Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:33:32.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socioeconomic Implications of Prehistoric Textile Production in the Eastern Woodlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

K.A. Jakes  and
A.G. Ericksen
K.A. Jakes
Affiliation:
Ohio State University, 1787 Neil Ave. Columbus, OH 43210, [email protected]
A.G. Ericksen
Affiliation:
ASC Group, Inc., 4620 Indianola Ave., Columbus, OH 43214, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Quantitative measures of time and effort as well as assessment of the knowledge base required in each level of textile manufacture (i.e., plant collecting, fiber processing, yarn and fabric formation) result in cost estimates that indicate differences between simply structured materials and complexly structured elaborate materials. These measures were applied to two textiles from a Wilbanks phase (A.D. 950 to 1440) [1] burial of a high status individual from Mound C at Etowah, Georgia [2]. Socioeconomic implications inferred from the resulting analyses include the proposal of craft specialization in the production of complex textiles and of the significance of these complex textiles to Mississippian chiefdoms.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 462: Symposium DD – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology V , 1996 , 281
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Sears, W.H., J. American Antiquity 23, pp. 274–84 (1958).Google Scholar
2. Sibley, L. R. and Jakes, K. A., in Historic Textiles and Paper Materials: Conservation and Characterization, edited by Needles, H.L. and Zeronian, S.H., Advances in Chemistry Series, No. 212, American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., 1986, pp. 253–275.Google Scholar
3. Norris, R., Archaeology of Eastern North America, 13, pp. 128–137 (1985).Google Scholar
4. Church, Flora, Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 9(1), pp. 1–25 (1984).Google Scholar
5. King, M.E. and Gardner, J.S., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 376, pp. 123–139, (1981).Google Scholar
6. Brown, J.A., in Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by Brown, J.A., Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, 25 (1971), pp. 6–29.Google Scholar
7. Kuttruff, J. T.. Textile Attributes and Production Complexity as Indicators of Caddoan Status Differentiation in the Arkansas Valley and Southern Ozark Regions. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, U.M.I Dissertation Service, Ann Arbor, 1988.Google Scholar
8. Andrews, R.L. and Adovasio, J.M., in A Most Indispensable Art: Native Fiber Industries from Eastern North America. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 1996, pp. 30–49.Google Scholar
9. Adovasio, J.M., Tebiwa, 13(2), pp. 1–40, (1970).Google Scholar
10. Schneider, J. and Weiner, A., Current Anthropology, 27, pp. 178–184, (1986).Google Scholar
11. Yerkes, R. W., Southeastern Archaeology, 8(2), pp. 93–106, (1989).Google Scholar
12. Schreffler, V.L.. Burial Status Differentitation as Evidenced by Fabrics from Etowah Mound C. Georgia. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, U.M.W. Dissertation Service, Ann Arbor, 1988.Google Scholar
13. Pratz, Le Page Du, The History of Louisiana: Translated from the French of Le Page Du Pratz, M., Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, reprinted from Histoire de la Louisiane. DeBure, Paris, 1758.Google Scholar
14. Whitford, J.C., Textile Fibers Used in Eastern Aboriginal North America. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 38, American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1941.Google Scholar
15. Swanton, J.R., The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bulletin 137, Smithsonian Institution Bureau of Ethnology, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1946, Republished Scholarly Press, Grosse Pointe, ML, 1969.Google Scholar
16. Densmore, F., How Indians Use Wild Plants for Food. Medicine and Crafts. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1974. Reprinted from the 44th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1928.Google Scholar
17. Jakes, K. A., Sibley, L.R. and Yerkes, R. W., Archaeological Sciences, 21, pp. 641–650 (1994).Google Scholar
18. Jakes, K.A., Chen, H., and Sibley, L.R., Ars Textrina, 20, pp. 157–179 (1993).Google Scholar
19. Jakes, K.A., in Archaeological Chemistry: Organic. Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis. edited by Ornan, M.V., ACS Symposium Services 625, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1996.Google Scholar
20. Jochim, M.A., Hunter - Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. Academic Press, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
21. Jones, S.B. and Luchsinger, A.E., Plant Systematics. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
22. Weishaupt, C.G., Vascular Plants of Ohio: A Manual for Use in Field and Laboratory. Department of Botany, The Ohio State University, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, 1979.Google Scholar
23. Britton, N. and Brown, A., An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada. Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1979.Google Scholar
24. Sibley, L.R., Jakes, K. A. and Song, C., Ars Textrina, 11, pp. 191–209, (1989).Google Scholar
25. Sibley, L.R., Swinker, M.E., and Jakes, K.A., Ars Textrina 15, pp. 179–202, (1990).Google Scholar
26. Drooker, P. B., Mississippian Village Textiles at Wickliffe. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London, 1992.Google Scholar