PERISHABLE MATERIAL CULTURE IN THE NORTHEAST

PERISHABLE MATERIAL CULTUREIN THE NORTHEAST

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Regents of The University

ROBERT M. BENNETT, Chancellor, B.A., M.S. ........................................... TonawandaADELAIDE L. SANFORD, Vice Chancellor, B.A., M.A., P.D. ...................... HollisDIANE O’NEILL MCGIVERN, B.S.N., M.A., Ph.D. . .................................. Staten IslandSAUL B. COHEN, B.A., M.A., Ph.D............................................................ New RochelleJAMES C. DAWSON, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. ............................................ PeruANTHONY S. BOTTAR, B.A., J.D. ............................................................... North SyracuseMERRYL H. TISCH, B.A., M.A. .................................................................. New YorkGERALDINE D. CHAPEY, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. .............................................. Belle HarborARNOLD B. GARDNER, B.A., LL.B. ............................................................ BuffaloHARRY PHILLIPS, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. ........................................................ HartsdaleJOSEPH E. BOWMAN, JR., B.A., M.L.S., M.A., M.Ed., Ed.D .................... AlbanyLORRAINE A. CORTÉS-VÁZQUEZ, B.A., M.P.A. ......................................... BronxJAMES R. TALLON, JR., B.A., M.A. ............................................................ BinghamtonMILTON L. COFIELD, B.S., M.B.A., Ph.D. ................................................ RochesterJOHN BRADEMAS, B.A., Ph.D. ................................................................... New York

President of The University and Commissioner of EducationRICHARD P. MILLS

Chief of StaffCounsel and Deputy Commissioner for Legal AffairsKATHY A. AHEARN

Chief Operating OfficerDeputy Commissioner for the Office of Management ServicesTHERESA E. SAVO

Deputy Commissioner for Cultural EducationCAROLE F. HUXLEY

Director of the New York State MuseumCLIFFORD A. SIEGFRIED

Director, Research and Collections DivisionJOHN P. HART

The State Education Department does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, dis-ability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, orsexual orientation in its educational programs, services and activities. Portions of this publication can bemade available in a variety of formats, including braille, large print or audio tape, upon request. Inquiriesconcerning this policy of nondiscrimination should be directed to the Department’s Office for Diversity,Ethics, and Access, Room 530, Education Building, Albany, NY 12234. Requests for additional copies of thispublication may be made by contacting Publications Sales, Room 3140, Cultural Education Center,Albany, NY 12230.

PERISHABLE MATERIAL CULTUREIN THE NORTHEAST

Edited byPENELOPE BALLARD DROOKER

NEW YORK STATE MUSEUMBulletin 500

2004

The University of the State of New YorkThe State Education Department

Albany, New York 12230

iii

© The New York State Education Department, Albany, New York 12230

Published 2004

Printed in the United States of America

Copies may be ordered from:Publication Sales3140 CECNew York State MuseumAlbany, New York 12230Phone: (518) 402-5344FAX: (518) 474-2033Web address: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov./publications.html

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2002117595

ISBN: 1-55557-215-4ISSN: 0278-3355

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... viList of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix

1 Introduction: Perishable Evidence in the Northeast........................................................... 1Penelope B. Drooke

2 Prehistoric Perishable Fiber Technology in the Upper Ohio Valley................................. 19J. M. Adovasio and J. S. Illingworth

3 Perishable Technology from the Hiscock Site...................................................................... 31J. M. Adovasio, R. S. Laub, J. S. Illingworth, J. H. McAndrews, andD. C. Hyland

4 Organic Preservation on Prehistoric Copper Artifacts of the Ohio Hopewell ............... 45DeeAnne Wymer

5 Preserved Textiles on Hopewell Copper .............................................................................. 69Virginia S. Wimberley

6 Population Continuity and Dispersal: Cordage Twist Analysis and the LateWoodland in the Glaciated Allegheny Plateau of Northwestern Pennsylvania ............ 87William C. Johnson and Andrew J. Myers

7 Cordage, Fabrics, and Their Use in the Manufacture of Early Late PrehistoricCeramic Vessels in New York................................................................................................. 129Christina B. Rieth

8 In the Land of “Mawooshen”: Native American Perishables from TwoContact Period Sites on the Central Maine Coast ............................................................... 143James B. Petersen and Malinda S. Blustain

9 Textiles and Leather in Southeastern New England Archaeological Sites...................... 169Margaret T. Ordoñez and Linda Welters

10 Blue Roots and Fuzzy Dirt: Archaeological Textiles from NativeAmerican Burials...................................................................................................................... 185Linda Welters and Margaret T. Ordoñez

11 Susannah Swan’s “Wampum Bag”........................................................................................ 197Penelope B. Drooker and George R. HamellDefinitions ................................................................................................................................. 217Contributors .............................................................................................................................. 225Index........................................................................................................................................... 227

Table of Contents v

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 New York State Museum Paleoindian diorama .................................................................. 21.2 New York State Museum Late Archaic village diorama.................................................... 31.3 Map of site locations................................................................................................................ 41.4 Twined fabrics preserved by metal ....................................................................................... 71.5 Fabric-impressed pottery sherd and cast made from it ..................................................... 102.1 Locations of Upper Ohio Valley sites.................................................................................... 202.2 Late Archaic plaited basket from Meadowcroft Rockshelter ............................................ 232.3 Schematic of Hiscock site twined specimen ........................................................................ 242.4 Reconstruction of the Squaw Rockshelter cordage............................................................. 252.5 Cast of weft twining from Northern Thorn Mound, West Virginia ................................. 273.1 Locations of perishable bearing sites discussed in this chapter ....................................... 323.2 Hiscock twining specimen...................................................................................................... 353.3 Close-up of Hiscock twining specimen structure ............................................................... 353.4 Structural schematic of the Hiscock twining specimen ..................................................... 363.5 Close-up of Hiscock twining specimen selvage.................................................................. 363.6. Stratigraphic profile of east face of Unit E9SW[S1/2]........................................................ 374.1 Map of site locations................................................................................................................ 484.2 Example of analysis transparency and grid system ........................................................... 494.3 Breastplate B070, Hopewell site, with textile on surface .................................................. 524.4 Celt C011, Seip site, with possible colored-feather fabric ................................................. 534.5 Headplate H014, Hopewell site, with traces of hide .......................................................... 544.6 Close-up of textiles on breastplate B039, Seip site .............................................................. 544.7 Close-up of breastplate B034, Seip site, with fabrics and pigments................................. 554.8 Close-up of patterned feathers on breastplate B030, Seip site .......................................... 554.9 Celt C022, Hopewell site, with hide wrapping ................................................................... 564.10 Breastplate B067, Hopewell site, with fur and animal hair textile ................................... 564.11 Breastplate B034, Seip site, with pearl beads, calcined bone, and charcoal.................... 574.12 Breastplate B079, Seip site, with textile, feathers, and hide............................................... 57

vi Perishable Material Culture in the Northeast

4.13 Close-up of breastplate B079, side 1...................................................................................... 584.14 Breastplate B079, side 2, with fur, hide, and bark............................................................... 584.15 Selected materials by artifact type......................................................................................... 634.16 Materials associated with breastplates from three sites..................................................... 655.1 Map of Lower Ohio showing locations of Hopewell sites ................................................ 705.2 Copper celt C011, with appearance of textile ...................................................................... 755.3 Breastplate B071, with oblique interlaced and twined fabrics .......................................... 775.4 Thick and thin yarns in fabric on breastplate B035 ............................................................ 825.5 Yarns with thick and thin elements plied together, breastplates B035 and B036........... 836.1 Sites, phases, and cultures mentioned in text and tables................................................... 886.2 Late Woodland culture chronology for study area ............................................................. 896.3 Distribution of S-twist cordage on late Middle and early Late Woodland ceramics .... 946.4 Distribution of S-twist cordage on late Late Woodland ceramics .................................... 956.5 Distribution of S-twist cordage on late prehistoric and protohistoric ceramics............. 966.6 Proposed dispersal of McFate phase population ................................................................ 1037.1 Map locations of sites in the project area ............................................................................. 1327.2 Cast and sherd from Owasco Herringbone vessel from Apalachian Creek site ............ 1347.3 Trace element profiles of casted and uncasted sherds from same vessel........................ 1367.4 Cord marked rim sherd from Fortin II site .......................................................................... 1377.5 Owasco Corded Horizontal vessel sherds from Street site ............................................... 1387.6 Drawing of Levanna Cord-on-Cord vessel sherds from Apalachian Creek site............ 1388.1 Map locations of Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond sites .................................................... 1448.2 Kettle fragment from Burial 207, Sandy Point site ............................................................. 1518.3 Fabric No. 1, Burial 198, Sandy Point site ............................................................................ 1528.4 Detail of Fabric No. 1, Burial 198, Sandy Point site ............................................................ 1538.5 Detail of Fabric No. 2, Burial 205, Sandy Point site ............................................................ 1548.6 Detail of Fabric No. 3, Burial 206, Sandy Point site ............................................................ 1548.7 Type I cordage, Burial 206, Sandy Point site........................................................................ 1558.8 Other Composite Artifact No. 1, Burial 205, Sandy Point site .......................................... 1568.9 Birchbark back plate from Other Composite Artifact No. 1, Burial 205,

Sandy Point site ........................................................................................................................ 1578.10 Other Composite Artifact No. 2, Sandy Point site .............................................................. 1588.11 Other Composite Artifact No. 3, Walker’s Pond site.......................................................... 1599.1 Locations of five southern New England sites.................................................................... 1709.2 Plain-weave cotton fragment ................................................................................................. 1719.3 Degraded wool fibers .............................................................................................................. 171

List of Figures vii

9.4 Wampum headband................................................................................................................. 1739.5 Plain-weave wool fabric preserved by corrosion products ............................................... 1739.6 Fine wool fabric preserved by coating of corrosion products........................................... 1749.7 Scanning electron photomicrograph of yarn cross section................................................ 1759.8 Wool twill-weave fabric .......................................................................................................... 1769.9 Patterned silk ribbon ............................................................................................................... 1779.10 Wool fibers and silk filaments mixed in 2-ply yarn............................................................ 1779.11 Ribbon fragments with cut edges.......................................................................................... 1789.12 Figure-eight stitch along a butted seam ............................................................................... 1789.13 Mineralized cotton plain-weave fabric ................................................................................. 1799.14 Mineralized bast fiber yarns in stitch holes of shoe sole ................................................... 1799.15 Drawing of shoe sole and reassembled shoe ....................................................................... 18010.1 Fragments of plainweave fabric with Z-twist yarns........................................................... 18810.2 Diagram of twill weave........................................................................................................... 18810.3 Knitted stocking fragment showing shaped area at heel................................................... 18910.4 Rectangular fragment with cut edges ................................................................................... 19010.5 Fragment of a hem ................................................................................................................... 19010.6 Cut-out applique ...................................................................................................................... 19110.7 Deacon Simon Johnson............................................................................................................ 19310.8 Wool tailcoat, circa 1820 .......................................................................................................... 19510.9 Caroline G. Parker wearing traditional Seneca clothing.................................................... 19511.1 Side view of bag ....................................................................................................................... 19711.2 Cardboard insert for bottom of bag ...................................................................................... 19811.3 Reverse side of cardboard insert............................................................................................ 19811.4 Bottom view of bag.................................................................................................................. 20011.5 Interior bottom of bag ............................................................................................................. 20111.6 Patched hole in side of bag, exterior ..................................................................................... 20111.7 Patched hole in side of bag, interior...................................................................................... 20111.8 Mended small slit in side of bag, exterior ............................................................................ 20111.9 Top edge of bag, interior ......................................................................................................... 20211.10 Side view of bag, showing strap............................................................................................ 20211.11 Silk twill ribbon fragment attached to interior of rim........................................................ 20211.12 Twining structures mentioned in the text ............................................................................ 20311.13 Diagram of design motif ......................................................................................................... 20411.14 Side of bag, showing doubled design motif ........................................................................ 20411.15 Pattern design from Fenner bag, Rhode Island................................................................... 206

viii Perishable Material Culture in the Northeast

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Perishable Construction Techniques and Chronology ....................................................... 224.1 Artifacts Examined for Preserved Materials........................................................................ 474.2 Materials Identified on Breastplates...................................................................................... 504.3 Materials Identified on Celts .................................................................................................. 514.4 Materials Identified on Headplates....................................................................................... 514.5 Comparison of Selected Materials by Artifact Type .......................................................... 624.6 Materials Identified on Breastplates, by Site........................................................................ 645.1 Yarn Diameter Comparisons Made by Church ................................................................... 725.2 Fabric Structure Types by Site and Artifact Class ............................................................... 785.3 Summary of Yarn Diameters by Sites ................................................................................... 795.4 Types of Fabric Structures in Carbonized Textiles and on Copper Artifacts.................. 806.1 Z- and S-twist Cordage on Terminal Middle and Early Late Woodland Ceramics....... 1126.2 Z- and S-twist Cordage on Late Woodland Ceramics in Study Area .............................. 1146.3 Z- and S-twist Cordage on Late Prehistoric Kiskiminetas Valley Ceramics ................... 1186.4 Z- and S-twist Cordage on Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric

Monongahela Ceramics........................................................................................................... 1197.1 Cordage and Fabric Attributes on Point Peninsula Vessels............................................... 1337.2 Cordage and Fabric Attributes on Owasco Vessels ............................................................ 13310.1 Classification of Textile Fragments........................................................................................ 18711.1 Algonquian Bags Decorated with “False Embroidery” ..................................................... 20711.2 Iroquoian Pouches Decorated with “False Embroidery”................................................... 20811.3 New England Bags Worked in Wrapped Twining.............................................................. 209

List of Tables ix

ABSTRACT

As an introduction to perishable material culturein northeastern North America, this chapter reviewssome of the means by which evidence for objects madefrom organic materials is preserved in the archaeolog-ical record. Although rare in the Northeast, actualpreservation of organic remains does occur through avariety of methods, including favorable environmen-tal conditions, carbonization, association with metals,and very short-term burial. Most evidence, however,is indirect. Secondary evidence for now-vanishedobjects includes mineralization, impressions on pot-tery and other materials, stains on non-organic arti-facts or in the soil, characteristics and patterns of dis-position of non-perishable objects associated withorganic artifacts that have disappeared, inferencesfrom tools used to fashion organic materials, patternsof decoration or design in “hard” media such as pot-tery that echo forms made of perishable materials, andimages of objects made from perishable materials.Examples of these methods of preservation are drawnprimarily from in and around New York, plus somerecent or less-well-known cases from other areas of theNortheast.

INTRODUCTION

As we all know, organic materials do not pre-serve well under typical archaeological condi-tions in the Northeast.1 In other parts of the con-

tinent where more-complete assemblages ofmaterial culture have survived, an overwhelm-ing proportion of remains — as much as 95 per-cent — consists of objects constructed fromwood, bark, plant fiber, leather, fur, and feathers(Coles 1988:7-8; Croes 2001:358; Purdy2001:xvii). Northeastern archaeologists knowintellectually that this is so — for instance, fromhistorical descriptions of Iroquois longhouses —but have become accustomed to relying exten-sively on artifacts of stone, pottery, and some-times bone for their analyses of early lifeways.

In an effort to counteract that tendency, thisbook, like the Northeast Natural HistoryConference symposium from which it grew,brings together recent archaeological scholarshipthat makes extensive use of perishable materialculture. The most recent in a series of similarlyconceived volumes developed over the past twodecades (e.g., Drooker 2001b; Drooker andWebster 2000; Petersen 1996a), it is the first oneto focus solely on the Northeast. I have been verypleased at the range of geographical locations,time periods, materials, analytical methods, andresearch problems currently being addressed.

