INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
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 copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 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.
ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI
CHARACTERIZATION OF PREHISTORIC SPINNING TECHNOLOGY; TOWARD THE DETERMINATION OF SPINNING PRACTICES EMPLOYED IN MISSISSIPPIAN TEXTILES
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Erica J. Tiedemann, M.S.
*****
The Ohio State University 2001
Approved by Dissertation Committee:
Professor Kathryn A. Jakes, Adviser
Professor Patricia A. Cunningham Adviser Textilermd Clothii iduate Program Professor Kristen J. Gremillion
Professor Charles J. Noel UMI Number; 3031274
Copyright 2001 by Tiedemann. Erica J.
All rights reserved.
UMI*
UMI Microform 3031274 Copyright 2002 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Copyright by Erica J. Tiedemann 2001 ABSTRACT
Spinning is the twisting process by which short fibrous materials are combined into longer, stronger structures such as string or yam. Thigh-spinning and spindle- spinning are two ethnographically documented methods used to create yams in eastem
North America. Despite the existence of fine yams in Mississippian (ca. A.D. 800 - A.D.
1600) textiles, no directly associated evidence of spinning technology is found in the
archaeological record. The objective of this research was to characterize thigh-spun and
spindle-spun yams to determine a set of yam properties that distinguish them from one
another.
Yams were produced for the study by experienced thigh-spinners and spindle-
spinners. To ensure that the yams studied would represent yams made with materials
available in eastem North America, bast fibers were collected from common milkweed
and Indian hemp, both indigenous fiber plants. Yams were also made with commercially
available flax fibers. Production of experimental yams afforded opportunities to explore
additional areas of inquiry, including fiber production rate, yam production rate, and yam
quality.
Twist angle, surface fiber arrangement, and cross-sectional fiber arrangement
were properties used to characterize yams made by the two spinning methods. These
ii properties were chosen because they can be measured in a minimally destructive manner.
Yam twist, expressed as singles yam twist angles, proved to be the most promising yam
feature for differentiating thigh- and spindle-spun yams. The surface fiber arrangements
were useful for visual identification of spinning method, and the cross-sections showed
differences in yam structure. Tliese characterization results contributed to development
of a Spinning Technology Determination Checklist. The Checklist employs a series of
research tasks to gather evidence from the archeological record that will lead to
acceptance or rejection of spindle-spinning as the most likely method of yam formation.
Although developed with the Mississippian textiles fi-om Etowah Mound, GA (ca. A.D.
1200) as an intended case study, the Checklist is designed to be applicable to textiles
from other societies. The testing of yam production rate as well as quality-related
properties such as tensile strength and yam irregularity provided insight into the roles of
the two spinning technologies in the broader contexts of time use and textile manufacture.
m ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Kathym Jakes, my adviser, for her support of this project. She has challenged and encouraged me over the years to my great benefit. I hope this is the beginning of a long and finitful relationship.
I wish to thank the members of my dissertation committee. Dr. Patricia
Cunningham, Dr. Kristen Gremillion, and Dr. Charles Noel, for their support of this project and their contributions to my education.
This work would not have been possible without the participation of several hand spinners. I appreciate the generosity of Mr. Robert Berg, Ms. Joy Cain, Mr. John Leeds,
Ms. Danette Pratt, and Mr. John White with their time and knowledge.
Mr. David Way provided invaluable statistical counseling. Dr. John Mitchell of the OSU Microscopic and Chemical Analysis Research Center and his staff assisted me patiently with embedding and cross-sectioning of yams. Mr. Emie Gresh and Mr.
Michael Skaggs of the OSU Medical Services Shop helped build and fix essential lab equipment.
I wish to thank the men of my family: my husband. Bill Way; my father, Cliiford
Tiedemann; and my brother, Lance Tiedemann, for their long years of support for my education. I wish to thank the women of my family for actually contributing to this
iv research. As worker # 2 in the fiber production study, my mother, Margaret Tiedemann, outdid me in my dissertation research. My sister-in-law, Stefka Andonova assisted with a difficult French translation.
My colleagues, Heather Mangine, Sohie Shim, and Amanda Thompson, have been the better part of the productive work environment in which this research was carried out. I thank them for making our lab a good place to go to every day.
This research has been funded by a Lucy R. Sibley Research Award, a Graduate
School Alumni Research Award, and an Anita McCormick Fellowship. VITA
March 30,1967 Bom - Santa Monica, CA
1989 B.A. Art History, University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign.
1995 M.S. Textile Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
1995 Laboratory Assistant, Textile Conservation Laboratory, Chicago Historical Society
1996 -1999 Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State University
PUBLICATIONS
“Fiber-safe extraction of red mordant dyes.” Tiedemann, E. J. and Yang, Y. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 34 (1995): 195-206.
“Hans Staden: A pious man in the Brazilian wilderness.” Tiedemann, E. J. Chap. in Raw Americans, cooked Europeans: Images o f the “Other" in Sixteenth-century European illustrated books. Urbana, IL; Krannert Art Museum, 1992.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Textiles and Clothing Minor Field: Archaeology
VI TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...... ii
Acknowledgments ...... iv
V ita...... vi
List of Tables ...... x
List of Figures ...... xii
Introduction ...... I 1.1 Problem Statement and Research Objectives ...... 8 1.1.1 Preliminary research ...... 8 1.1.2 Fiber production study ...... 9 1.1.3 Consultation with spinners and yam production study ...... 9 1.1.4 Yam experimentation ...... 10 1.2 Limitations ...... 14 1.3 Justification ...... 16
Literature Review ...... 17 2.1 Spinning Technology ...... 18 2.1.1 Principles of yam formation ...... 18 2.1.2 Yam properties ...... 29 2.1.3 Summary ...... 35 2.2 Ethnography of Spinning ...... 35 2.3 Time Studies of Textile Production ...... 40 2.4 Archaeometric Studies of Textiles ...... 50 2.5 Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Archaeological Textiles ...... 51 2.6 Prehistoric Fiber Industries in Eastem North America ...... 55 2.6.1 Ceramic impressions ...... 56 2.6.2 Textiles...... 58 2.6.3 Summary ...... 62 2.7 Importance of the Etowah S ite ...... 63 2.7.1 Site description ...... 63 2.7.2 Excavation history ...... 64
vn 2.7.3 Chronology ...... 65 2.7.4 People who lived at Etowah ...... 65
Methodology ...... 70 3.1 Preliminary Work and Methods Development ...... 70 3.1.1 Preliminary yam production ...... 70 3.1.2 Fiber selection and preparation ...... 73 3.1.3 Variability in spinning methods ...... 77 3.2 Fiber Processing ...... 78 3.3 Consultation with Spiimers and Yam Production Study ...... 81 3.3.1 Fibers...... 81 3.3.2 Spiimers...... 82 3.3.3 Experimental yam descriptions ...... 83 3.4 Yam Production Rates ...... 86 3.5 Yam Stmcture...... 87 3.5.1 Twist angle ...... 87 3.5.2 Visual examination of yams ...... 91 3.5.3 Cross sections ...... 95 3.6 Yam Q uality ...... 100 3.6.1 Tensile strength ...... 100 3.6.2 Linear density and yam irregularity ...... 101
Results...... 102 4.1 Fiber Processing Results ...... 102 4.2 Consultation with Spinners and Yam Production Study ...... 112 4.2.1 Spinners’ experience...... 112 4.2.2 Experimental Y am s ...... 116 4.2.3 Spinners’ Comments and Preferences ...... 124 4.2.4 Yam Production R ates ...... 126 4.3 Twist Angle ...... 130 4.3.1 General results by spinner ...... 130 4.3.2 Specific results by yam ...... 138 4.3.3 Recognizing spinning technology from yam twist angle measurements ...... 148 4.4 Visual Examination of Ya m s ...... 153 4.4.1 Visual identification ...... 153 4.4.2 Counts of fiber features ...... 156 4.5 Cross Sections ...... 159 4.6 Yam Q uality ...... 161 4.6.1 Tensile strength ...... 161 4.6.2 Linear density and yam irregularity ...... 165
vui Discussion ...... 170 5.1 Spinning Technology Determination Checklist ...... 171 5.2 Meanings and implications of thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning technologies ...... 175 5.3 Suggestions for Future Research ...... 178
Conclusions ...... 181
Appendices ...... 185 Appendix A ...... 185 Appendix B ...... 187 Appendix C ...... 188
List of References ...... 194
IX LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Hand spinning rates (m/rain) arranged from slowest to fastest ...... 48
2.2 Relation of spinning time to textile production tim e ...... 49
4.1 Means for measures of worker productivity ...... 107
4.2 Analysis of variance for milkweed fiber yield ...... 109
4.3 Analysis of variance for milkweed fiber production rate ...... 109
4.4 Plant productivity with respect to stem surface area (mg fiber/cm^) ...... 110
4.5 Plant productivity with respect to stem height (mg fiber/cm) ...... 110
4.6 Analysis of variance for milkweed plant productivity with respect to stem height (mg fiber/cm) ...... I ll
4.7 Descriptions of experimental yams with length (m)and linear density (tex) measures ...... 117
4.8 Means for Yam Production Rates (m /m in) ...... 129
4.9 Yam means for twist angle measurements ...... 146
4.10 Summary statistics for single measurement twist angle data by spinning method ...... 151
4.11 Counts of correct and incorrect visual identifications of spinning method tallied by spinning m ethod ...... 155
4.12 Counts of correct and incorrect visual identifications of spinning method tallied by fiber ty p e ...... 155
4.13 Counts of fiber arrangement features tallied by spinning method ...... 157 4.14 Counts of loose fibers tallied by fiber type and spinning m ethod ...... 158
4.15 Counts of six cross-sectional shape classifications foimd for thigh-spun and spindle-spun y am s ...... 160
4.16 Analysis of variance for yam tenacity ...... 162
4.17 Means for yam tenacity in cN /tex ...... 163
4.18 Yam average linear density (tex) and uneveimess expressed as the percent coefficient of variation (CV) for 1 m specimens ...... 169
B. 1 Raw data for yam production rates (m/min) ...... 187
C. 1 Raw twist angle data ...... 188
XI LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Making yaiTi by thigh-spinning ...... 6
1.2 Making yam with a spindle ...... 7
2.1 Basic principles of adding twist to fibers to make yam ...... 27
2.2 Making yam by finger-spinning ...... 28
3.1 Cross sectional illustration of a commercial flax plant stem showing the location of phloem fibers ...... 76
3.2 Twist angle measurement routine ...... 90
3.3 Hair fiber arrangement ...... 93
3.4 Wrap fiber arrangement ...... 93
3.5 Loose fiber arrangement ...... 94
3.6 Tweedle fiber arrangement ...... 94
3.7 Cross-section of thigh-spun Indian hemp yam. Both plies have an Amorphous cross-sectional shape ...... 97
3.8 Cross-section of thigh-spun milkweed yam. Both plies have a Round Open cross- sectional shape ...... 97
3.9 Cross-section of thigh-spun hidian hemp yam. Left, Amorphous cross-sectional shape; right, Round with Open Center cross-sectional sh ap e ...... 98
3.10 Cross-section of thigh-spun Indian hemp yam. Top, Partial Ring cross-sectional shape; bottom. Amorphous cross-sectional shape ...... 98
3.11 Cross-section of thigh-spun flax yam. Both plies have a Compact Round cross- sectional shape ...... 99
Xll 3.12 Cross-section of spindle-spun Indian hemp yam. Top, Comma cross-sectional shape; bottom, Bean cross-sectional shape ...... 99
4.1 Shape of the plastic reel designed to hold thigh-spun y a m ...... 115
4.2 T1 yams...... 118
4.3 T2yams...... 119
4.4 T3 y am ...... 120
4.5 F4 yams...... 120
4.6 SI yams...... 121
4.7 S5 yams ...... 122
4.8 S6 yams ...... 123
4.9 Box plot of cumulative twist angle measurements by spinner ...... 133
4.10 Box plot of single angle measurements by spinner ...... 134
4.11 Box plot of larger twist angle measurements by spinner ...... 135
4.12 Box plot of smaller twist angle measurements by spinner ...... 136
4.13 Box plot of paired twist angle differences by spinner ...... 137
4.14 Box plot of cumulative twist angle measurements by y a m ...... 142
4.15 Box plot of single twist angle measurements by y a m ...... 143
4.16 Box plot of larger twist angle measurements by y a m ...... 144
4.17 Box plot of smaller twist angle measurements by y a m ...... 145
4.18 Scatter plot of standard deviations vs. twist angle means for single measurement category ...... 147
4.19 Histograms of single twist angle measurements ...... 152
4.20 Interaction plot for yam tenacity (cN/tex) ...... 164
xiii 4.21 Scatter plots of linear density (tex) vs. linear density percent coefGcient of variation (CV) ...... 168
A.1 Life size reproduction of textile fragments from Etowah Mound C #843 ...... 186
XIV CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Spinning is the twisting process by which short fibrous materials are combined into longer, stronger structures like string or yam. Although twisting fibers together is a simple operation. Barber referred to the addition of string to the human tool kit as a technological revolution (Barber 1994). Adding twist to a bundle of fibers increases their strength with the additional benefit of providing a way to incorporate another bundle of fibers at the end. Through the advance of spinning, humans began to fashion finite lengths of fiber into infinite lengths of string.
Spinning technology has had various manifestations through time. There are multiple pathways by which raw fiber can be converted into a spun yam. Thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning are two ethnographically documented, pre-industrial methods of creating yam. To form a thigh-spun yam, a spinner rolls fibers together between her hand and leg (Figure 1.1). New fibers are added to the length of yam by splicing them together with the loose fiber at the end of the yam. Using this method, two or more strands can be formed at once and then twisted back on themselves to form a stable, plied yam in one operation. A spindle-spun yam is made with a simple tool called a spindle. A spinner draws fiber out into a desired thickness and lets the twirling spindle twist it into yam
1 (Figure 1.2). Spindles produce one yam at a time and two or more yams must be plied together in a separate spinning step to create a plied yam.
In comparison to mechanical spinning methods, thigh-spinning and spindle- spinning are slow. Both, however, have been used to produce substantial quantities of yam for textiles. Of the two, thigh-spinning is assumed to be slower due to painstaking splicing and because each tum of yam corresponds to an individual hand movement. The ability to examine finished yams and determine whether they were thigh-spun or spindle- spun would add a dimension to the study of archaeological textiles that is presently unavailable. The purpose of the research described in this dissertation was to identify a set of discriminating properties of thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams in order to identify pre-historic spinning technology by examining yams in archaeological textiles.
The quantity of textiles produced by any given person or group depends on the supply of raw materials and yam. Constraints on the supply of raw materials include access to fiber as well as the difficulty and duration of fiber processing. Once sufficient
fiber has been prepared, yam production can become a bottleneck in textile production.
Unlike fiber processing tasks, like picking seeds fix)m cotton or scraping bast fibers, yam
spinning requires skill as well as time. Any increase in the rate of textile production can
be restricted by the rate of yam production. For example, a loom with heddles will not
reach its production capacity if yam cannot be generated fast enough to keep it in
operation. Because of the dependent relationship of textile production on yam
production, determination of spinning technology used to create prehistoric textiles will
be informative of textile production and consumption within a society.
2 In undertaking a study of spinning technology, it is necessary to consider the many factors that influence yam production. Physical properties of fibers, such as length or inherent twist, may influence choices affecting fiber alignment and twist direction.
Long fibers, on the order o f30-100 cm, lend themselves to splicing. Fibrils of flax fiber have an inherent S twist that makes the fibers accept an S twist more readily when spun.
Thus, certain yam processing decisions can follow fi-om the initial choice of fiber.
The intended end use of the textile can also dictate a set of choices in yam production. Yams to be used in soft, fluffy textiles should have fine fibers and a low degree of twist. Yams for strong, hard-wearing textiles should be twisted to a much greater degree to increase strength and give a smooth surface.
Technological knowledge also affects yam production. The spindle, despite its apparent simplicity, has not been available to all populations at all times. Determining spinning method from yam properties would give another means of identifying a group’s technological knowledge. Presence or absence of spindle technology may reflect more than the level of innovation in, or idea diffusion to, a particular society. Obviously, a spindle is not an option to a person who has not seen one or who has not thought to build one. What is less obvious is that the increased production efficiency of a spindle is not
necessary to everyone who spins yam by hand. Given a great deal of time for yam production, and a low volume of textiles to produce, the additional investments required
for spindle-spinning — making and caring for another tool, preparing fiber more carefully
for faster drafting, and storing yam between separate spinning and plying operations - might limit the perceived benefits of the spindle. Larger scale economic pressures on textile production, or lack thereof, will also influence spinning decisions in a particular instance or across a whole society.
Textiles recovered at Etowah Mounds have been selected as the target population for the determination of yam production method, whether thigh-spim or spindle-spun.
Etowah Mounds, located near Cartersville, Georgia, is a Mississippian period site (ca.
A.D. 800 - A.D. 1600) with substantial earthworks and more than 350 human burials.
Included among the burials is a vast assortment of finely crafted and exotic artifacts. The wealth of copper artifacts among the grave goods aided in the preservation of perishable artifacts such as textiles. Because of the anomalous preservation conditions, Etowah is a rare and important source of prehistoric textiles in eastem North America.
Many of the textile objects recovered at Etowah have been the subject of prior research (Schreffler 1988; Sibley, Jakes, and Larson 1996; Sibley, Jakes, and Song 1989;
Sibley, Jakes, and Swinker 1992; Sibley and Jakes 1989; Sibley and Jakes 1994). This
study of the Etowah textiles seeks to answer questions about pre-contact eastem North
American native spinning technology. It not only draws upon the earlier studies, but
develops answers to questions that they have raised.
Although the textiles of Etowah Moimds provide a specific target of this research,
the spinning technology of the entire Mississippian period is in question. Researchers
working with textiles of this period have found yams so fine that they have speculated
that spindles were used to create them (Drooker 1992; Sibley, Jakes, and Song 1989).
Until recently, there has been little archaeological evidence to support this speculation.
4 Ceramic or stone spindle whorls that litter the archaeological record for societies that had spindle technology have not been well documented in Mississippian archaeology.
Absence of spindle whorls in the archaeological record, however, is not proof of thigh- spinning. Such a situation may result &om the use of perishable materials for spindles and whorls.
Scattered collections of spindle whorls have been reported in the American
Bottom showing the onset and increase of spindle use between A.D. 1000-1100 (Alt
1999). Ethnohistoric reports of spinning practices in eastem North America, however, give conflicting evidence with descriptions of women thigh-spinning as well as some possible allusions to spindles (Swanton 1969). Given the current state of knowledge about Mississippian spinning technology, the people at Etowah might have used either or both spinning methods to make yam for textiles.
The possibility of one form of spinning technology prevailing over the other has implications for Mississippian household economy. Thigh-spinning, because it is slower, suggests the production of less yam than would be possible with the spindle.
Production of textiles would be limited according to the supply of yam. Use of spindles can either increase yam production in the same amount of time previously dedicated to thigh-spinning, or decrease the time needed to produce yam for the same quantity of textiles. An economy favoring spindle-spinning over thigh-spinning may have had some need to intensify spinners’ productivity whether for increased production of textiles or for increased production elsewhere in the household economy. Figure 1.1 : Making 2-ply yam by thigh-spinning. Left, twisting two singles yams simultaneously by rolling üiem toward the knee under the right hand; right, the 2-ply yam shown after the singles have been allowed to twist back on each other. Figure 1.2: Making yam with a spindle (Hochberg 1977). 1.1 Problem Statement and Research Objectives
This study was designed to generate information about thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning technology with particular emphasis on eastern North American native textile industries. The single objective underlying all aspects of this research was to
characterize thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams in order to distinguish them by their
physical properties. The structure of this study provided opportunities to examine related
areas of fiber production, yam production, and yam quality. The research had four
distinct phases: 1) preliminary research, 2) a fiber production study, 3) consultation with
spinners and replication of thigh- and spindle-spun yams, and 4) experimentation on
thigh- and spindle-spun yams. The first two phases of research were necessary in
preparation for the latter two. The latter two phases of the research sought to establish
any differences between replicated thigh- and spindle-spun yams. Both quantitative data
and descriptive data were sought in order to establish differences between the
technologies so that they might be compared in terms of their economic properties as well
as their physical properties.
1.1.1 Preliminary research
This phase of the research had one broadly expressed objective:
Develop an understanding of thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning techniques in
order to construct a study that will identify differences in the yam stmctures.
The preliminary woric focused on developing a comparative study of thigh- and
spindle-spinning technologies where none had been done before. The author became
8 proficient in both spinning technologies, and consulted with an experienced thigh- spinner. She then produced thigh- and spindle-spun yams for preliminary testing.
1.1.2 Fiber production study
This phase of the research had two objectives:
A.) Generate fiber from indigenous eastern North American fiber plants for
production of replication yams.
B.) Measure rate of fiber extraction and fiber yield from indigenous North
American fiber plants.
The fiber production study followed from the decision to use indigenous eastem
North American fibers for the yam production study. Use of indigenous fibers ensures that replication yams are more closely representative of what could have been made in prehistoric eastem North America. Because all indigenous fibers would have to be collected and processed for the study, this preparatory phase was used as an opportunity to measure processing rates and fiber yields.
1.1.3 Consultation with spinners and yam production study
This phase of the research had three objectives:
A.) Generate replication thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams for destructive testing.
B.) Gather information firom experienced spinners about fiber handling and
spiiming considerations.
C.) Measure yam production rates for thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning.
9 The primary purpose of this phase was to generate thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams in a controlled manner for later testing. Experienced spinners were commissioned to spin these yams. Additional information was gathered at this stage by asking the
spinners to describe their impressions of the spinning assignment and by measuring the
spinners rates of spinning. That spindle-spinning is faster than thigh-spinning may be
apparent to any observer. The purpose of quantifying the difference was to show the
degree to which spindle-spinning increases production. Establishing measurable
differences in time costs further distinguishes thigh-spinning from spindle-spinning so
that cultural and technological inferences can be made.
1.1.4 Yam experimentation
This phase of the research had two objectives listed below with specific task
objectives outlined as well:
A.) Evaluate yams to determine a set of properties that distinguish thigh-spun
yams from spindle-spun yams.
1. Measure singles yam twist angles to establish differences in yam twist
properties.
2. Examine yam surfaces for fiber arrangements and anomalies typical of
thigh-spun or spindle-spun yams.
3. Examine yam cross-sections for differences in fiber packing
arrangements and density.
10 B.) Test the replicated thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams for differences in
properties that affect yam and textile quality.
1. Measure yam tensile strength.
2. Measure the coefBcient of variation in yam linear density.
The underlying hypothesis informing this phase of the research was that yams formed by any given spinning method will have measurable characteristics that are dependent on that method. This is tme for modem yams spun on machines; it should be tme for hand-made yams as well. Physical testing of the yams was expected to reveal differences in the physical arrangements of fibers and performance properties of the yams whereas measurement of spinning rate in the yam production study was directed toward discriminating economic properties of the yams.
The physical arrangement of fibers in yams depends on the conditions and method of spinning. For example, a thigh-spinner twists fibers into yam by rolling the fibers between her hand and thigh. In contrast, a spindle adds twist to fibers by rotating them about an axis fiom a point. The first method relies upon directly applied fiiction to twist the fibers whereas the second turns them fi-om one end the way a telephone receiver often tums its cord into a snarl. The differences between these techniques are so great that they should have measurable effects on yam properties.
To estabUsh the effects of spinning method on yam physical properties, twist angle, surface fiber arrangements, and cross sectional fiber arrangement of the experimentally produced yams were compared. These were selected specifically because they can be measured with minimal destmctive sampling of yams and textiles. They are
11 well suited for application to archaeological samples. The characterization of structural properties provided the basic information for selecting a set of key determinants by which
yams from archaeological contexts can be evaluated in order to determine how they were
spun. The results from these tests were used to develop an objective method for
determining how a yam was spun using the information contained in the finished yam.
The experimentally produced yams were also used to evaluate differences in yam
quality between the two spinning methods. Although the common assumption that
spindle-spinning is faster than thigh-spinning was not challenged here, a related
assumption that spindle-spinning yields better quality yam merits consideration in this
study. The supposition that spindle-spinning produces finer, more even yams (Alt 1999)
has never been empirically verified.
Measures of linear density and tensile strength have been identified as indicators
of yam quality. Variability in linear density reflects the evenness of the yam. Tests of
tensile strength show whether one spinning method produces inherently stronger yam.
Results of these tests were used to show whether spindle-spinning increases yam
production rate with or without any measurable effect on yam quality. Because
measurement of linear density and tensile strength required the destmction of numerous
yam specimens, these tests could not be applied directly to archaeological textiles.
Like the study of yam production rate, the information collected from linear
density and tensile experiments has inferential value but does not contribute directly to
the method for analysis of archaeological specimens. With the development of an
12 experimental method to show whether prehistoric peoples were thigh-spinning or spindle- spinning, it becomes important to assign some meaning to the difference in the technologies.
Because spinning accounts for much of the time required for hand made textile production, it has recognizable economic properties. Thigh-spinning is slow but effective. It is also possible to make fine, even yams by thigh-spinning. Based on the greater time requirements of thigh-spinning, it may serve as an indicator that consumption patterns within a society that relied upon thigh-spinning were not stressing production efficiency.
Although better fiber preparation for spindle-spinning might improve yam quality as represented by linear density and tensile strength, it is questionable whether the spindle itself gives the spinner greater control over these properties. Because drafting and spinning occur at the same time and at a faster rate with a spindle, learning to spindle- spin requires greater skill development than thigh-spinning. The increased production speed associated with a spindle also decreases the amount of attention paid to any given length of yam as it forms.
The results of the yam replication study and the yam testing provide an information base for discussion of the balance of advantages and disadvantages for both yam technologies. For instance, as yam fineness increases, spiimers must produce longer
lengths of yam to fill a given area of textile. It seems reasonable to expect that spinners would develop a more efficient method to meet increasing spinning demands. Such
expectations, although they explain technological change in a general way, do nothing to
13 define the point at which spinners' motivation to increase production rate outweighs the increased investment of time and effort required to adopt a new technology. The analyses of production efficiency and yam quality performed in this study will inform a detailed discussion of the possible roles of thigh- and spindle-spinning in textile production.
1.2 Limitations
Because the archaeological record does not provide yams that are known to be thigh-spun and spindle-spun, the task of distinguishing one fi'om the other requires the production of such yams under controlled circumstances. The replication of these yams performed for the purpose of the study falls into the domain of experimental archaeology.
Many similar replication studies have been conducted on diverse materials including painted ceramics (Hill 1977), heat treated chert (Rick 1978), and woven textiles (Barber
1991).
Properly approached, experimental archaeology yields a range of information
about lost technologies. Replication studies not only provide ready samples of known
origin for destructive testing, but the process of replication also is informative.
Documentation of fiber processing and yam production operations will give previously
unavailable data on raw materials handling, time requirements, and energy costs
associated with yam production.
Experimental archaeology has some specific limitations. Modem researchers
cannot replicate all of the conditions of the past. In order to see beyond their own cultural
biases, modem researchers often look to other cultures for examples of possible human
14 activities. Whereas the ethnographic and ethnohistoric records are helpful guides to human activity, they must be considered incomplete if not suspect. All permutations of human activity throughout history are not known. Known practices may even obscure the picture of the archaeological past by setting up false expectations.
Despite these considerations, experimental archaeology has many useful applications. To avoid assigning the prejudices of the present to the peoples of the past, experimental archaeology must be used as a component of deductive reasoning. In the
scope of this study, the physical properties of yams formed by two methods were
characterized. The information gathered in these characterizations can be used for
comparison with the characteristics of archaeological yams by hypothesis testing. The
following is an example of the type of hypothesis that will be possible using the results of
this study: The characteristics of a particular archaeological yam are consistent with the
characteristics of a population of spindle-spun yams. Statistically, this hypothesis may be
negated or it may not be negated. If it is negated, we have leamed that this yam does not
share characteristics with the population of spindle-spun yams. We can conclude that it is
unlikely that the yam was spindle-spun. If the hypothesis is not negated, we have leamed
that the yam does share characteristics with spindle-spun yams. We have not positively
identified a spindle-spun yam, but we have shown that the characteristics that we have
chosen to test are consistent with spindle spinning.
15 1.3 Justification
Several major studies of eastem North American fiber industries including the
Etowah site (Schreffier 1988), the Spiro site (Kuttruff 1991; Kuttmff 1993)and the Ozark
Bluff (Scholtz 1975) have revealed a technically complex tradition of textile manufacture in prehistoric North America. None of these considered spinning technology.
