3 2.0 19.00 109 1 5 2 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 17.00 110 1 5 4 0 4 2 2.00 3 3 2.3 25.30 111 1 5 4 0 6 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 26.00 112 1 4 2 0 3 2 2.00 3 2 2.0 20.00 113 1 22 12 12.00 312.0 16.00 114 1 23 01 12.00 312.0 15.00 115 1 6 3 0 4 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 22.00 116 1 1 2 0 4 2 3.50 10 4 2.3 28.80 117 1 1 2 0 3 2 6.00 2 3 2.0 21.00 118 1 8 3 0 1 1 2.00 3 1 2.0 21.00 119 1 1 2 0 2 2 6.00 2 2 2.0 19.00