At the New York State Museum, we know invery practical terms how difficult it is to recon-struct prehistoric lifeways on the basis of extantarchaeological artifacts alone. George Hamell,who researched and helped design the “NativePeoples of New York” permanent exhibits for the

Chapter 1 Introduction: Perishable Evidence in the Northeast 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION:PERISHABLE EVIDENCE IN THE NORTHEAST

Penelope B. Drooker

Perishable Material Culture in the Northeast, edited by Penelope Ballard Drooker. New York State Museum Bulletin 500. © bythe University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany, New York. All rights reserved.

Museum, scoured the entire archaeological col-lection, searching for exhibit-quality artifactsand good models for objects to be replicated fora series of life-sized dioramas. In his large note-book inventorying and describing likely exam-ples, fewer than four pages out of 200 containentries for likely specimens fashioned from per-ishable materials.

In the Museum’s Paleoindian2 life group(Figure 1.1), set at the West Athens Hill quarrysite in Greene County, New York, ethnographicanalogy was utilized extensively in depicting thenon-lithic material culture. Skin clothing, forexample, is modelled upon historical examplesfrom the Arctic.

The Late Archaic life group (Figure 1.2a,b) isset at the Lamoka Lake site in Schuyler County.Here, a conscious effort was expended to showperishable material culture. Reproductions anddepictions of bags, mats, wooden utensils, cloth-ing, harpoons, fishing nets and lines, a weir,dugout canoes, fish-drying racks, and of coursethe dwelling, highlight the importance of organ-ic materials in everyday life. For this exhibit,much data came from secondary evidence suchas woodworking tools and thousands ofnetsinkers found at the site.

Between these two dioramas in the Museumis a purely archaeological exhibit (not illustrat-ed), representing Early to Middle Archaic life-

ways at the upper Susquehanna Valley Russ site.On display are actual artifacts. All are of stone.Although a variety of tools and weapons are rep-resented, including spear points, knives, drills,scrapers, hammerstones, netsinkers, and pestles,this is surely a skewed portrayal of the realitiesof life in eastern New York 8,000 years ago.

The point, of course, is that it takes a con-scious effort to reconstruct the richness of tradi-tional material culture in the Northeast, and,inevitably, much will be missed due to lack ofhistorical analogy or easily decipherable archae-ological evidence. Therefore, it is very importantfor archaeologists to pay attention to the frag-ments of perishable material culture that do hap-pen to survive.

In this broad-brush introduction to the chap-ters that follow, I review some of the importantmeans by which evidence for perishable materi-al culture is preserved, using examples mainlyfrom in and around New York State plus somerecently published or not widely known casesfrom other areas of the Northeast (Figure 1.3).Although rare in the Northeast, actual preserva-tion of organic remains does occur through avariety of methods, providing some primary evi-dence for the utilization of perishable materials.Most evidence, however, is secondary, deducedfrom clues such as impressions of cordage onpottery, or tools such as stone gouges and bone

2 Penelope B. Drooker

Figure 1.1. New York State Museum diorama depicting a Paleoindian quarry and campsite at the West AthensHill archaeological site, Greene County.

awls that were used to fashion objects fromwood, leather, and other organic materials.

PRESERVATION OF PRIMARYEVIDENCE

In the Northeast, primary evidence of objectsmade from organic materials almost always is infragmentary form. Fragments of such objectsmay be preserved through favorable environ-mental conditions, carbonization, associationwith metals, or very short-term burial.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSDETERRING DETERIORATION

Good environmental conditions for preser-vation may be found at anaerobic wet sites,extremely dry sites, or continuously frozen sites.Although they are rare, both wet and dry siteshave been excavated in the Northeast, providing


Figure 1.2. Details of New York State Museum diora-ma depicting a Late Archaic village at the LamokaLake archaeological site, Schuyler County. Top:Exterior scene. Bottom: Interior scene.

very important windows on the past.Probably the best-known wet sites in the

Northeast are previous locations of fish weirs.Just a decade ago, James Petersen and colleaguesmapped and analyzed a wooden fish weir com-plex at Sebasticook Lake in central Maine thatwas utilized during the Late Archaic andWoodland periods (Petersen et al. 1994). Withcomponents dating as early as 5080 + 90 B.P.(uncalibrated), it is possibly the earliest radiocar-bon-dated fish weir in North America. Only twoother well-mapped and directly dated woodenfish weirs are known from the Northeast, theBoylston Street weir in Massachusetts and theAtherley Narrows weir in Ontario (Décima andDincauze 1998; Dincauze and Décima 2002;Johnson 1942, 1949; Johnston and Cassavoy1978). Based in part on ethnographic analogies,Petersen and colleagues hypothesize that theconstruction, maintenance, and utilization of

weirs at the Sebasticook facility might haverequired substantial effort and significant groupcooperation (Petersen et al. 1994:216-217). Incontrast, Elena Décima and Dena Dincauze con-clude that the weirs constructed and utilized inBoston’s Back Bay over a period of approximate-ly 1,000 years during the Late Archaic were“small, short-lived, uncomplicated tidal opera-tions” (Décima and Dincauze 1998:159).

Dryness figured importantly in the preserva-tion of an extremely varied hunting and domes-tic assemblage at Sheep Rock Shelter in centralPennsylvania (Conway and Moser 1967;Hardenbergh 1967; Kent 1984:Figs. 43, 44, 46;Michels 1994; Michels and Dutt 1968; Michelsand Smith 1967; Willey 1968, 1974). From onedry section of the shelter were recovered numer-ous pieces of fire drills, self-tipped arrow frag-ments, a fletched portion of an arrow, a woodenawl, leather thongs, pieces of perforated and


Figure 1.3. Map showing locations of sites mentioned in this chapter.

fringed leather, moccasin fragments, a leatherbag, fur fragments, feathers, a great variety ofplied and braided cordage, wider plaited stripsinterpreted as possible pack straps, fragments ofknotted netting, three snares, two types oftwined pliable fabrics, a woven sandal fragment,bark-strip matting or basket fragments, and abark container mended with cordage. The mid-den from which they came was not only protect-ed by the rock overhang but sealed with a thicklayer of sheep dung — an unusual and fortu-itous circumstance. Grass-filled depressions,identified as beds, also were preserved.Although materials from the shelter date as farback as Early Archaic, it is believed that the per-ishables are mainly Late Woodland toProtohistoric.

CARBONIZATION

Charring, or carbonization, which inhibitsorganic breakdown, is an important method ofpreservation for wood and fiber artifacts, just asit is for foodstuffs such as corn kernels. Charredspecimens typically are brittle and extremelyfragile, and must be handled with great care.

One very early example is a piece of pliedcordage from the Transitional Archaic MillburyIII site in Worcester County, Massachusetts(Largy and Leveillee 1995; Leveillee 2002:72). Itcame from a feature dated to 3410 + 100 B.P. (B-56226), making it the earliest extant Archaic fiberartifact from New England.

William Ritchie illustrated several car-bonized specimens in The Archaeology of NewYork State (1980). Plate 67 in that book is a photo-graph of a fragment of knotted netting takenfrom a large but fragile carbonized fish net withattached stone netsinkers that came from theEarly Woodland Morrow site in Ontario County.From the same site came carbonized fragmentsof basketry (Ritchie 1980:Pl. 70). An in situ cre-mation at the White site, Chenago County, left acharred fragment of twined fabric, perhaps froma shroud (Ritchie 1980:259, Pl. 89). Plate 93(Ritchie 1980) provides drawings of carbonizedartifacts from the Late Woodland Owasco CastleCreek site near Binghamton, including two frag-ments of twined fabrics, a trot line for fishing,

and compound fishhooks made from hawthornespines attached together with cordage (see also278-279, 290).

Examples of carbonized specimens curatedat the New York State Museum include frag-ments of cordage from Middle Woodland andLate Woodland sites (e.g., Drooker 1996b; Funkand Kuhn 2001), twined fabrics, bark basketryand matting (e.g., Funk and Kuhn 2001), andwooden spoons and bowls. Effigy faces from lateprehistoric-protohistoric wooden vessels (e.g.,NYSM Cat. No. 35102, from the 17th-centuryMarsh site)3 echo the much better known exam-ples from contemporaneous pottery vessels (e.g.,Wray et al. 1987:Fig. 3-35).

Barry Kent notes a number of importantcarbonized artifacts from Pennsylvania sites,including a “charred cord-wrapped potter’spaddle” from the McFate site in the southwest-ern part of the state (Kent 1984:184, Fig. 47).Many artifacts preserved in this way are mun-dane, workaday tools and objects that are lesslikely to be deposited as grave goods and thuspreserved by contact with metal (see below).

ASSOCIATION WITH METAL

Association with metal is extremely impor-tant in preserving or fossilizing organic materi-als in archaeological contexts. Most typicallythese are found with burials, where metal tools,ornaments, or ceremonial objects were depositedin contact with leather or fiber bags, clothing, orshrouds.4 Metal beads and ornaments frequentlypreserve the cords or thongs on which they werestrung or the fabric or leather to which they wereattached.

Perhaps the oldest Northeastern examplesare fossilized fragments of two Late Archaictwined fabrics from the Hartford Cemetery sitein Maine, preserved as pyrite pseudomorphs;that is, metal corrosion products that replicatethe shape of an object (see Definitions). MalindaBlustain and colleagues interpreted the fabrics asfragments of bags containing fire-starting kits(Blustain et al. 1999). Preserved layers of grassand hide also were found with one of the pyrites.One layer of skin, with fur on one side thatallowed it to be identified as from a small mam-


mal, may have been painted with red ocher onits outer surface.

A hafted copper flaking tool was depositedwith a burial at the Early Woodland MuskalongeLake site in Jefferson County, New York (Ritchie1980:183, Pls. 62, 63). The decoratively incisedwooden handle and bark(?) fiber wrapping ele-ments were preserved through proximity to themetal blade.

The Early Woodland Boucher site in north-western Vermont produced a remarkable assem-blage of cordage and complex fabrics from bur-ial contexts, analyzed by Michael Heckenbergerand colleagues (Heckenberger et al. 1990a,1990b, 1996). Most of the 56 cordage fragmentsand 99 twined or braided fabric fragments werefrom garments, shrouds, or bags preserved byassociation with copper beads and ornaments(e.g., Petersen 1996b:Fig. 6.5). Yarns were fash-ioned from both plant fibers and animal hair.One leather-lined twined bag contained coppernuggets (Heckenberger et al. 1996:Fig. 3.9).Footwear and lower portions of garments not incontact with metal did not survive(Heckenberger et al. 1996:64).

Another Early Woodland site, AugustineMound in New Brunswick, produced fabrics pre-served by contact with hundreds of copper beads.For example, a fragment of a twined bag surviveddue to the fact that it contained “copper beadscrimped over leather thongs” (Gordon 1997:59,Fig. 31). Comparable to the complex Boucher fab-rics was a fabric that alternated spaced rows ofplain twining with areas containing warpswrapped with bundles of moose hairs in acheckerboard pattern (Gordon 1997:59, Fig. 32).

Extant fabrics and other perishable artifactsfrom Early Woodland Adena and MiddleWoodland Hopewell contexts often were pre-served by contact with copper ceremonialobjects, one example being the fragments ofcloth preserved by contact with an imitation cop-per bear claw at the McKees Rocks Mound insouthwestern Pennsylvania (Dragoo 1963:Pl. 49).In a different vein, Ellanor White examined theinterior surfaces of Hopewell artifacts like cop-per earspools and determined that the very fine,gauze-like interlaced fabrics preserved on themwere not present accidentally, but had been an

integral part of the manufacturing process(White 1987:61-62, 88-89). Numerous otherexamples are illustrated in Chapters 4 and 5 ofthis volume, by Dee Ann Wymer and VirginiaWimberly, which focus on Hopewell fabrics andother perishables.

The Contact period5 saw an abrupt rise in thepresence of metal, and thus of the preservationof organic materials of all sorts: leather, fur, tra-ditional twined fabrics (Figure 1.4; Drooker1996e, 1996g), and European textiles, from utili-tarian blankets and mantles (e.g., Drooker 1996e,1996f, 1996g, 1996j; Whitehead 1993:Fig. 73;Willoughby 1935:247) to luxury textiles and dec-orations, such as a complex silk fabric from the18th century Munsee Van Etten site in the lowerHudson Valley (Drooker 1996j) and a metallicbobbin lace from Geneva, Ontario County(Drooker 1996b). Hafted brass knives are knownfrom a number of New York and New Englandsites. A fine example has been published fromthe late 16th century Seneca Adams site (Wray etal. 1987:55-56, Figs. 3-25, 3-82), from which alsocame a hafted oval chert biface, preserved byproximity to a large metal gorget (Wray et al.1987:98, Figs. 3-23, 3-47). Another came from aburial in Winthrop, Massachusetts (Brasser1978a:Fig. 2; Willoughby 1935:239-240). Bindingsand foreshafts are preserved with brass arrow-heads from 17th century Susquehannock sites insoutheastern Pennsylvania (Kent 1984:Fig. 50).

Some of the earliest examples of Contactperiod perishables preserved by contact withmetal come from 16th- and early-17th-centuryNew Brunswick and Nova Scotia sites whoseresidents obtained copper kettles and othermetal items from Basque fishermen (Gordon1993, 1995, 1997; Harper 1956:28-34, 40-51;Whitehead 1987, 1993). A burial at PortlandPoint, New Brunswick, contained garment frag-ments including European woolen cloth andmetallic “braid” trimming (Harper 1956:34).Preserved perishables at the Pictou site in NovaScotia included a wooden bow, wooden knifehafts, swords with wooden handles and traces ofleather scabbards, pieces of moccasins, a leatherand birch-bark arm band, European cloth, andindigenous twined, interlaced, and sewn fabrics,bags, and matting (Gordon 1993, 1995, 1997;


Harper 1956:40-51; Whitehead 1993). Two metaldaggers carried the remains of twined sheaths(Whitehead 1993:69, 115, Fig. 37). Later burialsites with even higher concentrations of metalobjects, such as the well-known NeutralGrimsby cemetery site in Ontario and 17th-cen-tury Susquehannock sites in Pennsylvania, alsopreserved a remarkable range of fiber, bark, andwood artifacts (Kent 1984:179-193; Kenyon1982).

Quite a few leather pouches and twined bagshave survived from this period because theycontained metal objects, such as publishedexamples from the late-16th – early 17th-centurySeneca Tram and Cameron sites (Wray et al.1991:130, 135-140, 332-334). The RochesterMuseum and Science Center also curates exam-ples from later Seneca settlements, such as themid-17th-century Dann site (Cat. No. 665/28),

and the New York State Museum collectionsinclude a twined bag from the late-17th-centurySeneca Boughton Hill site and another from anearly-17th-century site in the Seneca sequence,Tram (Drooker 1996d, 1996g). A number of pub-lished examples from Seneca and Erie sites inwestern New York have been interpreted asmedicine bags or dream bundles (e.g., Tookerand White 1964; White 1967:15-16; Wray et al.1987:129; Wray et al. 1991:135-140). Such inter-pretations are strengthened by the presence ofitems such as worked fruit stones interpreted asdice (Tooker and White 1964:1-2) that probablywould not have survived if metal had not beenpresent.