Information about eastem North American spinrting technology is sparse. Although some spindle whorls have been identified in the archaeological record, they are by no means ubiquitous as would be expected if yam were being spindle-spun in every household. Ethnohistoric and ethnographic sources report that Native Americans of the
eastem United States made rope and string by rolling fibers against their legs (Swanton
1969). Faced with inconclusive evidence to support the use of either technology,
researchers have speculated on the use of some kind of spindle to aid in production of the
finest yams for the finest textiles (Drooker 1992; Sibley and Jakes 1989).
Until now, the probable use of thigh- or spindle-spinning and the differences in
thigh-spun and spindle-spun yam properties have been a subject of conjecture.
Researchers expect that one is faster than the other or that one produces inherently
superior yam than the other, but they provide no concrete evidence to support these
assumptions. This study is intended to fill these gaps in the general understanding of
thigh- and spindle-spinning technology.
16 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
A study of spinning technology that predates the historic record benefits firom a synthesis of information from several disciplines. Literature in the area of textile science informs about the physical requirements of the spinning process, the properties of fibers and yams, and provides models for experimentation. Historic and ethnographic literature contains specifics about textile hand labor. Although the sum of such reports may not cover the full range of human hand-spinning activity, they do increase knowledge of the possibilities. Some ethnographic studies also contain valuable economic information about the time and labor requirements of textile production. Together, the information from these diverse sources builds a picture of the nature of yams, how they are made both by hand and mechanically, and how to evaluate them.
The information to be gained in this woric tqiplies to the general study of archaeological textiles as well as the archaeology of eastem North America. A review of the literature in these areas will show the uniqueness of this work as well as its usefulness.
17 2.1 Spinning Technology
2.1.1 Principles of yam fonnation
Turning loose fibers into yam requires only that the fibers be twisted. Adding twist rearranges roughly parallel fibers into a helical formation. For a single length of fiber, this is accomplished by holding one end secure while turning or rolling the rest of the fiber either clockwise or counterclockwise (Figure 2.1). The secure end holds the twist while the free end accepts more twist. Leaving both ends free while turning the fibers would result in no twist at all. Holding both ends secure while turning the fibers at the center would result in two areas of twist forming in opposite directions, which, when released from the turning force, would untwist themselves.
To make a yam longer than the length of a single bundle of fibers, more fiber
must be added to the twisted length. There are two ways to add another supply of fiber
for twisting. One way is to splice in another length of fiber at the loose end of the strand.
The other way is to spin off of a continuous source of fiber and to allow the previously
spun end of the yam to twist freely. The position of the secure end changes from the start
point of the yam to somewhere in the fiber source.
These are the two ways to twist fiber into yam. They correspond to the
positioning of the secure point of fiber about which the fibers revolve. It can be placed
either at the position where the yam forms in which case the fiber ends must remain free,
or it can be placed within the source of fiber in which case the already formed yam must
rotate to turn the untwisted fibers below the secure point.
18 Both methods of yam formation have been exploited at different times in history.
Presumably splicing was the first spinning operation that humans invented because no
tools are necessary to twist two sections of fiber together. In many areas of the world,
yam, string and cord are present in the archaeological record long before spindles and
spindle whorls appear.
Splicing is associated with bast and other long, plant fibers (Barber 1991; Bird
1979). To create yam by spUcing, a spinner lays a fi-esh length of fiber into the terminal
end of a length of fibers that she has already twisted into yam. The spinner then twists
together the terminal ends of the yam with the leading ends of the firesh fiber. The yam
grows stepwise with the addition of each new length of fiber. Although splicing is suited
to making a single yam, most of the hand-splicing techniques create a two or three ply
yam in one operation.
It is possible to splice and twist yam using only two hands (Figure 2.2). A right
handed person grasps two lengths of fiber together between the first and second fingers of
his left hand so that they form a V. With his right hand, be twists the top fiber clockwise
(S) and then brings it down over the bottom fiber. He grasps the freshly spun fiber
between the thumb and ring finger and then uses his right hand to twist the new top fiber
clockwise. By twisting and crossing in this fashion, a spinner produces S-spun Z-plied
cord (Irwin 1997; McPherson and McPherson 1987). Spinning with just fingers,
however, limits the yam to a size that can be held and manipulated with the strength of a
thumb and a finger. By securing fiber ends to a post or between her toes, a spinner can
use both hands to twist substantial quantities of fiber into heavy rope (Stewart 1984).
19 For splicing fine to medium thickness yams, thigh-spinning reduces the dependence on finger movements. Rather than twisting each strand individually, the singles yams are rolled in unison between the spinner’s hand and leg. For right handed spinners, the left hand grips the newly formed yam and the right hand splices and twists the fibers (Jones 1937; Stewart 1984; Samuel 1982).
A fork-like object with a long handle recovered at Tonto National Monument has been associated with yucca fiber spinning and may qualify as an accessory to thigh spinning. The spinning stick apparently holds multiple singles yams in separate positions as they are rolled on the thigh (Cosner 1960). Nevertheless, thigh-spinning is an essentially artifactless technology.
Another technique for incorporating new fibers into a yam is by continuous draft.
A spinner who drafts her yam pulls fiber fi’om a prepared supply and twists the fiber into yam as she draws it out to the desired thickness. Thus the yam is always connected to the mass of un-spun fiber. Fiber cohesiveness, or the degree to which loose fibers cling to
one another, makes continuous drafting possible. The first fibers nipped up fix>m the
supply pull their neighbors out who, in tum, pull their neighbors out. The resistance of
the fibers to being pulled apart results in a continuous flow of fiber from the supply into
the yam. Spinners may have developed continuous drafting as a response to increased
use of fibers such as wool and cotton (Barber 1991).
Continuous draft spinning differs fi’om splicing because there are no fi’ee fiber
ends to twist. Spinning takes place between the yam and the fiber supply. In order to add
twist, one of these must be free to tum an infinite number of times. The typical solution
20 to this problem is to tum the mass of yam. This is where a stick or a rock or anything to wind the yam onto becomes useful (Hochberg 1977; Quinn 1985). A stick with a bundle of yam wound onto it can be twisted easily with one hand or by rolling it between hand and leg. A rock wound with a bundle will hang in the air by a length of freshly twisted yam and a spinner can set it spinning while it hangs to add twist to newly drafted fiber.
These two simple tools, a stick and a rock, are the elements of a spindle. A
spindle is constmcted of a shaft for winding the yam onto and for ease of handling and a
whorl that acts as a fly wheel to increase the duration of the spinning. The whorl can be
located at any point on the shaft. Spindles with the whorl situated near the top are
designated high whorl spindles whereas spindles with the whorl situated near the bottom
are designated low whorl spindles.
The whorl brings a new level of efficiency to spinning. For both thigh-spinning
and stick-spinning where the twist is inserted by rolling the fiber or turning the stick, each
tum in the yam is directly associated with a hand movement. Because the whorl will
continue spinning after being set into motion with a single hand movement, it decreases
the number of hand movements involved in twisting the yam.
Another commonly overlooked function of the whorl is to stop the freshly twisted
yam from untwisting. If a freshly twisted length of yam were left to its own devices, it
would untwist almost completely because the fibers resist being deformed in any
direction including the spiral of a yam. The whorl, hanging at the end of a length of
freshly twisted yam provides resistance to the fibers’ resilience. A whorl with a given
mass and radius requires a specific torque to set it in motion. This torque is insignificant
21 to a human hand, but can become restrictive to the fibers in a yam. A whorl of the appropriate size for the yam will spin in the forward direction, stop and then impede the automatic untwisting so that the spiimer has time to notice what has happened and either set it in motion again or take hold of the spindle and wind on the yam. If the whorl is too small, the yam will untwist almost as quickly as it twisted.
Low whorl and high whorl spinning techniques are not the limit of spindle technology. Peters (1877) reported on the unique process of Comanche drop spinning.
The women who he observed spun a bundle of wool fibers tied to a weighted stick to make yam. Conventional spindle spinning involves drawing fiber fi'om a stationary distaff or fiber bundle and adding twist with a spinning spindle that also serves as a spool for collecting the yam. Comanche spinners reversed the process by holding the spun yam on a stick in their hands and dropping and spinning the distaff (Peters 1877). Although, the unspun fiber twists fireely like the loose ends of a spliced yam, this is still a continuous draft technique that makes use of a spindle-like stick to twist the yam fi’om the center of the fiber bundle.
It is possible that a spinning distaff is a direct descendent of thigh spinning.
Spinners familiar with the cohesiveness of short hair fibers should quickly see the
possibility for continuous drafting. If thigh-spinning is the only known technique,
however, spinners may be constrained by the perception that the yam remains stationary
while the firee fiber ends rotate. Thigh-spinning off a continuous fiber source will be
impossible unless the whole fiber source rotates. A spinning distaff would hold a large
22 supply of short fiber in a mass to take advantage of continuous drafting and would also permit fi*ee rotation at the fiber source analogous to the firee rotation at the ends of long fibers.
Thigh-spinning and spindle spinning are the two basic modes of spinning. They exploit two possible configurations for twisting fiber into yam splicing and continuous draft. Other, faster methods of spinning have been developed that rely upon these same principles. Recently means of getting around the basic requirements for spinning have been developed, but the resulting yams do not have the same stmcture as traditional spun yams.
Spinning wheels come in numerous forms that employ different combinations of technological iimovations. The hand-driven spinning wheel originated in India. The treadle that eventually drove the spinning wheel can be traced to China. The bobbin and flyer that replaced the spindle on spinning wheels are of European origin(Morton 1937).
The yam twisting operation on a simple, hand-driven wheel is similar to spindle spinning in that the finished yam, which is wound on a spindle, acts as the finely twisting end of the yam. The spindle is driven around and arotmd by a large wheel and a belt.
The rotating spindle adds twist to fibers that are being drafted continuously off the tip of the spindle. Much like spindle-spinning, spinning on a chakra, great wheel, or short fiber wheel is a two stage operation. Fibers are drawn and twisted into yam and then in a separate operation, they are wound onto the spindle (Morton 1937).
Addition of a treadle and a flyer to the wheel design increased the speed of the wheel although the yam twisting operation still depended upon revolution of the mass of
23 previously spun yam. A treadle to drive the wheel freed up spinners’ hands to concentrate on drafring. The flyer allowed spinning and winding on to become a single operation. The spindle is replaced by two moving parts, a flyer and a bobbin, that do the two jobs of the spindle. The flyer inserts twist and the bobbin winds on and holds the yam. This wheel was used predominantly for long fiber spinning such as flax, hemp, and long wools.
Conventional histories of the spinning wheel hold that the flyer was added to the spinning wheel by a wood-carver named Johann Juergen in 1530 (Morton 1937). In his history of spinning technology in the Middle Ages, however, Endrei traces the origins of the flyer to Italian silk reeling mills of the fourteenth century. From this point of origin, he suggests that a hand driven wheel with bobbin and flyer was being used in the northern
Italian wool industry by the beginning of the fifteenth century. The addition of a treadle to drive the spinning wheel came much later. Illustrations suggest that it may have been in use by the sixteenth century or seventeenth century at the latest. Despite the contested origins of the flyer, the wheel with both treadle and flyer may yet have been a German innovation as reflected in the English designation for such spinning wheels as Saxony wheels (Endrei 1968).
Total mechanization resulted in several lineages of spinning equipment descended from the different wheel and operator configurations. The great wheel evolved into the spinning jenny on which one operator could control several spindles, which evolved into the spinning mule. The flyer wheel was also rigged for multiple yam production. The innovation that Aricwright’s water frame brought to mechanized spinning was roller
24 drafting. Roller drafting mechanized the previously human controlled operation of drawing out fibers to the desired fineness for the yam. Ring spinning improved upon the flyer with a traveling ring (Morton 1937). In all cases, the principles governing the spinning remained the same.
As recently as the 1960s, splicing came back into use. All previous industrial methods of spinning required that the mass of spun yam be continuously tumed in order to put twist into new fibers drafted into the yam. An economic drawback to this procedure is that turning the mass of yam requires energy. Open end spinning, developed in the 1960s, is a high speed splicing operation. Its advantage is that only the fibers at the point of yam formation are twisted. The yam mass must only tum enough to wind on the fi-esh length of yam. Although fibers are fed into the spinning in a continuous stream,
fibers entering the yam break fi-om the supply as they overlap the end of the yam. Twist
is then inserted into the fibers at the open end of the yam (Oxtoby 1987). Open end
spinning differs firom the hand splicing methods in that it is intended for short staple
fibers rather than long fibers.
Two recent developments in spinning have dispensed with the fundamentals of
yam constmction. Self-twist spinning incorporates opposite twist directions in the same
yam. Two plies that twist back on one another as in thigh-spinning are formed at once.
Because self-twist is a continuous draft operation, twist is inserted between the yam and
fiber supply between two effectively fixed points. Each single has two equivalent regions
of S and Z twist. As they are allowed to run together and twist back on each other, they
form a balanced plied yam that reverses twist direction at intervals. Such yams are stable
25 as a result of fiber cohesion between plies at points of twist reversal. This is a spinning method intended specifically for wool fibers that are highly cohesive (Oxtoby 1987).
Twistless yams defy all conventions. No twist is necessary because the drafted fibers are held together with adhesive. The yams are not as strong as comparable twisted yams, but for applications where high strength is not a requirement like filling yams, twistless yams save on equipment and energy used in spinning. The cost of adhesive is a limiting factor, however (Oxtoby 1987). A comparable historical precedent might be knotting practiced by Ainu women of northern Japan (Roth [1913]1977) or spit splicing flax fibers practiced by the Egyptians (Barber 1991).
This brief overview of the history of spinning technology shows the principles of yam formation and several of the ways these principles have been applied. The formation of twisted yams has basic requirements that can be met in one of two ways, by splicing or by spinning. Prehistoric and modem yams can be classified under these methods. The oldest technology of hand- twisting and thigh-spinning are conceptually similar to modem open end spinning. Spindle spinning with a continuous draft, on the other hand, is the ancestor to all the spinning innovations, wheel, jenny, mule, and ring, that came between thigh-spinning and open end spinning. The continuous draft was a lynchpin innovation that increased yam production. Subsequent improvements to production speed were descendants of spindle-spinning that relied upon the simple principles that govemed that procedure.
26 Figure 2.1 : Basic principles of adding twist to fibers to make yam. Top to bottom: inserting twist with one end secure, inserting twist with both ends firee, inserting twist with both ends secure.
27 Figure 2.2: Making yam by finger-spinmng(Irwin 1997).
28 2.1.2 Yam properties
Staple fiber yams, i.e., yams made from short fibers rather than filaments, have three basic stmctural requirements: interfiber fiiction, twist, and migration. Interfiber fiiction, or fiber cohesiveness, is a fiber property that holds fibers together. Fiber crimp and surface irregularities make fibers catch on one another rather than sliding apart like wet spaghetti noodles. Twist and migration are yam properties that bind fibers together.
They are the source of transverse pressure that bring fibers toward the yam axis and closer together increasing physical contact and fiiction between fibers (Hearle,
Grossberg, and Backer 1969).
Twist alone is not sufficient to bind fibers into a yam formation that can withstand tension. In idealized models of fiber arrangement within a yam, individual fibers twist in a helical pattem at a uniform distance firom the yam axis. In reality, fibers follow a helical pattem with a varying radius. Fibers conform to a general spiral arrangement, but also travel or migrate between the surface and the axis of the yam. Twist and migration together give staple fiber yams their strength and stability (Hearle, Grossberg, and Backer
1969).
Under tension, a twisted yam without fiber migration would only have the cohesive forces of the fibers to hold it together. Migration is a result of tension on the fiber during twisting. As fibers are twisted into yam, the fibers at the outside of the yam follow a longer helical path than those at the center of the yam. With a uniform feed of fibers, tension tends to build up in the fibers following a longer path length drawing them
29 to the center where they displace lightly tensioned fibers. When axial tension is applied to a finished yam, the outer fibers grip the inner fibers in a self-locking structure (Hearle,
Grossberg, and Backer 1969).
Given the gripping effects of twist and migration, fibers can be expected to pack
together toward the central, longitudinal axis of a yam. The nature of packing is most
easily studied in cross sectional views of yams. Two idealized forms of packing are
possible for fibers with uniform, circular cross-sections and uniform transverse pressure:
open packing, and hexagonal close packing. Open packing features a central fiber
surrounded by six fibers surrounded by twelve fibers arranged in concentric rings. Close
packing also gives concentric layers of fibers, but the fibers are arranged in the closest
possible hexagonal formation (Hearle, Grossberg, and Backer 1969).
In spun staple yams, packing only approximates the ideal forms. Hearle has
outlined several factors that affect real yam packing in the two fundamental categories of
concentrating factors and disturbing factors. Concentrating factors include the tendency
of fibers, especially filaments, to lie together and cohere; and twist. Twist, as described
above, draws fibers in toward the yam axis. Under axial tension, the transverse force of
twist increases compacting fibers into close packed formation.
There are multiple disrupting factors of packing order dependent on fiber
properties, twisting conditions, and yam structure. Irregularities in fiber arrangement
prior to spinning can persist in the spun yam. Fiber cross sections may not be perfectly
round. Even if they are, fibers at the outer edge of the yam may be so twisted as to have
elliptical cross sections. Twist disrupts packing through the difference in path lengths
30 followed by outer and inner fibers. This condition is alleviated either by migration or by buckling of fibers near the axis, both of which affect cross-sectional packing. Distortion of the cylindrical yam shape, either in use or during the twisting process, can produce an asymmetric yam cross-section (Hearle, Grossberg, and Backer 1969). Another property of spun yams is linear density, which is an expression of yam fineness. Linear density, or mass per unit length, is the standard measure of fineness because yam diameter is difficult to measure in the presence of loose fiber ends and imperfect twisting.
In staple yams, linear density is highly variable because it is difficult to introduce a uniform distribution of fibers to the spinning process. Variability in linear density is important, not only because of the visual effects of thick and thin places in a yam, but because variations in other physical properties, such as twist, strength and diameter of a yam are generally secondary and tertiary effects of variability in mass per unit length of a yam (Oxtoby 1987).
All of the yam properties described above are influenced by the spinning process.
They can be controlled directly by manipulating the amount of twist inserted, the amount of fiber drafted into the yam, and the amount of tension placed on the fibers as they are twisted into the yam. These properties are also dependent on the particular conditions of
spinning. Fiber preparation has a great deal of influence on the finished product as
demonstrated by the difference in woolen and worsted yams. Woolen yams are spun
from a moderately oriented and relatively tangled web of wool fibers to produce a light,
hairy yam whereas worsted yams are spim from a highly oriented, combed mass of wool
fibers to produce a dense, smooth yam.
31 Much of the variability in staple yams results from limitations in the fiber preparation process. An ideal web of fibers for spinning would have uniform fiber arrangement throughout. The best that can be accomplished, though, is a random arrangement of fibers which leads to random variability in linear density and other yam properties. Part of the problem with staple fibers is that they are not prepared individually for the spinning process but as a mass. Due to the number of fibers that go into a yam, individual treatment of staple fibers to group and align them perfectly is impossible. As a result, staple fibers are processed en masse and because of their cohesive properties, tend to act in groups (Goswami, Martindale, and Scardino 1977).
The final stage of fiber preparation prior to twist insertion has specific effects on the fiber arrangement in yams. Roller drafting introduces wave-like groupings of fibers into the yam leading to short term periodic differences in linear density. Condenser spinning introduces strand to strand variation in linear density. One condenser produces many rovings from a single carded bat with + 5 % variability between rovings showing good performance (Goswami, Martindale, and Scardino 1977).
Particularities of spinning method also have recognizable effects on yam properties. Studies of the spinning process and its effects on yams have been conducted on industrial methods of yam production. For example, although yams have a cylindrical shape, the fibers are not necessarily arranged in a cylinder at the point of twist insertion.
The fibers may be flattened into a rectangular cross section as a result of passing over a roller prior to twisting and this will affect the way they twist.
32 Flattened fiber arrangements twist in a manner similar to that of a twisting wide rubber band. This type of twisting is called ribbon twist. Twisted under tension, a wide rubber band forms a spiral with the edges forming helices about an axis at the center of the flat band, but under low tension, the rubber band follows a spiral around a hollow core. These forms of twist are called twisted ribbon and collapsed ribbon. Both of these forms will collapse into the expected cylindrical yam shape because fibers tend to collapse into the most favorable positions under the transverse pressure firom the twist.
The twisted ribbon form collapses and is indistinguishable firom a cylindrically twisted yam. The collapsed ribbon form, however, is a source of cross-sectional irregularity.
Because the fibers have twisted around a hollow core, collapsed ribbon twist leaves an area of low density at the center of the yam or off center packing with an open or irregular edge (Hearle, Grossberg, and Backer 1969).
Ring spinning and open end spinning, two important modem spinning methods described in the previous section, leave recognizable signatures on yam fiber arrangements. In ring spinning, fibers are drawn and then twisted by the continuous turning of a spindle. Open end spinning twists the yam by rolling the fibers together to twist them. As a result, the types of entanglement of fibers in the yams spun by ring and open end methods are quite different. The fibers in open end yams are layered in annular rings around the yam axis firom the rolling twist insertion. In ring spinning, where the
fibers are twisted under tension, there is better fiber migration firom surface to core to
surface (Goswami, Martindale, and Scardino 1977). Open end spun fibers tend to be
matted together rather than twisted in a well defined helical structure and fiber packing
33 density is variable across the yam cross section. In comparison, ring spinning gives uniform, higher packing density (Oxtoby 1987).
The fiber arrangements of the two yam types also have specific effects on yam
properties and end use. Although open end yams are more twisted than ring spun, they
have 10-25% less tensile strength than conventional carded quality ring spun yams. This
is possible because open end yams have less migration and poorer packing, both
properties also required in a strong self-gripping yam stmcture. Open end yams will pill
more easily than ring spun yams, but also shed pills more readily. Their high twist makes
them inappropriate for fabrics that are to have a soft handle (Oxtoby 1987).
The principles behind ring and open end spinning are analogous to spindle- and
thigh-spinning. From the studies of ring spun and open end spun yams, it is reasonable to
expect that yams made by such different processes as spindle- and thigh-spinning will
also bear markers of the spinning method in their fiber arrangements. Because ring
spinning and open end spinning have been evaluated for cotton yams, the results of this
study, which focuses on long, bast fibers, may not mirror the ring spun and open end
findings. Nevertheless, the features that differentiate ring spun and open end yams, such
as fiber arrangement and packing density, provide examples of yam properties affected
by spinning method. Methods for evaluating industrially spun yams can be used as
models for evaluating yams spun in antiquity.
34 2.1.3 Summary
Spun yams are non-ideal arrangements of a large number of individual fibers.
During the production of yams many variables can affect the final arrangement of fibers in the structure. For industrial yams, different modes of fiber preparation give woolen and worsted yams of wool fiber and carded and combed yams of cotton fiber. Different spinning methods have other marked effects on fiber arrangement. Measurable yam properties such as linear density, twist, and cross sectional packing are sensitive to variations in fiber preparation and spinning method. These are all relevant to the current
study of yam properties where the objective is to distinguish spinning methods by
examining finished yams. This discussion of yam properties forms the theoretical basis
for examining the differences in spindle- and thigh spun yams.
2.2 Ethnography of Spinning
Written records of women’s woric in eastem North America at the time of contact
are sparse. Nevertheless, some of the men who wrote of travels in the New World took
note of fiber plants as potential economic commodities and remarked on the clothing of
the Native Americans. Ethnohistoric accounts of Native American textile arts give a
fragmentary record of the techniques used to create yam and cord during the early
historic period. None of the accounts given below describes the practices of the Cherokee
or Creek peoples, who lived in the region at the time of contact and are among the
possible descendants of the Etowah inhabitants. The accounts do, however, make
reference to the spinning practices of other peoples living in eastem North America
35 whose reliance on similar fiber resources and twining technology was shared by the people at Etowah.
The earliest account of spinning in eastem North America refers to the work of
Powhatan women in Virginia. William Strachey wrote
Betwixt their hands and thighs, their women use to spin the barks of trees, deare sinews, or a kind of grasse they call Pemmenaw\ of these they make a thred very even and readily. This thred serveth for many uses, as about their housing, appareil, as also they make nets for fishing..." (Strachey [161211953)
Strachey would have observed this during his travels at the beginning of the 17th century.
The method of spinning long fibers, such as tree bark, sinew, and grass between hand and thigh suggests what has been defined above as thigh-spinning.
Toward the end of the seventeenth century, on a reconnaissance of Pensacola
Harbor, Don Carlos de Siguenza’s party found what may have been spindles. A basket containing small crosses made of reeds caused excitement among the Spanish explorers,
but Siguenza considered the context and dispensed with the idea:
Because of the thread and bimches of buffalo hair attached to them, however, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing mystical about them except that they served as spindles or distaffs for the women (Sigüenza y Gôngora [1693]1939).
At the site of a recent buffalo kill, the party found
...considerable yam of buffalo hair, both slender and coarse, in balls and on cross-shaped distaffs of otate similar to the others seen (Sigüenza y Gôngora [1693]1939).
36 This information leaves open a number of possible methods for yam formation. The crossed sticks may indeed have been spindles as described in Hochberg (1980). If the sticks held raw fiber, it is more likely that they were distaffs. Such distaffs, in the form of
small crosses, could have been used in multiple ways. As small, hand held distaffs, they
could have supplied fiber to a spindle-spun yam. They may also have served as spinning
distaffs, where the distaff was dropped and spun, as seen among the Comanche (Peters
1877).
From his eighteenth century travels, Dumont de Montigny reported that the
Natchez “spin without spinning wheel or distaff the hair or rather wool of the bison"
(Swanton 1969). This is not a positive identification of thigh spinning, but suggests that
no tools were used to spin even short fibers.
In the middle of the eighteenth century, Peter Kalm observed Iroquois women
working with Apocynum cannabinum.
They made use neither of spinning wheels nor distaffs, but rolled the filaments upon their bare thighs, and made thread and strings of them, which they dyed red, yellow, black, etc., and afterwards woriced them into goods with a great deal of ingenuity. (Kalm [1753] 1937)
Kahn’s description of Iroquois women farther to the north, gives a good indication of
thigh-spinning. It also suggests that fine yam, on the order of thread, was produced in
this manner.
Having lived in the southeastern United States between 1735 and 1768, Adair
([1775)1968) wrote of old women spinning "wild hemp off the distaffs, with wooden
37 machines, having some clay on the middle of them to hasten the motion." The wooden machine with clay in the middle could be a spindle.
Thus, historic documents of the seventeenth and eighteenth century give a sketchy picture of native fiber industries. They suggest that spindle-spinning and thigh-spinning were both used in eastem North America. The reliability of historic thigh-spinning
accounts is enhanced by the work of 20th century ethnographers who recorded surviving thigh-spinning practices in a few regions of North America.
Among the Penobscot of Maine, basswood was the major fiber source. Speck
(1940) reported fit>m fieldwork spanning firom 1907 to 1918 that basswood thread was
made by shaving shreds off long inner bark strips and then, "twisting them while wet on
the thigh with the palm of the hand." Although they no longer made them, the Penobscot
could recall that blankets and mats were once made with basswood-bark twine. The
Penobscot could also recall using the gray underfur that grows in moose manes for
thread. It was reported that this short fiber was also spun into yam by rolling on the
thigh.
Research among the Ojibwe in the Great Lakes Region provides valuable
accounts of the preparation of thigh-spun basswood (Tilia amertcana) yam (Jones 1937;
Jones 1946). Men harvested the fiber in June and July when the bark peeled easily fix)m
the trees. Women processed the inner baric by boiling it for a few hours or retting it in
pond water for several days to soften it. When the bark separated easily into long, fine
fibers, they spun it into two ply yam by thigh-spinning.
38 Ethnobotanical field research among four Wisconsin groups, the Menomeni,
Meskwaki, Ojibwe, and Forest Potawatomi, recorded the use of various fiber resources in the 1920's and 30's. These included basswood, as well as different species of milkweed
(Asclepias sp.), Indian hemp (Apocynum sp.), and nettle (Urtica gracilis and Laportea canadensis). Among the Meskwaki, string and thread for household use were still made by thigh-spinning indigenous fibers (Smith 1923; Smith 1933; Smith 1932; Smith 1928).
On the Northwest Coast, the inner bark of cedar trees was used for making yam and rope. Chilkat dancing blankets were made with blended thigh-spim warp yams of cedar bark and mountain goat wool (Samuel 1982). Hannah Pamell, a Haida woman who lived in the Queen Charlotte Islands used cedar bark to make rope as well as fine yam.
She twisted the rope in her hands finm strands of cedar bark secured to a post or between her toes. Twisting each strand to the right (S) she would then cross them over to the left
(Z) to make plied rope. At the end of a bark strip, she would splice a new one in. Thigh- spinning was used to make finer string and sewing twine in great quantities. Although rope and twine was generally made to have a final Z twist, S and Z twist yams were combined for decorative effect in ceremonial clothing (Stewart 1984).
None of these accounts gives an exact picture of what spinning methods were used at Etowah near A.D. 1200. What they do show, however, are possibilities for pre contact spinning technology in North America. As shown by its survival into the 20* century, thigh spinning was a viable technology among various North American peoples.
It is mostly associated with long bast and inner tree bark fibers that lend themselves to splicing, but short hair fibers were also combined into thigh-spun yams. Based on the
39 ethnohistoric and ethnographie literature, neither thigh-spinning nor spindle-spinning can be ruled out as the spinning technology used to create the fine yams found in Etowah
textiles.
2.3 Time Studies of Textile Production
A few researchers have recognized the substantial time cost of textile production
and considered it important enough to document rates of production in ethnographic
studies. Much of this work has been done in Peru, where handcrafted textile arts survived
well into the twentieth century. GoodelTs 1960s fieldwork in Pisac, Peru and Bird’s
subsequent analysis produced valuable data on spindle-spinning and weaving time (Bird
1968). Nearly 100 yams were collected fix)m 10 minute timed spinnings by area wool
spiimers. The sample of 88 Z-spun wool yams gave an average length of 10.41 m per 10
minutes within a range of 3.21 m - 23.02 m per 10 min. A sample of six S-plied wool
yams gave an average rate of 15.89 m per 10 min for twisting a 2-ply yam. Bird used
these figures and average time of insertion of two weft yams in a patterned poncho to
estimate the production time of a a 140 cm long Pisac-style pattemed poncho. Total
production time for spiiming, plying, warping, and insertion of weft was estimated to be
between 508.8 and 523.9 hours. Spinning and plying took up 223.8 - 238.9 hours of this
time, nearly as much time as the weaving.
Although these hourly estimates give good figures for comparison of time
investment, they do not translate directly into the woric patterns of the spinners and
weavers. Spiiming and weaving were pursued intermittently with other household
40 responsibilities. The weavers themselves reported that they could expect to spend up to six months working on such a poncho and never less than three months (Bird 1968).
Franquemont’s (1986) replication of this work confirms Goodell’s spinning data
and tests Bird’s weaving time calculations. The average rate for Z-spun wool &om a
sample of 53 spinners was 10.81 m per 10 min within a range of 3.58 - 18.83 m per 10
min. The average plying rate was 18.11 m per 10 min. The rate of weaving in
Chinchero, Peru, however, did not correspond with Bird’s estimations. Each of two
llijlla, pattemed women’s shawls, and a striped men’s poncho required only about 70
hours weaving. Franquemont attributed the difference in time requirements to a
difference in loom setup. Respectively, the estimated total spinning and plying time for
each project was 114.72,130.38, and 199.43 hours. A plain woven sack, called a costal,
required only about 15 hours weaving. Spinning took roughly one and a half to four and
a half times longer than the weaving in the projects that Franquemont commissioned.
Spinning consumed the greatest percentage of time for the plain woven fabrics. The
weavers in this study also hilfilled other household and agricultual responsibilities during
the several weeks that they woriced on their projectes.
Cotton spinning rates also have been measured in Peru. Fifty spinners from
Morrope produced an average of 13.1 meters of yam within a 20 minute spinning period
(Lopez A. 1985). The difference in the wool and cotton spinning rates is not entirely
unexpected. Cotton yams require much more twist than wool yams of comparable size
because cotton fibers are much shorter and less cohesive than wool fibers.
41 The studies cited above show that, for woven textiles, spinning can be the rate determining step. Several spindle spinners might work to supply one weaver, particularly for the production of plainwoven cloth. In Franquemont’s study, one weaver commissioned the yam for her llijlla to be spun by another woman who specialized in spinning for others and another woman worked from a pre-existing stock of yam that she replaced as it was used (Franquemont 1986).
In one instance, thigh-spinners in eastem North America were timed to establish the production rate of basswood {Tilia americana) cord for a cedar bark mat (Jones
1946). Jones reported that it took two Chippewa women one hour to spin about 20 feet of
1/8 inch thick cord. The cord was used for the outer binding of a mat made primarily of cedar bark. Spinning the binding for the mat required a little over a fifth of the time spent weaving the cedar bark. In an earlier study, he reported that it took another two
Chippewa women all day to make enough cord for a msh mat (Jones 1937). This figure is vague, but it is likely that rushes, like the cedar in the cedar bark mat, were the primary material used in the mat and that the basswood cord was a secondary binding material.
The time that would have been necessary to make enough thick cord for a project consisting entirely of yam elements is so enormous as to seem prohibitive to modem researches.
In the Pacific Northwest, Samuel reported that a practiced spinner could thigh- spin about IS meters of yam in an hour. These spinners spin a core-spun yam from the
inner bark of yellow cedar and motmtain goat wool. The long cedar fibers form the core
42 of the yam and the mountain goat wool wraps around the bark. Although the spinners are blending two fibers into each singles yam, they spin both singles at once like other reported thigh-spinning methods.
The spinners that Samuel was working with use their thigh-spun yam as the warp for twined dancing blankets. An estimate of the length of the warp for one blanket is 851 meters. This figure was calculated using 1.29 m, the length to the center notch of a 1.44 meter warping stick, as the length of a single warp end and an average o f660 warp ends per blanket.
European studies of hand-spinning take into account the roles of spindles and spinning wheels in the history of spinning technology. In Europe spindles and wheels coexisted with machine spinning in factories through the industrial revolution. For example, a table presented in Schwarz(1947) gave a succession of spinning rates spanning the history of spinning technology beginning with spindle rates o f60 - 84 m/h
for spindles without hooks and ending with a rate of 111,000 m/h for 200 spindle ring spinning machines.
A study of hand-spinning practices in Finland in the 1950's compared the
productivity of spindles and spinning wheels (Vallinheimo 1956). A spindle-spiimer
from Suojarvi, Finland spun flax yam from a well prepared distaff at 2.40 m/min. With a
wheel, the winner of a 1954 national level Finnish spinning competition spun wool yam
at a rate of 7.19 m/min. The study also compared the spinning productivity of wheel
spiimers with varying degrees of experience. Twenty-one students in a home economics
teaching program with two years wheel spinning experience and practice schedule of 4-5
43 hours per week nearly matched the productivity of the Suojarvi spindle-spinner with an average rate of 2.30 m/min. Their spinning teacher spun flax at a rate of 4.73 m/min, and wool at 4.40 m/min. These results show that spinning on a wheel rather than a spindle does not necessarily increase the rate of yam production. Vallinheimo comments that only with "Miihe und Not" (dedication and necessity) does a wheel-spinner improve upon the efflciency of a spindle-spinner.
The yam production rates that were found in the literature are summarized on a standardized scale of meters per minute in Table 2.1. A few spinning rates were calculated flom samples of fifty or more spiimers. Other studies were less specific about how many spinners were included in the measurement. Type of fiber and quality of fiber preparation are two factors that contribute to the variability in spinning rates. Other
sources of variability in spinning rates include handling of the spindle and the relatively
intangible motivation of the spinner.
Very short fibers, such as cotton, flax tow, and some wools, require more turns
per inch to hold the fibers together in a yam. The time it takes to insert more twist in
these yams will drive down the production rate. The quality of fiber preparation also
influences both the rate of drafting and the evenness of the yam. In the Finnish study of
wheel-spinning, the observed difference between flax and wool spinning rates was
regarded by the author as very narrow because the quality of available wool fiber had not
been as good as the quality of the flax fiber (Vallinheimo 1956). Altematively, Pemvian
cotton spiimers recognize that poorly prepared cotton results in lumpy yam that breaks
easily (Vreeland 1986). Thus spinning rates are at least partially dependent on fiber
44 properties and work invested in fiber preparation that is appreciated but is not directly measurable at the time of spinning.
Differences in the manipulation of fiber, yam, and spindle may also affect spinning rates. A study of native cotton processing and spinning on the North Coast of
Pern documents differences in technique for North Coast cotton spinning and Highland wool spinning. The North Coast spinners hold the spindle at the base in their right hands and extend it horizontally in fiunt of them to spin an S-spun cotton yam. The Highland spinners hold the spindle at the top letting it hang vertically beneath their right hands to spin a Z-spun wool yam (Vreeland 1986). This is just one example of differences that may occur in adjacent geographic regions. Other possible variations include spindle design -- high whorl, low whorl, no whorl, or supported ~ use of a hook, or a half-hitch knot to secure the yam to the tip of the spindle, and method of setting the spindle in motion.
The Vallinheimo study (1956) shows that the level of experience and motivation of the spinner also affects productivity. Although experience can be measured in years of work or quantity of yam produced, human motivation is harder to explain. An individual spinner may have interest in spinning only as fast as his or her neighbors or he may be interested in spinning faster for economic benefit or for competition. These are just a few intangibles that, nevertheless, affect the reported rates of spinning.
Citing a degeneration of the practice of hand spinning, Endrei (1968) questions the validity of modem measures of spinning rate. To illustrate his point, he compares wheel-spinning rates finm several publications. From data in an 1820 publication by
45 Kees about industry in Austrian Empire, Endrei calculated a. rate of spinning of 258-286 m/h (4.30 - 4.77 m/min). Around 1900 in Austria, Rettich recorded a rate of 350 m/h (5.8
m/min). In 1950, Szolnoky(1950) recorded a spinner in Hungary spinning at a rate of
171 m/h (2.85 m/min).
Vallinheimo’s recorded wheel-spinning rates from spinners of varying experience
levels, gives a good scale against which the rates in Endrei can be compared. The two
earlier Austrian spinning rates compare with the spinning abilities of the teacher in the
home economics college and the champion spinner. The spinning rate reported in
Szolnoky compares with the abilities of the home economics students. The differences
in the spinning rates reflect the differences in the abilities of expert spinners and those of
merely practiced spinners. Endrei’s suspicion of modem spinners’ production rates
appears to have been confirmed.
Accordingly, measures of modem spinning rates should be viewed with caution.
They are not necessarily representative of the maximum rate possible. At the same time,
the maximum rate measured in a contest of expert spinners may not reflect day to day
rates of spinners who spin for household needs or to supplement household income.
Ideally, spinning rates will have been calculated from large samples of spiimers still
engaged in daily production as in the Bird, Lôpez, and Franquemont studies. Such
samples will include the fast and the slow in a range of possible spinning rates. They will
give a general picture of the rate of yam production within a population using similar
tools and having similar expectations.
46 Table 2.2. shows calculations of spinning time relative to textile production time from the studies that followed the entire textile production process. The figures were calculated fixim measured and estimated production times given in the original studies.
Because the thigh-spun yam was only a binding element in the cedar mat, the ratios do not compare directly with the spindle-spun ratios where yam was the only material used to make the finished product. Nevertheless, these calculations show that the spinning of
20 feet of thigh-spun yam to secure the edge of a mat required a significant portion of the production time. Textiles twined or finger woven entirely from thigh-spun elements could be expected to have an even greater spinning to weaving time ratio. For spindle
spinning, the ratios of spinning time to weaving time show that loom woven fabrics can
consume yam at a faster rate than yam is produced. The percentage of total production
time devoted to spiniting shows how spinning rate can dominate the production rate of a
woven fabric, especially for quickly woven plain weave fabrics.
47 Spinnerfs) and region Spinning Method Fiber Spinning Rate* Source
Jones 1946 2 spinners Thigh Basswood 0.05 Ontario, Canada
Samuel 1982 Pacific Coast, Canada Thigh Cedar and 0.25 wool
Lôpez 1985 50 spinners Spindle Cotton 0.65 Morrope, Peru no hook
Bird 1968 100 spinners, Pisac, Spindle Wool 1.04 Peru unspecified
Franquemont 53 spinners, Spindle Wool 1.08 1986 Chinchero, Peru no hook
Schwarz 1947 1.00-1.40 Bukovina Spindle, ------1912 no hook
Bird 1968 6 spinners Spindle Plying 1.59 Pisac, Peru unspecified
Franquemont 10 spinners, Spindle Plying 1.81 1986 Chinchero, Pern no hook
Schwarz 1947 Southern Italy Spindle, ------1.83 with hook
Vallinheimo 1 spinner Spindle Flax tow 2.00-2.15 1956 Suojarvi, Finn. no hook
Vallinheimo 21 student spiimers. Wheel" Flax line 2.30 1956 Fin. Wool 2.21
Vallinheimo 1 spinner Spindle Flax line 2.40 1956 Suojarvi, Fin. no hook
Szolnoky 1950 1 spinner Spindle Hemp 2.63 Nagylôc, Hungary unspecified
Vallinheimo Spinning teacher Wheel" Flax line 4.73 1956 Fin. Wool 4.40
Vallinheimo Champion spinner Wheel" Wool 7.19 1956 Ruovesi, Fin.
"Rates have been converted from various units to m/min for comparison "Wheels are treadle driven with bobbin and flyer spinning system.
Table 2.1: Hand spinning rates (m/min) arranged from slowest to fastest.
48 Spinning Finished Work Spinning Time/ Spinning as % of Total Source Method Weaving Time Production Time*
Jones 1946 Thigh Finger woven cedar mat 0.22" 10
Bird 1968 Spindle Pattemed poncho 0.80' —
Franquemont Spindle Pattemed llijlla 1.67 32.05 1986 Pattemed llijlla 1.84 30.49
Plain woven poncho 2.80 24.66
Plain woven costal 3.71 69.12
Plain woven costal 4.56 74.25
'Total production time includes all steps from fiber collection to the completion of the textile. ‘’Spun yam only bound the edges of the mat. The mat itself was woven from unspun strips of cedar bark. "’Calculated fi’om minimum estimated production time for poncho.
Table 2.2; Relation of spinning time to textile production time.
49 2.4 Archaeometric Studies of Textiles
Archaeometry and archaeological science are the names used to describe the application of analytical scientific methods to archaeological problems. Standards of objective measurement from chemistry, materials science, statistics, and other fields are applied to research questions involving materials firom the archaeological record.
With respect to textiles, analytical methods have been used to characterize raw materials such as fibers and dyestuffs. For fiber identification, researchers have used the optical microscope and scanning electron microscope with comparative fiber material
(Srinivasan and Jakes 1997; Jakes, Sibley, and Yerkes 1994; Sibley, Jakes, and Song
1989; Sibley, Jakes, and Swinker 1992; Jakes 1991; Whitford 1941; Sibley and Jakes
1986; Gordon and Keating 2001; Kdrber-Grohne 1991; Florian 1990b). More detailed characterization has been carried out on fibers recovered fi'om a deep sea shipwreck and pseudomorph formation (Sibley et al. 1989; Srinivasan 2001; Chen 1998). These studies reach beyond fiber identification to detail the longterm effects of specific archaeological environments.
Dye analysis provides information about plant and animal resources as well as chemical technology. Dye identification is accomplished by chemical characterization of dye molecules. Several spectroscopic methods have been used (Jakes, Katon, and
Martoglio 1990; Michel, Lazar, and McGovern 1992; Saltzman 1978) as well as liquid
and thin-layer chromatography (Wouters and Rosario-Chirinos 1992; Schweppe 1986).
The analytical study of yam production technology has received little attention. A
single study of twist levels in woolen textiles from a first century Roman fort in northern
50 England suggests the potential for analysis of twist (Cork, Cooke, and Wild 1996). Yam twist was measured objectively from textile fragments with image analysis software. The number of measurements possibl’e with image analysis allows for determination of the level of twist in yams as well as variability. The authors suggest that twist measurement may be a key to studying weaving technology where no evidence of weaving methods is present. In the present study, analytical methods based on modem textile research were
used to study yam production technology.
2.5 Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Archaeological Textiles
Textiles, whether or not they are represented in the archaeological record, have
been a major industry in human history. The relationship between textile production and
social organization has been explored recently in two papers that make do without any
direct textile evidence at all (McCorriston 1997; Brumfrel 1996). The data used are
historic documents from literate societies and archaeological correlates that indicate
textile activity such as spindle whorls and sheep remains. Brumfrel (1996) ventures to
show archaeological spindle whorl evidence of women’s resistance to tribute demands in
Aztec and Colonial Mexico. McCorriston (1997) seeks to explain the development of a
class of encumbered female textile laborers in the 3"^ millennium B.C. in Mesopotamia.
She proposes that a shift in frber use from flax to wool began a process that alienated
women from the source of their textile raw materials. Loss of access to productive
resources changed women’s labor roles and their place in society.
51 What relates these studies is the understanding that women’s production activity is related to the whole of society. Because these authors worked without textiles, their studies emphasize the role of textile production in the socioeconomic structure of the two societies. Whether for household use, tribute, or trade, textile production is economic activity. Even without finished textiles as evidence, the act of making textiles remains a significant social and economic indicator.
The study of actual textiles leads to problems of data collection and analysis.
Archaeological textiles, studied piece by piece and site by site, yield a hodgepodge of data which may, or may not, coordinate into a useful picture of prehistoric textiles. The hodgepodge aspect of this data set is not so much the fault of investigators as it is a result of the complexity of the subject matter and the vastness of the data that may be collected
even firom firagmentary evidence. Textile artifacts are the result of multiple production
activities as well as a series of culturally and materially grounded decisions. As interest
in textile evidence develops, a theoretical approach to the study of fiber industries
becomes necessary to guide and integrate collection and analysis of the information they
contain.
One way to deal with the abundance of information contained in textile fragments
is to use a measurement based methodology. Systematic data collection will allow for
later analytical comparison of multiple and varied textile specimens. In her study of a
large collection of textile impressions in "saltpan" ceramics, Drooker (1992) used
attribute measurements as her primary source of data. Measurements of yam elements
per centimeter, yam diameter, number of plies and other textile attributes created a solid
52 foundation of uniformly collected data from which to study the textile impressions in over 1,500 sherds.
When archaeological textiles are recovered within the social context of a burial, the number of possible associations and inferences increases. Again, measurement of textile attributes creates a base of information &om which comparisons among textiles as well as to social context can be made. Two major studies of textiles found in
Mississippian burials relate complexity of textiles, as determined by measurement of fibers, yams, and fabric structure, to the status attributes of their burial contexts
(SchrefQer 1988; Kuttruff 1988).
Interpretation of the textile data to assign rankings of complexity requires the building of a model that ranks the components of the finished textile. Schreffler (1988) measured complexity as a summary value of the decisions required to construct the textile assuming that an increasing number of decisions involved in textile production reflects increasing social value of the textile. Kutruff (1988) developed a "textile production complexity index" to integrate the data and compare it to the status of its burial context.
The most comprehensive approach to the problem has developed over a decade into a model of inquiry directed toward understanding production, function, and semiotics of prehistoric textiles (Jakes, Sibley, and Yerkes 1994; Sibley, Jakes, and S winker 1992;
Sibley and Jakes 1989; Jakes and Ericksen 1997). Through their recognition of several phases in textile production and use, Sibley and Jakes (1989) developed a model for synthesizing multiple types of information about textiles in order to infer the cultural context in which they were produced. The insight that Sibley and Jakes expanded into a
53 model for textile study was their understanding that a finished textile reflects, not only the stylistic design elements and end-use application, but also the maker’s choice of fiber raw material, her preparation efforts, and her skill in construction and finishing techniques.
These properties of the textile further reflect the cultural and individual accumulation of knowledge that made that particular textile possible (Ericksen, Jakes, and Wimberley
2000; Gremillion, Jakes, and Wimberley 2000).
By considering the textile not merely as an isolated object, but instead viewing it within multiple contexts - biological, cultural, and archaeological - research begins to reveal human relationships with the environment, time use and/or management, technical expertise, and social relationships. These relationships only become clear through consideration of the spectrum of options that underlie the concrete choices represented in the textile.
In summary, the theoretical treatment of archaeological textiles has developed to the point where textile evidence can be approached as an indicator of many social behaviors beyond the acts of dressing and decorating. From initial production decisions through the end use that brought it to the archaeological record, the textile was part of a network of technological and interpersonal relationships. Data collected on the physical properties of textiles are useful for comparing one textile to another as well as for building inferences about a textile’s role in the society that produced it. This particular
study of spinning technology largely concerns the production stage of textile use. The
54 ability to discriminate between spinning methods will shed light on the technological knowledge of the spinner as well as the time required for the production of a single object.
2.6 Prehistoric Fiber Industries in Eastem North America
For several reasons, the role of textile evidence in archaeological inquiry has been minor until recently. Because the practice of archaeology has been a traditionally masculine occupation, the nature of traditional study has reflected male interests in hunting, warfare, political organization, and social hierarchy. Archaeological evidence associated with feminine activities, such as household production of food and clothing were often ignored.
Oversight of these activities is not entirely the result of gender bias, however. The archaeological evidence that is most easily collected, stored, and studied includes rocks, fired ceramics, bones, and non-corrosive metals. These non-perishable materials have received the most attention over the history of archaeology. Food, clothing, and basketry, the direct evidence of women’s production activities, do not fare well in archaeological context. Organic materials such as these decompose quickly in most soils and in the presence of moisture. In instances where they have survived, organic materials are fragile and fragmentary. Recovery, handling, and storage of these materials requires extra care.
55 2.6.1 Ceramic impressions
The antiquity of textile technology in eastem North America has been established, not by miraculous textile finds in such an unhospitable enviromnent, but by the survival of textile impressions in the ceramic record. These are the negative impressions made by
textiles when pressed into wet clay. The impressions become stable or permanent when the clay is fired.
The earliest evidence of textiles in eastem North America comes fi’om the Early
Archaic period 8000-6000 B.C. Fired clay impressions of twined textiles dating to this
period have been found at Graham Cave in Missouri and Icehouse Bottom in Tennessee.
The impressions appear to be of textiles rather than basketry because both warp and weft
elements of the twined sructures are twisted (Andrews and Adovasio 1996). Ceramic
impressions of textiles have provided a record of textile production through the
protohistoric period in areas where no textiles have survived (Drooker 1992; Kuttruff and
Kuttruff 1992; Drooker 1991; Rachlin 1958; Rachlin I960; Maslowski 1996; Petersen
1996; Hamilton, Petersen, and McPherron 1996; Johnson 1996; Kuttruff and Kuttruff
1996; Kuttruff and Kuttruff 1992).
The impressions are of varying quality and yield different levels of information.
Many of the impressions show only the structure of individual cords pressed into the clay.
From these, only the cord diameter and the twist direction can be determined. Several
researchers have endeavored to coimect twist direction in cordage to ethnic or other
cultural boundaries between groups of people (Maslowski 1996; Johnson 1996). Petersen
56 (1996) has hypothesized that twist could serve as an indicator for learning networks,
technological populations, or ethnic divisions between groups.
Recent ethnoarchaeological field work among several groups in Greater
Amazonia has confirmed that preferences for one twist direction over the other in the
manufacture of string or yam can correspond to cultural boundaries (Petersen,
Heckenberger, and Wolford 1998). People belonging to the same language family
tended to share twist preferences with Ge’ speakers preferring Z-twist (and S-spin) and
Yanomamo speakers preferring S-twist (and Z-spin). People of different language groups
living in a limited geographic area, however, might also share the same twist preference.
This work has shown that differences in twist preference can correspond to significant
boundaries between groups of people although the nature of the boundaries are variable.
Because twist direction, S or Z, should have little or no effect on the strength and
durability of yams, it confers no selective advantage to yams. It follows that distinctions
between twist direction have little to do with textile technology. The significance applied
to or sought after in twist direction is related to its function as a variable in ceramic
assemblages. Twist direction is merely a binary variable that can distinguish otherwise
homogenous ceramic assemblages. As a variable in spun yam technology, it corresponds
to the hand movements used in yam formation. The number of possible orientations of
hand and yam that result in either an S or a Z twist are so numerous, however, that the
twist direction alone is a poor indicator of yam formation technology.
Some collections of textile impressed ceramics, most notably Mississippian
saltpans, were produced in such a way that the impressions reveal an array of different
57 textile techniques. Drookefs (1992) study of 1,559 saltpan pottery sherds from
Wyckliffe Mounds in Kentucky gives reports on fabric complexity, use information, and a large database of yam measurements. Yams showed great diversity in diameter and level of fiber processing. Yam characteristics also appeared to correlate with specific textile structures. For instance, weft-faced fabrics had both the highest fabric density as well as the thickest yams.
2.6.2 Textiles
Relative to the quantities of lithics and ceramics preserved in the archaeological record, textile finds in eastem North America are rare. Nevertheless, textiles have survived burial in a variety of environments - the dry conditions of rock shelters and caves, the wet conditions of bogs, and in association with copper artifacts - all of which inhibit microbial action on organic materials. With a few exceptions, examination of textiles has shown that they were made of long bast or bark fibers. The textile evidence in eastem North America reinforces the ceramic evidence of sophisticated fiber industries.
The earliest textiles recovered from the eastem North American archaeological record come from the Windover Bog Cemetery in Florida. It is a Middle Archaic site from the period 6000-4000 B.C. Forty-seven specimens of twined cloth and one specimen of oblique interlacing were recovered. The twining techniques represented in this fabric assemblage included two types of compact simple twining and two types of compact diagonal twining (Andrews and Adovasio 1996).
58 Twined fragments from Arnold Research Cave in Missouri are loosely attributed to the Late Archaic period, which ended around 500 B.C. according to local chronologies.
The construction techniques included compact twining and spaced twining. One large spaced twined fabric consisted of a braided warp and a two-ply spun weft (Harvey 1975).
An Early Woodland cemetery at Boucher (1000-100 B.C.) in Vermont yielded textiles preserved among the copper artifacts interred with the bodies (Heckenberger et al.
1996). These included 99 textile fragments both twined and braided and 56 cordage fragments. Descriptive analysis of the artifacts revealed that all cordage was Z-spun S- plied. There were several types of twining represented with spaced simple twining being the most common. Wrapped twined structures and decorative structures containing discontinuous, superfluous wrapping elements were also present.
Hopewell mound sites constructed between 100 B.C. - A.D. 400 have also been a source of archaeological textiles. Again, most of the textiles survived in association with copper artifacts although some charred remains of textiles were also found.
Pseudomorphs of textiles on a copper breastplate and three copper earspools ftxim the
Tunacunnhee site in Georgia fall within the narrow date range of A.D. 150 + 95 . The pseudomorphs on all the artifacts were formed after spaced twined textiles(Sibley and
Jakes 1986).
Ohio Hopewell mound groups have yielded a larger sample of textiles. Spaced alternate pair twining was the most common construction type among sixty-two fragments from Harness, Hopewell, and Seip mound groups curated at the Ohio
Historical Society. Four different patterns in oblique interlacing were also present
59 (Church 1987). The Field Museum’s collection of textile and copper artifacts from
Hopewell Mounds contained the same basic fabric types, but analysis of copper artifacts also revealed evidence of fine, white, gauzelike oblique interlacing on 1041 pieces of copper. Fragments of this fabric found between copper sheets were bright white and the interlaced elements were single fibers rather than twisted yams. Other textile fragments were associated with masses of fiber that might have been fur, feathers, or down that may have been incorporated into the yam or textile structure (White 1987).
The Ozark Bluff Shelters, dry overhangs excavated in the 1920's and 1930's, contained a wealth of perishable artifacts including many textiles. The earliest estimated occupation time for the shelters is 10,000 B.C. and there is evidence that they were used into the Mississippian period. Unfortunately no chronological data are available for these artifacts. The well preserved textiles include many examples o f spaced simple twining and a few examples of spaced alternate pair twining. Braided rims for twined bags and selvage treatments are also relatively common among the collection. One fabric exhibits a pattern created from transposed warp yams between rows of weft twining (Scholtz
1975).
Textiles found at Mississippian sites (A.D. 800 - A.D. 1600) appear to be the most elaborate of the prehistoric eastem North American textiles. They contain numerous types of fiber raw materials, provide evidence of dyeing, and reveal the possibilities for elaborate patterning based on twining and oblique interlacing. The appearance of a
greater range of raw materials and more intricate patterning may only reflect better
preservation of Mississippian textiles after a shorter burial period. Considered with the
60 great civic architecture and the fine workmanship present in other elite artifacts of the
Mississippian period, however, these textiles may indicate a concomitant fluorescence in textile technology.
Textiles found in Mound C at Etowah include the expected compact twined and spaced twined examples as well as examples of extremely intricate fabrication techniques. A textile recovered fi:om grave 18a in Moorehead’s excavations was a combination of weft twining, oblique twining, and oblique interlacing (Byers 1962).