Some remarkable leather objects decoratedwith brass “clips” have come from the late 17th-century Seneca Dann, Rochester Junction, andBoughton Hill sites, which overlap in time. The


Figure 1.4. Two fragments of close-twined fabrics preserved by proximity to metal, provenience unknown(NYSM Cat. No. 74475). Note two selvages sewn together in coarser piece.

small brass pieces are bent into cylindersthrough slits cut into the leather, formingdesigns that look much like sewn or wovenbeadwork. The Susquehannock WashingtonBoro site produced a “belt or girdle made ofrolled strips of buckskin held together with brassstrips” (Cadzow 1936:125-126), which wouldhave produced the same effect through a slight-ly different technique. Most Seneca examples arein the collections of the Rochester Museum andScience Center, but some fragments are at theNew York State Museum (e.g., Beauchamp1903:Pl. 25). The two largest are a magnificentbelt from Dann (RMSC Cat. No. 13143/28),which is reminiscent of wampum belts, and alarge item from Boughton Hill consisting of dec-orated leather strips, which seems designed tobe worn over the shoulders (RMSC Cat. No.AR43734). The only analogous objects fromIroquois contexts that I have found so far are so-called “harnesses” decorated with beads andbuttons that were worn by some 19th century SixNations entertainers (Gabor 1980:37-38). Thelack of historical written descriptions or depic-tions of similar objects means that their existencewould have been unknown if they had not beenpreserved by their metal decorative elements.

Euro-american perishables also, of course,are preserved by contact with metal. For exam-ple, I analyzed fragments of military clothingfrom French and Indian War burials at FortWilliam Henry that were preserved togetherwith metal buttons (Baker et al. 1997; Baker andRieth 2000:57; Drooker 1996h). Small as theywere, two groups of layered fragments showedthe construction of a typical military coat orwaistcoat — warm felted wool outer fabricsbacked by stiffer plant-fiber fabrics — whileother “sandwiched” fabrics with buttons proba-bly came from shirts or pants.

In Chapter 8, James Petersen and MalindaBlustain describe Contact period fabrics andother perishables preserved by contact with cop-per at 16th- and early-17th-century sites inMaine. In the following chapter, MargaretOrdoñez and Linda Welters discuss fiber andleather objects preserved or fossilized throughproximity to metal from two 17th-centuryNative American sites and an 18th-century

Boston privy. A number of fabrics were pre-served as metal pseudomorphs, but others,including a wampum headband that incorporat-ed both shell beads and copper beads, main-tained their organic nature.

SHORT-TERM BURIAL

Perishable artifacts excavated from morerecent contexts in the Northeast simply may notyet have deteriorated significantly. For instance,a small wooden figurine has survived from thelate-17th-century Seneca Marsh site (NYSM Cat.No. 35102).6 It is of a form, the “SeptemberMorn” or “baby” figure, that is known primarilyfrom examples of antler (e.g., Wray et al.1991:218-223), which typically survive longerunder archaeological conditions. Similarly, a rareoblique-interlaced band, probably made ofplant-fiber cordage, fortuitously survived fromthe late 17th-century Seneca Boughton Hill site(Drooker 1996d). It has structural analogues inhistorically collected plant-fiber burden strapsand elaborate beaded woolen sashes made andused by 17th–19th-century Senecas.

Likewise, many of the fabrics and leatherfrom 17th- through 19th-century contexts inRhode Island and Massachusetts that are dis-cussed by Margaret Ordoñez and Linda Weltersin Chapters 9 and 10 — particularly the morerecent ones — simply had not yet deterioratedbeyond recognition. The same is true of frag-ments of Native American mats, baskets, bags,and fabrics from the 17th-century RI 1000 site inRhode Island, although proximity to metal alsowas a significant factor in their survial (McNeil2003:75-79).

Even a “mere” century underground canresult in loss of a large proportion of organic arti-facts. The extensive late-19th–early-20th-centuryAlbany Almshouse cemetery excavated in 2002by members of the New York State Museum’sCultural Resource Survey Program yieldedmany clothing fragments, but only a small num-ber of garments well preserved enough to deter-mine their original size and form; among thosewere felt hats, woolen jackets and pants, silk ties,a silk shirtwaist, and some belts, suspenders,and shoes. By far the majority of surviving frag-


ments were of animal fibers (wool and silk) orleather. The few whole garments that survivedtended to be worn in layers, or folded orbunched up in the coffin rather than worn; theinterior of such a bundle would be protectedfrom immediate direct exposure to soil condi-tions promoting deterioration.

The rare historical example of a late-17th-century twined bag from New England dis-cussed in Chapter 11 should bring home the con-trast between archaeological fragments andabove-ground curation of perishable objects inthe Northeast.

SECONDARY EVIDENCE

Almost all the artifacts discussed above wereactual organic objects, providing primary evi-dence of the many ways in which perishablematerials were utilized in the Northeast over thecenturies. In addition, secondary evidence forthe previous existence of perishable material cul-ture sometimes is available (if you know whereto look for it), and can be used to reconstruct ordeduce the presence of vanished objects.

Secondary evidence for artifacts of organicmaterials includes, among other things, mineral-ization and pseudomorphs, which provide fos-silized replications of the original; impressionson pottery and other materials; stains on non-organic artifacts or in the soil; characteristics andpatterns of disposition of non-perishable objectsassociated with organic artifacts that have disap-peared; inferences from tools used to fashionorganic materials; patterns of decoration ordesign in “hard” media such as pottery that echoforms made of perishable materials; and imagesof objects made from perishable materials (seediscussions and examples in Drooker 2001a,2001c; Hastorf 2001).

MINERALIZATION AND PSEUDOMORPHS

Replication of an organic object though thegradual replacement of its material by a mineralsubstance or through covering it with a thinlayer of a metallic corrosion product can produceextremely accurate secondary evidence of theoriginal. These processes have been mentioned

above with respect to fossilized Late Archaic fab-rics from the Hartford Cemetery site in Maine(Blustain et al. 1999). Many of the Hopewell fab-rics discussed by Virginia Wimberly in Chapter 5are in the form of pseudomorphs, as are a num-ber of the textiles from three 17th-18th centuryNew England sites described in Chapter 9 byMargaret Ordoñez and Linda Welters.

IMPRESSIONS, MOLDS, AND CASTS OFOBJECTS

Impressions of basketry, fabric, and cordagepressed into pottery or unfired clay can be usedas molds to produce three-dimensional casts ofone surface of the original organic object (Figure1.5) from clay, rubber, or other materials(Drooker 1992, 2001a; Rachlin 1955).Occasionally, casts of fabrics and basketry areproduced naturally, although such products aremuch better known from paleontological speci-mens.

I have already mentioned the complex fab-rics preserved by contact with copper at theEarly Woodland Boucher site in northwesternVermont. That site also produced fabric impres-sions on pottery, including some of the samecloth structures used to make the burial fabrics(Heckenberger et al. 1996:69). Kathryn Browninghas reconstructed twined fabric types fromimpressions on pottery from Long Island(Browning 1974). At the Pictou site in NovaScotia, impressions from twined fabrics were“preserved in mud on leather, sewn to a birch-bark armband”; these are too fragile to use asmolds for casts of the original objects, but thepattern of twining is clear (Gordon 1997:Fig. 9).

E. Leonard Kroon has made a case that someBlack Duck pottery from Ontario was formedwithin a mold made around a basketry form(1982). On one rim sherd, both the interior andexterior surfaces of his examples show convexdesigns with the appearance of coiled basketry(not the concave “reverse images” typical ofimpressions). Of course, coiling was not a bas-ketry technique known in this region during his-toric times, but that does not negate the possibil-ity that it could have existed earlier.

At least three chapters in this volume draw


upon evidence from impressions on pottery andother materials. J. M. Adovasio and colleaguesreport on a fabric from the Early HoloceneHiscock site in western New York (Chapter 3).This rare ancient specimen is a naturally formedcast of a fine-scale twined fabric. Both WilliamJohnson and Andrew Myers (Chapter 6) andChristina Rieth (Chapter 7) utilized cordage andfabric impressions on pottery in their analyses.Both projects employed data from large numbersof impressed sherds, utilizing cordage attributesin combination with pottery attributes to studygroup affiliations of their makers. Johnson andMyers studied materials from Late Prehistoricand Protohistoric sites in northwesternPennsylvania, analyzing cordage twist together

with pottery temper and decoration to tracegroup movements over time. Rieth utilizedcordage and fabric data together with trace ele-ment analysis of the sherds on which they wereimpressed to effectively demonstrate continuitybetween Owasco and earlier archaeological tra-ditions in the Susquehanna Valley of New York.

STAINS

Virtually all archaeologists have excavatedsoil stains indicating the former position ofnow-disappeared organic objects. Stains onnon-perishable artifacts can preserve images ofperishables, although occurrences are rare. Forexample, negative images of open-twined fab-


Figure 1.5. Fabric-impressed pottery sherd (right) and the cast made from it (left) showing an open plain twinedfabric, from the Slack Farm site, northern Kentucky near the Indiana-Illinois line (Drooker 1992:184-185; Pollacket al. 1996). Although this is not an example from the Northeast, it illustrates the excellent resource that impres-sions of now-vanished organic objects can provide.

rics (or a single fabric) were stained ontogroundstone bayonets at the Late ArchaicOverlock site in Maine (Blustain et al. 1999:192;Gordon 1997:20, 22, 23; Petersen et al. 1984;Robinson 1996:Fig. 18; Whitehead 1987; see alsoChapter 8 of this volume).

MISSING PORTIONS OF COMPOSITEARTIFACTS

Simple logic often dictates the nature ofmissing portions of tools, weapons, or orna-ments. Stone netsinkers and bone fishhooks,such as from the Late Archaic Lamoka Lake sitein central New York (Ritchie 1980:46-50), implythe necessary presence of strong, well-craftedcordage for fish nets and lines. Stone projectilepoints and bone harpoon heads would haverequired wooden shafts, and so on. Ornamentswith suspension holes needed leather thongs orfiber thread to attach them to garments or head-dresses, or to fashion them into necklaces,bracelets, and other such articles.

DISPOSITION PATTERNS OF NON-PERISHABLE OBJECTS

Disposition patterns of less-perishableobjects formerly affixed to or associated withperishable items can be used to help reconstructthe vanished artifacts. For example, in conjunc-tion with an analysis of Monongahela socialorganization through mortuary patterns,Christine Davis (1984) described 15 burials thathad large numbers of bone beads in geometricpatterns in the abdominal area, as if they hadbeen affixed to skirts or other garments. WilliamRitchie reported a pattern of perforated bearclaws around the upper body of an adult maleburial at the Middle Archaic Frontenac Islandsite in Cayuga Lake, such that the clawsappeared to have been sewn to a shirt or jacket(1980:117, 121).

TOOLS FOR WORKING ORGANICMATERIALS

Tools used to fashion items made fromorganic materials frequently are analyzed byarchaeologists to deduce the nature of perishable

material culture for a particular site, region, ortime period. For instance, stone-cutting andwoodworking tools, including adzes, gouges,and celts, at Late Archaic River phase sites in theHudson-Mohawk Valley, together with theabsence of evidence for substantial woodenhouses or palisades, led Ritchie to hypothesizethe production of dugout canoes (1980:131). Healso hypothesized that a barbed bone artifactfound at Lamoka Lake was a net-making tool(1980:48). Stone or bone hide scrapers and boneawls and needles often are taken to indicate pro-cessing of hides and production of sewn animal-skin bags or clothing.

SKEUOMORPHS

Objects with decorative elements that copyfunctional designs typical of other media arecalled skeuomorphs. When the copied items areof perishable materials, their replication maypreserve an excellent record of a no-longer-exist-ing type of object. Christine Hastorf gives theexample of a cordage net used to hold a ceramicpot later being replicated in metal as a decora-tion on a Chinese bronze vessel, and also citesFrank Cushing’s discussion of Iroquois castellat-ed pots as deriving from bark vessels havingrounded bottoms and square tops, with the pots’incised linear decoration evolved from porcu-pine quill designs on birchbark (Cushing1886:519-520; Hastorf 2001:34-35).

Kathryn Browning Hoffman (1979) hasdescribed a number of examples of design ele-ments on prehistoric New York pottery that sheinterprets as replicating patterns typical of inter-laced basketry weaves and of quillwork. Inciseddesigns such as herringbone patterns and thefilled triangle motif could well derive from inter-laced basketry (although the presence of inter-laced wood splint basketry in the Northeastprior to the advent of European examples hasbeen debated [Bardwell 1986]). Hoffman alsonotes the similarity between projecting spikynodes on a Late Woodland pottery vessel anddecorative “porcupine twist” work (seeDefinitions) on some 19th-century Iroquoianwood splint basketry.

IMAGES OF PERISHABLE OBJECTS


In other regions of the continent, painted,engraved, or sculpted images of people oftenprovide clues to the nature of their clothing andother perishable objects that they made andused. Unfortunately, these are rare in the pre-Contact Northeast. However, two famous carvedstone human effigy pipes from Ohio do depictclothed people. One from the Adena Mound inRoss County shows a man wearing a decoratedloincloth, and the other, a Hopewell pipe fromNewark in Licking County, shows a person in abearskin (Brose et al. 1985:Figs. 15, 29).

Drawings and paintings made by earlyEuropean visitors, and especially engravingsrealized by artisans who never had visited theNew World, must be analyzed carefully, sincethe artists often worked from secondhanddescription rather than firsthand observation, aswith portrayals of people and villages on a 1612map of Champlain’s explorations and a 1635map of New England (Brasser 1978a:Fig. 1,1978b:Fig. 2), or they only poorly depicted unfa-miliar objects such as shell ornaments, as in thewell-known 17th-century portrait by anunknown artist of the Eastern Niantic sachemNinigret (Simmons 1978:Fig. 4).

ETHNOHISTORICAL ANALOGY ANDEXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

Ethnohistorical analogy and experimentalreplication are two other types of secondary evi-dence often used by archaeologists to help recon-struct now-vanished objects made from organicand other fragile materials. For instance,Lorraine Willey replicated many of the fabricsfrom the Sheep Rock Shelter site inPennsylvania, and learned much about theirconstruction in the process (Michels 1994:39;Willey 1968:249, 1974). Joleen Gordon utilizedboth replication and 19th–early-20th-centuryethnographic research in her studies of mattingand basketry excavated at the 16th centuryPictou site in Nova Scotia (Gordon 1995, 1997).

As mentioned at the beginning of this chap-ter, museum displays of long-ago lifeways, likethe Paleoindian group depicted at the New YorkState Museum, often require the use of ethnohis-torical analogy to “flesh out” information

obtained directly from artifacts of stone andother non-organic materials. This must be donecautiously, of course, with reference to anyextant archaeological specimens. For example,the woven sandal recovered from Sheep RockShelter (Michels 1994:Fig. 11) has no exact histor-ically known counterpart, to my knowledge;18th- and 19th-century natives of Pennsylvaniaand New York are typically depicted wearingleather moccasins.

CONCLUSION

The chapters that follow make use of allthese types of evidence, and more, in overviewsand case studies that clearly illustrate both thesignificance of perishable material culture in thelives of Northeastern people over many cen-turies, and the importance of their extantremains to archaeologists attempting to recon-struct and interpret these lifeways. By carefullypreserving and analyzing what are often smallfragments of undistinguished-looking organicmaterials, we can greatly expand our under-standing of long-past subsistence strategies,technologies, and social, economic, and ritualrelations.

NOTES

1. For the Northeast Natural HistoryConference, at which most of the chapters inthis publication were first presented,Northeast was defined as including easternOntario, Quebec, the Maritime Provinces,Labrador, New England, New York, NewJersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

2. The time periods mentioned in this chaptercan be very broadly defined as follows:Paleoindian, ca. 9500–8000 B.C.; EarlyArchaic, ca. 8000–6000 B.C.; Middle Archaic,ca. 6000–4000 B.C.; Late Archaic, ca.4000–1000 B.C.; Early Woodland, ca. 1000-0B.C, Middle Woodland, ca. 0 B.C.–A.D. 1000;Late Woodland, ca. A.D. 1000–1700. All ofthese periods are defined somewhat differ-ently within particular regional cultural tra-ditions, depending on local timing ofchanges in subsistence and material culture.