Burial 57, radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1200, from the Larson excavations contained a textile (Catalog number 842) that included alternate pair twining, knotted two-system octagonal openwork, and interlacing. Although only a 10 X 12 cm area of this textile is visible in a photograph, the several construction techniques appear to be coordinated in a much larger scale open work pattern (Sibley, Swinker, and Jakes 1991).
Other fi-agments fi-om Burial 57 were covered with layers of red and gold colored feather barbules. The barbules were identified as belonging to the Anseriformes order of the family Anatidae, which includes ducks, geese, and swans (Sibley, Jakes, and Swinker
1992). Coloration on the feather barbules was determined to be dye from the plant
Galium aparine (Sibley and Jakes 1994). Blending of different types of bast fibers was found in still more fragments firom Burial 57 (Sibley, Jakes, and Song 1989).
Textiles from the central burial chamber of Craig Mound of the Spiro site in
Oklahoma reinforce the impression of elaborate Mississippian textiles. Feathers and hair fibers were found in the Spiro textiles as well as the more common bast and bark fibers.
Again twining and interlacing were the basic construction techniques that were varied
61 upon and used together to form patterns. Textile design at Spiro also included coloration that came in the form of natural fiber colors as well as dyes. The design motifs of the
Spiro textiles included bands, rectangles, circles, chevrons, squares, bird forms, diamonds, firets, half-circles, and human forms (Kuttruff 1988).
2.6.3 Summary
The combined evidence of ceramic impressions and textiles suggest that twining, oblique interlacing, and knotted netting were the textile fabrication techniques used by the prehistoric peoples of eastem North America through to the time of European contact.
References to plain weave in the eastem North American archaeological record are suspect because oblique interlacing may be easily confused with plain weave (White
1987). The apparent absence of loom technology did not limit the variety of textile structures. The use of a warp that is only secured at one end permits fi'ee manipulation of both warp and weft elements allowing for combinations of twining and interlacing within a single textile. Whereas examples of simple open and compact weft twining are quite common and can be considered the plain weaves of twining technology, variations on these structures date back as far as the Windover textiles. Ceramic and textile evidence also attest to the existence of textile industries early in eastem North American prehistory. That even the earUest examples of twined fabrics show variations on the basic fabric construction techniques suggests that the technology was established much earlier.
62 2.7 Importance ofthe Etowah Site
By the Mississippian period, when the Etowah textiles were created, textile technology was already several thousand years old. Because twining, plaiting and other open warp construction techniques have been almost universally supplanted by faster
loom weaving, the antiquity, richness, and sophistication of pre-loom technologies are
easily overlooked. In recognition of the excessive value placed on speed of production in
modem economies, it is important to emphasize that the Etowah textiles used in the
following study are the products of a well established technology. As such, the Etowah
textiles are valuable examples of a poorly understood dimension of textile economics and
technology. They also provide an example of a technology that has left little trace in
many parts of the world because it vanished so long ago.
2.7.1 Site description
Etowah is a multiple mound site located on the Etowah River near Cartersville,
GA. The site consists of three large ceremonial mounds and many smaller surrounding
mounds spread out over an area of 52 acres. When in use, the site was protected by a
palisade and a moat that encircled the town. The ceremonial mounds, designated A, B,
and C, were built around a great plaza. The plaza, paved with clay and elevated 50 cm
above ground level, was a man made open space. Mound A, the largest mound, has a flat
topped summit 20 m above the flood plain. Moimd B is 50 m square at the base and has a
flat topped summit 7 m above the flood plain. Mound C, largely destroyed by
excavations, was similar in size to Mound B.
63 Etowah is situated on the north bank of the river at the meeting of two major physiographic provinces, the Piedmont and the Great Valley. At this point, the river flows firom the Piedmont onto the Great Valley section of the Ridge and Valley province.
These provinces are characterized respectively by deciduous upland forest and a broad floodplain with alluvial soil. The inhabitants of Etowah would have had the opportunity to exploit the resources of two diverse ecosystems.
2.7.2 Excavation history
The Etowah site has undergone periodic excavation since the late nineteenth century. Interest has been focused on Mound C, one of the three large mounds. By the number of elaborate burials found in and around Mound C, it has been designated as the site of a mortuary temple. It was first excavated by Cyrus Thomas in 1884 for the Bureau of American Ethnology (Thomas 1894). Some thirty years later, in 1925, 1926, and
1927, Warren K. Moorehead ofthe Philips Academy, Andover Massachusetts excavated
Mound C (Moorehead 1927; Moorehead 1925). Thomas found 11 burials in Mound C and Moorehead found 100 burials there. Both indicated having dug at other locations at the site, and both considered that Mound C had been completely excavated by the end of
their work (Larson 1989). At the completion of Moorehead’s excavations, much of the
mound had been removed including 10-12 feet of its original height (Larson 1957).
Beginning in 1954, Lewis Larson, working for the Georgia Historical Commission,
resumed excavation around the untouched perimeter of Mound C for five seasons.
Larson’s excavations also included portions of Mound B, which showed evidence of
64 habitation. These five seasons of excavation produced 210 of the 350 burials that have been unearthed at Etowah. Larson’s controlled excavation procedures that included detailed mapping and stratigraphy also make the collections that he recovered the most useful for study (Larson 1971).
2.7.3 Chronology
Excavations at Etowah give evidence of long-term habitation. The excavation in and around Mound B yielded stratified residential debris that Larson (1957) classified
into five phases of habitation. Below Mound C, Larson found 4 structures that had been
built successively one on top of the other. They all appear to have been public spaces.
One of the larger structures was 111 fl by 40 ft. Mound C was built on top of the site of
these structures in 5 phases. Each new construction phase ofthe mound is marked by a
clay mantle. The burials that surrounded the base of Mound C were part of the final
phase of construction. Carbon dating of some of these burials puts them in a time range
of A.D. 950-1440. The ceramics in the burials are associated with the Willbanks ceramic
period (Larson 1971).
2.7.4 People who lived at Etowah
Although stratigraphy at Etowah gives evidence of multiple phases of occupation,
the textiles under investigation in this study are attributable to a relatively short time
period. They were recovered fiom the Wilbanks phase graves that Larson excavated
around Mound C. Despite the rich "finds" at Mound C, the evidence fi:om that location is
65 only representative of burial context within the society. Specific knowledge of the lifeways of the people interred at Mound C will only come with excavation of Wilbanks phase occupation sites around the mound grouping.
In general, the people of Etowah fall into the cultural classification Mississippian.
Mississippian is a broad term that encompasses the peoples who lived across much of the southeastern United States and spans a time period finm A.D. 800 - A.D. 1600.
Mississippian peoples, probably ancestral to historic tribes such as the Cherokee, Creek, and Natchez made first contact with European explorers venturing into North America.
Basic Mississippian cultural markers include shell tempered pottery, year round settlements, and the construction of flat topped mounds and earthworks. It has been found that Mississippian peoples maintained far reaching trade networks that brought materials firom the Atlantic Coast as far inland as Spiro in Oklahoma. Their agricultural practices were inherited firom countless generations of interaction with indigenous cultigens such as Chenopodium berlandieri (goosefoot), Iva annua (sumpweed), and
Helianthus annuus (sunflower). Mississippian agriculture differed significantly fi-om
prior practices by the sudden introduction of maize at A.D. 800 (Smith, 1992).
The people, or rather the artifacts, buried in the Willbanks phase of Mound C
belong to an even narrower categorization of the eastem North American archaeological
record called the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. This complex was conceived of as
an umbrella term to describe and relate the artistic motifs and possible belief system that
appear over a broad geographic range in eastem North America. The time period
designated as "true" Southeastern Ceremonial Complex is A.D. 1250 ± 100 years.
66 During this time, the Mississippian trade network expanded not so much in range as in content. People began exchanging finished goods and sharing specific motifs across great distances rather than merely acquiring raw materials for local production. These shared products and motifs link Etowah in Georgia, Moundville in Alabama, and Spiro in
Oklahoma (Muller 1989).
Although excavations at Etowah are not necessarily representative of the entire site, much information has been gained from the work that has been done there. The burials that Larson found at the base of Mound C represented only a segment of the population living contemporaneously at the site. The individual interments were either rectangular pits or elaborate, labor intensive log tombs. The artifacts contained in the burials represent a wide variety of materials used by the society: mollusc shell, tortoise shell, pottery, stone, wood, cloth, and copper. Based on comparison of grave goods between Mound C and the slightly later domestic interments at Mound B, Larson proposed that Etowah was home to a stratified society. Burials in Mound C contained goods that had come from a distance whereas domestic burials at Mound B only occasionally contained commonly used items like stone celts or pottery vessels (Larson
1971).
Blakely’s work on the remains of the Mound C and Mound B burial populations supports this conclusion. Nutrition analyses based on trace elements and occurrence of dental caries were inconclusive. Demographic analysis, however, showed that the
populations of Mound C and Mound B are quite different. The Mound C population
includes a greater proportion of adults of both sexes. Among female burials, women of
67 middle age bad the greatest frequency. Male burials increased in frequency with age, that is, older males were more highly represented in the burial population than younger males.
Blakely concluded that the Mound C population represented a group o f men who inherited the opportunity to achieve high status. He was uncertain, however, how women might have attained their places among the Mound C population (Blakely 1995).
Within the Mound C population, status differentiation was also evident.
Comparison of grave goods, which included detailed analysis of textile attributes, and demographic information among Mound C burials revealed a hierarchy among the burials
(Schreffler 1988).
Not only has Etowah provided evidence of Mississippian social organization prior to the disruption that followed European contact, but it has also given clues to the regional political climate. The moat and palisades that surrounded Etowah are a feature of numerous contemporary sites in the Southeast. Larson argues that these fortifications protected the inhabitants fix>m frequent raids. He proposes that warfare became common during the Mississippi period because societies relying increasingly on agriculture for subsistence found themselves with a limited supply of arable land (Larson 1972).
Based on what has been learned at the Etowah site and regional generalizations about Mississippian culture, the lifestyle of the people at Etowah can be described in general terms. The geographic location of Etowah gave the people access to diverse sources of food. They could grow crops in the nearby alluvial bottom land, the river
6 8 provided fish and shellfish, and upland forests were a source of game. The plant foods at
Etowah included indigenous nuts, greens, berries, domesticated starchy seeds, and maize, a recent import.
They lived in a large, permanent community with close ties to the surrounding agricultural land. Their civic architecture included three major earthworks, a large public plaza, a moat, and a fortifying wall. Each of these substantial undertakings is an indicator of an organized, cooperative group.
Evidence of differential treatment of individuals in the burial population sheds light on the social structure of the society. Some individuals clearly had access to greater prestige and more resources than others. The elaborate goods found in many of the
Mound C burials also show technical and design excellence in craft production. They show great investments of time in the production of articles not intended for utilitarian use. The imported goods in the burials also suggest the people’s participation in a regional trade network.
69 CHAPTERS
METHODOLOGY
The research was conducted in four phases: 1) preliminary research, 2) fiber production study, 3) consultation with spinners and replication of thigh- and spindle-spun yams, and 4) experimentation on thigh- and spindle-spun yams. The preliminary phase was necessary to develop methods and a design for the final study. The primary goal of the fiber production study was to generate a supply of fibers from indigenous North
American fiber plants. At the same time, this phase was used as an opportunity to collect data on rates for hand processing bast fibers and plant productivity. The third phase, consultation with spinners and replication of yams, was designed to generate a set of thigh- and spindle-spun yams for physical properties testing. Characterization of the yams was carried out in the fourth phase of the research. This phase included tests to evaluate yam structure in order to find discriminating characteristics of yams made by thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning technologies. Tests of properties associated with yam quality were also included in order to evaluate how the two spinning methods would affect yam performance.
3.1 Preliminary Work and Methods Development
3.1.1 Preliminary yam production
In the preliminary phase of this research, John White of Michael, IL was consulted for thigh-spinning instruction and insight into fiber preparation. John White
70 was interviewed at his home concerning his thigh-spinning experience on August 17,
1999(White 1999). As a boy, he learned to thigh-spin from his great uncle, Charlie
Copeland, a Chickamawge Cherokee of the Sesquatchie Valley, TN. White teaches thigh-spinning and other crafts at his Ancient Lifeways Institute in Michael, IL.
White’s great uncle spun cord primarily for tying things and for making bow strings. White demonstrated thigh-spinning using basswood fiber that he had collected and retted himself. He used the right handed technique that produces S spun and Z plied yam. He rolled the singles yams down his leg toward the knee, then brought them together with his right hand and twisted the plied end of the yam with his left hand to insert the ply twist. Although his great aunt had practiced the backspin method as reported in Jones (1937) and Samuel (1982) where the right hand rolls the singles yams down the leg and then plies them with the same hand rolling back up the leg, White had
not leamed this practice from her. At the time of the interview, White spun several
meters of basswood cord that were collected and later tested in the twist angle study.
Following the interview with John White and during the time when other
interviews were being arranged, the author spun two flax yams. These yams, one thigh-
spun and one spindle-spun, were used for preliminary testing and methods development.
The preliminary yams were made from the same supply of flax that was distributed
among the spinners for the yam production study. Results from the tests on the
preliminary yams have been included with the results of other yam testing.
The preliminary spindle-spun yam was spun differently from the other spindle-
spun yams in the study. The author spun it with the intention of making a two ply yam
71 with highly twisted singles yams. After practicing thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning, the author noticed that thigh-spun yams retained a greater amount of twist in the singles
yams. Two-ply, thigh-spun yams had hard, very highly twisted singles yams whereas
two-ply, spindle-spun yams had much less twisted singles yams. The author had also
noted that two-ply yams in the Etowah Mound C 843 textiles had highly twisted singles
yams.
The author’s motivation in spinning the preliminary spindle-spun yam was to spin
a yam with a spindle that looked like a thigh-spun yam. Yam twist is a property that a
spindle spinner can control to achieve different end effects. Low twist allows fibers to
move around and gives a yam with lower flexural rigidity in comparison to highly
twisted yam, which makes a rigid yam that is more resistant to abrasion. Extremely high,
unstable twist is used in yams for fabric such as chiffon and crepe. In light of this, it
could not be assumed that spindle-spinners would never make two ply yams with highly
twisted singles yams. Yams in the Etowah Mound C textiles looked like thi^-spun
yams, but might yet be spindle-spun with specifically chosen high twist properties.
The preliminary spindle-spun flax yam was spun to look like a thigh-spun yam
for two reasons. First, it was an experiment to show whether or not a similarly large
amount of twist could be retained in spindle-spun singles yams after plying. Second,
such a yam would be useful to show how a spindle-spun yam with high singles yams
twist, like a thigh-spun yam, might still have different properties fix>m thigh-spun yams.
Although in some ways the preliminary spindle-spun yam confounded later results for the
72 larger group of spindle-spun yams, it also pointed toward some useful distinctions between thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams with similar twist properties.
It was decided that the yams for the yam production study should be spun at the spinner’s discretion in order to generate a set of yams that showed what each spinner thought was an appropriate amount of twist for the fiber and yam. The spinners were given instructions to spin fine yams (Appendix A). They were also shown a photograph of textiles fi'om Etowah Mound C no. 843 (Appendix A) so that they would understand the focus of the replication study. In short, the spinning consultants were explicitly asked to create yams on the order of fineness of the Etowah textiles, with a specific set of fibers.
The purpose of explaining the desired yam, rather than leaving the spinners to make any yam, was to generate yams that represented individual solutions to the problem of making fine yams with specific fibers and specific technologies.
3.1.2 Fiber selection and preparation
Bast fibers fiom three different plants were selected as the raw material for the
replication yams. The plant sources for the fiber were flax (Linum usitatissimum),
common milkweed {Asclepias syriaca), and Indian hemp {Apocynum cannabinum). Bast
fibers, or schlerenchyma phloem fiber cells, are part of plant primary support tissues.
They are long cells with thick primary walls that grow in the stalk of the plant (Figure
3.1) (Florian 1990a). Bast fibers are suited to both thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning.
They are better suited to thigh-spinning than short seed hairs and hair fibers because long
fibers are easier to woric with when splicing and twisting loose fiber ends. The fibers for
73 the study were also selected based on ethnographic reports of their use, their availability, and their inherent fineness. Fine fibers would be necessary to make fine yams as found in the Etowah textiles. Commercial strick flax was readily available, and local milkweed and Indian hemp plants would provide fibers firom indigenous North American species.
Flax is an old world bast fiber plant whereas milkweed and Indian hemp are indigenous fiber plants reported to have been used by Native Americans in eastem North
America (Kahn [1753]1937; Densmore [1927]1974; Whitford 1941; Smith 1923; Smith
1933; Smith 1932; Smith 1928; Erichsen-Brown 1979). Although the primary goal of this study was to build a method to distinguish thigh-spinning from spindle-spinning in eastem North America, it was also hoped that the results of this work would provide a general model for investigating spinning methods used to produce all bast fiber yams.
Flax was included as another example of bast fiber, not necessarily used by Native
Americans, yet important in other parts of the world. The premise of studying yams made of three different bast fibers was that the more fibers included in the study, the more acceptable the model would be regardless of the specific bast plant species.
The choice to use milkweed and Indian hemp harvested from green plants was made with consideration for the two types of spinning. Both of these fibers do not
separate easily or entirely from other plant tissue once they have dried in the field.
Although this is not a problem if the fiber is to be spliced in bundles into a yam, it is
prohibitive to continuous drafting as used for spindle spinning. Fibers bound together by
other plant matter and that cannot move individually, will make lumps and snarls in the
74 yam and fiber supply. Because the fibers fiom green plants could be separated to create suitable fiber for both spinning methods, this method of fiber preparation was chosen.
Such minimal processing is supported by Whitford's (1941) analysis of numerous eastem North American archaeological specimens and Smith’s (1923; 1933; 1928) ethnobotanical work. John White (1999) also indicated that milkweed fiber should be processed when green although he also harvested Indian hemp in the late fall and winter after the plants had dried.
A final note on the processing of green milkweed fiber relates to the scheduling of the labor intensive fiber processing. Peeling bast fibers out of fiesh, still green, milkweed and Indian hemp plants was slow work. The work was so time consuming that it is possible that it might conflict with other important subsistence activities in September and early October. It seems more prudent to process fiber later in the winter. This corroborates the reports of fiber being collected fixim dead plants in winter. Nevertheless, properties of the winter gathered fibers may not be ideal. Fiber strength diminishes with exposure and milkweed fibers become gray and mottled black rather than remaining pristine white. The fiber also becomes embedded in the outer layers of plant material and is difficult to extract cleanly.
In January 2000, some three months after fibers had been collected in the field, the author found that it was possible to wet dried ribbons of milkweed and pull fibers out
as had been possible in September when the ribbons were firesh. This suggests a possible
two-stage fiber extraction process. Ribbons of baric would be stripped firom the plants in
the autumn, dried, and then stored for reconstitution and fiber extraction at will. Not only
75 does this process reduce the early autumn time investment in fiber processing, but it also reduces the amount of plant material to be carried home. This insight lead to the timing of ribbon stripping in the second year of the fiber processing study.
efidtrmis
idertnchyma phloem fibers
phloem
cambium xtlem
Figure 3.1 : Cross sectional illustration of a commercial flax plant stem showing the location of phloem fibers (Florian 1990a).
76 3.1.3 Variability in spinning methods
As spinners were interviewed prior to their spinning contribution, it became clear that the thigh-spinners had individual approaches to making the yam that was requested.
One, when asked to spin fine yam, preferred to twist the yam in his fingers rather than use the thigh-spinning method. Another had developed his own variation of the thigh- spinning method that he preferred. (Spinning techniques will be discussed in detail in section 4.2. Consultation with Spinners and Yam Production Study.) Rather than directing these spinners to spin in the same manner that she had researched and leamed to spin, the author chose to accept the other spinners’ individual solutions to the yam making problem and incorporate them into the research.
This decision led to difficulties in later analyses. It was originally hoped that these experiments would show constant properties of thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams regardless of between subjects variability in yam constmction. Unfortunately, the yams ultimately produced for the thigh-spun portion of the study reflect variability between methods of yam formation. Strictly speaking, they were not all thigh-spun. Even the thigh-spinning techniques differ fi-om one another. Despite the differences in yam formation techniques, however, two consistencies remained: 1) yam length was increased by splicing new fibers into the loose ends of the forming yams, 2) twist was inserted into the yams directly by the spiimers’ hands, whether by twisting the fibers between palm and thigh or twisting them between the fingers.
This group of yams can be defined as "Spliced," or "Non-spindle." They cannot be expected to show the effects of uniform spinning technique. Although precise
77 analyses of thigh-spinning vs. spindle-spinning were confounded, inclusion of the various splicing techniques led to greater insight into the components of the yam formation process. Interpretation of results requires careful attention to specific yam formation processes to recognize similarities and differences among the yams.
3.2 Fiber Processing
Fibers for the replication yams were obtained in two ways. Commercially available long flax fibers (Linum usitatissimum), called strick flax, were purchased through Earthsong Fibers, Miimeapolis, MN. The indigenous fiber plants, common milkweed {Asclepias syriaca) and Indian hemp {Apocynum cannabinum), were harvested during August and September 1999, and September 2000 in central Ohio and southwestem Michigan. All of the milkweed plants were collected in Chickaming
Township, Michigan giving a year to year profile of plants growing in the same area..
The Indian hemp plants were collected only in 1999 in both Franklin Co., Ohio and
Chickaming Township, Michigan.
Both milkweed and Indian hemp had developed seed pods by the beginning of the harvest. Plants were pulled from the ground so that the stalks broke &om the roots, the stalks were stripped of leaves and seed pods on the site and then transported to sheltered work spaces for further processing. The plants were held overnight and up to two weeks standing with the root ends in a bucket of water. Before processing, the length of each plant stalk and the top and bottom diameters of the stalk were measured.
78 Removal of fibers fi’om plants was also accomplished in two ways. Flax fibers were purchased ready to spin with the extraneous plant material having been removed by the commercial process of retting, scutching, braking, hackling etc. Milkweed and Indian hemp fibers were extracted manually fi'om the fi’esh plants. First, a ribbon of the outer plant tissue containing the phloem was stripped firom the plant starting at the base and peeling toward the top. Then fibers were pulled individually and in groups fi'om the
inside ofthe ribbon.
The fiber processing study was carried out on the milkweed and Indian hemp
plants. Rate of fiber extraction and fiber yields were measured to establish the time
required to extract long spiimable fiber firom the stems and to establish the quantity of
long spiimable fiber generated per plant. Because this study focuses on fiber useful for
thigh-spinning, fibers less than 15 cm long were discarded. The efforts of two workers
were measured on 62 plants. The workers included the author and her mother, Margaret
Tiedemann, henceforth referred to as Workers 1 and 2.
In the first year, each worker was timed while stripping fibers fi-om 10 milkweed
plants. This was repeated in the following year with a new crop of plants. In the second
year, workers were also timed while stripping ribbons alone, the first step in fiber
processing, fi-om an additional 10 milkweed plants each. Indian hemp fibers were only
processed in the first year. Worker 1 was timed while stripping fibers fixim 22 Indian
hemp plants.
Worker productivity was measured in several ways. The timings gave the time in
minutes spent on each plant. Measurements of fiber mass per plant were used to express
79 worker productivity in terms of a fiber yield of grams fiber per plant. To obtain the fiber masses, the fibers extracted fi-om each plant were dried for several weeks and then weighed at ASTM standard conditions for textiles, 20 + 1“C and relative humidity of 65 +
2 %. The mass per plant divided by the time spent stripping fibers per plant gave a worker production rate in milligrams fiber per minute. The milkweed fiber yield and production rate data were analyzed by analysis of variance to show differences in worker productivity and year to year productivity. Although the experiments were designed to have uniform samples over all the conditions, there was one missing value in the timing of the milkweed production. In the data dependent on the time measurements, the conservative, regression model, type HI sums of squares for non-orthogonal data were used.
The fiber productivity per plant was also studied. The basic measure for this study was the mass of fiber per plant from the worker productivity study. To establish fiber productivity despite differences in plant size, the mass data were normalized as in
Jakes and Ericksen (Jakes and Ericksen 1997) by dividing fiber mass by plant surface area. This gave a fiber productivity measure of mass fiber per unit surface area.
The plant surface area was estimated by assuming a trapezoidal shape with dimensions
h =plant height a = 7i(top stem diameter) b = n(bottom stem diameter)
8 0 where the area (A) of a trapezoid is expressed as
2
The calculations to obtain variables a and b use the measured stem diameters to estimate the circumference of the plant stem at the top and bottom.
Plant stalk height was also explored as a measure for normalizing the fiber productivity data over plants of different sizes. Using the stalk height gave a fiber productivity measure of mass fiber per unit length.
Analysis of variance was carried out on the milkweed plant productivity measures firom both years.
3.3 Consultation with Spinners and Yam Production Study
3.3.1 Fibers
Every effort was made to ensure that the fibers distributed to the spinners were uniform in distribution. The flax was taken firom a single strick, which represents a bundle of plants that were grown and processed together as well as shipped and stored as a single unit. All of the milkweed fibers obtained fi-om the 1999 fiber production study were combined and blended to break up groups of fibers firom individual plants.
Blending was accomplished by laying out single fibers in parallel formation across an 80 cm wide fabric covered board. Fibers firom individual plants were spaced across the full
80 cm to distribute them among fibers fiom other plants. After all the fibers had been
81 laid out on the board, they were rolled into a large bundle of parallel fibers. The same process was repeated for the Indian hemp fibers.
Smaller bundles were then separated from the flax strick and the milkweed and
Indian hemp bundles to distribute to the spinners. Eight flax bundles weighing approximately 12 g, seven milkweed bundles weighing approximately 8 g, and six Indian hemp bundles weighing approximately 2.3 g were produced. The bundles were then randomly distributed among six spinning trials. The extra two flax bundles were used in preliminary work and the extra milkweed bundle went unused.
3.3.2 Spinners
Spiimers were contacted through the Central Ohio Weavers Guild and by word of mouth. They were selected for their experience with long vegetable fibers and also by evidence provided of their commitment to teaching and learning spinning techniques.
The spinners included Robert Berg of Candor, NY, Joy Cain of Columbus, OH, Dannette
Pratt of Athens, OH, John Leeds of Piermont, NY, and Erica Tiedemaim of Columbus
OH. All of the spinners except the author were paid a modest fee for their participation.
The spiimers were interviewed at their homes. The purpose of the interview was
to gather information about the spinner’s techniques and experience as well as to instruct
them for the spinning project. Each spinner was given a bundle of each fiber for
spinning: flax, milkweed, and Indian hemp. The consulted spinners were asked to spin
using the method that they specialized in, either thigh-spinning or spindle-spinning. In
addition to the live discussion of the purpose of and requirements for the spinning, the
82 spinner received a sheet of instructions, and a copy of a photograph of some of the textiles found in Etowah burial mound C (Appendix A). The photograph was included to
show the fineness of yams that were desired.
Because the actual spinning required several hours, the spiimers were left to
complete the spinning on their own and return the finished yams through the mail. When
they had finished spinning yams firom each of the three fibers, the spinners were asked to
rank the three fibers in order of ease of spinning. They were also asked to comment on
their perception of the spinning. Responses to these questions were sent via the mail and
electronic mail.
3.3.3 Experimental yam descriptions
When the yams spun for the study arrived at the lab, they were reeled into skeins,
submerged in de-ionized water and laid out to dry in ambient conditions without tension.
This was done to relax the yams finm their fireshly spun state, to approximate their state
after incorporation into a textile and exposure to moisture. After drying, basic
descriptions of yams were made to show twist direction, length, and linear density. Twist
directions were established by observation. The ftill length of yam spun was measured in
meters. Nominal linear density was calculated finm the full length of yam and the
conditioned mass of the whole yam. The length measurement was used for later
sampling and the linear density was used when an estimate was needed for further testing.
Table 3.1 shows the identification coding of the experimental yams produced for
the study. The coding allows for each yam made by each spinner to be labeled
83 individually by spinning method, spinner, and fiber type. For example, a yam identified as S5IH refers to the spindle-spun yam spun by Danette Pratt firom Indian hemp fiber.
All subsequent references to yams and fibers will follow this coding.
Unfortunately, there is one dismpdon in the labeling system Tiedemann spun two sets of flax yams for the study. The first set was inidally regarded as preliminary work, but it was later decided to report all data that was collected. To distinguish the two sets of flax yams made by Tiedemann, the spinner code number for the preliminary flax yams is followed by a lowercase "p."
84 Spinning Method Code
Thigh-spun T
Finger-spun F
Spindle-spun S
Spinner
Tiedemann I & Ip
Leeds 2
White 3
Berg 4
Pratt 5
Cain 6
Fiber
Flax FX (Linum usitatissimum)
Milkweed MW {Asclepias syriaca)
Indian Hemp m {Apoq>num cannabinum)
Basswood BW {Tilia americana)
Table 3.1; Experimental yam identification codes.
85 3.4 Yam Production Rates
Yam production rates were calculated in meters per minute Grom the length of yam spun during a ten minute period. Each spinner was asked to spin each fiber for a ten minute period after he/she had spent a few minutes getting used to spinning with that fiber. The yam was tied at the beginning and end of the timed period with small lengths of red embroidery floss. As a demonstration, at least one timed spiiming was conducted during the interview. The spinners then carried out the remaining timed spinnings on their own. The spindle spinners were timed for both singles spiiming and plying because the overall spinning rate includes both operations. The marked lengths of yam were measured later by the author.
Average spinning rates were calculated for each spinner over all three fiber types.
The combined average spindle-spun yam production rate (R 2.piy) was computed firom the
average singles spinning and plying rates, given in meters per minute, where R, = average
singles spinning rate and Rp = average plying rate.
R ' 2 . - p l y — 1 1
86 The equation takes into account that three operations must be performed in order to make a spindle-spun yam. For every meter of plied yam, two meters of singles yams must be spun and one meter must be plied. To find the spinning rate for a 2-ply yam in meters per minute, the number of minutes required to complete all the spinning for one meter of plied yam are summed, that is twice the singles spinning time plus the plying time. The number of minutes to spin one meter is equal to the inverse of the measured spinning rate.
The result in minutes per meter is then inverted to yield meters per minute.
3.5 Yam Stmcture
3.5.1 Twist angle
Measurements of singles yam twist angles were made on digital images of the yams using image analysis software. Yams were imaged under low magnification using a Bausch and Lomb macroscope with a Jenoptik ProgRes 3008 digital camera. The images were analyzed interactively using Zeiss AxioVision software.
Each yam was sampled randomly along its length for measurement locations.
Measurement locations were a minimum of 10 cm apart. The greater portion of the samples consisted of 30 measures, but short yam lengths lead to smaller samples in
several cases. Specific sample sizes are recorded in the results.
At each sampled location on a yam, two adjacent measurements were made. Thus
the twist angles of both plies were measured at each location.
The procedure for making twist angle measurements involved two steps. Figure
32 shows the measurement routine. The first step was to establish the central
87 longitudinal axis of the singles yam at a point in its spiral. The point where the axis would be established was defined as the point (subsequently referred to as the point of measurement) where one singles yam crossed over the other. At this point, the camera and viewer are looking normal to the surface of the singles yam. A parallel line tool was used to mark the outer edges of the yam at the pont of measurement to approximate the path of the yam axis. A third parallel line was added between the two to denote the yam axis. Once the yam axis had been identified, an angle tool was used to measure the angle of the fibers relative to the yam axis at the point of measurement. This process was repeated for the other singles yam at the adjacent crossover point. Each sampled location yielded a pair of twist angle measurements corresponding to the two singles yams that make up the final plied yam.
These angle measurements were analyzed in several combinations to evaluate differences between the effects of spinning method on twist angle properties in the singles yams. The angle measures were grouped in the following categories for statistical analysis: the cumulative data for each yam including both measurements at each sampled location; a single (i.e. only one), randomly chosen measurement fi^om each pair; the larger measurement of each pair, the smaller angle of each pair; and the difference between the two angles in each pair.
Data analysis methods included comparison of box plots of the distributions for each spinner and subsequently for the distribution of each yam. For analyses of means.
88 outliers were removed according to the standard that a data point greater than two interquartile regions from the median was an outlier. Individual means were compared by T-tests.
89 Figure 3.2: Twist angle measurement routine. Top to bottom: establishing the singles yam axes at the points of measurement, aligning the angle measurement with the axis, the angle measurement. Bar = 1 mm.
90 3.5.2 Visual examination of yams
Yams were examined visually by the author for differences in yam characteristics.
These tests were carried out on the I I FX, MW, IH yams, and the SI FX, MW, IH yams.
Twenty-five 10 cm specimens were selected randomly from each yam. The ends of the specimens were taped down to ensure that yam twist was not altered after cutting. The thigh-spun and spindle-spim yams of each fiber type were combined and examined together. For example, the flax yams, both thigh- and spindle-spun, were laid out together in random order for examination. The same was done for the milkweed and
Indian hemp yams. Another graduate student randomized the yams so that the final examination of the yams would be blind.
Specimens were taped to a board so that 9 cm of yam was exposed. The yams were first examined without magnification for a preliminary identification as either thigh- spun or spindle spun. Then the yams were examined at 5 X magnification under a
Bausch and Lomb macroscope to re-evaluate the initial identification and to count features of fiber arrangement in the yams.
Four fiber arrangement features were defined for counting. Hairs (Figure 3.3), the ends of fibers that were not twisted into the yam, were defined as long thick fibers trailing 5 mm or more from the yam. This standard separated the hairs finm the multitude of fine, fibrillated fibers that stuck out of the surface of some yams. Wraps
(Figure 3.4) were defined as fibers that wrapped tightly around a singles yam. The
wr^ped fiber winds around the yam more than once perpendicular to the yam central
axis. Loose fibers (Figure 3.5) were defined as fibers that traveled outside of the twisted
91 singles yam stmcture as though they had been untensioned when spun. Loose fibers were distinguished firom hairs by pulling with a dental pick. Tweedles (Figure 3.6) were defined as fiber loops protmding firom a singles yam. Unlike a loose fiber which travels
outside the singles yam for a short distance and then retums to the twisted part of the yam
at another location, both ends of the tweedle loop are secured in the same location.
Tweedles also were pulled with a dental pick to distinguish them firom hairs.
Tests for visual identification of spinning method were evaluated based on correct
or incorrect identifications. The yam features were evaluated based on presence or
absence of a feature within the 9 cm length of yam. The data were analyzed with Chi-
square tests of association to show whether the fi'equency of a given characteristic differs
between spinning methods or fiber types. Where Chi-square tests gave a significant
difference among the three fiber group distributions, a multiple comparison was carried
out to compare the fiber distributions individually.
92 Figure 3.3: Hair fiber arrangement. Bar = 1mm
Figure 3.4: Wrap fiber arrangement. Bar = 1 mm.
93 Figure 3.5: Loose fiber arrangement. Bar = 1mm.
Figure 3.6: Tweedle fiber arrangement. Bar= 1 mm.
94 3.5.3 Cross sections
Cross-sections were made with Tl FX, MW, IH, and SI FX, MW, IH yams.
Initially twenty-five 10 cm specimens were sampled from each yam for cross-section analysis. Due to time restrictions, only the first ten specimens fix»m each yam were embedded and sectioned.
Before embedding, the 10 cm yam segments were secured to plastic forms to place them under even tension and to orient them for later sectioning. The yams were taped to the forms under 0.025 g/tex tensioning mass. The yams on the forms were embedded in Streuers Epofix embedding medium. Alter the embedding medium hardened, the yams were cut in sections perpendicular to the central axis. The sections were polished with a series of polishing grits to give a smooth surface. The translucent sections were then sputter coated with gold-palladium to improve viewing of the surface with reflected light.
Cross-sections were viewed on a Zeiss Axioplan research microscope at a
nominal magnification of lOOX. Images of the cross-sections were made with a Jenoptik
ProgRes 3008 digital camera. The cross-sections were examined qualitatively to identify
characteristics that might distinguish thigh-spinning fix)m spindle-spinning. The yam
cross-sections were visible through the microscope as daric, smooth fiber surfaces against
a bright metallic background. Visual examination conveyed a better image than could be
captured with the digital camera. Despite poor resolution, digital images are provided
below to illustrate the cross-sectional shapes.
95 From the initial examination, six cross-sectional shape classifications were identified and counted. Amorphous yam cross-sections (Figure 3.7) were disorderly arrangements of fibers that did not appear to be confined to a circular perimeter. Round
Open cross-sections (Figure 3.8) had a circular perimeter with evenly distributed firee space between the fibers. Round With Open Center cross-sections (Figure 3.9) had a circular perimeter with an area of firee space to one side. These cross-sections typically looked like a "C" that had its open side pinched together. Partial Ring cross-sections
(Figure 3.10) appeared to have fibers layered in a series of nested partially formed rings.
Compact Round cross-sections (Figure 3.11) had a circular or elliptical perimeter with closely packed fibers. Comma or Bean shaped cross sections (Figure 3.12) had closely packed fibers, but their perimeters had a tail or two lobes that deviated from a round form.
96 Figure 3.7; Cross-section of thigh-spun Indian hemp yam. Both plies have an Amorphous cross-sectional shape. Bar = 0.2 mm.
Figure 3.8: Cross-section of thigh-spun milkweed yam. Both plies have a Round Open cross-sectional shape. Bar = 0.2 mm.
97 Figure 3 .9: Cross-section of thigh-spun Indian hemp yam. Left, Amorphous cross- sectional shape; right. Round with Open Center cross-sectional shape. Bar = 0.2 mm.
Figure 3.10: Cross-section of thigh-spun Indian hemp yam. Top, Partial Ring cross- sectional shape; bottom. Amorphous cross-sectional shape. Bar = 0.2 mm.
98 Figure 3.11: Cross-section of thigh-spun flax yam. Both plies have a Compact Round cross-sectional shape. Bar = 0.2 mm.
Figure 3.12: Cross-section of spindle-spun Indian hemp yam. Top, Comma cross- sectional shape; bottom, Bean cross-sectional shape. Bar = 0.2 mm.
99 3.6 Yam Quality
3.6.1 Tensile strength
Yam tensile strength was measured according to ASTM D 2256-97, "Standard test method for tensile properties of yams by the single-strand method." Ten 31 cm specimens were sampled randomly from the yams. Linear density was measured directly on each specimen with an untensioned measurement of length and a weighing after the break. In order to avoid spurious results associated with yam regions uncharacteristic of the bulk of the yam, the beginning and end of the yams were omitted from the sampling.
In cases where yams exceeded 20 m in length, only a 20 m segment was sampled omitting the extra in equal portions at both ends. In cases where yams were between 10 and 20 m long, 40 cm lengths were omitted at both ends. In cases where the yams were less than 10 m long, 20 cm lengths were omitted at both ends. An Instron 4465 CRT tensile testing machine was used with pneumatic cord and yam grips. A test length of
226 mm from nip to nip of the clamps was used, which falls slightly short of the 250 ± 3
mm of the test specification. All tests were conducted under standard textile conditions
20 + 1 °C and relative humidity of 65 ± 2%.
Two test groups fell outside the specified time to break interval of 20 ±3 s. These
included S IpFX with an average break time of 24 s and T2IH with an average break time
of 25 s. F4IH was so short that it was not sampled for testing.
The test data were analyzed by analysis of variance. Because of unequal ends
caused by an extra repetition in the flax data and the exclusion of the F4 Indian hemp
100 yam, a Type m sums of squares was used. This method for calculating the sums of squares gives the most conservative F statistics.
For the analysis, yams were grouped by fiber type and spinning method. The
Spindle group included all of the spindle-spun yams, and the Spliced group included the yams spun by thigh-spinning and finger-spinning.
3.6.2 Linear density and yam irregularity
Linear density measurements were made using short-length specimens following the test procedure in ASTM D 1059-97, "Standard test method for yam number based on short-length specimens." Five 1 m specimens were sampled randomly fi^jm the yams.
In order to avoid spurious results associated with yam regions uncharacteristic of the bulk of the yam, the beginning and end of the yams were omitted from the sampling. In cases where yams exceeded 20 m in length, only a 20 m segment was sampled omitting the extra in equal portions at both ends. In cases where yams were between 10 and 20 m
long, 40 cm lengths were omitted at both ends. Because the full lengths of the yams were
shorter than 10 m, several of the yams were omitted from the test. These included T2IH,
F4MW, F4IH, S5IH, and S6IH. Tensioning masses were estimated fiom the linear
density of the full-length specimens prior to testing. All tests were conducted under
standard textile conditions 21 ± 1 °C and relative humidity of 65 ± 2%.
101 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
4.1 Fiber Processing Results
Milkweed yielded coarse, white fibers up to 1.5 m long whereas Indian hemp yielded somewhat finer, greenish fibers up to Im long. Alter 4 months dry storage, the pale Indian hemp fibers had turned a reddish, or cinnamon color.
Table 4.1 shows the sununary statistics fiom data collected on worker productivity. These include the time spent stripping fibers from each plant, the time spent stripping ribbons alone fi-om milkweed plants, the fiber yield in grams per plant, and the rate of fiber production in grams per minute. A worker could be expected to spend about 20 min stripping fibers out of a plant regardless of species. For the milkweed, comparison of the full fiber stripping rate with the ribbons only rate shows a large difference between full processing and partial processing. By stripping only ribbons firom the plants at peak ripeness, a worker can reduce the harvest season time investment in fiber processing by a factor of eight After ribbon stripping, the time investment for fiber stripping is still necessary, but this can be scheduled at the worker’s discretion.
102 The fiber yield and fiber production means show that milkweed plants yielded at least twice as much fiber as the Indian hemp plants at twice the rate. Analyses of variances performed on the milkweed data showed significant differences in the two workers’ productivity. In terms of fiber yield, worker 2 produced a greater quantity of
fiber per plant than worker 1 (Table 4.2). No significant difference could be shown,
however, between the fiber yields from the milkweed plants from year to year. This latter
result is more difficult to interpret. It may reflect no change in the workers’ ability to
extract fiber from one year to the next when plant productivities remained the same. On
the other hand, if experience improved the workers’ ability to extract fibers, but plant
productivity decreased at a corresponding rate in the second year, the results would be the
same. Without several years’ data, it can only be said here that the mass of fiber
produced per plant remained consistent over two years. No further inferences about
worker skills or plant productivity are possible.
In addition to the difference in workers’ fiber yields, the analysis of variance of
production rates shows a difference in the workers’ production rates (Table 4.3). Not
only did worker 2 produce more fiber per plant, she also produced that fiber at a faster
rate. There is also a significant difference in the production rates between year one and
year two. In the second year of the study, the workers produced fiber at a faster rate
suggesting an improvement in production rate with experience. If the second year’s
increase in production rate can be assumed to have resulted from experience, then the
second year’s data may better reflect the rate of productivity for experienced milkweed
fiber processors.
103 Table 4.4 shows the summary statistics for plant productivity as calculated by dividing the fiber yield by the plant surface area. An analysis of variance conducted on the milkweed plant productivity over both years and both workers showed no significant difference in the year to year production of bast fiber for milkweed plants in southwestern
Michigan. It also showed no significant worker effects influencing the data collection.
Because the workers showed significant differences in their fiber yields per plant it was expected that some significant worker effect should show up in the plant productivity data.
That the plant productivity results appear to be inconsistent with the fiber yield results suggests a problem with the calculation of plant productivity. The purpose of dividing the mass of fiber per plant by the plant surface area is to normalize the production over all plants large and small. That a large plant will yield more fiber than a small one is largely an effect of relative size. The normalized value shows fiber output in relative terms of whether a small plant produces as much fiber for its size as a large plant.
Differences in this measure of plant productivity will reveal differences in overall bast
fiber production among plants of different sizes and species.
By calculating the plant productivity using an estimate of plant surface area as a
normalizing factor (Chapter 3.2), enough error may be introduced into the measure to
lose sensitivity to the target property. On the other hand, two woricers might reasonably
produce different quantities of fiber firom plants with the same overall bast productivity if
one worker was given smaller plants.
104 To explore the latter possibility that the samples of plants given to workers were somehow biased, plant height was chosen as a crude, but direct measure of overall plant size. A two-way analysis of variance of plant heights over Workers and Years resulted in no significant differences. For all practical purposes, the samples of plants were uniform with respect to height.
Using plant height as a direct measure of plant size that shows no bias effects across the samples, plant productivity was calculated as a function of mass per unit length. Table 4.5 shows the summary statistics for plant productivity with respect to plant height. An analysis of variance (Table 4.6) shows that the difference between workers is significant although, once again, no difference can be shown in plant productivity firom year to year. This normalization of plant fiber production appears to be more sensitive to differences between workers while showing the same year to year productivity of the plants in general.
Returning to the mean values of the plant productivity measures, both with respect to stem surface area and with respect to stem height, a comparison of the milkweed and
Indian hemp means for worker 1 in 1999 raises some interesting problems. A T-test of the measures normalized by stem surface area gives a test statistic of 0.822, which is not significant. When plant productivity is normalized with an estimation of the stem surface area, the two species show no significant difference in fiber productivity. In contrast, a
T-test of the measures normalized by stem length gives a test statistic of 2.592, which is significant at a = .05. By this measure, the species show a difference in fiber productivity.
105 Although this conflict cannot be resolved here, two questions arise from these results: 1) What exactly is the property that we wish to measure? 2) Which measure more accurately reflects this property? For comparisons of fiber mass between plants of different size and species both the surface area and stem length have limitations as normalization factors. The estimation of stem surface area appears to increase the error in the measurement so that subtle differences in fiber yield are lost. The stem length measurement is also of limited value because it does not distinguish between thin and thick stalks that might affect the total mass of fiber produced. It is possible that a measure of fiber mass per unit stalk mass might eliminate some of the error generated in the estimate of plant surface area and take into account the relative size of the stalk in three dimensions. In terms of human labor, however, the measures of fiber mass per stalk
appear to be the most useful measures because the plant stalk is an unavoidable unit in
hand processing.
106 1999 2000
Plant M m n M SD n Time spent stripping fiber fi-om each plant (min)
Milkweed
Worker I 24 10 9 17 5 10
Worker 2 21 8 10 18 4 10
Total 22 9 19 18 5 20
Indian Hemp
Worker 1 20 9 22
Time spent stripping ribbons fi%m each plant (min)
Milkweed
Worker 1 1.6 .6 10
Worker 2 3.3 1.1 10
Total 2.5 1.2 20
Continued.
Table 4.1 : Means for measures of worker productivity.
107 Table 4.1: Continued
1999 2000
Plant M SD n M SD n Fiber Yield (g fiber/plant)
Milkweed
Worker 1 0.733 0.287 10 0.992 0.552 10
Worker 2 1.164 0.486 10 1.237 0.504 10
Total 0.948 0.447 20 1.115 0.530 20
Indian Hemp
Worker 1 0.457 0.209 28
Production Rate (mg fiber/min)
Milkweed
Worker 1 31 9 9 57 27 10
Worker 2 59 28 10 70 29 10
Total 46 25 20 64 28 20
Indian Hemp
Worker 1 25 13 22
108 Source df F Worker 1 5.196*
Year 1 1.256
Worker x Year 1 .396
error 36 (0.220)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p<.05 **p<.01 •**p < .001
Table 4.2: Analysis of variance for milkweed fiber yield
Source df E Woricer 1 6.824**
Year 1 5.517*
Worker x Year 1 .797
error 35 (617.725)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors, •p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Table 4.3 : Analysis of variance for milkweed fiber production rate.
109 1999 2000
Plant M §D n M SD n Milkweed
Worker 1 2.2 0.8 10 3.1 1.9 10
Worker 2 3.1 1.2 10 3.5 1.4 10
Total 2.6 1.1 20 3.3 1.6 20
Indian Hemp
Worker 1 2.0 0.6 22
Table 4.4: Plant productivity with respect to stem surface area (mg fiber/cm^).
1999 2000
Plant M SD n M SD n Milkweed
Worker 1 5.7 2.1 10 7.7 4.1 10
Worker 2 9.0 3.7 10 9.5 3.4 10
Total 7.4 3.4 20 8.6 3.8 20
Indian Hemp
Worker 1 4.0 1.5 22
Table 4.5: Plant productivity with respect to stem height (mg fiber/cm).
110 Source df F Worker 1 5.611*
Year 1 1.356
Worker x Year 1 .528
error 36 (11.56)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. »p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Table 4.6: Analysis of variance for milkweed plant productivity with respect to stem height (mg fiber/cm).
Ill 4.2 Consultation with Spinners and Yam Production Study
4.2.1 Spinners’ experience
Robert Berg was interviewed on June 5,2000. Although Berg was originally consulted for thigh-spinning, when he learned that he would be spinning fine yams, he chose to finger-spin them instead. He prefers finger spinning for fine, precise woric. Bob teaches workshops on various cord-making techniques including the manufacture of
feather wrapped cord.
Berg learned to finger-spin fiom an older (about 70 years old) Chinese woman
whom he met at a festival. She grew up in a farm village in China and had finger-spun
string while standing or walking. She explained to him that she would make the twine to
bind a package while walking to the post office.
The yam construction processes for finger-spinning and thigh-spinning are very
similar. For thigh-spinning the two singles yams are rolled against the thigh in 5-10 cm
lengths before combining and twisting together into the plied yam. For finger-spinning,
two similarly short lengths of singles yams are twisted one at a time with the fingers and
then brought together and twisted into a plied yam. In finger-spinning the yams are not
rolled under the palm against the thigh but rather rolled between the thumb and
forefinger. As in thigh-spinning, length is added to finger-spun yams by splicing new
fiber into the singles yams.
John Leeds was interviewed on June 6,2000. He originally learned hand-twisting
in 1995 at the Tom Brown School. Later he taught himself thigh-spinning firom an article
1 1 2 that he read in the Bulletin of Primitive Technology. He has since modified the conventional thigh-spinning technique to suit his own production needs.
John Leeds’ thigh-spinning method has been reported in the Bulletin of Primitive
Technology (Leeds 1999). His method is also a splicing method of constructing yam, but the spinning is carried out on a different scale than either conventional thigh-spinning or finger-spinning. In the previously mentioned methods, short, 5-10 cm lengths of singles yams are twisted and then immediately joined together and twisted into a new length of balanced ply yam. In his method, Leeds rolls one single at a time on his leg into a 75 cm length of twisted single. He retains twist in the first single as he rolls the other by holding the first in his mouth. When the two lengths have sufficient twist, Leeds brings them together and rolls them against his thigh into the plied yam.
Danette Pratt, a spindle-spiimer, was interviewed on July 6,2000. Pratt has been spinning for twenty-three years. She is mostly self-taught but has attended spinning workshops at fiber arts events. Her interest in spindle spinning has increased over the past ten years and she has begun replicating Viking age whorls of bone and clay. Since
1994, she has grown and hand processed flax for her own use. She teaches workshops in
spinning, weaving, and other textile crafts.
Pratt spun for this project using a small wooden high whorl spindle weighing a
total of 25.5 g with a whorl mass of 11.3 g. The shaft length was 26 cm with a hook, and
the whorl diameter was 8 cm. She spun the milkweed and Indian hemp fibers off the
ends of the fiber bundles and used a distaff for the flax fibers.
113 Joy Cain was interviewed on November 16,2000 for spindle-spinning. Cain has been spindle-spinning since 1988. She initially learned at a class given at a Society for
Creative Anachronism event. She has taken intensive weekend workshops since then.
She has taught spindle-spinning to new spinners as well as people switching over from
spinning wheels.
Cain spun on a high-whorl spindle constructed of wooden dowel and a compact
disk whorl. The total spindle mass was 30.4 g and the whorl mass was 17.9 g. The shaft
length was 30 cm with a hook, and the whorl diameter was 12 cm.
Erica Tiedemann, the author, also spun for this project. She started to teach
herself thigh-spinning in 1999 and consulted John White for instruction. To thigh-spin
long lengths of very fine yam, the author designed a small reel to hold the finished yam
on one side of her leg while more yam was being spun on the other side. The first model
of this tool was a piece of quarter inch dowel about 10 cm long. The short dowel was too
long for thigh-spinning, though, and it inhibited twisting of new lengths of ply by
bumping into the author’s leg. The second, successful version of the tool was a plastic
bank card cut into the shape of a reel gorget, a type of artifact found in eastem North
American archaeological sites (Figure 4.1). The small reel was well suited to the function
of holding yam and spinning freely as the ply was twisted.
114 She learned spindle-spinning in a class in 1998 and has participated in a weekend long wheel-spinning workshop. The high whorl spindle that she used for the project was made of a small wooden whorl on a dowel with a hook. The mass of the shaft and whorl together was 25.7 g. The shaft length was approximately 23 cm and the whorl diameter was 5.2 cm.
Figure 4.1 ; Shape of the plastic reel designed to hold thigh-spun yam.
115 4.2.2 Experimental Yams
Each of the spinners listed above contributed yams to the study. All of the spinners made yams of flax, milkweed, and Indian hemp. Basic descriptions of the yams are shown in Table 4.7 The yams are identified by the codes given in Table 3.1 for spinning method, spiimer, and fiber type. The table also includes a length of basswood yam that was collected fi'om John White-during the preliminary work on the study.
In Table 4.7, the "Twist" column shows the twist directions in the yams by the S and Z conventional notation for clockwise and counter-clockwise direction. The first, lowercase letter describes the singles yam twist direction and the second, uppercase letter describes the ply twist direction. All spinners who spun more than one yam for the study, were consistent in their choice of twist direction regardless of fiber type.
The measures of length and linear density are given as basic descriptors of the yams. In some cases, the short lengths that were produced made sampling difficult and these yams had to be omitted fiom later tests. The linear density measures are based on the masses of the entire lengths of yam. Because the quantities of milkweed and Indian hemp given to the spinners were limited, larger linear density measures correspond with shorter lengths of yam. The spinners spun all the fiber that they had, but, because some spun heavier yam, the fiber supply was not sufficient for a very long yam.
Figures 4.2 through 4.8 show magnified images of all the yams produced for this study. The pictures are all taken at the same scale so that the relative sizes of the yams can be compared.
116 Fiber
FX MW m BW
Yam Twist m tex m tex m tex m tex
11 sZ 26.80 216.9 21.99 279.4 15.13 158.1 Tip sZ 24.65 203.1
T2 sZ 15.83 333.0 12.13 603.3 4.91 457.8
T3 sZ 2.61 1859
F4 sZ 11.80 1002 6.89 1075 2.79 830.1
SI sZ 29.60 118.8 23.10 277.5 10.20 203.9 Sip sZ 27.00 250.0
S5 zS 30.00 156.5 23.01 281.6 9.20 188.8
S6 zS 24.88 166.8 11.84 690.6 6.34 495.6
Table 4.7: Descriptions of experimental yams with length (m) and linear density (tex) measures.
117 Figure 4.2: T1 yams. Top to bottom: flax, flax?, milkweed, Indian hemp. Bar= 1 mm
118 Figure 4.3: T2 yams. Top to bottom: flax, milkweed, Indian hemp. Bar = 1 mm.
119 Figure 4.4: T3 yam, basswood. Bar = I ram.
Figure 4.5: F4 yams. Top/o ôorrom: flax, milkweed, Indian hemp. Bar = I mm.
120 Figure 4.6: SI yams. Top to bottom: flax, flax?, milkweed, Indian hemp. Bar = 1 mm.
121 Figure 4.7: S5 yams. Top to bottom: flax, milkweed, Indian hemp. Bar = I mm.
122 Figure 4.8: S6 yams. Top to bottom: flax, milkweed, Indian hemp. Bar = I mm.
123 4.2.3 Spinners’ Comments and Preferences
Alter completing all of their yams, the spinners were asked to rank flax, milkweed, and Indian hemp in terms of ease of spinning. In all but one case, they ranked flax as easiest followed by Indian hemp and then milkweed. For thigh-spinning,
Tiedemann preferred Indian hemp over flax, but found milkweed to be the most difficult as the others did. In general, the fine, soft flax fibers made for easier spinning. The level of difficulty increased with fiber coarseness. Milkweed, the longest and the coarsest of the fibers, gave spinners the most trouble.
Berg (2000) and Leeds (2000) both commented that they preferred to spin milkweed fiber that had been collected in the fall and winter over the green milkweed used in this study. On a day after a late autumn rain, wallpaper-like strips of milkweed fiber and bark can be pulled from the stalks. The fiber can then be loosened from the bark by vigorous rubbing between two hands. The resulting fiber is gray, and, after spinning, any clinging bits of baric can be pulled off or will eventually wear off.
Leeds felt similarly about the Indian hemp that was provided. "Grip" or cohesiveness between the fibers was poor because the fibers were stiff and thick and he found that splices occasionally slipped during spinning. In Leeds’ opinion, field retting, where the plants are left standing for several weeks after the first frost, produces much more spinnable fiber. He commented that the individual fibers are finer, softer, and more cohesive after field retting. The only drawback that he had experienced fix)m retting is diminished fiber strength but that balances out for him with a decrease in spinning finstration.
124 For very fine thigh-spinning, Tiedemann found the Indian hemp to be ideal. The slightly thicker fibers made selections of new fiber to splice into the yam easier than flax.