The Late Woodland overlaps with theProtohistoric, a period after 1492 whenNative groups began to acquire Europeangoods, but intensive interaction (and writtenaccounts of that experience) had not yetbegun. As might be expected, theProtohistoric period began and ended laterin the interior than along the easternseaboard. The Contact period, a term thatimplies face-to-face, extended contactbetween Native Americans and Europeans,likewise began at different times in differentplaces, although it sometimes is appliedacross-the-board to the post-1492 period.

3. Many of the artifacts described in this chap-ter, most notably (but by no means exclu-sively) those preserved by contact withmetal, were grave goods potentially subjectto the Native American Grave Protection andRepatriation Act. Thus, no photographs ofthem are included.

4. See note 3.5. See note 2.6. See note 3.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My grateful thanks go to the participants inthe April 2002 Northeast Natural HistoryConference symposium, “Perishable MaterialCulture in the Northeast,” which resulted in thepresent volume, and to Jeffrey Bursey, who hadhoped to participate. The information that theyhave shared has opened my eyes to many newpossibilities in tracing the use of organic materi-als over time. Robert E. Funk, James Morton, andChristina Rieth alerted me to a number of partic-ularly useful references, and provided copies ofmany of them. Chris also provided a criticalreview of the original publication manuscript.

REFERENCES CITED

Baker, Brenda J., Paul R. Huey, Joseph E. McEvoy,and Penelope B. Drooker

1997 The Fabric of War: New Evidence fromBurials at Fort William Henry. Paper pre-sented at the New York State ArchaeologicalAssociation annual meeting, Lake George,New York.

Baker, Brenda J., and Christina B. Rieth2000 Beyond the Massacre: Historic and Prehis-

toric Activity at Fort William Henry. North-east Anthropology (60):45-61.

Bardwell, Kathryn1986 The Case for an Aboriginal Origin of North-

eastern Indian Woodsplint Basketry. Man inthe Northeast 31:49-67.

Beauchamp, William M.1903 Metallic Ornaments of the New York Indians.

Bulletin 73. New York State Museum,Albany.

Blustain, Malinda S., Margaret A. Leveque, and BrianS. Robinson

1999 Two Fossilized Late Archaic Textiles fromMaine: Pyrite Pseudomorphs from the Hart-ford Cemetery Site. Archaeology of EasternNorth America 27:185-196.

Brasser, Theodore J.1978a Early Indian–European Contacts. In North-

east, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 78-88.Handbook of North American Indians Vol.15. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,D.C.

1978b Mahican. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G.Trigger, pp. 198-212. Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians Vol. 15. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D.C.

Brose, David S., James A. Brown, David W. Penney,and Kirk Bakker

1985 Ancient Art of the American Woodland Indians.Harry N. Abrams, New York.

Browning, Kathryn1974 Indian Textiles as Reconstructed from the

Impressions Left on Long Island. Archaeolo-gy of Eastern North America 2(1):94-98.

Cadzow, Donald A.1936 Archaeological Studies of the Susquehannock

Indians of Pennsylvania. Safe Harbor ReportNo. 2. Pennsylvania Historical Commission,Harrisburg.

Coles, John R.1988 A Wetland Perspective. In Wet Site Archaeol-

ogy, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 1-14.The Telford Press, Caldwell, New Jersey.

Conway, Donna L., and Mary Moser1967 A Preliminary Analysis of the Cordage and

Textile Industry of 36 HU 1. In ArchaeologicalInvestigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Hunting-ton County, Pennsylvania, edited by Joseph


W. Michels and Ira F. Smith, pp. 257-297.Vol. 1. Occasional Papers in AnthropologyNo. 2. Department of Sociology and Anthro-pology, Pennsylvania State University, StateCollege.

Croes, Dale R.2001 Northwest Coast Wet Sites: Using Perish-

ables to Reveal Patterns of Resource Pro-curement, Storage, Management, andExchange. In Fleeting Identities: PerishableMaterial Culture in Archaeological Research,edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp. 357-385.Occasional Paper No. 28. Center for Archae-ological Investigations, Southern IllinoisUniversity, Carbondale.

Cushing, Frank H.1886 A Study of Pueblo Pottery as Illustrative of

Zuni Culture Growth. Annual Report of theBureau of Ethnology, 1882–1883 4:473-521.

Davis, Christine E.1984 A Mortuary Pattern for Monongahela. Penn-

sylvania Archaeologist 54(1-2):1-11.Décima, Elena B., and Dena F. Dincauze

1998 The Boston Back Bay Fish Weirs. In HiddenDimensions: The Cultural Significance of Wet-land Archaeology, edited by Kathryn Bernick,pp. 157-172. University of British ColumbiaPress, Vancouver.

Dincauze, Dena F., and Elena Décima2002 Small Is Beautiful: Tidal Weirs in a Low-

Energy Estuary. In A Lasting Impression:Coastal, Lithic, and Ceramic Research in NewEngland Archaeology, edited by Jordan E.Kerber pp. 71-86. Praeger Publishers, West-port, Connecticut.

Dragoo, Don W.1963 Mounds for the Dead: An Analysis of the Adena

Culture. Annals, Vol. 37, Carnegie Museum,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Drooker, Penelope B.1992 Mississippian Village Textiles at Wickliffe. Uni-

versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.1996a Bobbin Lace from the Geneva Site, Ontario

County: General Summary. Manuscript onfile. New York State Museum, Albany.

1996b Cordage from the Kipp Island Site (#2084):General Summary. Manuscript on file. NewYork State Museum, Albany.

1996c Cordage from the Rice’s Woods Site: Gener-al Summary. Manuscript on file. New YorkState Museum, Albany.

1996d Fabrics from the Boughton Hill Site (#1384):General Summary. Manuscript on file. NewYork State Museum, Albany.

1996e Fabrics from the Dann Farm/Honeoye FallsSite (#1022): General Summary. Manuscripton file. New York State Museum, Albany.

1996f Fabrics from the Marsh Site (#1395): Gener-al Summary. Manuscript on file. New YorkState Museum, Albany.

1996g Fabrics from the Tram Site (#1077): GeneralSummary. Manuscript on file. New YorkState Museum, Albany.

1996h Textiles from Fort William Henry: GeneralSummary. Manuscript on file. New YorkState Museum, Albany.

1996i Textiles from the Silverheels Site (#2471):General Summary. Manuscript on file. NewYork State Museum, Albany.

1996j Textiles from the Van Etten Site (#4377):General Summary. Manuscript on file. NewYork State Museum, Albany.

2001a Approaching Fabrics through Impressionson Pottery. In Approaching Textiles, VaryingViewpoints: Proceedings of the Seventh BiennialSymposium, Santa Fe, New Mexico 2000, coor-dinated by Ann Lane Hedlund. Textile Soci-ety of America, Earleville, Maryland.

2001b (editor) Fleeting Identities: Perishable MaterialCulture in Archaeological Research. OccasionalPaper No. 28. Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations, Southern Illinois University,Carbondale, Illinois.

2001c Leaving No Stone Unturned: Making theMost of Secondary Evidence for PerishableMaterial Culture. In Fleeting Identities: Per-ishable Material Culture in ArchaeologicalResearch, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp.170-186. Occasional Paper No. 28. Center forArchaeological Investigations, Southern Illi-nois University, Carbondale, Illinois.

Drooker, Penelope B., and Laurie D. Webster (editors)2000 Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeological Tex-

tile Research in the Americas. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.

Funk, Robert E., and Robert D. Kuhn2003 Three Sixteenth Century Mohawk Iroquois Vil-

lage Sites. Bulletin 503. New York StateMuseum, Albany.


Gabor, Robert1980 Costume of the Iroquois. Iroquois Reprints.

Iroqrafts Ltd., Ohsweken, Ontario. Original-ly published by Akwesasne Mohawk Coun-selor Organization, St. Regis Reservation.

Gordon, Joleen1993 Construction and Reconstruction of a Mi’kmaq

Sixteenth Century Cedar-Bark Bag. CuratorialReport 76. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax.

1995 Mi’kmaq Textiles: Sewn Cattail Matting, BkCp-1 Site, Pictou, Nova Scotia. Curatorial Report80. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax.

1997 Mi’kmaq Textiles: Twining with Rush andOther Fibres, BkCp-1 Site, Pictou, Nova Scotia.Curatorial Report 82. Nova Scotia Museum,Halifax.

Hardenbergh, Donald E., Jr.1967 Perishable Materials of Sheep Rock —

Wood, Leather, Grass, Fur, and Feathers. InArchaeological Investigations of Sheep RockShelter, Huntington County, Pennsylvania,edited by Joseph W. Michels and Ira R.Smith, pp. 313-376. Vol. 1. OccasionalPapers in Anthropology No. 2. Departmentof Sociology and Anthropology, Pennsylva-nia State University, State College.

Harper, J. Russell1956 Portland Point: Crossroads of New Brunswick

History. History Studies No. 9. NewBrunswick Museum, St. John.

Hastorf, Christine A.2001 Making the Invisible Visible: The Hidden

Jewels of Archaeology. In Fleeting Identities:Perishable Material Culture in ArchaeologicalResearch, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp.27-42. Occasional Paper No. 28. Center forArchaeological Investigations, Southern Illi-nois University, Carbondale.

Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, andLouise A. Basa

1990a Early Woodland Period Ritual Use of Per-sonal Adornment at the Boucher Site.Annals of the Carnegie Museum 59(3):173-217.

Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, LouiseA. Basa, Ellen R. Cowie, Arthur E. Spiess,and Robert E. Stuckenrath

1990b Early Woodland Period Mortuary Ceremo-nialism in the Far Northeast: A View fromthe Boucher Cemetery.Archaeology of EasternNorth America 18:109-144.

Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, Frances

B. King, and Louise A. Basa1996 Fiber Industries from the Boucher Site: An

Early Woodland Cemetery in NorthwesternVermont. In A Most Indispensable Art: NativeFiber Industries from Eastern North America,edited by James B. Petersen, pp. 50-72. Uni-versity of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Hoffman, Kathryn Browning1979 Can Incised Pottery Give Clues to Prehis-

toric Basketry? The Bulletin and Journal of theArchaeology of New York State (76):26-34.

Johnson, Frederick (editor)1942 The Boylston Street Fishweir: A Study of the

Archaeology, Biology, and Geology of a Site onBoylston Street in the Back Bay District ofBoston, Massachusetts. Papers of the RobertS. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology 2.Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts.

1949 The Boylston Street Fishweir II. Papers of theRobert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeol-ogy. Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachu-setts.

Johnston, Richard B., and Kenneth A. Cassavoy1978 The Fishweirs at Atherley Narrows,

Ontario. American Antiquity 43(4):697-709.Kent, Barry C.

1984 Susquehanna’s Indians. AnthropologicalSeries No. 6. Pennsylvania Historical andMuseum Commission, Harrisburg.

Kenyon, Walter A.1982 The Grimsby Site: AHistoric Neutral Cemetery.

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.Kroon, E. Leonard

1982 Clay Baskets. The Iroquoian (4):24-36.Largy, Tonya Baroody, and Alan Leveillee

1995 Earliest Evidence for Textiles from MillburyIII: A Transitional Archaic Cremation Ceme-tery in South-Central Massachusetts. North-east Anthropology 50:31-33.

Leveillee, Alan2002 An Old Place, Safe and Quiet: A Blackstone

River Valley Cremation Burial Site. Bergin &Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.

Mc Neil, Cameron L.2003 Seventeeth-Century Navragansett Basketry

and Seven Mats from RI 1000, unpublishedMaster’s thesis, University of Connecticut,Stovrs.

Michels, Joseph W.1994 Excavations at the Sheep Rock Shelter


(36HU1): An Historical Review. Pennsylva-nia Archaeologist 64(1):28-40.

Michels, Joseph W., and James F. Dutt (editors)1968 Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock

Shelter, Huntington County, Pennsylvania.Vol. 3. Occasional Papers in AnthropologyNo. 5. Department of Anthropology, Penn-sylvania State University, State College.

Michels, Joseph W., and Ira F. Smith (editors)1967 Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock

Shelter, Huntington County, Pennsylvania.Vols. 1 and 2. Occasional Papers in Anthro-pology No. 2. Department of Sociology andAnthropology, Pennsylvania State Universi-ty, State College.

Petersen, James B. (editor)1996a A Most Indispensable Art: Native Fiber Indus-

tries from Eastern North America. Universityof Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Petersen, James B.1996b Fiber Industries from Northern New Eng-

land: Ethnicity and Technological Traditionsduring the Woodland Period. In A MostIndispensable Art: Native Fiber Industries fromEastern North America, edited by James B.Petersen, pp. 100-119. University of Ten-nessee Press, Knoxville.

Petersen, James B., Nathan D. Hamilton, James M.Adovasio, and Alan L. McPherron

1984 Netting Technology and the Antiquity ofFish Exploitation in Eastern North America.Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology9(2):199-225.

Petersen, James B., Brian S. Robinson, Daniel F. Belk-nap, James Stark, and Lawrence K. Kaplan

1994 An Archaic and Woodland Period Fish WeirComplex in Central Maine. Archaeology ofEastern North America 22:197-222.

Pollack, David, Cheryl Ann Munson, and A. GwynnHenderson

1996 Slack Farm and the Caborn-Welborn People.Education Series No. 1. Kentucky Archaeo-logical Survey, Lexington.

Purdy, Barbara A.2001 Introduction. In Enduring Records: The Envi-

ronmental and Cultural Heritage of Wetlands,edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. xv-xviii.Oxbow Books, Oxford, England.

Rachlin, Carol K.1955 The Rubber Mold Technic for the Study of

Textile-Impressed Pottery. American Antiqui-

ty 20(4):394-396.Ritchie, William A.

1980 The Archaeology of New York State. Rev. ed.Harbor Hill Books, Harrison, New York.

Robinson, Brian S.1996 A Regional Analysis of the Moorehead Bur-

ial Tradition: 8500–3700 B.P. Archaeology ofEastern North America 24:95-148.

Sibley, Lucy R., and Kathryn A. Jakes1982 Textile Fabric Pseudomorphs, a Fossilized

Form of Textile Evidence. Clothing and Tex-tiles Research Journal 1:24-30.

Simmons, William S.1978 Narragansett. In Northeast, edited by Bruce

G. Trigger, pp. 190-197. Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians Vol. 15. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D. C.

Tooker, Elisabeth, and Marian E. White1964 Archaeological Evidence for Sevententh

Century Iroquoian Dream Fulfillment Ritu-als. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 34(3-4):1-5.

White, Ellanor P.1987 Excavating in the Field Museum: A Survey and

Analysis of Textiles from the 1891 HopewellMound Group Excavation. Unpublished mas-ter’s thesis, Department of History, Sanga-mon State University, Springfield, Illinois.

White, Marian E.1967 An Early Historic Niagara Frontier Iroquois

Cemetery in Erie County, New York. Research-es and Transactions vol. xvi, no. 1. NewYork State Archeological Association,Rochester, NY.

Whitehead, Ruth Holmes1987 Plant Fibre Textiles from the Hopps Site:

BkCp-1. Curatorial Report No. 59. NovaScotia Museum, Halifax.

1993 Nova Scotia: The Protohistoric Period,1500–1630 — Four Micmac Sites. CuratorialReport 75. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax.

Willey, Lorraine M.1968 A Proposal for the Study of the Late Wood-

land Perishable Artifact Complex at SheepRock Shelter. In Archaeological Investigationsof Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntington County,Pennsylvania, edited by Joseph W. Michelsand James S. Dutt, pp. 313-357. Vol. 3. Occa-sional Papers in Anthropology No. 5.Department of Anthropology, PennsylvaniaState University, State College.

1974 Functional Analysis of Perishable Artifacts


during the Late Woodland Period in theNortheastern United States. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, Department of Anthropolo-gy, Pennsylvania State University, State Col-lege.

Willoughby, Charles C.1935 Antiquities of the New England Indians.

Peabody Museum of American Archaeolo-gy and Ethnology, Harvard University,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Wray, Charles F., Martha L. Sempowski, and LorraineP. Saunders

1991 Tram and Cameron: Two Early Contact EraSites. The Charles F. Wray Series in SenecaArchaeology, vol. 2, Research Records No.21. Rochester Museum and Science Center,Rochester, New York.

Wray, Charles F., Martha L. Sempowski, Lorraine P.Saunders, and Gian C. Cervone

1987 The Adams and Culbertson Sites. Charles F.Wray Series in Seneca Archaeology, vol. 1,Research Records No. 19. Rochester Muse-um and Science Center, Rochester, NewYork.



ABSTRACT

Located on the extreme western margin of theNortheast and the northern periphery of the Mid-South, the Upper Ohio Valley affords a strategic, ifhighly episodic, view of prehistoric non-durable tech-nology that extends back more than 12 millennia. Theoldest perishables from the Northeast derive from thisarea and are directly dated to pre-Clovis contexts atMeadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania. There-after, basketry, cordage, and related industries aresporadically represented by actual specimens orimpressions up to and beyond European contact. Thesalient characteristics of this long trajectory of perish-able fiber technology are summarized and comparedto developmental trajectories elsewhere in easternNorth America.

INTRODUCTION

For the purposes of this chapter, the UpperOhio Valley is not a precise or tightly circum-scribed geographic area. Rather, as defined here,the Upper Ohio Valley encompasses thedrainage of the Ohio River above the Falls of theOhio at Louisville, Kentucky, and includes thedrainages of its major feeders and tributaries aswell as immediately contiguous areas. Thusloosely defined, this region encompasses por-tions of the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, WestVirginia, Maryland, and Kentucky, and extends

into southern Indiana, eastern Missouri, andsouthwestern New York (Figure 2.1). As notedby many scholars, the Ohio Valley, generally, andthe Upper Ohio Valley, specifically, form aboundary or border area between the archaeo-logical Northeast, the Midwest, and the South-east (cf. Dragoo 1959; Muller 1986). Consequent-ly, the material culture and lifeways of its prehis-toric and post-European contact inhabitants fre-quently reflect multiple directional relationshipsand affinities.

Although human occupation of this relative-ly large area extends well back into the late Pleis-tocene, the Upper Ohio Valley is, with a fewnotable exceptions, relatively devoid of deeplystratified rockshelter, cave, or open sites. Theprincipal consequence of this situation is that thelong sequence of human visitation/utilization ofthis region is, for the most part, pieced togetherfrom discontinuous episodes of occupation at lit-erally hundreds of separate localities. Particular-ly germane to this chapter is the additional factthat, unlike the arid stretches of the Great Basin,the American Southwest, Lower and Trans-Pecos Texas or, closer to “home,” the OzarkBluffs of Arkansas and the limestone caves ofKentucky, organic preservation in the UpperOhio Valley is usually poor, with limited recov-ery of so-called perishable artifacts like cordage,netting, basketry, textiles, snares, and otherplant-based or, for that matter, wood-based tech-

Chapter 2 Prehistoric Perishable Fiber Technology in the Upper Ohio Valley 19

CHAPTER 2

PREHISTORIC PERISHABLE FIBER TECHNOLOGYIN THE UPPER OHIO VALLEY

J. M. Adovasio and J. S. Illingworth

Perishable Material Culture in the Northeast, edited by Penelope Ballard Drooker. New York State Museum Bulletin 500. © 2004by the University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany, New York. All rights reserved.

nology. The combination of poor preservationwith an absence of long occupational sequencesrenders the discernment of specific developmen-tal sequences or even chronological trends inperishable technology much more difficult in theUpper Ohio Valley than it is in Texas, Arizona,New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, or otherpoints west of the “Cactus Curtain.”

Despite these limitations, however, it is pos-sible to broadly outline some of the temporaland regional trends in non-durable plant-based

technology by using data from admittedly wide-ly separated localities with generally temporallycircumscribed occupations both within and nearthe Upper Ohio Valley. In what follows, the per-ishable assemblages from a series of sites arebriefly described and summarized in terms ofthe “windows” they individually and collective-ly afford into the plant-based technology of thecommonly recognized temporal segments ofUpper Ohio Valley prehistory. By design, thissummary includes only sites and assemblages

20 J. M. Adovasio and J. S. Illingworth

Figure 2.1. Locations of the Upper Ohio Valley sites discussed in this chapter.

from Paleoindian through Early Woodlandtimes, since perishable developments in latertime periods are treated by other contributors tothis volume.

PERISHABLE TECHNOLOGY

In the context of this chapter, the definition ofperishable technology follows Andrews andAdovasio (1996:30-31). Perishable technology andits products, fiber perishables, subsume a mini-mum of six basic compositional classes of vegetalartifacts — basketry, cordage, netting, knottedfibers, sandals, and miscellaneous fiber construc-tions. The constituents of these classes are treatedhere as the products of closely interrelated buttechnologically distinct prehistoric industries, theoutput of which are normally subject to rapiddecomposition in unprotected depositional set-tings — hence, they are truly perishable.

Basketry herein encompasses several distinctkinds of items, including rigid and semi-rigidcontainers or baskets proper, matting, and bags.Matting includes items that are essentially two-dimensional or flat, while baskets are three-dimensional. Bags can be viewed as intermedi-ate forms because they are two-dimensionalwhen empty but three-dimensional when filled.As Driver (1961:159) notes, these artifacts can betreated as a group because the overall techniqueof manufacture is the same in all instances.Specifically, all forms of basketry are manuallyproduced without any frame or loom.

There are three major kinds or subclasses ofbasketry that are generally mutually exclusive:twining, coiling, and plaiting. The term “twining”denotes a subclass of basket structures manufac-tured by the passing of two or more moving (or“active”) horizontal elements called wefts aroundstationary (or “passive”) vertical elements calledwarps (see Definitions). Twining techniques canbe employed to produce containers, mats, andbags, as well as fish traps, cradles, hats, clothing,and other “atypical” basketry forms.

The term “coiling” denotes a subclass of bas-ket structures manufactured by sewing station-ary, horizontal elements (the foundation) withmoving vertical elements (stitches). Coiling tech-niques are used almost exclusively in the pro-

duction of containers and hats, but rarely forbags. Mats and other flat forms are seldom, ifever, produced by coiling.

The term “plaiting” denotes a subclass ofbasket structures in which all elements pass overand under each other without any engagement.For this reason, plaited basketry is technicallydescribed as unsewn. Plaiting can be used tomake containers, bags, mats, and a wide range ofother, less-standardized forms.

The term “cordage” denotes a class of elon-gate fiber constructions the components ofwhich are generally subsumed under the Eng-lish terms “string” and “rope.” “Netting,” in thiscontext, subsumes a class of openwork fabricsbuilt up by the repeated interworking of a singlecontinuous element with itself (see Emery1966:30, and Definitions).

Two remaining classes, knotted fibers andmiscellaneous fiber constructions, representrespectively the “end” products of a spectrum offunctionally specific activities and a residual“catchall” category. Knotted fibers probablyserved a multiplicity of functions and are pre-cisely what the term implies — single, paired, orbunched fibers with one or more knots. Miscel-laneous fiber constructions are perishables thatcannot be accommodated within any of the otherfive compositional classes. This class containssuch diverse artifacts as braids, latticework con-structions, fiber rings, “fish sandwiches” (edibleplant-based “constructions” like splitOpuntia sp.pads that contain fish remains [Andrews andAdovasio 1980:261-262]), etc.

Sandals are herein synonymous with open orclosed vegetal-fiber footwear normally referredto in English as shoes or slippers. Despite theexclusion of sandals and the various remainingclasses of fiber perishables from additional dis-cussion here, we nonetheless stress that all suchconstructions are properly characterized as fiberconstructions. Although the present discussionfocuses on basketry, cordage, and (to a lesserextent) netting, we wish to emphasize that theremaining classes of fiber constructions certainlywere as ancient and important — if not occa-sionally more important — than those discussedbelow by cultural period.

Although none of these six compositional



classes of vegetal artifacts is represented contin-uously throughout the occupational history ofthe Upper Ohio Valley, one or another class isevidenced, however briefly, in each of the majortime segments (see Table 2.1 and below).

PERISHABLE TECHNOLOGYBY CULTURAL PERIOD

PALEOINDIAN (?–8000 B.C. [9950 B.P.])

Perishable remains of any kind are extreme-ly rare in Paleoindian contexts east of the RockyMountains, including the Upper Ohio Valley.However, the oldest reliably dated unequivocalspecimen of basketry from anywhere in NorthAmerica nonetheless derives from this area inone of the very few deeply stratified and long-occupied sites presently known. The item is awall fragment of 1/1 interval simple plaitingwith single elements from Middle Stratum IIa atMeadowcroft Rockshelter, Washington County,Pennsylvania (Stile 1982:133). The specimenlacks selvages, shifts, splices, and decoration.While the “finished” form of the plaiting frag-ment cannot be ascertained, it was manufactured(as with all of the Meadowcroft basketry) of a

cut, birch-like (Betula sp.) bark (Stile 1982:133)(Figure 2.2).

A far older but more tentatively classifiedperishable from Meadowcroft Rockshelter is ofLowest Stratum IIa provenience and is directlydated to 19,600 ± 2400 B.P. The specimen consistsof a single element of bilaterally cut, birch-like(Betula sp.) bark that is not dissimilar in overallconfiguration to the strips employed in all of thelater Meadowcroft simple plaiting. If the speci-men is a portion of a plaited construction andeven if at the youngest end of the date range (i.e.,17,200 B.P.), it is at once the oldest actual basketfragment (as opposed to impression) in easternNorth America, the rest of the continent, and theworld.

The only other basketry or textile specimenof possible Paleoindian ascription from any-where near the Upper Ohio Valley derives fromthe Hiscock site in Genessee County, New York,and is the subject of a separate contribution tothis volume (Chapter 3). The Hiscock specimenis a remarkable positive cast of close diagonaltwining with Z-twist wefts. Both the warps andwefts of the Hiscock specimen are composed oftwo-ply S-spun, Z-twist cordage produced fromretted plant stems or bast fibers of an as yet


Figure 2.2. Late Archaic 1/1 interval plaited basket from Meadowcroft Rockshelter. This specimen exhibits areinforced and sewn 180º rim.

unidentified plant and the item may be a portionof a fragment of cloth or a bag (Figure 2.3).

Regrettably, the exact context of the Hiscockdiagonal twining is somewhat ambiguous andits age cannot be presently fixed with certitude.If it derives from the Fibrous Gravelly Clay layerat Hiscock, it is of Eastern Clovis “vintage” orPaleoindian ascription and if it derives from theoverlying Woody Layer, it is Early Archaic inage. In either case, it is the oldest example oftwining in the Northeast.

EARLY ARCHAIC (8000 B.C.–6000 B.C. [9950B.P.–7950 B.P.])

With the singular exception of the Hiscockspecimen which, as noted previously, may be ofEarly Archaic ascription, no other perishableplant fiber artifacts or impressions of this age areknown from the Upper Ohio Valley. However,the widespread manufacture of twined basketryin EarlyArchaic contexts is firmly documented atGraham Cave, Missouri (Andrews and Adovasio1996; Klippel 1971; Logan 1952); Ice House Bot-

tom, Tennessee (Chapman and Adovasio 1977);Modoc Rockshelter, Illinois (Fowler 1959; Styleset al. 1983); and probably Layer G at RussellCave, Alabama (Griffin 1978). Early Archaictwining in the form of sandals is also evidencedat Arnold Research Cave, Missouri (Kuttruf et al.1998), and Ice House Bottom produced knottednetting in addition to twining. (Chapter 3 pro-vides a more detailed discussion of twined per-ishables from eastern North America.)

MIDDLE ARCHAIC (6000–4000 B.C.[7950–5950 B.P.])

Middle Archaic fiber perishables are some-what more common in and near the Upper OhioValley than those of earlier time horizons. Per-haps most informative of the complexity ofdevelopments during this period is an enigmaticfiber construction from Test Unit II at SquawRockshelter located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio(Andrews and Adovasio 1989). This item, whichis ascribable to a level radiocarbon dated at ca.3500 B.C. (5450 B.P.), represents a rather intri-


Figure 2.3. Schematic of the Hiscock, New York, twined specimen exhibiting continuous weft side selvage andlaid-in weft splices.

cately interwoven, elaborately knotted complexof four Z-spun single elements to which a final Stwist is imparted; it is attributed to the late Mid-dle Archaic period by its excavator (Brose 1989).While the details of manipulation are too lengthyand complex to present here, a simple descrip-tion follows. Initially, two unspun single-ply ele-ments were secured in and subsequently affixedto another pair of unspun elements with twooverhand knots. Six of the eight emergent endswere imparted a slight Z spin, intricately inter-looped and overhand knotted with four of theplies, finally S-twisted together, and terminatedwith a final whipping knot (Figure 2.4). Whilethe function of this complex construction isunknown, it is thoroughly charred and undeco-rated. It is possible that this specimen representsa mend or splice of a larger and quite elaboratecordage construction, or it may simply constitutea “doodle.”

A directly dated simple plaited fragmentfrom lower Stratum IIb at Meadowcroft Rock-shelter is the only known radiocarbon-assayedperishable fiber artifact represented east of theRockies. The Meadowcroft specimen, which dif-fers in no way from its Paleoindian predecessorsor its Late Archaic/Woodland period successors

at the site (see below), exhibits a 1/1 plaitinginterval without shifts. It is made of a birch-like(Betula sp.) bark and lacks selvages. This speci-men, which dates from ca. 4720 ± 140 B.C. (6670± 140 B.P.) to 3350 ± 130 B.C. (5300 ± 130 B.P.),was directly associated with hackberry (Celtissp.) seeds and may represent a portion of a cir-cular or rectangular container.

Although it is safe to assume that twiningcontinued to be produced across the entirebreadth of eastern North America, no MiddleArchaic examples are presently available fromthe Upper Ohio Valley or immediately adjacentareas.

LATE ARCHAIC (4000–1000 B.C. [5950–2950B.P.])

While perishable-bearing sites of Late Archa-ic ascription are relatively common in some por-tions of eastern North America, at least as com-pared to earlier periods, plant fiber artifacts ofthis time period continue to be rare in and nearthe Upper Ohio Valley.

Two of the simple plaited Meadowcroft Rock-shelter basketry fragments from upper StratumIIb and one specimen from Stratum III are ascrib-


Figure 2.4. Reconstruction of the Squaw Rockshelter cordage. Left to right: twisted yarns and plies, the knottedelement, and the knotting groups (adapted from Andrews and Adovasio 1989:Fig. 1).

able to the Late Archaic period. Collectively, thesespecimens date to ca. 2000–900 B.C. (3950–2850B.P.). One of them is directly dated at 1820 ± 90B.C. (3770 ± 90 B.P.). All three specimens are com-posed of simple plaiting (1/1 interval) withoutapparent shifts. All three fragments are unmend-ed and undecorated. The single and, rarely, dou-bled strips of birch-like (Betula sp.) bark are ofapparently equal width (Stile 1982:133). The plait-ing element size, combined with the large size ofa few specimens and their direct association withhackberry (Celtis sp.) seeds, raspberry (Rubis sp.)seeds, and nuts, suggest that these specimensmay represent fragments of large circular or rec-tangular containers (Stile 1982:133, 134). Stile alsoreports that the largest specimen is collapsed ontoitself. Further, one of the specimens contains a sel-vage described by Stile (p.133) as follows: “In thisexample, which may be the edge of a circular con-tainer of unknown size, the end or rim selvage isof the 180° self type folded over a rod which cir-cumscribes the exterior of the rim [see Figure 2.2].The elements have been folded over the rod(which is a whole, undecorated twig of presentlyunknown species), and then sewed to the body ofthe basket with cordage of an unknown numberof plies, initial spin or final twist.”