It was easier to grasp a few Indian hemp fibers than it was to select and gage a pinch of many very fine flax fibers. Tiedemann found the milkweed not so much more difficult to spin, but far more difficult to maintain yam thickness. The milkweed fibers tended to vary in thickness along the lengths of the fibers. As a result, extra fibers had to be added to the yam at shorter intervals to correct for very fine segments of long fibers.
The spindle spitmers all found milkweed spinning to be a stmggle. "Fighting" and "battled," are significant word choices in Cain and Pratt’s summaries of milkweed spinning (Pratt 2000; Cain 2001). Cain found drafting to be difficult because the fibers were so long. Cain, Pratt, and Tiedemann all found it difficult to put twist into the yam and to keep it fi’om untwisting. Pratt and Tiedemann noticed that, although wetting the yams made them accept the twist a little better, it did not improve cohesiveness as it seems to with flax. Thus the milkweed yams were likely to slip apart if there was a short overlap between the end of one fiber and the start of another.
All three found that the Indian hemp was much easier to manage. The fibers were
finer and much less resistant to being twisted. Flax spinning went so easily for the three
spinners, that it hardly merited comment. The fine, cohesive fibers provided a baseline
for ease of drafting and spinning.
The spinners had different preferences for wetting the fibers during spinning. All
three spindle-spiimers spun with wetted fingers to wet the fibers as they twisted into yam.
For thigh-spinning. White and Tiedemann preferred to spin wet fibers. White
125 commented that the fibers are less likely to break when wet. Tiedemann found that the fibers rolled more easily between her palm and leg when wet.
Berg and Leeds, on the other hand, preferred to spin dry fibers. Both said that fiber spun wet will shrink and the plies will separate as they dry. According to them, dry spinning gives the yams a tighter ply construction.
In summary, the fine, highly processed flax fibers were the preferred fibers to work with. They put up less resistance to spinning and, in general, allowed the spinners to make finer yams (see Table 4.7). It is to be expected though, that finer fibers are necessary for finer yams. The Indian hemp fibers were found to be acceptable for both methods. The difference in Leeds’ and Tiedemann’s opinions for thigh-spinning Indian
hemp may result fi’om the difference in their spinning methods and their choices of dry
and wet spinning. Milkweed fibers, prepared as they were in this study, were found to be
undesirable for both thigh- and spindle-spinning.
4.2.4 Yam Production Rates
Summarized results for the ten minute rate-determining spinnings appear in Table
4.8. The raw data are presented in Appendix B. Although each spinner was asked to spin
each fiber for ten minutes to determine the spinning rates over all the fibers, several
spinners forgot a tuning. Averages were calculated despite the missing data. The table
also includes John White’s spiiming rate for basswood fiber, which was measured in the
same manner as the other rates.
126 As expected, thigh-spinning and finger-spinning were slower than spindle- spinning. Spindle-spinning was 2.1 times as fast as the average of all the non-spindle techniques. If the slower finger-spinning is eliminated in the calculation of the average, then the average thigh-spinning rate was 0.151 m/min and spindle-spinning was 1.8 times faster. The thigh-spinning method used by 12 to achieve the fastest rate, was a personal variation on the traditionally reported method. 13, however, using the traditional method, had a slower but comparable rate.
Comparison with the spinning rates reported in Table 2.1 shows large differences in the rates collected here and the results of other studies. The thigh-spinners spun 2 -3 times faster than the rate reported in Jones (1946), but slower than the rate reported in
Samuel (1982). The spindle-spinners were slower than all previously reported rates. The literature review showed that flax and hemp have been spun on spindles at rates of 2.00 -
2.62 m/min. This is considerably better than even the fastest flax spinner, S6, who spun line flax at a rate of 1.435 m/min. The average spindle rate of 0.743 m/min compares only to the previously reported cotton spinning rate of 0.65 m/min. The plying rates collected here were also slower than the rate of 1.81 m/min reported in Franquemont
(1986). Using Franquemont’s average spinning and plying rates (Table 2.1) to calculate a
2-ply spindle-spun wool yam production rate gives 0.416 m/min. For flax line, the 2-ply
spindle-spirming rate, calculated with a singles yam spinning rate of 2 m/min and an
assumed minimum plying rate of 2 m/min, equals 0.667 m/min.
The differences between the spinning rates collected in this study and the spinning
rates reported in previous studies probably reflect the degeneration of the craft that Endrei
127 (1968) suggested in his report on wheel spinning. None of the spinners in this study spins daily for household needs. Similarly, Jones (1946) reported that the women whose thigh-spinning rate he recorded were reviving a little used skill at his request. 0.25 m/min, the thigh-spinning rate reported in Samuel where spinners were spinning for large projects, is the fastest recorded rate for this technology.
The difference in productivity between the spindle spinners recruited for this study and spindle spinners in other studies was especially marked. There was no comparison between earlier bast fiber spinning rates and those reported here. Just as
Vallinheimo’s study (1956) of wheel-spinners with varying levels of experience showed that spinning rates of practiced spinners do not compare with the rates of highly
experienced spinners, these results show that practiced spindle-spinners do not approach
the production rates of highly experienced spindle-spinners.
Although the primary lesson from these results is that the production rates of
modem spinners do not reflect the maximum possible production rates of the technology,
the results still have merit. The spindle-spinning results show the production rates that
might be expected of spinners adopting spindle technology. The combined average
spindle-spun yam production rate achieved in this study was 0.270 m/min. The
maximum thigh-spun production rate of 0.25 m/min is not much slower. After an hour of
work, the spindle-spinners would produce 16.2 m of yam for the thigh-spinners’ 15 m.
Vallinheimo (1956) concluded from her results that the spinning wheel is not absolutely
1 28 faster than the spindle. Likewise, it appears here that the spindle is not absolutely faster than thigh-spinning but requires dedication and necessity to surpass thigh-spun
productivity.
Spiimer M n Tl 0.107 4
T2 0.176 3
13 0.170 1
F4 0.0683 2
total* 0.130 4
Spindle singles Spindle ply
M S M n SI 0.475 4 1.117 4
S5 0.603 3 0.825 2
S6 1.154 3 1.013 2
total* 0.743 3 0.985 3
Combined average spindle spun yam 0.270 production rate (R^^iy)
^Totals are unweighted averages over the spinners in each group.
Table 4.8: Means for Yam Production Rates (m/min).
129 4.3 Twist Angle
4.3.1 General results by spinner
Analysis of the twist angle data by spinner gives a general overview of which analysis categories reflect a difference in the spinning methods. Raw data for the twist angle measurements appear in Appendix C. Box plots of the results by spinner appear in
Figures 4.9-4.13. The area within the boxes represents the interquartile range containing
50% of the values. The whiskers extend to the highest and lowest values excluding extreme values. The dark line within the box represents the median. Outliers, defined as data points lying more than 1.5 interquartile distances outside of the interquartile region, are indicated with hollow circles. The larger angle data, smaller angle data, and the sums of each pair of angles, and the single angle (i.e. only one) measure, show potential for differentiating the spinning methods. The difference scores of the paired angle measurements (Figure 4.13), selected to reveal any relationship between the two singles yams at a given point, show no apparent differences between the spinning methods.
In the data groupings where there appeared to be a difference between spinning methods, Tl, T3, and F4 all have central tendencies clustering around angles of greater value than the yams made with spindles. T2 tends more toward the results found with spindles. As described in section 4.2, the construction of the T2 yams differed substantially fiom the other non-spindle techniques. The finger-spun and other thigh- spun yams were formed by twisting two short (5-10 cm) lengths of singles yams and then immediately plying them using the springlike torque built up in the singles yams to twist the two yams together. The pUes were first allowed to twist back on one another and then
130 additional ply twist may have been added by the spinner as an adjustment to the ply structure. The T2 yams were formed by twisting two long lengths of singles yams
(approximately 75 cm) and then bringing them together to twist in the opposite direction and insert the ply twist. This second process is less dependent on the stored energy in singles yams twist to create the ply twist. Ply twist is added in a separate twisting step analogous to plying two separate yams with a spindle.
The relationship between the singles spinning and the plying appears to cause differences in yam twist properties. Whereas high initial twist in the singles yams of the
Tl, T3, and F4 yams provided part of the force needed to twist the plied yam, the ply structure of T2 yams was twisted entirely by hand. Two things may contribute to the low twist observed in T2 singles yams. First, in the T2 spinning method, plying was an active step where the spinner twisted the two yams together in the opposite direction from the
singles spinning. As the spinner inserted the ply twist, he may have untwisted the singles
yams to a greater extent than occurs in the other methods. In the other methods, plying is
initially a passive step where the yams are allowed to ply themselves followed by
correction or tightening of the ply twist. The active plying in the T2 method that mimics
the singles spinning may result in a similar amount of twist being removed from the
singles yams as was initially put into them. Second, in the T2 spinning method the
spinner is not influenced by the immediate feedback from releasing the torque built up in
the singles yams for the two yams to twist back on one another. Without this feedback,
the spiimer may not perceive the same requirement to put extremely high twist in the
singles yams in the first place.
131 Ultimately, it must be recognized that the spinning method used to make the T2 yams has resulted in different twist properties than those associated with the T l, T3, and
F4 yams. By analysis of twist angles, the 12 yams are indistinguishable from the spindle-spun yams. Because the thigh-spinning and frnger-spinning methods of the Tl,
T3, and F4 yams are documented in various places across North America it is worthwhile to continue with the assessment of twist angle measurements as a means to identify these yams. Further consideration of the yam twist angles will exclude the T2 yams from the group of thigh-spun and finger-spun yams.
Although it has been shown that the T2 yams share low overall singles yam twist angles with spindle-spun yams, a difference in twist angles may yet be useful to categorize spinning methods. It has been shown that other specific kinds of thigh-spun and finger-spun yams share high singles yam twist angles and that spindle-spun yams share low singles yam twist angles. High singles yam twist angle appears to mle out spindle-spinning. The T2 yams have shown that not all thigh-spun yams can be identified by high singles yam twist angles, but high-singles yam twist angles appears to have value as a criterion for eliminating spindle-spinning as a possible yam formation technology.
132 I
g -10
Q -20
Spinner
Figure 4.9: Box plot of cumulative twist angle measurements by spinner.
133 □ -20
Spinner
Figure 4.10: Box plot of single angle measurements by spinner.
134 i i
m -10
Spinner
Figure 4.11: Box plot of larger twist angle measurements by spinner.
135 60
50
40
30.
2 0'
10
0
ë -10 S* Q -20 N= 120 ao 17 78 120 80 T1 T2 T3 F4 SI S5 se
Spinner
Figure 4.12; Box plot of smaller twist angle measurements by spinner.
136 m -10
□ -20
Spinner
Figure 4.13; Box plot of paired twist angle differences by spinner.
137 4.3.2 Specific results by yam
Box plots of the cumulative twist angle data, the single angle (i.e. only one) measure data, larger angle data, and the smaller angle data, appear in Figures 4.14 - 4.17.
The T2 results have been included but were moved to the far right of the graphics. When the data from individual yams are displayed in this way, the tendency for Tl, T3, and F4
(thigh/finger-spun) yams to have higher twist angles and for the SI, SS, and S6 yams to have lower twist angles remains evident, but some shared territory appears between the groups of yams.
Tl and SI twist angle distributions have overlapping interquartile ranges in all of the data groupings. Of all the categories, the larger angle subgroup (Figure 4.16) gives the poorest resolution of the spinning methods. The interquartile regions of the Tl milkweed and Indian hemp yams overlap with SI, S5, and S6 milkweed and Indian hemp yams. By selecting the maximum twist angle values, spindle-spun yams can be shown to
share twist properties with the thigh/finger-spun yams. The single angle and smaller
angle categories show more potential for distinguishing between the spinning methods.
Examination of the means in Table 4.9 shows that the Tl and SI yams do not
separate out into decisive groups of greater and lesser twist angle values. Outliers, which
appeared in the box plots, have been removed from these calculations to correct
skewness. In particular, the SlpFX yam shows that the singles yam in a spindle-spun
yam can be twisted highly enough to retain a high twist angle even after plying. In all of
the approaches to the data analysis except the smaller angles category, the SlpFX average
twist angle surpasses the average twist angle of the TIMW and TllH yams. Even in the
138 smaller angle grouping, a T-test shows the difference between the SlpFX yam and the
TIMW and TIIH yams to be statistically insignificant.
In comparison to the other spindle-spun yams, SlpFX has anomalously high twist angle values. The high twist angle in SlpFX resulted from the intention of the spiimer to spin a highly twisted yam as described in Section 3.1. The spinner added extra twist to the singles yams in SlpFX to mimic yams observed in the Etowah archaeological collection. In contrast, the SIFX singles yams were spun to have enough twist to hold the yam together and a little extra to correct for untwisting during plying. The SIFX yam, spim with consideration for the long fiber’s tolerance for lower twist, resembles the yams made by the other spindle spinners. SlpFX shows that, if she chooses to, a spindle- spinner can create highly twisted yams akin to highly twisted thigh/finger-spun yams.
In spite of its confounding effect on the association of thigh/finger-spun yams with higher mean twist angles and spindle spim yams with lower mean twist angles,
S IpFX may yet provide clues as to how to differentiate spindle-spun and thigh-spun yams. The SlpFX yam shows that the distributions of the twist angles within a yam can be indicative of a particular spinning technology. A scatter plot of standard deviation vs. average twist angle using the single angle measurement data shows how the spread of the twist angle data differs between the spindle spun yams and the thigh- and finger-spun yams (Figure 4.18). For each group, the standard deviation appears to increase as twist angle increases. The two groups, however, increase at different rates. The SlpFX yam
appears at the center top of the chart as the most highly twisted spindle-spun yam with
139 the highest standard deviation of all yams. In comparison, thigh-spun yams with similar average twist angles have much lower standard deviations.
Of course this is only one data point and more, highly twisted, spindle-spun yams will be necessary to confirm such a relationship. What this suggests is that spindle-spun yams with highly twisted singles yams will exhibit more variability than comparably twisted thigh- and finger-spun yams. The high variability in twist angle for the spindle- spun yams may have two sources. The first is inconsistent addition of twist with the spindle. When making a highly twisted yam, the spiimer responds first to the twist needs of the fiber and yam. She then builds up additional twist by setting the spindle in motion again and allowing it to spin for an additional length of time. As twist increases, the effects of inconsistency in the speed of the spindle and duration of the spinning increase.
The second source of variability will only be expressed in the cumulative data
where the sample includes pairs of measurements fi’om single points in the yam. A
relationship or absence of relationship between the two plies will affect overall variability
in the sample. In a thigh/finger-spun yam where the two singles yams were spun in
tandem, the twist angles may differ, but they will not be entirely independent. By the
nature of this spinning method, there is a relatedness between the two plies in a
thigh/finger-spun yam that will cause a decrease in the overall yam variability. In
contrast, it can be assumed that at any given location on a spindle-spun yam, the two
singles yams will have twist angles that are independent of one another. This results
fiom the process of yam formation where two independently spun yams are combined
140 into one plied yam. The independence of the two adjacent plies in a spindle-spun yam will increase the overall sample variability.
Finally, the data ranges may provide another key to the difference between
spindle and thigh/finger-spun yams. The cumulative twist angle and single twist angle
box plots (Figures 4.14 and 15) show an interesting difference in the similarly centered
Tl and SI data groups. In the Tl yams, a twist angle measurement equal to zero
qualifies as a statistical outlier. The SI distributions all include measurements of zero
within the acceptable data range of two interquartile regions fi-om the median. Further
emphasizing the zero twist distinction, S5 and S6 yam distributions all extend into
negative twist angles, which indicate areas of the singles yams that have been completely
untwisted in plying and have had twist added in the ply direction. Even for yams with a
common central tendency, the spinning methods appear to separate out over the minimum
values in the data distribution. For thigh-spun and finger-spun yams, singles yam twist
angles equal to zero or less are very unlikely.
141 Nsgoso6oso34«oao38naon(iônào«(n80ttaÔ8b
£ 11 i P s * ^ * M s
Yarn
Figure 4.14: Box plot of cumulative twist angle measurements by yam.
142 (A I g o —■— ■ ■ ■ ' 1 Tf" ■ ■ m »■' -r ■ ■ » _ N : 3 0 X 30 30 17 30 30 1S 30 30 3 0 a a 3 0 30 20 30 30 20 30 30 IL IL ______in li H K IL V CO 7 T
Yarn
Figure 4.15; Box plot of single twist angle measurements by yam.
143 2 -10 ■
N * 3 0 30 30 30 17 30 30 1S 30 30 30 M 30 30 20 » 30 20 30 30 20
Yam
Figure 4.16: Box plot of larger twist angle measurements by yam.
144 S i
0> -10 •
Q -20 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ "n# '■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■ 30303030 17 3030 18 30303030303020303020303020
(0 Yarn
Figure 4.17: Box plot of smaller twist angle measurements by yam.
145 Data Categories
Cumulative Single Larger Smaller
Yam n MQ M n M n M TIFX 60 23.9 30 23.7 30 26.8 30 21.1
TlpFX 56 16.4 27 17.3 27 18.7 30 13.6
TIMW 60 13.9 30 13.9 30 16.5 30 11.3
Tim 56 13.6 28 13.4 29 16.9 30 11.0
T3BW 34 24.9 17 25.0 17 27.7 17 22.0
F4FX 58 30.8 30 31.5 30 35.7 29 26.5
F4MW 60 27.7 30 28.5 30 31.7 30 23.7
F4ffl 34 31.6 17 30.0 17 36.0 17 27.6
SIFX 60 7.2 29 6.9 29 10.0 3 4.7
SlpFX 60 17.4 30 14.7 30 24.2 29 10.0
SIMW 58 9.4 28 9.5 28 12.4 30 6.5
Sim 59 11.6 29 11.2 29 15.3 29 7.5
S5FX 60 5.6 30 6.2 30 8.7 29 2.2
S5MW 59 6.8 30 5.1 30 11.9 28 1.7 ssm 40 8.4 19 6.3 20 12.8 20 4.1 S6FX 59 3.1 29 3.1 30 6.0 28 0.8
S6MW 58 3.0 28 1.9 28 5.1 28 1.1
S6m 40 4.7 19 4.7 20 8.7 19 1.4
T2FX 60 13.1 30 12.4 30 17.9 30 8.4
T2MW 57 6.4 28 6.9 30 12.4 30 2.9
T2m 39 6.4 19 5.0 19 10.6 20 2.3
Table 4.9: Yam means for twist angle measurements.
146 12
10
8 , Thigh/finger-spun 6 I 4 Spindle-spun 4 'A----- I 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 Average twist angle, single measurement
Figure 4.18: Scatter plot of twist angle standard deviations vs. means for single angle measurement category.
147 4.3.3 Recognizing spinning technology &om yam twist angle measurements
In the interest of building a template against which unknown yams can be compared to identify spinning technology, this twist angle study has provided useful information. It has been shown that the singles yams in a two ply structure made by specific thigh-spinning and finger-spinning processes tend to have higher twist angles than singles yams spun and plied on spindles. The spread of the twist angle data for individual yams also suggests that thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams will have different data distributions.
Five categories of the twist angle measurements were used to evaluate the twist angle measures. The data obtained by taking the differences between paired angle measurements was shown to be similar over all spinning methods. The data category consisting of the larger of each pair of measurements was also shown to give poor resolution between the spinning methods. The remaining categories are the cumulative twist angle measurements, including all measurements fiom a yam; the single angle measurements, which include only one, randomly selected measurement from each
sampled pair, and the smaller angle of each pair of measurements. All three show
distributions that are useful for a yam classification system.
The most practical of the three categories is the single angle data. It is a randomly
selected sample that avoids bias associated with any possible relationship between the
paired measurements of both plies at a particular location. These data are the best choice
for building comparative data sets for twist angle means. Combined in two groups
corresponding to spinning method, the single angle data give a significant difference for
148 the means of thigh/finger-spinning and spindle-spinning (Table 4.10). Outliers and
SlpFX data are not included in these calculations. Comparing these means, the I test statistic of 21.98 is significant at a probability p < .001.
Figure 4.19 shows histograms of these data distributions. As noted in the discussion of the box plots, there is some overlap in the tails of the two distributions. The thigh/finger-spinning data displays a broad distribution in comparison to the spindle-
spinning data. By treating the spindle-spim distribution as a population distribution, a
sample of yam twist angle measurements can be compared to the known spindle-spun
data with a one tailed Z test. The null hypothesis for this test is that the mean twist angle
of the sampled yam is equivalent to the mean of the spindle-spun yam population. Even
the T im yam, with the lowest mean twist angle of the thigh/finger-spun yams, differs
enough fiom the mean for rejection of the null hypothesis at p<.001. The altemative to
the null hypothesis is that the tested yam has a higher mean twist angle than the spindle-
spun population.
The drawback to using this test to discount the likelihood that a yam was spindle-
spun is that spindle-spun yams can be spun to fail this test. The SlpFX yam is an
example of such a yam. It was excluded fiom the spindle-spun group because its twist
properties were so different those of the other yams in the group that it was deemed
atypical. Tested against the spindle-spun mean, the SlpFX mean twist angle also differs
enough for rejection of the null hypothesis at p<.00l. Thus comparing the singles yam
twist angle mean for a yam sample to the spindle-spun population twist angle mean only
roughly separates the thigh/finger-sptm fiom the spindle-spun.
149 A yam with a mean twist angle that has been shown to be greater than the spindle- spun mean should be scrutinized further, particularly if it’s mean twist angle falls within
the range of 11-15 degrees. The thigh/finger-spun yam’s tendency to have few or no
singles yam twist angle measurements of zero can be used as a second indicator of the
spinning method used for yam formation. If the sample data range includes values of
zero, a box plot will show how those values compare to the spread of the data. If a
measurement of zero qualifies as an outlier, then thigh/finger-spinning is a more likely
choice. If measurements of zero do not qualify as outliers, then spindle-spinning is a
more likely choice. Measurements of negative angles correspond to spindle-spinning
alone.
For the purposes of future research, the data groups of the cumulative twist angle
measurements and the smaller twist angle measurements should remain under
consideration as particularly useful indicators of yam formation method. Because the
twist angles are measured in pairs, these sets of data may produce valuable information
about the relationships between the two singles yams at any given point in the yam. The
cumulative data will show differences in variability between the spinning methods if a
relationship exists between the yams of one yam type and not the other. By choosing the
smaller of two angle measurements, bias may be added to the data that amplifies the
difference between thigh/finger-spinning and spindle-spinning. The source of the bias
comes fix)m the higher amount of twist needed in thigh/finger-spun yams in order that
they twist back on one another into a plied stmcture. Both yams must be highly twisted
therefore the twist angles observed in the singles yams within a plied yam will reflect
150 greater initial twist requirements. In spindle-spun yams, the smaller twist angle measurements should merely represent randomly distributed low twist in the singles yams.
Spinning Method n M s Thigh/finger 209 22.5 9.2
Spindle 241 6.1 5.9
Table 4.10: Summary statistics for single measurement twist angle data by spinning method.
151 Sid. Dev = 9.24 Mean = 22.5 N - 209.00
•«? %%%%%%%%
Thigh/finger-spun Twist Angle (deg)
« 1 0 ' SM. Dev = 5.94 Mean = 6.1 i l 0 N= 241.00 -7.3 -.7 5.9 125 19.1 25.7 323 35.9 45.5 52.1 -4.0 26 9.2 15.8 224 29.0 35.6 422 48.8 55.4
Spindle-spun Twist Angie (deg)
Figure 4.19: Histograms of single twist angle measurements, fo/i, thigh/finger-spun; bottom, spindle-spun.
152 4.4 Visual Examination of Yams
4.4.1 Visual identification
Identification of spinning method by visually examining the yams resulted in a
92% success rate over all the yams. Although the identification was ultimately a judgement call, the author recognized some definable characteristics that set the yams
apart firom one another. The properties that most distinguished the yams visually were
the compactness of the fiber arrangement and the amount of twist remaining in the singles
yams after plying. Compact fiber arrangement was the more useful of the two with thigh-
spun yams showing densely packed fibers in the singles yams and spindle-spun yams
showing more firee space between the fibers. The thigh-spun yams tended to have a
smooth, hard-looking surface whereas the spindle-spun yams had a loose, fibrous
appearance. The twist in the two plies was also an indicator. Little or no twist at all in
one or both of the singles yams was more characteristic of spindle-spun.
The identification was carried out in two stages, the first without magnification
and the second with SX magnification. Out of 150 total specimens, the identifications of
16 yams were changed after viewing under magnification. Of these, 14 incorrect
designations were changed to the correct spinning method and 2 correct designations
were changed to incorrect identifications. That gave 124 correct identifications without
magnification and 138 with magnification. Clearly, low magnification aids in visual
assessment of the yams. The counts of correct and incorrect identifications after viewing
under low magnification are given in Table 4.11. The Chi-square statistic of 1.449,
comparing the proportion of correct identifications for each spinning method, is
153 insignificant at a = .05. Thus there is no significant difference between the number of
thigh-spun yams identified correctly and the number of spindle-spun yams identified
correctly. A 92% average rate of successful identification suggests that an educated
observer’s visual assessment of yams may be helpful in determining whether an unknown
yam is thigh- or spindle-spun.
When categorized by fiber type (Table 4.12), visual identification is shown to be
the most successful for flax yams. The Chi-square test of association shows that there is
a difference in the proportion of correct identifications for different fibers. The Chi-
square test statistic of 1.449 is significant for a = .05. Multiple comparison of the
proportions gives a significant difference at a = .05 between the flax and Indian hemp
yams. The flax yams can be associated with a greater rate of success than the Indian
hemp yams. Nevertheless, the Indian hemp success rate of 86% still compares favorably
to a 50% success rate associated with random assignment of yams to spinning methods.
The proportion of correct identifications for Indian hemp yams as well as flax and
milkweed yams differ significantly different at a = .001 when compared to a
hypothetical case of 50% correct identifications and 50% incorrect identifications, where
the observer could be assumed to have guessed.
154 Thigh Spindle Total
Correct 67 (.89) 71 (.95) 138 (.92)
Incorrect 8 (.11) 4 (.05) 12 (.08)
Total 75 75 ISO
Note: Proportions are given in parenthesis.
Table 4.11: Counts of correct and incorrect visual identifications of spinning method tallied by spinning method.
Flax Milkweed Indian hemp Total
Correct 50 (1) 45 (.9) 43 (.86) 138 (.92)
Incorrect 0 (0) 5 (.1) 7 (.14) 12 (.08)
Total 50 50 50 150
Note: Proportions are given in parenthesis.
Table 4.12: Counts of correct and incorrect visual identifications of spinning method tallied by fiber type.
155 4.4.2 Counts of fiber features
The fiber features were counted to determine whether the two spinning methods had different sets of anomalous fiber features. Table 4.13 shows the counts associated with each feature for each spinning method. Chi-square comparisons of the feature counts by spinning method yield only one significant difference. Wrap, hair, and tweedle, were shown to be similarly distributed for both spinning methods. The loose fiber feature, however, gave a test statistic of 11.794 significant at a = .001.
Closer examination of the loose fiber data shows a more complicated situation.
Table 4.14 shows the loose fiber counts by fiber type and spinning method. These are
results for each individual yam sample. Although the flax and Indian hemp distributions
appear to be similar, the milkweed distributions of loose fibers for thigh-spun and
spindle-spun yams has little relation to the other yams. The inconsistencies at the
individual yam level reveal that loose fibers would not be an especially reliable indicator
of spinning method. Because the flax and Indian hemp fibers in the yams were finer than
the milkweed fibers, it is possible that the fiber fineness affected the incidence of loose
fibers in the yams. To use loose fibers as an indicator for some fibers and not others,
more research would be necessary to confirm the connection between fiber fineness and
fiber features on the yams.
Visual evaluation of thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams has shown that someone
familiar with thigh- and spindle-spun yam can tell the difference between the two with at
least 86% accuracy just by looking at them. In a system for identifying thigh- and
spindle-spun yams, the researcher’s visual identification of the yam type should be taken
156 into account. On the other hand fiber features that deviate fi-om the continuous twisted structure of the yam have been shown to occur with no outstanding differences between the spinning methods.
Count
Feature Thigh Spindle Total
Wrap present 14 (.19) 18 (.24) 32 (.21)
absent 61 (.81) 57 (.76) 118 (.79)
Hair present 32 (.43) 40 (.53) 72 (.48)
absent 43 (.57) 35 (.47) 78 (.52)
Tweedle present 43 (.57) 34 (.45) 77 (.51)
absent 32 (.43) 41 (.55) 73 (.49)
Loose Fiber present 25 (.33) 46 (.61) 71 (.47)
absent 50 (.67) 29 (.39) 79 (.53)
Note: Proportions are given in parenthesis.