More numerous but of less-precise chrono-logical placement are the perishable remainsfrom Salts Cave, Kentucky, to the immediatesouthwest of the study area. As detailed by King(1974:31-40), the Salts Cave collection includesboth twined and plaited objects, as well as spun,twisted, and braided cordage. Although spaceprecludes an extensive discussion of thisremarkable collection, it minimally includesclose-twined sandals (called slippers) with Stwist only or both S-twist and Z-twist two-plywefts; open-twined sandals with an unknownweft slant (see Definitions); and simple- andtwill-plaited basketry and/or sandal fragments.Cordage in this assemblage includes two-ply Z-spun, S-twist cordage, three-strand braid, andperhaps other varieties. At least some of theseartifacts are probably terminal Late Archaic inage, though available dates range from 1190 ±150 B.C. (3140 ± 150 B.P.) to A.D. 30 ± 160 (1920 ±160 B.P.), with the majority ascribable to theEarly Woodland period.

EARLY WOODLAND (1000 B.C.–A.D. 1[2950–1949 B.P.])

By the dawn of the Early Woodland in theUpper Ohio Valley, which is essentially synony-mous with the Adena phenomenon or flores-cence, there is widespread evidence for perishablefiber technology frommany localities. Indeed, theubiquity and diversity of Adena textile and bas-ketry technology is, in itself, eloquent testimonyto the great time depth that these and relatedplant-based industries exhibit in the study area.Although, admittedly, it would be useful to sum-marize all of the perishable data available fromEarly Woodland contexts in the Upper Ohio Val-ley and contiguous areas, due to obvious spaceconstraints we prefer to concentrate on a suite ofsites where perishable remains typify or exempli-fy developments during this time span.

Excavation in Burial 2 at the Northern ThornMound (46MG78) in Monongalia County, WestVirginia, yielded some 70 “clods” or chunks ofunfired and/or partially fired puddled clay hav-ing either negative impressions or actual decom-posed perishables (Adovasio and Andrews1980:33-72). At a minimum, this assemblage con-tained eight pieces of cordage and 19 specimensof twined “basketry.” The cordage assemblagewas dominated by two-ply Z-spun, S-twiststring and rope-sized products while the bas-ketry included two types of simple twining(close simple twining, S-twist; close simple twin-ing, S- and Z-twist) and two types of diagonaltwining (open diagonal twining, S-twist; openand close diagonal twining, S- and Z-twistwefts). All of the basketry was made with two-ply Z-spun, S-twist cordage warps and wefts(Figure 2.5).

Although the term “basketry” was employedin the original Thorn Mound perishable artifactstudy, these items also could be labeled accurate-ly as twined fabrics if one follows the usage ofEmery (1966). If that convention is followed, theclose simple twining, S-twist weft specimens areanalogous to Emery’s “Compact 2-strand S-twistweft-twining” (Emery 1966:Fig. 305). Similarly,the open diagonal twining, S-twist weft speci-mens are analogous to Emery’s “Spaced 2-strandS-twist alternate-pair weft-twining” (Emery


1966:Fig. 310) while the open diagonal twining,S- and Z-twist weft specimens represent theopen or “spaced” counterpart of Emery’s “coun-tered compact 2-strand alternate-pair weft-twin-ing” (Emery 1966:Fig. 311).

The foregoing information is particularlygermane when the form or forms of the North-ern Thorn Mound twining are considered.Although all of the impressions from the siterepresent incomplete segments of basketry (orfabrics), their probable forms are difficult toascertain with precision. To be specific, all fourtwining types as reflected in the extant samplecould represent flexible bags or articles of cloth-ing. While the bag “option” is certainly notimpossible, we consider it more likely that all ofthe twining represents portions of some sort ofapparel. The close simple twining, S-twist weftand close simple twining, S- and Z-twist weftspecimens from the vicinity of the skull of Burial2 may represent either hoods, cowls, skull caps(or aboriginal “beanies”), or perhaps a ker-chief/scarf that may have been draped and/ortied over the face and head. The other two twin-ing types with their open work mesh could like-wise represent bags, although it is equally if notmore likely that they are segments of robes,

cloaks, blankets, or some such similar item ofapparel.

As previously summarized by Adovasio andAndrews (1980:65-67), and earlier by Webb andSnow (1945) and Dragoo (1963), many other sitesin and near the Upper Ohio Valley have yieldedperishables of EarlyWoodland (and later) ascrip-tion. Indeed, as early as 1945, a sufficient numberof sites had produced basketry, textiles, andcordage remains to permit Webb and Snow(1945:27) to generate a “list” of 10 traits that pur-portedly characterized Adena textiles and bas-ketry. This list included the presence of plain(i.e., simple) and twill plaiting, plain (i.e., sim-ple) and diagonal twining, “chevron twining”(i.e., simple twining with alternate S- and Z-twistweft courses), “lattice or bird cage” [sic] twining(i.e., wrapped twining), and the use of three-plycordage. The illustrations of these techniquesclearly indicate that open and close, simple anddiagonal twining were indeed standard ele-ments in the Adena basketry and textile reper-toire, as were “clockwise” or S-twist warps andwefts. Also known are three-ply Z-twist warps inwhich three specimens of two-ply Z-spun, S-twist cords are combined with a final Z twist.Three examples of two-ply Z-spun, S-twist cordswere braided together and are employed aswarps.

Not only are the Northern Thorn Moundperishable remains generally consistent with the“preferred” attributes enumerated by Webb andSnow, but so also are the bulk of the materialsreported from the Natrium Mound in West Vir-ginia (Solecki 1953:374-375), the McKees RocksMound in southwestern Pennsylvania (Mayer-Oakes 1955:149), and the Cresap Mound in WestVirginia (Dragoo 1963). The Cresap perishableassemblage is one of the largest in the UpperOhio Valley. Feature 12 at Cresap (Dragoo1963:32-33), a basin-shaped layer of burned clay,yielded a small piece of cloth preserved by cop-per salts in association with a circular string of 22rolled copper beads. Feature 15 (Dragoo 1963:35,129) produced the highly friable remains of whatare variously described as a basket or a plaitedshallow bowl (Dragoo 1963:35,129). Althoughthe description is attenuated, the specimen isalleged to be “tightly woven” (Dragoo 1963:35).


Figure 2.5. Positive cast of open simple S-twist wefttwining from Northern Thorn Mound, West Virginia.

Other features at the site may have containedhighly fragmentary and amorphous textile, bas-ketry, cordage, or netting remains (Dragoo1963:41, 49-50). Indeed, Dragoo (1963:69) notesthat 11 of the 20 elliptical to oval, flat to basin-shaped features at Cresap contained disintegrat-ed bark and/or other organics. Two small piecesof what Dragoo calls cloth associated with Buri-als 8 and 9, respectively, are also recorded (Dra-goo p.122, 128). The Burial 8 specimen measures1.1 cm x 2.8 cm while the other is approximately1.4 x 3.9 cm. Unfortunately, the Burial 8 speci-men is described simply as tightly woven, whilethe Burial 9 specimen is listed as plain twiningwith warps and wefts of approximately equalsize. From what little can be extracted from theCresap perishable descriptions, it appears thatthe basic assemblage includes types not unlikethose reported from the Northern Thorn Mound.

Indeed, no matter how many Upper OhioValley sites are added to this comparison, it isclear that the perishable materials from any andall of them fit comfortably and conformably intoa regionally distinctive Early Woodland (orAdena) industry whose immediate roots lie inthe preceding Late Archaic and whose genesis isin much more remote time periods. This trajecto-ry does not, of course, cease in the Early Wood-land, but instead continues, as other chapters inthis volume document, up to and even beyondEuropean contact.

OVERVIEW

In retrospect, the material reviewed here con-firms in the microcosm of the Upper Ohio Valleya series of developmental trajectories for perish-ables technology previously established for east-ern North America and, for that matter, NorthAmerica at large.1. From the initiation of human occupation of

the Upper Ohio Valley or, indeed, any part ofNorth America where preservation permits,the production of basketry, textiles, cordage,netting, and related materials is part and par-cel of the armamentarium of the firstcolonists (Adovasio et al. 2001).

2. Within and near the Upper Ohio Valley, andby extension other parts of eastern North

America, the production of plaited andtwined baskets or fabrics is firmly docu-mented by the beginning of the eighth mil-lennium B.C. at the very latest, as is the man-ufacture of cordage and, presumably,cordage by-products (cf. Andrews andAdovasio 1996:45).

3. The persistence of plaiting and twining inone form or another can be documented, atleast episodically, from Early Archaicthrough Early Woodland times (andbeyond), and the continued manufacture ofcordage and cordage by-products may beconfidently inferred by extrapolation fromneighboring areas.

4. By Early Woodland times, Upper Ohio Val-ley twining and cordage production washighly elaborated within a regionally distinc-tive tradition, the “living” functions of whichwere doubtless myriad, but whose principalrecovered manifestations are in mortuarycontexts.

5. As in all of the rest of eastern North Americawhere organic preservation is good, the per-ishable remains from the Upper Ohio Valleydocument a typologically diverse and tech-nologically sophisticated series of industriesequal in every way to — and which in someways actually surpass — their much better-preserved and more common counterpartsand contemporaries in western North Amer-ica. This in turn leads to the inescapable con-clusion that the manufacture of plant-fiber-based perishables is a nearly universal fea-ture of the prehistoric North American land-scape. Moreover, by its very nature and ubiq-uity, this technology is a critical, if still radi-cally underappreciated, component in theadaptive success of virtually all NativeAmericans throughout all time periods.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Figure 2.1 was drafted by J. S. Illingworth.Figures 2 and 5 were taken by J. M. Adovasioand digitally processed by D. R. Pedler. Figure2.3 was drafted by K. K. Manske. Figure 2.4 wasdrafted by R. L. Andrews. This chapter was edit-ed by D. R. Pedler.


REFERENCES CITED

Adovasio, J. M., and R. L. Andrews1980 Basketry, Cordage and Bark Impressions

from the Northern Thorn Mound (46MG78),Monongalia County, West Virginia. WestVirginia Archaeologist 30:33-72.

Adovasio, J. M., D. C. Hyland, and O. Soffer2001 Perishable Technology and Early Human

Populations in the New World. In On BeingFirst: Cultural Innovation and EnvironmentalConsequences of First Peopling, edited by J.Gillespie, S. Tupakka, and C. deMille, pp.201-222. Proceedings of the 31st AnnualChacmool Conference. The ArchaeologicalAssociation of the University of Calgary,Calgary.

Andrews, R. L., and J. M. Adovasio1980 Perishable Industries from Hinds Cave, Val

Verde County, Texas. Ethnology MonographsNo. 5. Department of Anthropology, Uni-versity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

1989 Knotted Cordage from Squaw Rockshelter,Aurora Run, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Kirt-landia 44:59-62.

1996 The Origins of Fiber Perishables East of theRockies. In A Most Indispensable Art: NativeFiber Perishables from Eastern North America,edited by J. B. Petersen, pp. 30-49. Universi-ty of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Brose, David S.1989 The Squaw Rockshelter (33CU34): A Strati-

fied Archaic Deposit in Cuyahoga County.Kirtlandia 44:17-53.

Chapman, Jefferson, and J. M. Adovasio1977 Textile and Basketry Impressions from Ice-

house Bottom, Tennessee. American Antiqui-ty 42(4):620-625.

Dragoo, Donald W.1959 Archaic Hunters of the Upper Ohio Valley.

Annals of the Carnegie Museum 35:139-239.1963 Mounds for the Dead. Annals of the Carnegie

Museum, Vol. 37. Carnegie Museum, Pitts-burgh.

Driver, Harold E.1961 Indians of North America. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.Emery, Irene1966 The Primary Structures of Fabrics: An Illustrat-

ed Classification. The Textile Museum, Wash-ington, D.C.

Fowler, Melvin L.1959 Summary Report of the Modoc Rock Shelter.

Reports of Investigations No. 8. IllinoisState Museum, Springfield.

Griffin, James W.1978 Investigations in Russell Cave. Reprint.

Huntsville Chapter of the Alabama Archae-ological Society. Originally published 1974,National Park Service Publications inArchaeology No. 13. U.S. Department of theInterior, Huntsville, Alabama.

King, Mary E.1974 The Salts Cave Textiles: A Preliminary

Account. In Archeology of the Mammoth CaveArea, edited by P. J. Watson, pp. 31-40. Aca-demic Press, New York.

Klippel, Walter E.1971 Graham Cave Revisited: A Re-evaluation of Its

Cultural Position during the Archaic Period.Memoir No. 9. Missouri ArchaeologicalSociety, Columbia.

Kuttruff, Jenna T., Sandra G. DeHart, and Michael J.O’Brien

1998 7500 Years of Prehistoric Footwear fromArnold Research Cave, Missouri. Science281(5373):72-75.

Logan, Wilfred D.1952 Graham Cave: An Archaic Site in Montgomery

County, Missouri. Memoir 2 MissouriArchaeological Society, Columbia.

Mayer-Oakes, William J.1955 Prehistory of the Upper Ohio Valley: An Intro-

ductory Archaeological Study. Annals of theCarnegie Museum, Vol 34. Carnegie Muse-um, Pittsburgh.

Muller, Jon1986 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley.

Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.Solecki, Ralph S.1953 Exploration of an Adena Mound at Natri-

um, West Virginia. Bureau of American Eth-nology Bulletin 151, Anthropological Papers40:313-396.

Stile, T. E.1982 Perishable Artifacts from Meadowcroft

Rockshelter, Washington County, Pennsyl-vania. InMeadowcroft: Collected Papers on theArchaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter andthe Cross Creek Drainage, edited by R. C.Carlisle and J. M. Adovasio, pp. 130-141.Department of Anthropology, University ofPittsburgh, Pittsburgh.


Styles, Bonnie W., Steven R. Ahler, and Melvin L.Fowler

1983 Modoc Rock Shelter Revisited. In ArchaicHunter-Gatherers in the American Midwest,edited by J. L. Phillips and James A. Brown,pp. 261-297. Academic Press, New York.

Webb, William S., and Charles E. Snow1945 The Adena People. Reports in Anthropology,

and Archaeology vol. 6. University of Ken-tucky Press, Lexington.


ABSTRACT

The 1996 excavations at the Hiscock site in NewYork yielded an impression of a close diagonal twined,Z-twist weft textile with a continuous weft side sel-vage and, possibly, actual minute pieces of that tex-tile. The specimen is generally associated with a con-centration of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virgini-anus) bones and originates in deposits of possible latePleistocene/early Holocene age. The technology, con-text, associations, and possible age of the specimen arediscussed, and this unique item is placed in the larg-er framework of perishable developments in the NewWorld.

INTRODUCTION

A single positive impression (cast) of a bas-ketry or textile fragment and possible minutefragments of this construction were recoveredduring the 1996 excavations at the Hiscock site inGenesee County, NewYork (Figure 3.1). The His-cock site is an approximately 0.8 ha spring-fedbasin that is situated within an area of groundmoraine about 1.5 km west-northwest of Byron,New York, and about 37 km west-southwest ofRochester. The site is flanked on the north by theNiagara Escarpment and on the south by theOnondaga Escarpment, both of which containabundant outcrops of high-grade lithic

resources. Between these escarpments lie theremnants of two postglacial lakes, Towanda/Wainfleet and Tcakowageh (Muller and Calkin1985; Tinkler et al. 1992), which during the latePleistocene through early Holocene collectivelyformed a formidable east–west barrier to bothhuman and animal movement (Laub 2002:105).The Hiscock site’s location within a gap in thisbarrier, along with its active springs, may havemade it an attractive locus for migratory animalor human populations (Laub 2002:105).

The Hiscock site was discovered and initiallytested in 1959, with additional testing takingplace in 1982. Major excavations began in 1983and have continued with attendant analyses tothe present. These excavations have revealed aseries of five layers, the deepest of which is acobble till that is culturally sterile (Laub 2002;Laub et al. 1988). Superimposed upon this so-called Cobble Layer is a complex unit of sedi-ments called the Fibrous Gravelly Clay Layer,which has yielded pollen, plant macrofossils(especially jack pine [Pinus banksiana] cones),abundant remains of mastodon (Mammut ameri-canum), and remains of other species includingcaribou (Rangifer tarandus), stag-moose (Cervalcesscotti), California condor (Gymnogyps californi-anus), and giant beaver (Castoroides ohioensis).Thirteen radiocarbon assays indicate that thislayer dates to ca. 11,400–9500/9200 uncalibrated

Chapter 3 Perishable Technology from the Hiscock Site 31

CHAPTER 3

PERISHABLE TECHNOLOGYFROM THE HISCOCK SITE

J. M. Adovasio, R. S. Laub, J. S. Illingworth, J. H. McAndrews, and D. C. Hyland


32 J. M. Adovasio, R. S. Laub, J. S. Illingworth, J. H. McAndrews, and D. C. Hyland

Figure 3.1. Approximate locations of perishable-bearing sites discussed in this chapter: 1=Hiscock, New York;2=Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania; 3=Graham Cave, Missouri; 4=Icehouse Bottom, Tennessee;5 =Modoc Rockshelter, Illinois; 6=Russell Cave, Alabama.

radiocarbon years B.P. The textile impressiondiscussed in this chapter was recovered from theupper reaches of the Fibrous Gravelly ClayLayer.

The Fibrous Gravelly Clay Layer is uncon-formably overlain by a Holocene peat liberallyinterspersed with numerous fragments of wood.Called the Woody Layer, this unit has also yield-ed pollen, plant macrofossils, and remains ofmodern fauna, notably white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus). The base of the olderand deeper part of the Woody Layer is dated toca. 9300/9200 uncalibrated radiocarbon yearsB.P., while the upper part of the unit is ca. 6200uncalibrated radiocarbon years B.P. in age (Laub2002:107). The remaining stratigraphic units aremuch younger and beyond the scope of thischapter.

In addition to ecofactual remains, the FibrousGravelly Clay has also produced five flutedbifaces, an untyped projectile point fragment,and a triangular end uniface, all of Onondagachert (Laub 2002:110-111). Overlying layersyielded a small suite of Archaic materials. Pre-liminary assessments of the Hiscock site areavailable in Laub et al. (1988) and Laub (2002). Amajor monograph detailing the archaeologicalinvestigation of the Hiscock site is in press (Laub2003).

METHODS

BASKETRY DEFINED

Technically, basketry is usually treated as asubclass or variety of textile, which, in turn, maybe defined as a larger, all-encompassing class ofwoven materials (see “Textile” in Definitions). Interms of process and product, however, both tex-tiles and basketry can be regarded as belongingto or representing two distinct, albeit closelyinterrelated, perishable industries and, thus,these two categories can be defined at an equiv-alent classificatory level.

Specifically, basketry consists of those itemsincluding containers, bags, and matting which,as recognized by many researchers (e.g., Adova-sio 1977; Balfet 1952; Drooker 1992; Mason 1904),are usually not fully pliable, and, as Driver

(1961:159) points out, are manually woven with-out the support of any frame or loom. Textilesgenerally represent infinitely flexible materials,produced with the aid of a frame or loom. Thedifference between basketry and textiles then iscustomarily determined by the degree of flexibil-ity of the specimen, the form of the item, andwhether the item was made with some variety ofhanging or horizontal heddle or non-heddleframe. Since these three features — and thus thedistinction between basketry and textiles — canusually be determined only by examination ofactual specimens, as is discussed further below(see Discussion, Internal Correlations), no finaldetermination can be definitively made as towhether the Hiscock site impression and possi-ble related fragments represent loom-woven ornon-loom-woven materials. As is also detailedbelow, however, regardless of whether a sup-portive frame was used, the manufacturingprocess can usually be distinguished from animpression. Of the three major and generallymutually exclusive manufacturing processes(Adovasio 1977) — twining, coiling, and plaiting— only twining is represented at the Hiscocksite.

CONSERVATION PROCEDURES

Upon its discovery on 28 July 1996, the spec-imen and its adhering matrix were treated withglycerin procured from a local drugstore,wrapped in plastic, stored on an aluminum foil“boat,” and then kept refrigerated. The specimenwas then transferred to Mercyhurst Archaeolog-ical Institute (MAI) by R. Laub on 27 August1996, and initially examined by J. M. Adovasioand R. B. Davis. A small amount (approximately1 cm2) of what appeared to be mold wasobserved on the opposite side of the specimenfrom the textile/basketry impression. Samples ofthe mold were taken for analysis by L. Gauriloff,Department of Biology, Mercyhurst College, andthe specimen was placed in a translucent Tup-perware container and stored in an environmen-tally controlled chamber where, as of this writ-ing, it still resides. Temperature in the chamber ismaintained at 34–36°F (1–2°C) and humidity ismaintained at 54–56 percent.


The mold was identified as penicillin (Peni-cillium sp.). Gauriloff recommended treatment ofthe affected areas with a mixture of isopropylalcohol and deionized water (DI H2O). Treat-ment was delayed until 21 October 1996, whileresearchers at MAI contacted I. Taylor at theRadiocarbon Laboratory, University of Califor-nia, Riverside, to determine the potential effectsof isopropyl alcohol on radiometric dating. Tay-lor concluded that there would be no detrimen-tal effects and the penicillin was subsequentlyexcised. The affected area was then spot-treatedwith reagent-grade isopropyl alcohol. There isno longer any detectable microbial activity onthe specimen.

Since its initial treatment, the specimen hasremained stable, receiving only periodic mistingwith DI H2O. Currently, the specimen shows nosigns of degradation and all indications are thatit will remain stable for an indefinite period oftime. Plans for final stabilization are being pre-pared by the Canadian Conservation Institute(CCI), Ottawa, Ontario (Logan et al. 2001).

ANALYTICAL METHODS

The specimen was analyzed in its wet statewith the aid of a Leica Wild — 10 stereoscopicmicroscope. Data were recorded on standardizedanalysis forms. The specimen’s degree of flexibil-ity, the degree of attrition wear, possible form andfunction, as well as raw material and method ofpreparation were noted. Measurements wererecorded in the metric system with a Helios nee-dle-nosed dial caliper. The specimen was pho-tographed before, during, and after analysis usingboth black-and-white and color 35 mm film. Dig-ital photographs were also taken using a Pana-sonic WV-CP410 digital camera and the SnappyVideo Snapshot computer program. Additionally,prior to analysis, the specimen was submitted byR. S. Laub to the Canadian Conservation Institute(CCI), Ottawa, Ontario, for documentation viathree-dimensional laser scanning.

The twined impression from the Hiscock sitewas assigned to a single structural type based onthe number and sequence of warps engaged ateach weft crossing and the spacing of the weft

rows. Twining denotes a subclass of basketry/textile structures manufactured by passing twoor more moving (active) horizontal elements,called wefts, around stationary (passive) verticalelements, called warps (see Definitions). Twin-ing techniques may be used to produce contain-ers, mats, and bags, as well as fish traps, cradles,hats, or fabrics of a wide variety of configura-tions. The specimen was also examined for sel-vage, method of starting, work direction, andtype(s) of decorative mechanics and mending.Classificatory protocols and descriptive termi-nology follow Adovasio (1977), Emery (1966),and Hurley (1979).

RESULTS

Description of the specimen (Figure 3.2) is asfollows, in standard Mercyhurst ArchaeologicalInstitute format.Close Diagonal Twining, Z-Twist WeftNumber of Specimens: 1 (Specimen E9SW-215).Type of Specimen: Fragment with selvage, 1.Number of Individual Forms Represented: 1.Type of Form Represented: Bag or cloth, exact

configuration unknown.Technique and Comments: This specimen

employs diagonal twined weaving overpaired warp elements. Wefts are paired andclosely spaced to partially conceal the warps.Both warps and wefts are composed of two-ply S-spun, Z-twist cordage produced fromretted plant stems or bast fibers from an as-yet-unidentified plant (Figures 3.3 and 3.4).

There are no apparent warp splices, althoughthe specimen does exhibit laid-in weft splices.The specimen exhibits a simple, continuous weftside selvage (Figure 3.5) on one margin. Thespecimen is undecorated, unmended, andexhibits no diagnostic attrition wear. The speci-men is not covered with pitch, nor does it showpre-depositional residues. It probably representsa fragment of cloth or, somewhat less likely, afragment of a bag.


Measurements:Specimen Dimensions: 20 x 12 mm

Range in Warp Element Diameter: 0.12–0.19 mm

Mean Warp Element Diameter: 0.17 mm

Warp Unit Diameter: 0.32 mm

Warp Units per cm: 16 (extrapolatedfrom measurablearea of 0.5 mm)

Weft Element Diameter: 0.10 mm

Range in Weft Unit Diameter: 0.16–0.28 mm

Mean Weft Unit Diameter: 0.20 mm

Weft Units per cm: 14 (extrapolatedfrom measurablearea of 0.5 mm)

Weft Gap: 0 mm


Figure 3.2. The Hiscock twining specimen.

Figure 3.3. Close-up of the structure of the Hiscocktwining specimen.

DISCUSSION

INTERNAL CORRELATIONS

Genesis of the Specimen. The Hiscock sitetwining specimen represents one of the raresttypes of basketry or textile fossil replicationencountered in the archaeological record. Specif-ically, it is a natural positive cast of a portion of alarger item as opposed to a negative impressionof an item produced by impressing the originalinto a compliant medium or matrix.

To our knowledge, the only way that a natu-ral cast like the Hiscock site example can beformed is via the complete encasement and sub-sequent disintegration of the original within anessentially undeformed matrix. Once all or mostof the original is gone, the “mold” or negativespace is infilled with fine silt or clay-sized sedi-ment, thus producing the natural equivalent of aciré perdue or lost wax cast. This interpretationis strongly supported by the fine-grained com-position of the body of the Hiscock site specimenas well as its remarkable integrity. Interestingly,


Figure 3.4. Structural schematic of the Hiscock twining specimen. Note the presence of laid-in weft splices anda continuous weft side-selvage.

Figure 3.5. Close-up of the selvage of the Hiscocktwining specimen, indicated by arrows.

the decomposition of the original may not havebeen complete, as some microscopic strands ofplant material within the impression may repre-sent minute fragments of the original construc-tion. It should be noted that there is no way sucha positive cast could have been created by any ofthe excavators or other contemporary users ofthe site.

Provenience, Context, and Association. TheHiscock site twining specimen was not recov-ered or documented in situ. Rather — andremarkably, considering its fragility — it wasretrieved from the screens. The matrix contain-ing the specimen was hand-excavated from grid

square E9SW, the southern half of which(E9SW[S1/2]) was excavated in 1996. Thismatrix was recovered 77–82 cm (30.3–32.3 in)below modern ground surface within the upperportion of the Fibrous Gravelly Clay Layer nearthe upper interface of that unit with the overly-ing Woody Layer (Figure 3.6).

The specimen is considered by the excava-tors to be “loosely” associated with faunal ele-ments mostly assignable to a single white-taileddeer (Odocoileus virginianus), the majority ofwhich clustered in the lower part of the overly-ing Woody Layer and intruded down into theFibrous Gravelly Layer (Laub, personal commu-


Figure 3.6. Stratigraphic profile of the east face of Unit E9SW[S1/2].

nication 2001). Put most simply, the exact prove-nience of the impression is somewhat ambigu-ous. It may have originated within the FibrousGravelly Clay, or it may have intruded into itfrom the base of the overlying Woody Layer.Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, pollen analy-sis of sediment from the matrix directly aroundthe impression is consistent with an origin with-in the Fibrous Gravelly Clay rather than theoverlyingWoody Layer (Laub, personal commu-nication 2001).

Chronology. Given the uncertainties of theexact provenience of the Hiscock site twiningspecimen, a precise age for this item cannot beestablished on purely stratigraphic or contextualgrounds. Unfortunately, neither can radiometricdeterminations resolve the matter. Acceleratormass spectrometry (AMS) assays run on a twigfragment of unidentifiable wood from the matrixof the specimen produced an uncorrected date of10,180 ± 50 B.P. (CAMS-75232), while a piece ofunidentifiable plant tissue from the matrix yield-ed an uncorrected date of 7950 ± 50 B.P. (CAMS-75233). Obviously, the earlier assay is consistentwith an origin in the Fibrous Gravelly Clay, whichis of demonstrated late Pleistocene age, while thelater date is consistent with an origin in the olderWoody Layer, which is of early Holocene ascrip-tion (Laub 2001; Laub et al. 1988).

It should be noted that neither assay was runon fibers thought to be part of the original spec-imen. The few surviving crumbs of the originalprovided an insufficient volume for dating bycurrently available means, and have beenarchived to await the development of adequatetechnology. At that time, the age of the twiningspecimen may be established with greater certi-tude.

Technology, Form, and Function. Whateverits precise age, the Hiscock site twining speci-men represents a technically sophisticated andwell-executed example of close diagonal twin-ing. The standardization (i.e., consistent gaugeand diameter) of the warp and weft elements,the regularity and even spacing of weft rowengagement, and the consistency of the side sel-vage treatment collectively mark or signal amature perishable technology rather than anysort of initial essay in the craft.

Unfortunately, despite these insights, the rel-atively small size of the specimen precludesspecification of finished form or presumed func-tion(s). While it is virtually certain that the orig-inal construction was fully flexible, it is not pos-sible to determine whether the fragment is anitem of clothing or a bag fragment. The presenceof a side selvage suggests that the specimen ismost likely a segment of a twined cloth or fabricof indeterminate shape. However, it is possiblethat this specimen is a fragment of an envelope-like bag, made by folding and then sewing rec-tanguloid lengths of twined textiles. As such, thebag may exhibit side selvages unlike the farmore common radially twined form.

Regardless of the specific form representedby the specimen, it is noteworthy that Logan(personal communication 2001) suggests theitem may have been used to transport raw claywhich, in turn, could have been used in wattle-and-daub construction. Interestingly, such afunction has also been suggested for some of themuch earlier textile fragments recovered fromGravettian contexts in central Moravia (Adova-sio et al. 1997; Adovasio, Hyland, Soffer, andKlíma 2001; Soffer et al. 2000).

EXTERNAL CORRELATIONS

Despite the ambiguities of its age, as well asthe uncertainties surrounding its exact form orfunction, the Hiscock site specimen is nonethe-less one of the oldest evidences of perishablefiber technology in eastern North America.Indeed, if the earlier AMS date is correct, theHiscock site specimen is the oldest example oftwining from anywhere east of the MississippiRiver. Even if the younger AMS date is acceptedas a minimum age, the Hiscock site specimen isthe oldest example of twining within the North-east and one of only a handful of early Holoceneexamples of this technology in eastern NorthAmerica.

As discussed byAdovasio and Illingworth inChapter 2 of this volume, perishable remains ofany kind are extremely uncommon in Paleoindi-an sites east of the Cordilleran Front and its out-liers. Indeed, with the singular exception of thesimple plaited basketry from Meadowcroft


Rockshelter (Stile 1982; Chapter 2, this volume)none of the extant remains are indisputably oflate Pleistocene age.