Table 4.13: Counts of fiber arrangement features tallied by spinning method.
157 Count
Fiber Thigh Spindle Total
Flax present 14 (.56) 20 (.8) 34 (.68)
absent 11 (.44) 5 (.2) 16 (.32)
Milkweed present 2 (.08) 6 (.24) 8 (.16)
absent 23 (.92) 19 (.76) 42 (.84)
Ind. hemp present 9 (.36) 20 (.8) 29 (.58)
absent 16 (.64) 5 (2) 21 (.42)
Note: Proportions are given in parenthesis.
Table 4.14: Counts of loose fibers tallied by fiber type and spinning method.
158 4.5 Cross Sections
Microscopic examination of yam cross sections gave no outstanding results.
Table 4.15 shows the counts of the six cross-sectional shape categories tallied by spinning method. Some trends were apparent, however. For example, the sample of sixty cross-sections of singles yams from thirty 2-ply yams showed that spindle-spun yams had more than twice the amoimt Amorphously shaped cross-sections than did thigh-spun yams. A summation of all of the Round classifications, including Round
Open, Round with Open Center, and Compact Round, gives a result of 39 Round cross- sections for thigh-spun yams compared to 21 Round cross-sections for spindle-spun yams.
Visually distinctive cross-sectional shapes such as Round with Open Center,
Partial Ring, and Comma or Bean only occur infrequently. The Roimd with Open Center classification, in particular shows a collapsed ribbon fiber arrangement that can be attributed to spinning conditions. Unfortunately it is only slightly more common in thigh-spun yams than it is in spindle-spun yams.
Although trends in the cross-sectional shapes indicated that differences between the spinning methods can be observed in cross sections, the large sample sizes also showed that both spinning methods had several possible cross sectional fiber arrangements. In order to use information firom cross-sections to distinguish spinning methods it would be necessary to replicate these large sample sizes. Because making yam cross sections is a destmctive procedure, however, only a limited number of samples can be taken firom archaeological textiles. An overwhelming proportion of distinctive,
159 diagnostic cross sectional fiber arrangements would be necessary to warrant use of this test to distinguish thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams.
Counts
Cross-sectional shape Thigh-spun Spindle-spun
Amorphous 14 (.23) 31 (.52)
Round Open 11 (.18) 14 (.23)
Round with Open Center 7 (.12) 2 (.03)
Partial Ring 1 (.02) 3 (.05)
Compact Round 21 (.35) 5 (.08)
Comma or Bean 4 (.07) 4 (.07)
not visible 2 (.03) 1 (.02)
N 60 60
Note: Proportions given in parenthesis.
Table 4.15: Counts of six cross-sectional shape classifications found for thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams.
160 4.6 Yam Quality
4.6.1 Tensile strength
Analysis of variance of the tensile testing data (Table 4.16) gave a significant
main effect for fiber type and a significant interaction between fiber type and spinning
method. A Scbeffe post hoc comparison of fiber means gave a significant differences
between all three fiber groups at the .05 level. Although the hypothesis of equivalent
means for the two spinning methods could not be rejected, T-tests conducted on the
spinning method means for each fiber gave a significant difference between the spinning
methods for flax yams (Table 4.17). For milkweed and Indian hemp yams, the null
hypothesis was not rejected.
It follows that the interaction effect shown by the ANOVA expresses the
difference between the fibers’ responses to spinning method. Figure 4.20 shows the
interaction plot of fiber type vs. spimung method. The points on the graph represent the
tenacity means by fiber type and spinning method. The lines on the graph illustrate the
difference or lack of difference between the means. Whereas flax yam tenacity was
affected by spinning method, milkweed and Indian hemp yam tenacities were not. These
results suggest that fiber properties affect the degree to which spinning method influences
yam tensile strength. They also show that neither spinning method can be assumed to
produce yams of superior tensile strength.
161 Source df F Spinning Method (S) 1 0.961
Fiber (F) 2 53.136***
S x F 2 5.163*** error 194 (0.263)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Table 4.16: Analysis of variance for yam tenacity.
162 Fiber
Flax Milkweed Indian Hemp Yam M SD n M SD Q M SD n 11 20.67 4.25 10 17.83 2.86 10 20.24 2.98 10 Tip 21.70 4.63 15
T2 19.42 2.98 10 13.06 2.90 10 16.19 3.88 10
F4 18.29 3.15 10 10.38 2.66 10 total 20.21 4.02 45 13.76 4.15 30 18.21 3.96 20
SI 27.97 4.91 10 18.50 3.47 10 18.90 2.81 10 Sip 23.13 5.71 15
S5 18.43 5.34 10 12.38 3.85 10 15.73 2.70 10
S6 24.06 4.50 10 12.79 2.92 10 14.01 3.04 10 total 23.36 5.97 45 14.56 4.37 30 16.21 3.44 30
Values of t from Comparison of Spinning Methods by fiber type t -2.940** -0.728 1.898
** p < .01
Table 4.17: Means for yam tenacity in cN/tex.
163 25
20 « FX ■ MW 15 t IH FXrend 10 I MWtrendi
5 IHtrend
0 Spliced Spindle Spinning Method
Figure 4.20: Interaction plot for yam tenacity (cN/tex).
164 4.6.2 Linear density and yam irregularity
The linear density results are best represented graphically. Figure 4.21 shows scatter plots of the linear density coefiGcient of variation vs. the average linear density of the yam. Table 4.18 gives the source data for the plots. The spliced yams show increasing coefficient of variation as linear density decreases. Data obtained from T2 yams support this showing a 12% increase in coefficient of variation between yams corresponding to a 300 unit decrease in tex. This implies that the spinner has less control of the yam thickness when making finer yam.
It is typical to expect that the coefficient of variation statistic will increase as yam size decreases. Because the coefGcient of variation expresses the standard deviation as a percentage of the mean, two yams with different average linear densities but the same standard deviations will have different coefficients of variation. Of these two yams, the yam with the greater linear density will have a lower coefficient of variation. The same variability in a finer yam will be greater in proportion to its mean linear density. Thus
the relationship between mean linear density and its coefficient of variation can be
expected to have negative correlation.
Comparison of the spliced yam results to the spindle-spun yam results shows that
decreasing linear density might have an inordinate effect on coefficient of variation in
spliced yams. Spindle-spun yams of similar mean linear density do not show the same
high coefGcients of variation. Whereas the spliced yam coefGcients of variation range
fiom 6 - 31%, the spindle-spun coefGcients of variation range G’om 7 - 20%. It should
also be noted that spinner #1, who spun both thigh and spindle yams, had very different
165 results between the two spinning methods. The T1 yams, of 144-288 tex, gave coefficients of variation of 13-31%. The T2 yams, of 115-280 tex, gave coefficients of variation of 10-15%.
One explanation for this disparity is that the same worker added fiber to the yam in more uniform manner while spindle-spinning and drafting continuously. Another explanation is that the process of creating two independent singles yams and then plying them together as in spindle-spinning, randomly combines thin and thick areas of the singles yams resulting in a more even yam. This is a commonly recognized plying effect expressed by the equation
where CVp = the linear density coefiGcient of variation of the plied yam CV, = the linear density coefficient of variation of the singles yams P = the number of plies (Oxtoby 1987).
As the number of plies increases, the random combination of yam irregularities in the
singles yams causes the coefiGcient of variation of the plied yam to decrease by the square
root of the number of plies.
In thigh-spun yams, the two singles yams are produced in tandem and therefore
do not have the same independence of one another that the singles in a spindle-spim yam
have. Because the thigh-spinner worics with both singles yams at once, thick and thin
segments may be amplified by the tendency to match the singles yams to one another
166 rather than to an arbitrary standard. For example, as the spinner approaches a splice in one single, the other single may be quite long but has tapered off to only a few fibers.
When the spinner splices in a new length of fiber at the end of the first yam, her selection of fibers may correspond to the thickness of the other single rather than the intended thickness of the yam.
Ideally, there would have been much more yam available for testing.
Nevertheless, these results indicate that control of linear density becomes a problem for spliced yams below 300 tex.
167 Thigh/finger-spun Yams, 1m Specimens
1200
■5 - 1000 S i ♦ T1 I 600 *T2i |a F 4 ' 3 3 200 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 Linear Oanëty CV
Spindle-spun Yams, 1m Specimens
1200 Y
? 1000 -
800 - ,si g 600 - I m S 5 I g !e S 6 l a 400 - g û 200 - 0 1 10 15 20 25 30 35 Llntar Danaity CV
Figure 4.21: Scatter plots of linear density (tex) vs. linear density percent coefficient of variation (CV).
1 6 8 Fiber
Flax Milkweed Indian Hemp
Yam tex CV tex CV tex CV
11 202 13 288 26 144 24 Tip 203 31
T2 330 18 633 6
F4 966 12
SI 115 15 280 10 207 13 Sip 230 10
S5 143 7 302 20
S6 173 13 685 11
Table 4.18: Yarn average linear density (tex) and unevenness expressed as the percent coefficient of variation (CV) for 1 m specimens.
169 CHAPTERS
DISCUSSION
The research reported in the preceding chapter was directed at distinguishing early spinning technologies in terms of the methods of production, and in terms of the physical characteristics of the yams that were produced. The primary goal of this work was to develop a methodology for determining spinning technology using measurable properties of the finished yams. This effort was specifically aimed toward answering questions about textile technology at the Etowah site in southeastem North America. Another goal of this work was to generate information about the spinning technologies in terms of time consumption and yam quality for future inferences about their roles in the context of textile production.
The culmination of this research is the development of a checklist for use in determining spinning technology employed in the production of yams in the
archaeological record. The checklist incorporates different sources of evidence toward
the goal of identifying spinning technology because, although spinning yam can be
assumed to have been a common activity, it is often all but invisible in the archaeological
record. An understanding of spinning as an activity that exists within multiple contexts
170 reveals layers of information that can be examined for evidence. The environmental context provides information about the fiber resources available to spinners. The societal context provides evidence of spinning activity in the form of tools and textiles. Use of more than one source of evidence will build a more convincing case where the choice of spinning method is in question.
The existence of spinning within multiple contexts also makes the determination
of spinning technology a valuable step toward understanding broader issues in textile
production. A choice of spinning technology may have meaning beyond the simple
conclusion that the spinners had no other options. The time consumed in spinning and
the quality of yam produced are likely attributes of any spinning method that could affect
its use or eventual abandonment. Afier determining the spinning technology employed in
particular yams, the results of this study provide experimental basis to explain broader
implications associated with the choices of thigh/finger-spinning and spindle-spinning.
5.1 Spinning Technology Determination Checklist
The following Spinning Technology Determination Checklist (STDC) was
assembled as a guide for investigating spinning technology employed in the manufacture
of yams found in the archaeological record where the use of spindles in yam production
is uncertain. It relies upon the findings of this research to make distinctions between
spindle-spun yams and thigh/finger-spun yams. Because the experimental segment of
this research was limited to two ply yams made with bast and inner tree bark fibers, steps
171 3 and 4 of the current version of checklist are only meant to be used with two ply yams made with these materials. After further research, additions and modifications can be made to this list.
Starting from the current assumption in the literature that all fine yams were
spindle-spun, the checklist provides a series of research tasks aimed at testing that
assumption. Although the conclusion drawn from the STDC does not provide positive
confirmation of thigh/finger-spinning, the use of spindle-spinning in yam manufacture
can be found to be less and less likely based on the facts accumulated with each step in
the checklist. Effectively, this is a methodology for ruling out spindle-spinning as the
yam production technology used for a particular textile.
1. Identify contemporaneous archaeological correlates of spinning technology.
Spirming technology may be represented in the archaeological record by the presence of
spindles and spindle whorls. Spindles are often recognizable because of the shaft and
whorl combination, but they may also be simple sticks with a quantity of yam wound
around them. Spindle whorls of stone and fired clay often persist where other evidence of
textile production no longer exists. It is possible that artifacts recorded from a site have
not been recognized as spindle whorls or other spinning implements. To compensate for
such errors, researchers should examine pertinent artifact collections whenever possible
and consider alternate uses for artifacts.
A finding that spindles or spindle whorls are ubiquitous in the contemporaneous
archaeological record points toward spindles as the most likely means of yam production.
172 A finding of few or no spindle related artifacts gives reason to continue investigation into spinning technology. The absence of spindles and whorls, however, is not a positive proof of thigh-spinning or some other spindle-less technology. Like the textiles themselves, spindles may be made entirely of perishable organic materials with shafts of wood and whorls of wood, bone, antler, or even potato.
2. Identify the general type of fiber used. The presence of bast or inner tree bark fibers points toward thigh/finger-spinning whereas the presence of cotton and wool points toward spindle-spinning. Because of their length, bast fibers and inner tree bark fibers are more likely choices for spliced yams. Short fibers, like cotton and various hair fibers, are more difficult to splice. Short fibers, however, have been blended and thigh- spun with inner tree bark fibers to give a wool surfaced yam with the strength and
stability of a cedar bark for warp yams (Samuel 1982).
3. Examine yams under low magnification to make an initial determination of the
spinning method employed in their manufacture. This step merits more research to show
reproducibility over several observers and several yams, but the findings here indicate
that a trained observer can see indicators of thigh-spinning or spindle-spinning in a yam’s
stmcture. The visible properties of thigh-spun yams were identified as highly twisted
singles yams and a compact fiber arrangement that gave the singles yam a hard, smooth
looking surface. Spindle-spun yams were distinguished by singles yams that had little or
no twist at all. Spindle-spun yams also appeared to have more firee space between fibers
giving the singles yams a loose, fibrous appearance.
173 4. Measure singles yam twist angles and compare them to the data collected here for spindle-spun yams. Samples o f20 - 30 measurements, depending on the quantity of yam available, should be used. The yams should be sampled with minimum intervals of
10 cm between measurement locations. Each sampled location in a 2-ply yam will have two singles yams from which measurements can be made. The current research indicates that only one measurement, randomly chosen from the two possible measurements at
each sampled location, should be used.
The average twist angle for the unknown yam should be compared to a mean of
6.1 degrees with a standard deviation of 5.9 degrees by a one tailed Z test, which tests the
sample mean against a specific population mean and standard deviation. These are the
mean and standard deviation of the spindle-spun yams produced for this study. If the
average singles twist angle is not significantly greater than the spindle-spun mean of 6.1
degrees, then the average singles twist angle cannot be distinguished from the average
singles twist angle of spindle-spun yams. If the average twist angle is significantly
greater, then the yam is less likely to be spindle-spun. This is not necessarily a
confirmation of thigh-spinning, but rather a step toward eliminating spindle-spinning as a
possibility.
Because it is still possible for spindle-spun yams to have highly twisted singles
yams, it is also helpfiil to check the distribution of the data. Thigh/finger-spun yams
have been shown to rarely have singles twist angles equal to zero such that any
measurements equal to zero will lie more than two interquartile regions fix)m the median.
Twist angle distributions that contain measurements of 0 degrees or less within two
174 interquartile regions from the median cannot be distinguished firom the distributions of spindle spun yams. Twist angle distributions that contain no measurements of 0 degrees or only contain them as outliers share distribution properties with the thigh/finger-spun yams studied in this research.
S. Assess the outcomes of the previous four inquiries and conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to reject spindle-spinning as a possible yam formation technology.
The STDC provides a systematic approach to the investigation of yam production technology. It will be a useful tool in the study of eastem North American archaeological textiles, where firagmentary ethnohistoric reports have supplied the main framework for our understanding of the making of a sophisticated textile complex. Certainly this checklist is still in its infancy, but its reliance on evidence from the archaeological record
gives researchers a solid fbundatimipn which to base their conclusions about prehistoric
spinning technologies.
5.2 Meanings and implications of thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning technologies
The results of the production rate and yam quality experiments give insight into
the place of thigh/finger-spinning and spindle-spinning technologies in the broader
contexts of time use and textile manufacture. They also show the magnitude of the
difference between the choice of one technology over another.
The absolute differences between thigh-spinning and spindle-spinning rates were
best expressed in the literature, where spinners with some economic dependence on their
spinning were consulted. Spindle-spinning two-ply yams can be as much as two and a
175 half times faster than thigh-spinning them. What was shown in this production rate study, however, was that spindle-spinning would not have this advantage immediately after it was adopted. The practiced, but part-time, spindle-spinners consulted here only spun slightly faster than the fastest thigh-spinners reported in the literature. This information supports a suggestion that thigh-spinners making a transition to spindle- spinning would not have seen a marked increase in their productivity.
Considering this suggestion, it becomes important to find other reasons why spinners might adopt spindles. Using singles yams rather than plied yams in textile manufacture would have emphasized the speed of the spindle over thigh-spinning. In spindle spinning, making two or more yams and then plying them together doubles, at the very least, the time investment in a given length of yam. Spindle-spun singles may be produced at a rate ten times faster than a two ply thigh-spun yam. Even the slower spindle-spinners from this study produced singles at least twice as fast as the fastest thigh-spun rate. Where textiles continued to be made of two-ply yams, however, this advantage would not be relevant.
If increased spinning rate is abandoned as the assumed chief advantage of the
spindle, one remaining spindle property that sets the two methods apart is the spindle’s
reliance on continuous drafting as the means of lengthening the yam. Adoption of
spindles may have followed from a need to handle fibers differently rather than a need to
make more yam. Specifically, spindles may have initially conferred an advantage in the
spinning of short fibers like cotton and wool as previously suggested by Barber (1991).
Without a tangible leap in productivity, spiimers working almost exclusively witn long
176 bast fibers and an effective splicing technology might have little reason to invent or adopt spindles and continuous drafting.
The quality of yams produced by either thigh/finger-spinning or spindle-spinning is another likely attribute that would distinguish the two spinning methods. If one spinning method produced "better" yam than the other, spinners might prefer that method. The properties chosen to represent yam quality that were measured here were tensile strength and yam irregularity as expressed by the linear density coefficient of variation. The difference in tensile strength between the two spinning methods was found to be small. No significant main effect was found for the spinning methods. In closer analysis, spindle-spun flax yams were significantly stronger than thigh/finger-spun flax yams, but no difference was shown between the two spinning methods for milkweed and
Indian hemp yams. Yam irregularity provided more of a distinction between the spinning methods. In particular, the finest thigh/finger-spun yams had high linear density coefficients of variation in comparison to spindle-spun yams of the same fineness. This indicates that, for textiles made with fine yams, the irregularity of finger/thigh-spun yams may have presented a problem.
In summary, the assumption that spindles offer a self-evident improvement to yam production technology has been questioned. Dedicated spindle users produce yam
at a faster rate than dedicated thigh-spiimers, but new and sporadic spindle-spiimers do
not share this advantage. The initial equivalence of the spindle-spinning rate with the
thigh-spinning rate can be expected to add to the costs of innovation. A comparison of
thigh/finger-spun and spindle-spun yams made fix>m three different fibers showed that
177 neither method had a significant effect on tenacity. Only with respect to the irregularity of fine yams did spindle-spinning show an advantage over thigh/finger-spinning. These independent findings support Barber’s (1991) suggestion, based on archaeological remains in dynastic Egypt, that the choice of raw materials in the form of short fibers rather than long fibers may have the greatest influence in the initial development of spindle-spinning. Although the ultimate gains in productivity associated with spindle- spinning carmot be denied, the transition period between thigh-spinning and spindle- spinning may be longer and motivated differently than previously imagined.
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research
This work, investigating measurable differences between two ancient spinning technologies, has naturally uncovered more questions that it has answered. The author intends to continue working on several aspects of this study. The first area to consider would be an expansion of the data collected in the yam testing. Because the yam production study was a pioneering effort, the quantities of yam produced were not always sufGcient for sampling. Some yams were too short for testing leaving holes in a balanced data design.
The linear density coefGcient of variation data for thigh-spun yams was especially
limited showing signs of a difference between the spinning methods but falling short of
incontrovertible evidence. These data should be augmented by the collection and
measurement of more thigh-spun and spindle-spun yam. A fuller set of data will lead to
178 more reliable conclusions about the difference in irregularity between spindle-spun and thigh-spun yams.
With respect to the analyses of singles yam twist angles, a difference has been shown between thigh/finger-spun and spindle-spun yams, but the sample populations were small. Future work in this area should focus on gathering more data from spindle- spun yams. As more and more data are collected, the properties of the spindle-spun yam population will become clearer. Tests, like Z tests of the average twist angle of an unknown yam versus the spindle-spun yam population, will become more reliable.
The reliability of the visual identification of thigh-spun and spindle-spun yams will be increased with testing on more yams with more trained observers. The current results show that there is a likelihood that someone familiar with both types of yams can recognize them with at least 89% accuracy. These findings, however, are based on a
sample of one observer identifying a randomized collection of thigh- and spindle-spun
yams that she had made herself. Despite randomization of yams, familiarity with the
materials may have improved the observer’s accuracy. A follow-up study using several
observers who have no connection to the test yams made by several spinners will be
necessary to confirm the present findings.
Application of the findings in this research to problems in the archaeological
record is another important step to be taken in the future. Textiles found at the Etowah
site in northeast Georgia are an excellent collection for study. They were produced by a
culture for which little evidence for spindle-spinning has survived, yet many of the
179 textiles are constructed of very fine yams. A case study of Etowah textiles is planned as a future research project that builds off this dissertation.
Although this research was inspired by questions about textiles in the eastem
North American archaeological record, the Spinning Technology Determination
Checklist was developed with the expectation that it might be used to investigate yams made anywhere in the world. Examination of textiles from other collections will provide the means to test this applicability.
180 CHAPTER6
CONCLUSIONS
Because yam production has been shown to consume a large portion of the time invested in textile production, spinning represents a significant labor investment in a finished textile. Yam production has been shown to be a constant background activity in societies that are dependent on hand textile production. Both thigh-spinning and spindle- spinning, despite their apparent slowness to an industrialized observer, are effective means of yam production. Both have been used to produce substantial quantities of yam for textiles.
Spinning is an activity in textile production that is easily overlooked. It is simple and repetitive. Anyone with firee hands can spin, including children and the infirm. The resulting product is yam, an intermediate product that seems more like a raw material when compared to a finished textile. And yet, in the yam lies the bulk of the time investment in the textile. The quality of the textile also depends on the quality of the yam. Because so many people have spent so much time spinning, studies of yam production technology have the potential to open a window on large scale labor investments of pre-industrial populations.
181 The ability to examine finished yams and determine whether they were thigh-spun or spindle-spun adds a dimension to the study of archaeological textiles that was previously unavailable. This study of spinning technology provides information about basic methods of yam production. Yams made with splicing technology, in the forms of thigh-spinning and finger-spiiuiing, and spindle-technology were tested to determine the characteristics of 2-ply yams with relation to the way in which they were spun. The differences found between thigh/finger-spun and spindle-spun yams can be used to distinguish the yams in several ways whereas the similarities between the yams show properties of the yams that may be considered equivalent. For example, a difference that was found in the twist properties of the yams will be helpful for distinguishing thigh-spun yams firom spindle-spun yams in archaeological textiles. On the other hand, the similarity of tensile strength properties between the yams produced by both spinning methods shows that neither technology can be credited with producing yams of superior strength.
The primary goal of determining a set of properties that distinguish thigh/finger- spun fix)m spindle-spun yams was met. Samples of singles yam twist angle measurements were shown to differ between thigh/finger-spun yams and spindle-spun yams. The yams were also shown to be visibly distinguishable with at least 89% accuracy. At the same time, properties like patterns of surface fiber arrangements in the yams and cross-sectional fiber arrangements were eliminated as possible determinants of spinning technology. With the list of distinguishing properties narrowed to twist angle measurements and visible differences, a preliminary checklist for the analysis of
182 archaeological yams was outlined. This proposal of a methodology to distinguish thigh/finger-spinning from spindle-spinning is based on the experimental results of this study. Nevertheless, the accuracy of twist angle measurements and visual identification as determining properties can be expected to benefit from future refining studies.
The properties of yam quality that were measured on the experimentally produced
yams gave mixed results. Tensile strength did not differ significantly between the
spinning methods as it has been assumed to in previous discussions of thigh- and spindle-
spinning. Yam irregularity as expressed by the coefficient of variation in yam linear
density, however, indicated a difference between the spinning methods. Limited data
suggested that very fine thigh-spun yams will be much more uneven than similarly fine
spindle-spun yams.
The fiber processing and yam production studies were important for generating
yam data that would correspond to the circumstances of the eastem North American
archaeological record. Indigenous North American bast fiber plants were used to
represent the fibers available to eastem North American Native Americans prior to
European contact As fibers were manually extracted from the plants, data were also
gathered to augment the available information on fiber yield fi:om plants and the
productivity of fiber extraction from green plants. The yam production study was crucial
for later research on yam properties. It generated a set of yams with known production
histories that could be measured and tested to reveal yam properties as they relate to
production technology.
183 Unfortunately, the results of the spinning rate measurements reinforced Endrei’s suspicion of the productivity of spinners who are not somehow dependent on their spinning. Ultimately these results also call into question the fiber processing rates collected. The productivity of new or occasional woricers at any activity related to textile production cannot be assumed to approach the maximum productivity of a dedicated, lifelong worker performing the same task. Nevertheless, the collected spindle-spinning rates gave insight into the rates of yam production that might be expected at the onset of spindle-spinning.
The preceding experiments have contributed new evidence to the study of prehistoric textile technology. What has been shown here is that not only do yams contain enough information to reveal the way they were made, but that yam production technologies also have specific attributes expressed in time consumption and yam quality. This study is a beginning for the study of transitions in basic spinning technologies that have been invisible for lack of concrete evidence. It has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the relationships between spinning and fiber resources, textile production technology, and textile consumption. This foundation of experimental data will be used to study the spinning technology used to make textile artifacts found at the Etowah site near Cartersville, Georgia. The questions in southeastem North American archaeology, however, are only one possible application for the methodology developed here and it may ultimately be applied to inquiries into the
spinning technologies of other regions.
184 APPENDIX A
Instructions
1. The goal is to spin three long lengths of fine, 2-ply yam: one milkweed, one Indian hemp, and one flax yam.
2. Yams fix)m Etowah Mound C 843 are the yams that we wish to replicate in this study. Images of the yams are provided.
3. Spin all of the Milkweed and Indian hemp that has been provided.
4. Spin between 10 and 20 meters of the "Test" flax, about 2/3 of what has been provided. Extra "Practice" flax has been provided for play and practice - you are not expected to spin this if you do not wish to.
5. As you spin, place waste fiber in the appropriate bag labeled "Waste Fiber." You may not have any waste fiber if you find all of the fiber to be spinnable.
6. During the production of each of the three yams, time your spinning for a 10 minute period. Mark the points in the yam at which you begin and end timing with knots of red embroidery floss. I will use the length of yam between the knots to measure your production rate.
7. Try not to disturb the twist in the finished yam with any unnecessary winding and unwinding.
8. Please allow all fibers and yams to dry before placing them in the plastic bags.
9. Return the three yams as well as all unspun and waste fiber in the appropriately marked bags. The practice flax is yours to keep.
185 Figure A. 1 : Life size reproduction of textile fragments from Etowah Mound C #843.
186 APPENDIX B
Fiber
Spinner FX MW IH BW
11 0.127 0.0905 0.108 TlpX2 0.101 12 0.170
Tl 0.158 0.177 0.1945 F 0.0800 0.0565
Spindle singles Spindle ply
FX MW IH FX MW IH
SI 0.617 0.415 0.380 1.156 1.103 1.077 Slpx2 0.493 1.133 S2 0.778 0.505 0.528 0.882 0.767
S3 1.435 1.147 0.881 1.094 0.932
Table B. 1 ; Raw data for yam production rates (m/min).
187 APPENDIX c
T1FX TIpFX T1MW 11 IH T2FX T2MW T2IH T3BW 23.05 15.37 14 17.81 12.27 6.75 16.76 32.86 33.34 14.88 13.82 27.82 18.47 5.19 3.35 31.99 17.95 16.19 11.61 6.8 25.22 10.99 -0.51 22.2 17.7 3.33 0.85 18.54 4.36 13.2 26.92 30.82 28.29 17.82 15.01 11.31 10.5 2.33 6.49 24.18 20.96 19.04 11.45 6 3.11 3.43 -6.44 27.57 30.85 8.85 24.91 11.9 7.11 2.3 11.23 28.24 16.56 21.06 20.18 14.19 19.65 6.4 3.17 22.73 30.91 19.34 15.46 10.98 5.7 3.19 14.09 21.36 24.49 13.3 17.56 12.21 21.05 9.22 15.08 30.2 20.25 8.61 6.12 8.33 27.55 21.96 11.31 31.1 33.28 0 16.22 14.4 6.33 0.65 24.28 23.18 19.68 17.66 12.38 8.49 3.02 9.03 9 23.37 21.81 14.14 7.65 15.47 10.53 4.18 4.22 22.65 17.85 15.8 7.97 9.87 13.83 -1.94 17.2 37.1 20.36 28.69 13.98 11.11 20.66 3.73 -1.54 32.72 24.94 16.38 6.18 10.13 16.42 8.91 5.16 29.13 17.07 7.44 3.08 15.48 17.22 -0.09 3.96 29.05 23.85 16.72 13.7 34.59 6.16 26.35 13.71 29.22 18.47 18 16.39 17.2 16.56 0.2 0.07 20.43 24.29 16.14 13.74 15.12 10.9 14.26 12.46 21.17 16.99 20.33 11.21 15.64 1.39 32.18 10 18.95 24.63 19.87 20.54 15.17 -1.07 2.71 2.25 14.58 20.38 14.73 20.15 21.2 9.76 23.09 -0.95 22.32 37.29 21.07 14.56 28.11 18.79 7.18 8.46 22.32 23.22 25.71 6.56 18.72 9.1 0.46 5.13 17.66 29.64 21.81 11.95 21.74 24.54 3.89 -5.35 25.9 18.93 20.28 26.25 12.49 8.74 11 3.77 27.67 27.4 10.74 18.04 12.18 11.9 0.15 8.44 19.01 26.77 8.45 14.88 10.52 22.04 1.99 -1.72 18.47 27.08 18.18 13.2 18.51 10.06 9.98 1.74 14.24 23.36 17.37 14.13 15.71 17.37 15.44 -4.91 29.2 26.27 10.63 19.29 19.2 -0.06 36.43 0.63 22.72 Continued on following pages.
Table C.I.: Raw twist angle data.
188 Table C.l: Continued. TIFX TlpFX TIMW TIIH T2FX T2MW T2IH T3BW 24.19 0 11.68 8.93 17.64 2.25 11.3 21.34 19.02 22.19 12.75 8.02 22.95 3.34 10.63 27.46 18.67 20.85 13.14 4.15 14.89 1.4 29.62 17.34 13.81 15.17 31.95 20.8 9.07 24.09 19.72 13.06 7.74 10.12 6.92 13.61 25.77 20.59 21.18 0.88 4.09 17.15 7.39 19.23 11.82 4.74 11.81 13.58 11.79 3.98 20.06 17.27 13.58 11.09 14.72 1.07 19.63 14.17 19.39 15.34 33.38 1.03 30.55 17.8 10 15.19 12.45 -0.82 32.3 11.52 9.51 24.6 10.43 16.24 27.02 21.9 10.79 0.3 6.87 4.57 22.27 10.67 19.76 12.26 16.04 -0.39 21.39 24.78 7.92 20.59 11.14 1.87 22.41 9.36 16.76 16.42 22.72 -0.29 32.52 8.77 12.72 19.58 4.43 1.28 22.32 12.5 19.16 14.19 14.96 1.94 25.62 14.52 8.57 5.6 9.5 5.89 12.57 18.43 14.66 18.32 4.86 9.01 19.53 21.09 13.46 16.3 15.43 0.48 24.35 13.56 21.99 9.94 18.59 1.71 28.53 33.45 11.13 7.11 0.52 20.5 20.33 16.3 9.99 11.24 23.95 1.69 20.97 19.8 6.71 16.88 11.2 0.49 22.64 32.87 18.08 16.72 27.78 3.09 26.2 23.7 21.57 18.22 -2.41 12.63 27.73 14.24 16.77 12.39 18.54 6.62 Continued.
189 Table C.l: Continued. F4FX F4MW F4IH S1FX SIpFX S I MW 31 IH 29.02 11.87 20.33 1.71 16.16 15.4 25.93 34.64 31.19 23.93 4.41 9.24 5.76 15.11 26.33 22.05 39.8 8.19 6.53 8.58 9.74 32.62 27.56 30.79 1.01 2.94 11.31 10.83 31.56 28.58 37.53 1.25 25.83 15.81 22.48 33.65 33.32 31.7 0.16 17.55 6.43 2.22 21.1 21.74 33.42 3.71 12.32 12.81 13.13 23.42 31.71 27.45 5.75 11.38 8.67 0.48 33.92 22.19 29.36 13.94 20.49 7.53 6.51 40.33 25.2 26.49 8.37 20.32 7.57 21.88 27.87 31.08 49.79 8.19 31.5 4.26 2.61 21.26 38.27 20.01 3.15 31.33 10.01 1.7 32.81 19.86 26.45 7.63 6.84 2.79 3.88 38.12 35.02 46.7 17.53 0.21 14.37 14.04 35.94 25.75 37.84 3.3 8.7 10.12 10.74 36.87 34.96 54.59 12.32 12.97 8.06 2.53 28.46 21.91 23.32 15.46 18.35 8.31 16.4 25.17 14.29 34.54 11.7 6.57 7.77 13.85 26.6 28.49 28.11 14.08 26.21 5.32 11.72 31.96 18.16 27.59 9.02 15.3 2.15 7.46 44.07 16.79 24.81 0.25 14.04 1 1 3 4 23.89 29.21 20.94 31.1 7.27 10.33 12.69 15.44 28.21 20.6 32.1 5.81 22.57 2.06 9.63 21.87 22.9 33.18 5.16 14.37 13.65 4.33 33.77 29.04 32.44 0.13 7.65 12.16 24.96 44.33 25.54 33.28 4.43 8.12 6.83 11.03 47.86 23.99 32.02 5.38 29.15 11.53 25.7 18.77 27.55 35.85 5.6 16.71 9.7 16.25 41.1 28.5 31.68 6.53 16 10.8 8.34 25.69 32.81 34.91 9.68 21.68 12.19 12.08 30.55 31.05 29.15 10.41 9.21 0 3 5 0.28 30.67 38.5 30.38 5.56 41.17 3.03 11.19 25.89 24.39 35.28 6.44 19.06 0.15 17.12 33.32 23.09 43.94 2.97 28.09 9 3 9 27.45 22.06 32.96 47.46 9.9 11.36 17.61 15.48 26.4 34.14 22.51 12.93 15.6 22.23 8.54 31.37 34.52 8.18 18.78 11.31 10.94 37.14 33.83 8.31 11.31 6.79 15.56 32.04 39.38 6.83 24.64 7.14 8.43 38.52 24.42 6.04 27.44 3.89 4.14 31.5 36.78 5.79 10.82 0.2 8.23 30.06 31.98 12.22 3.98 0.31 8.73 Continued.
190 Table C. 1: Continued. F4FX F4MW S1FX SIpFX S I MW 81 IH 24.68 33.24 2.93 31.82 18.7 2.62 35.67 25.97 12.31 33.18 25.11 13.53 29.43 20.27 1.95 39.69 13.37 12.98 47.11 24.87 5.08 7.99 12.21 19.37 21.83 45.35 7.86 5.38 18.14 17.27 40.02 23.47 0.33 30.35 9.84 8.47 12.35 11.82 8.91 3 6 2 10.06 4.65 25.04 24.85 8.99 25.24 24.72 6.18 28.82 19.98 13.09 18.18 11.52 0.04 31.47 25.45 9.54 18.26 4.15 5.03 52.34 30.09 3 21.31 12.78 14.71 33.31 34.47 9.59 7.31 0.04 9.98 22.11 25.89 10.38 26.36 11.08 35.43 25.47 31.43 3.47 22.4 8.98 18.96 9.2 35.49 12.06 17.93 4.45 18.45 38.04 21.2 11.87 14.01 13.79 9.53 26.6 38.27 6.45 2.93 22.77 13.61 28.4 32.9 10.2 0 13.97 10.47 Continued.
191 Table C.1: Continued. S5FX S5MW S5IH S6FX S6MW S6IH 11.31 -0.21 -2.26 8.37 6.64 7.84 8.77 2.61 21.41 -0.59 4.35 -12.78 6.91 -2.22 1.16 4.21 14.05 13.36 11.65 17.42 1.11 -5.18 20.93 7.41 5.47 13.34 15.42 1.96 3.85 0.89 6.79 -0.06 4.91 1.41 8.73 -3.37 -1.09 6.62 -1.56 1.4 5.74 0.04 4.82 4.6 8.32 0.47 8.35 9.06 8.05 3.6 8.67 1.28 -0.81 4.71 -3.35 1.24 12.13 10.52 2.3 4.9 -2.15 6.85 0.33 -1.7 7.02 17.02 4.15 18.86 7.84 8.45 3.26 8.69 5.94 2.33 10.48 1.74 5.81 19.91 4.91 20.85 10.15 1.45 1.24 5.89 15.24 3.18 2.33 9.32 -6.18 7.35 3.88 12.23 15.59 11.2 0.35 7.14 4.14 2.39 9.35 -3.53 2.02 4.71 1.03 0.06 0.23 2.09 8.18 -4.74 12.89 14.9 26.16 11.97 8.49 9.88 9.86 14 15.97 -1.79 2.47 2.49 1.84 1.92 8.04 5.76 3.09 0.18 4.08 13.71 6.41 6.42 1.48 14.58 4.17 4.15 6.35 -2.35 -7.32 -0.45 2.79 -2.86 6.9 0.08 •0.88 17.27 1.72 -3.59 9.98 4.69 -0.3 10.27 5.16 8.47 6.47 2.79 2.05 -7 2 16.96 9.58 4.61 4.44 10.47 4.58 16.53 2.41 13.74 -0.11 5.5 0.48 3.42 3.47 1.46 7.66 11.62 -3.24 1.57 1.99 1.57 1.59 2.33 -2.64 15.73 8.91 15.9 1.81 9.77 4.99 2.77 -0.88 8.39 20.9 1.49 15.78 -3.87 -2.36 7.28 5.31 -3.05 8.07 3.57 0.28 4.57 4.92 0.55 6.72 17.4 5.18 14.81 1.92 0.34 -4.02 -1.02 0.26 -0.77 -8.08 2.31 -0.47 1.5 -0.84 2.19 1.98 -3.22 12.65 9.73 6.27 16.86 -2.67 18.82 -1.26 9.75 16.86 11.79 0.01 -3.04 0 3.91 31.56 25.55 1.72 0.72 1.39 3.47 10.86 -1.79 10.61 1.9 0.66 1.57 ■0.01
192 Table c.1: Continued. S5FX S5MW S6FX S6MW 8.51 10.01 -0.45 7 9.64 -1.19 0.98 0.29 3.03 2.31 7.24 -1.51 6.66 6.87 0.38 0.49 -1.05 0.66 9.26 1.4 9.74 21.89 3.15 8.08 2.79 14.9 4.79 1.66 2.07 2.68 -2.62 -1.68 1.27 10.48 6.53 7.93 8.95 10.73 2.53 1.31 6.72 1.59 11.1 4.95 1.91 6.56 -0.31 1.81 13.18 23.24 12.79 -0.58 11.81 4.21 8.12 1.05 1.22 9.23 0.71 15.35 9.94 15.28 0.07 4.92 -4.4 19.57 2.94 -5.5 3.3 15.58 12.28 -0.8
193 LIST OF REFERENCES
Adair, James. [1775] 1968. The history o f the American Indians. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation.
Alt, Susan. 1999. Spindle whorls and fiber production at early Caholdan Settlements. Southeastem Archaeology 18:124-34.
Andrews, Rhonda L. and James M. Adovasio. 1996. The Origins of fiber perishables production east of the Rockies. Chap. in A most indispensable art: Native fiber industries from eastem North America. Ed. Petersen, James B. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 30-49.
Barber, Elizabeth W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
1994. Women's fVork: The first 20,000 years. New York: W. W. Norton.
Berg, Robert. 2000. Conversation with author, 5 June.
Bird, Junius B. 1968. Handspun yam production rates in the Cuzco region of Peru. Textile Museum Joumal 2:9-16.
1979. Fibers and spinning procedures in the Andean area. In Junius B. Bird fre- Co/um6/an/€xri/e conference. Washington, D. C.: Textile Museum. 13-7.
Blakely, Robert L. 1995. Social organization at Etowah: a reconsideration of paleodemographic and paleonutritional evidence. Southeastem Archaeology 14: 46-59.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1996. The quality of tribute cloth: The place of evidence in archaeological argument. American Antiquity 61:453-62.
Byers, Douglas S. 1962. Two textile firagments and some copper objects firom Etowah, Georgia. In XXXV Congreso Intemacional de Americanistas: Mexico, Actas y Memorias, Mexico: 591-8.
Cain, Joy. 2001. E-mail to author, 6 March .
194 Chen, Runying. 1998. A study o f cotton fibers recoveredfrom a marine environment. Ph. D. Thesis, Ohio State University.
Church, Flora. 1987. Current research on Ohio's prehistoric textiles. Chap. in Ethnicity and Culture. Calgary: Archaeological Association, University of Calgary. 155- 61.
Cork, C. R., W. D. Cooke, and J. P. Wild. 1996. The use of image analysis to determine yam twist level in archaeological textiles. Archaeometry 38:337-45.
Cosner, Aaron J. 1960. A Saludo spinning stick. Kiva 26:16-S.
Densmore, Frances. [1927] 1974. How Indians use wild plants forfood, medicine, and crafts. NewYoric: Dover Publications, Inc.
Drooker, Penelope B. 1991. Mississippian lace: a complex textile impressed on pottery from the Stone site, Tennessee. Southeastem Archaeology 10:79-97.
Drooker, Penelope B. 1992. Mississippian village textiles at Wyckliffe. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
Endrei, Walter. 1968. L'évolution des techniques du filage et du tissage du moyen âge à la révolution industrielle. Paris: Mouton.
Erichsen-Brown, Charlotte. 1979. Medicinal and other uses o fNorth American plants. NewYoric: Dover.
Ericksen, Annette G., Kathryn A. Jakes, and Virginia S. Wimberley. 2000. Prehistoric textiles: Production, function, semiotics. Chap.'m Beyond cloth and cordage. Ed. Drooker, Penelope B. and Webster, Laurie D. Salt Lake: University of Utah Press. 69-83.
Florian, Maiy-Lou E. 1990b. Identification of plant and animal materials in artifacts. Chap. in The conservation o fartifacts made from plant materials. Ed. Florian, Mary-Lou E., Kronkright, Dale P., and Norton, Ruth E. Marina del Rey, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. 29-82.
1990a. Plant anatomy: An illustrated aid to identification. Chap. in The conservation o f artifacts made from plant materials. Ed. Florian, Maiy-Lou E., Kronkright, Dale P., and Norton, Ruth E. Marina del Rey, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. 1-27.
Franquemont, Edward M. 1986. Cloth production rates in Chinchero, Peru. In The Junius B. Bird Conference on Andean Textiles. Washington, D. C.: The Textile Museum. 309-30.
195 Gordon, Angela and Richard c . Keating. 2001. Light microscopy and determination of Eryngium yuccifolium Michaux leaf material in twined slippers from Salts Cave, Kentucky. Journal o fArchaeological Science 28; 55-60.
Goswami, B. C., J. 0. Martindale, and F. L. Scardino. 1977. Textile yams: Technology, structure, and applications. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Gremillion, Kristen J., Kathryn A. Jakes, and Virginia S. Wimberley. 2000. The research potential of textile artifacts: an example from Carter County, Kentucky. In Current archaeological research in Kentucky, Vol. 6. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Heritage Council. 47-58.
Hamilton, Nathan D., James B. Petersen, and Alan L. McPherron. 1996. Fiber industries in the Upper Great Lakes: A Late Woodland case study from the Juntunen Site. Chap. in A most indispensable art: Native fiber industries from eastem North Xmenco. Ed. Petersen, James B. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 120- 43.
Harvey, Amy H. 1975. Archaeological fabrics from the lower Missouri Valley. In Archaeological textiles. Proceedings of the Irene Emery roundtable on museum textiles. Washington D.C.: The Textile Museum. 133-40.
Hearle, J. W. S., P. Grossberg, and S. Backer. 1969. Structural mechanics o f fibers, yams, andfabrics. Vol. 1 New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, Frances B. King, and Louise A. Basa. 1996. Fiber industries from the Boucher Site: An early Woodland cemetery in northwestern Vermont. Chap. in A most indispensable art: Native fiber industries from eastem North America. Ed. Petersen, James B. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 50-72.
Hochberg, Bette. 1977. Handspindles. Santa Cruz, CA: Bette and Bernard Hochberg.
Irwin, Bobbie. 1997. Spinning and plying, Anasazi-style. SpinnOffiftXX)
Jakes, Kathryn A. 1991. Physical and chemical analysis of Paracas fibers. Chap. in Paracas art and architecture: Object and context in south coastal Peru. Ed. Paul, Anne. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. 222-39.
Jakes, Kathryn A. and Annette G. Ericksen. 1997. Socioeconomic implications of prehistoric textile production in the eastem woodlands. Chap. in Materials issues in art and archaeology V. Materials Research Society Proceedings, Vol. 462 Ed. Vandiver, P., Dnizik, J., Merkel, J. F., and Stewart, J. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society. 281-6.
196 Jakes, Kathryn A., J. E. BCaton, and p. A. Martoglio. 1990. Identification of dyes and characterization of fibers by infi-ared and visible microspectroscopy; Application to Paracas textiles. Archaeometry 305-13.
Jakes, Kathryn A., Lucy R. Sibley, and Richard Yerkes. 1994. Comparative collection for the study of fibres used in prehistoric textiles fi’om eastem North America. Joumal o fArchaeological Science 21:641-50.
Johnson, William C. 1996. A new twist to an old tale: Analysis of cordage impressions on Late Woodland ceramics from the Potomac River Valley. C h^. in A most indispensable art: Native fiber industries from eastem North America. Ed. Petersen, James B. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 144-59.
Jones, Volney H. 1937. Notes on the preparation and the uses of basswood fiber by the Indians of the Great Lakes region. Papers o f the Michigan Academy o f Sciences, Arts, and Letters 221-14. :
1946. Notes on the manufacture of cedar-bark mats by the chippev/a Indians. Papers o f the Michigan Academy o f Sciences, Arts, and Letters 32: 341-63.
Kalm, Peter. [1753] 1937. Peter Kalm's Travels in North America. Vol. 1. Ed. Benson, AdolphB. NewYoric: Wilson-EricksonInc.
Korber-Grohne, U. 1991. The determination of fibre plants in textiles, cordage, and wickerwork. Chap. in New light on early farming: Recent developments in paleoethnobotany. Ed. Renfrew, Jane M. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 93-104.
Kuttruff, Jenna T. 1988. Textile attributes and production complexity as indicators o f Caddoan status differentiation in the Arkansas Valley and southem Ozark regions. Ph.D. Thesis, The Ohio State University.
1991. Interpretation of textile production and use by high and low status Caddoan groups. Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology 2:777-83.
1993. Mississippian period status differentiation through textile analysis: a Caddoan example. American Antiquity 58:125-45.
Kuttruff, Jenna T. and Carl Kuttruff. 1992. Textile production and use as revealed in fabric impressed pottery from Mound Bottom (40CH8), Tennessee. Mississippi Archaeology 27:1-27.
1996. Mississippian textile evidence on fabric-impressed ceramics fiom Mound Bottom, Tennessee. Chap. in A most indispensable art: Native fiber industries
197 from eastem North America. Ed. Petersen, James B. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 160-73.
Larson, Lewis H. 1971. Archaeological implications o f social stratification at the Etowah site, Georgia. Society for American Archaeology. Memoirs, no. 25. Salt Lake City:
1972. Functional considerations of warfare in the Southeast during the Mississippi period. American Antiquity 37:383-92.
Larson, Lewis H. J. 1957. An unusual wooden rattle from the Etowah site. Missouri archaeologist 19:6-11.
1989. The Etowah Site. C h^. inThe Southeastem Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and analysis. Ed. Galloway, Patricia. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 133-41.
Leeds, John F. 2000. E-mail to author, 27 September.
Lopez A., Sylvia. 1985. Tecnologia tradicional de artesam'a textil: el caso de Morrope. Paper presented at symposium, Algodon del Pais y Artesania Textil, 8-11 January 1985, at Museo del Banco Central de Reserva, Lima. Cited in James M. Vreeland, Jr., Cotton spinning and processing on the Peruvian North Coast. In The Junius B. Bird Conference on Andean textiles, edited by Anne P. Rowe. Washington: The Textile Museum, 1986.
Maslowstd, Robert F. 1996. Cordage twist and ethnicity. Qiap. in A most indispensable art: Native fiber industries from eastem North America. Ed. Petersen, James B. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 88-99.
McCorriston, Joy. 1997. Fiber revolution: textile extensification, alienation, and social stratification in ancient Mesopotamia. Current Anthropology 38:517-49.
McPherson, John and Geri McPherson. 1987. Primitive fire and cordage. Randolph, KS: Prairie Wolf.
Michel, Rudolph H., Joseph Lazar, and Patrick E. McGovern. 1992. Indigoid dyes in Peruvian and Coptic textiles of the Unversity Museiun of Archaeology and Anthropology. Archaeomaterials 6:69-83.
Moorehead, Warren K. 1925. Rare find by Moorehead in Etowah mound. Museum News 3:1
1927. Exploration ofthe Etowah mounds. Science 65: \i5
198 Morton, W. E. 1937. An introduction ta the study o fspinning. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Muller, Jon. 1989. The Southern Cult. Chap. in The Southeastem Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and analysis. Ed. Galloway, Patricia. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 11-26.
Oxtoby, Eric. 1987. Spun yam technology. London: Butterworths.
Peters, J. H. 1877. Dyeing, spinning and weaving by the Camanches, Navajoes, and other Indians of New Mexico. Chap. in Indian miscellany. Ed. Beach, W. W. Albany: J. Munsell. 352-60.
Petersen, James B. 1996. Fiber industries from northern New England: Ethnicity and technological traditions during the woodland period. Chap. in A most indispensable art: Native fiber industries from eastem North America. Ed. Petersen, James B. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 100-19.
Petersen, James B., Michael J. Heckenberger, and Jack A. Wolford. 1998. Spin, twist, and twine: An ethnoarchaeological examination of group identity in native fiber industries fiom Greater Amazonia. Paper presented at Visiting Scholar’s Conference, Fleeting Identities: Perishable Material Culture in Archaeological Research, April, at Southem Illinois University, Carbondale, IL
Pratt, Danette. 2000. E-mail to author, 12 December.
Quinn, Celia. 1985. Hooked stick. Spin-Off 9 (2)34-35.
Rachlin, Carol K. 1958. Historical reconstruction firom a fossil fabric. Indiana History Bulletin 35:69-79.
1960. The historic position of the proto-Cree textiles in the eastem fabric complex, an ethnological-archaeological correlation. National Museum o f Canada Bulletin 167: 80-9.
Roth, Henry L. [1913] 1977. Studies in primitive looms. Halifax: F. King.
Saltzman, Max. 1978. The identification ofdyes in archaeological and ethnographic textiles. In Archaeological Chemistry H, Advances in Chemistry Series 171. Washington D C.: American Chemical Society. 172-85.
Samuel, Cheryl. 1982. The Chilkat dancing blanket. Seattle: Pacific Search Press.
199 Scholtz, Sandra C. 1975. Prehistoric plies: A structural and comparative analysis of cordage, netting, basketry, and fabric from Ozark bluffshelters. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Publications on Archaeology Research Series. Vol. 9. Fayetville, AK: Arkansas Archaeological Survey.
Schreffler, Virginia L. 1988. Burial status differentiation as evidenced by fabrics from Etowah Mound C, Georgia. Ph J). Thesis, The Ohio State University.
Schwarz, A. 1947. The increased effect ofthe spindle. Ciba Review 59:2X65
Schweppe, Helmut. 1986. Identification ofdyes in historic textile materials. In Historic textiles and paper materials: Conservation and characterization. Advances in Chemistry Series 212. Washington D. C.: American Chemical Society. 153-74.
Sibley, Lucy R. and Kathryn A. Jakes. 1986. Characterization of selected prehistoric fabrics of southeastem North America. In Historic textiles and paper materials: Conservation and characterization. Advances in Chemistry Series 212. Washington D. C.: American Chemical Society. 253-75.
1989. Etowah textile remains and cultural context: A model for inference. Clothing and Textile Research Joumal 7:37-45.
1994. Coloration in Etowah textiles from burial No. 57. Chap. in Archaeometry o f Pre-Columbian sites and artifacts. Ed. Scott, David A. and Meyers, Pieter. UCLA Institute of Archaeology and The Getty Conservation Institute. 395-417.
Sibley, Lucy R., Kathryn A. Jakes, Jenna T. Kuttruff, Virginia S. Wimberly, D. Malec, and Bajamonde A. 1989. Photomicrography and statistical sampling of pseudomorphs afier textiles. \n Archaeological Chemistry, Advances in Chemistry Series 220. American Chemical Society. 465-80.
Sibley, Lucy R., Kathryn A. Jakes, and Lewis Larson. 1996. Inferring behavior and function from an Etowah fabric. Chap. in A most indispensable art: Native fiber industries from eastem North America. Ed. Petersen, James B. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 73-87.
Sibley, Lucy R., Kathryn A. Jakes, and Cheunsoon Song. 1989. Fiber and yam processing by prehistoric people of North America: Examples from Etowah. Ars Textrina 11:191-209.
Sibley, Lucy R., Kathryn A. Jakes, and Mary E. Swinker. 1992. Etowah feather remains from burial 57: Identification and context. Clothing and Textile Research Joum al 10:21-8.
200 Sibley, Lucy R., Mary E. Swinker, and Kathryn A. Jakes. 1991. The use of pattern reproduction in reconstructing Etowah textile remains. Ars Textrina 15:179-202.
Sigüenza y Gôngora, Carlos d. [1693] 1939. Instructions to and joumal of Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Gôngora. Chap. in Spanish approach to Pensacola, 1689-1693. Ed. Leonard, Irving A. Albuquerque: The Quivira Society. 152-92.
Smith, Huron H. 1923. Ethnobotany of the Menomeni Indians. Bulletin o f the Public Museum o f the City o fMilwaukee 4:1-82.
1928. Ethnobotany of the Meskwaki Indians. Bulletin o f the Public Museum o f the City o fMilwaukee 4: 189-274.
1932. Ethnobotany of the Ojibwe Indians. Bulletin o f the Public Museum of the City o fMilwaukee 4:348-433.
1933. Ethnobotany of the Forest Potawatomi Indians. Bulletin o f the Public Museum o f the City o f Milwaukee 7:32-127.
Speck, Frank G. 1940. Penobscot man: The life history o f a forest tribe in Maine. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Srinivasan, R. and K. A. Jakes. 1997. Optical and scanning electron microscopic study of the effects of charring on Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum L.) fibres. Joumal o f Archaeological Science 24: 517-27.
Srinivasan, Rekha. 2001. A study o f the microstructure ofsilk artifacts recoveredfrom a historic deep-ocean site. Ph. D. Thesis, Ohio State University.
Stewart, Hilary. 1984. Cedar: Tree o f life to the Northwest Coast Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Strachey, William. [1612] 1953. The historié o f travell into Virginia Britania. Ed. eds. Wright Louis B. and Virginia Freund. London: The Hakluyt Society.
Swanton, John R. 1969. The Indians o f the Southeastem United States. Grosse Pointe, MI: Scholarly Press.
Szolnoky. 1950. A kender feldolgozàsa Nagylôcon. Ethnogràphia. Cited in Walter Endrei, L'évolution des techniques du filage et du tissage du moyen âge à la révolution industrielle. Paris: Mouton, 1968.
Thomas, Cyrus. 1894. Report on the mound explorations o f the Bureau o f Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau os American Ethnology.
201 Vallinheimo, Veera. 1956. Das Spimen in Finnland. Vol. 11 Kansatieteellinen Aridsto Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys.
Vreeland, James M. Jr. 1986. Cotton spinning and processing on the Peruvian North Coast In The Junius B. Bird Conference on Andean Textiles. Washington, D. C.: The Textile Museum. 363-83.
White, Ellanor P. 1987. Excavating in the Field Museum: Survey and analysis of textiles from the 1891 Hopewell Mound Group excavation. M.A. Thesis, Sangamon State University.
White, John K. 1999. Conversation with author, 17 September.
Whitford, A. C. 1941. Textile fibers used in eastem aboriginal North America. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. 38, part 1. New York; American Museum of Natural History.
Wouters, Jan and Noemi Rosario-Chirinos. 1992. Dye analysis of pre-Columbian Peruvian textiles with high-performance liquid chromatography and diode-array detection. Joumal o f the American Institute for Conservation 31:237-55.
202