By the onset of essentially modern climaticconditions, which is concomitant with the initia-tion of the Early Archaic period (ca. 8000 B.C.[10,000 B.P.]), perishables are somewhat betterrepresented in widely separated portions of east-ern North America. A single specimen fromLevel 6 (Zone IV) at Graham Cave in Mont-gomery County, Missouri (see Figure 3.1), rangesfrom 9700 ± 500 B.P. to 9290 ± 300 B.P. in age andmay be assigned to the very beginning of thisperiod (Klippel 1971:22; Logan 1952:74). Thisfired clay impression, erroneously identified as“coiled” (Logan 1952:58), is — with the possibleexception of the Hiscock site impression — theoldest evidence of twining in eastern NorthAmerica. Examination of a clay “positive” madedirectly from the impression indicates that thespecimen was composed of close simple S-twisttwining. The paired twining wefts appear tohave been single elements of loosely Z-”spun”fibers1, while the structure of the warps is notdiscernible. If the warps were rigid, the speci-men probably represents a container of somesort, and if they were flexible, it may be a bagfragment. The condition of the impression pre-cludes the determination of splicing techniquesor any other detail of construction, save to notethat the object was not structurally decorated.Similarly, the raw material employed in con-struction cannot be ascertained.

Later levels (zones) at Graham Cave pro-duced additional basketry impressions, again onfired clay (Logan 1952:58). Specimens represent-ing a minimum of two types of twining wererecovered (Logan 1952:Pl. XXI) from Level 5(Zone IV/III), Level 4 (Zone III), and Level 2(Zone II). Collectively, these specimens datebetween 8830 ± 500 B.P. and 7630 ± 120 B.P. One ofthese types (Logan 1952:Pl. XXIc) is an impressionof open simple S-twist twining over what appearsto be two-ply Z-spun S-twist cordage warps,while the other (Logan 1952:Pl. XXIb) is either arepresentative of the same type (except with Z-twist warps) or it is open diagonal twining, againwith Z-twist warps. As the “fibrous nature” of thewarps and wefts seems to indicate, these two

fragments probably represent portions of flexiblecontainers such as bags. The specimens lack sel-vages, splices, or decoration, and were composedof indeterminate raw materials.

Southeast of Graham Cave, Icehouse Bottomin Monroe County, Tennessee (see Figure 3.1),also yielded an assemblage of impressions ofEarly Archaic vintage (Chapman and Adovasio1977:620). Twenty-seven of the site’s thirty spec-imens originate from Strata M-O, the Lower Kirkhorizon, and span a period of 9450–9250 B.P.(Chapman and Adovasio 1977:623). The remain-ing three fragments derive from Strata L and J,the Upper Kirk horizon, and may be ascribed toa 9250–8850 B.P. time interval.

Twenty-nine specimens from the site repre-sent impressions of open simple twining with Z-twist wefts. Warps and wefts consisted of two-ply, S-spun, Z-twist cordage. These specimenslack selvages and were probably originally flexi-ble; thus, they probably represent impressions ofthe undecorated “walls” of matting or bags. Fur-ther, some of these items appear to have beenradially twined, although splice type and rawmaterial cannot be determined.

From the same general area (see Figure 3.1),two twined basketry impressions were docu-mented within the early deposits at ModocRockshelter, Illinois (Fowler 1959; Styles et al.1983). The oldest specimen, which derives fromthe Stratum 20–23 interface, was open simpletwining, with Z-twist wefts. Both warps andwefts apparently were two-ply, S-twist fiber.There was an approximately 8.5 mm gapbetween weft rows. The texture appears flexibleand the specimen — or more accurately, the sur-face from which it derives — is not directlydated but it underlay the second Modoc speci-men, which is dated to ca. 8350 ± 100 B.P. Theyounger impression from Modoc Rockshelterwas recovered from Feature 252 in Stratum 26and appears to be an open simple twined frag-ment of indeterminate weft slant. Unfortunately,the impression is not well delineated and thecomposition and flexibility of the warps andwefts cannot be determined with certainty. Itmay be another mat fragment.

While the Graham Cave, Icehouse Bottom,andModoc Rockshelter perishables are clearly of


Early Archaic ascription, somewhat less certainis the temporal placement of perishable speci-mens from Layer G at Russell Cave, located innortheastern Alabama (see Figure 3.1). This“unit” is dated between 8950 B.P. and 6950 B.P.,and has yielded four examples of what is allegedto be over-and-under interlacing — that is, sim-ple plaiting (Griffin 1978:62). While the singlepublished photograph does not allow exactdetermination of actual construction techniquesor any other details of manufacture, the speci-men appears to be twined. Specifically, the illus-trated item clearly seems to be wrapped twiningwith one semi-rigid fixed weft and one flexible“running weft.” Although rare in the extreme,this type of twining (see Figure 11.12d) is repre-sented in the archaeological records of the Pacif-ic Northwest and the Lower Pecos in Texas. Theillustrated Russell Cave specimen apparentlyrepresents a (flexible?) wall fragment (withoutselvage) of a container of unspecified configura-tion and is unspliced, unmended, and undeco-rated. Lamentably, the problematic identificationand interpretation of the Layer G artifacts iscompounded by the fact that these materialsmay be intrusive from later levels.

Whatever the type(s) or exact age(s) of theRussell Cave assemblage, the data from IcehouseBottom, Modoc Rockshelter, and the Hiscock siteindicate that, regardless of their precise forms,the twining of plant-fiber-derived products waswell established in the east by the early Holoceneat least. It is also quite clear that — despite thefact that other plant-derived products, like plait-ed basketry and knotted netting (Andrews andAdovasio 1996), also exhibit a venerable antiqui-ty — the technology of twining plant fibers liesat or near the base of basketry/textile develop-ments in eastern NorthAmerica, just as it does inwestern North America (Adovasio 1974;Andrews et al. 1986) or, for that matter,Mesoamerica (Adovasio 1980) or South America(Adovasio and Maslowski 1980). If the Hiscocktwined impression is indeed of terminal Pleis-tocene age, it only reinforces the great antiquityof this seminal technology.

It should be stressed in this regard that theearlier AMS assay for the Hiscock site specimenis not inconsistent with either the known age of

twining in western North America (cf. Adovasio1974; Andrews and Adovasio 1980; Andrews etal. 1986) nor the demonstrated antiquity of thistechnology in the Old World (cf. Adovasio,Hyland, Soffer, and Klíma 2001; Adovasio, Sof-fer, Hyland, Illingworth, Klíma, and Svoboda2001). Indeed, given the documented occurrenceof twining in 29th millennium B.P. Gravettiancontexts in Central Europe and slightly laterelsewhere in the Old World, it is virtually certainthat this basketry subclass, specifically, and relat-ed perishable fiber technology, generally, werepart and parcel of the material culture suitebrought to the New World by its first colonists(Adovasio, Hyland, Soffer, and Illingworth2001).

What is unique about the Hiscock site speci-men is that if it is indeed of late Pleistocene age,it represents the first time this technology hasever been recorded from an open, fluted pointlocality in the entire NewWorld. As such, it con-clusively demonstrates that perishable plantfiber-based textile or basketry technology was anintegral part of the lifeway of groups hithertodefined, described, and putatively explainedalmost entirely on the basis of their durable toolkits. In fact, if the recovery of twining from OldWorld Gravettian contexts may serve as an ana-logue, it may well prove that perishable fiber-based technology in the form of baskets, nets,and textiles was far more important to the ulti-mate success of Clovis and related populationsthan any fluted point ever could be.

CONCLUSIONS

The following salient points can be madeabout perishable fiber technology at the Hiscocksite:1. A positive cast of a close diagonal twined

basket/textile with Z-twist wefts was recov-ered from the Hiscock site.

2. Although the form and function(s) of thespecimen are unknown, the cast reflects amature and technically sophisticated tex-tile/basketry technology, not an initial essayin these crafts.

3. The age of the specimen is ambiguous, witha possible range from late Pleistocene to


early Holocene based on two uncalibratedAMS determinations.

4. If the specimen is late Pleistocene in age,which is supported by pollen spectrum data,then it represents the first documentedoccurrence of twined textiles or basketry inan open Clovis-era site in all of the Americas.

5. Whatever the age, the Hiscock site specimenis consistent with previous reconstructions oftextile/basketry developments in easternNorth America, specifically, and NorthAmerica, generally.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Judith A. Logan(Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa) forsharing ideas about the function and significanceof the Hiscock fabric. Figure 3.4 was drafted byK. K. Manske. Figure 3.6 was drafted by J. S.Illingworth. Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5 were takenby D. C. Hyland and digitally processed by D. R.Pedler. This chapter was edited by D. R. Pedler.

NOTE

1. It should be noted that, in this context, the useof the term “spun” does not necessarily indi-cate the use of a spindle whorl (see Definitions,“Spun yarn”). The term as used here allows forthat possiblity, or for simple twisting.

REFERENCES CITED

Adovasio, J. M.1974 Prehistoric North American Basketry. In

Collected Papers on Aboriginal Basketry, editedby D. R. Tuohy and D. L. Rendall, pp.98–148. Nevada State Museum Anthropo-logical Papers No. 16. Nevada State Muse-um, Carson City.

1977 Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identificationand Analysis. Aldine Publishing Company,Chicago.

1980 Prehistoric Basketry of Western NorthAmerica and Mexico. In Early Native Ameri-cans, edited by David L. Browman, pp. 341-362. Mouton Publishers, The Hague.

Adovasio, J. M., D. C. Hyland, and O. Soffer1997 Textiles and Cordage: A Preliminary Assess-

ment. In Pavlov I–Northwest: The Upper Pale-olithic Burial and Its Settlement Context, edit-ed by J. Svoboda, pp. 403–424. Academy ofSciences of the Czech Republic, Brno.

Adovasio, J. M., D. C. Hyland, O. Soffer, and J. S.Illingworth

2001 Perishable Technology and Late Pleis-tocene/Early Holocene Adaptations in theAmericas. Presented at the Symposium“Plants, Perishables, and Prehistory,” 66thAnnual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, New Orleans.

Adovasio, J. M., D. C. Hyland, O. Soffer, and B. Klíma2001 Perishable Industries and the Colonization

of the East European Plain. In Fleeting Iden-tities: Perishable Material Culture in Archaeo-logical Research, edited by P. B. Drooker, pp.285–313. Occasional Paper No. 28. Centerfor Archaeological Investigations, SouthernIllinois University, Carbondale.

Adovasio, J. M., and Robert F. Maslowski1980 Cordage, Basketry, and Textiles. In Guitar-

rero Cave: Early Man in the Andes, edited byThomas F. Lynch, pp. 253-292. AcademicPress, New York.

Adovasio, J. M., O. Soffer, D. C. Hyland, J. S. Illing-worth, B. Klíma, and J. Svoboda

2001 Perishable Industries from Dolní VestoniceI: New Insights into the Nature and Originof the Gravettian.Archaeology, Ethnology, andAnthropology of Eurasia 2(6):48–65.

Andrews, R. L., and J. M. Adovasio1980 Perishable Industries from Hinds Cave, Val

Verde County, Texas. Ethnology MonographsNo. 5. Department of Anthropology, Uni-versity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

1996 The Origins of Fiber Perishables ProductionEast of the Rockies. In A Most IndispensableArt: Native Fiber Industries from Eastern NorthAmerica, edited by James B. Petersen, pp. 30-49. The University of Tennessee Press,Knoxville.

Andrews, R. L., J. M. Adovasio, and R. C. Carlisle1986 Perishable Industries from Dirty Shame Rock-

shelter, Malheur County, Oregon. Universityof Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 34,issued jointly as Ethnology MonographsNo. 9. Department of Anthropology, Uni-versity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.


Balfet, Henri1952 La Vannerie: Essai de Classification. L’

Anthropologie 56:259–280.Chapman, J. C., and J. M. Adovasio1977 Textile and Basketry Impressions from Ice-

house Bottom, Tennessee. American Antiqui-ty 42(4):620–625.

Driver, Harold E.1961 Indians of North America. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.Drooker, Penelope B.1992 Mississippian Village Textiles at Wickliffe. Uni-

versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Emery, Irene1966 The Primary Structures of Fabrics: An Illustrat-


Fowler, Melvin L.1959 Summary Report of the Modoc Rock Shelter.

Reports of Investigations No. 8. IllinoisState Museum, Springfield.

Griffin, James W.1978 Investigations in Russell Cave. Reprinted.

Huntsville Chapter of the Alabama Archae-ological Society. Originally published 1974,National Park Service Publications inArchaeology No. 13. U.S. Department of theInterior, Huntsville, Alabama.

Hurley, William M.1979 Prehistoric Cordage: Identification of Impres-

sions on Pottery. Aldine Manuals onArcheol-ogy 3. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.

Klippel, Walter E.1971 Graham Cave Revisited: A Re-evaluation of Its

Cultural Position during the Archaic Period.Memoir No. 9. Missouri ArchaeologicalSociety, Columbia.

Laub, Richard S.2001 The Hiscock Site: Structure, Stratigraphy,

and Chronology. Paper Presented at theSmith Symposium II, the Hiscock Site: LatePleistocene and Holocene Paleoecology andArchaeology of Western New York State.Buffalo Museum of Natural History, Buffa-lo, New York..

2002 The Paleoindian Presence in the Northeast:A View from the Hiscock Site. In Ice AgePeoples of Pennsylvania, edited by Kurt Carrand James Adovasio, pp. 105-122. Recent

Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology,No. 2.

2003 The Hiscock Site: Late Pleistocene andHolocene Paleoecology and Archaeology ofWestern New York State. Bulletin of the Buf-falo Society of Natural Sciences 37.

Laub, Richard S., Mary F. DeRemer, Catherine A.Dufort, and William L. Parsons

1988 The Hiscock Site: A Rich Late QuaternaryLocality in Western New York State. In LatePleistocene and Early Holocene Paleoecologyand Archeology of the Eastern Great LakesRegion: Proceedings of the Smith Symposium,edited by Richard S. Laub, Norton G. Miller,and David W. Steadman, pp. 67–81. Bulletin33. Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Buf-falo, New York.

Logan, Judy A., Malcolm Bilz, and Jane Sirois2001 The Feasibility of Preserving an Impression

in Mud: Study of Soil Samples from the His-cock Site. Paper presented at the Smith Sym-posium II, Buffalo Museum of Science, Buf-falo, New York.

Logan, Wilfred D.1952 Graham Cave: An Archaic Site in Montgomery

County, Missouri. Memoir No. 2. MissouriArchaeological Society, Columbia.

Mason, Otis T.1904 Aboriginal American Basketry: Studies in a Tex-

tile Art without Machinery. SmithsonianInstitution Publication No. 128. U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Muller, Ernest H., and Parker E. Calkin1985 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Geology of

the Eastern Great Lakes Region: GeologicSetting of the Hiscock Paleontological Sitein Western New York. In Late Pleistocene andEarly Holocene Paleoecology and Archeology ofthe Eastern Great Lakes Region: Proceedings ofthe Smith Symposium, edited by Richard S.Laub, Norton G. Miller, and David W.Steadman, pp. 53-63. Bulletin 33. BuffaloSociety of Natural Sciences, Buffalo, NewYork.

Soffer, O., J. M. Adovasio, J. S. Illingworth, H. A.Amirkhanov, N. D. Praslov, and M. Street

2000 Palaeolithic Perishables Made Permanent.Antiquity 74:812–821.

Stile, Thomas E.1982 Perishable Artifacts from Meadowcroft


Rockshelter, Washington County, Pennsyl-vania. InMeadowcroft: Collected Papers on theArchaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter andthe Cross Creek Drainage, edited by R. C.Carlisle and J. M. Adovasio, pp. 130–141.Department of Anthropology, University ofPittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Styles, Bonnie W., Steven R. Ahler, and Melvin L.Fowler

1983 Modoc Rock Shelter Revisited. In ArchaicHunters and Gatherers in the American Mid-

west, edited by James L. Phillips and JamesA. Brown, pp. 261–297. Academic Press,New York.

Tinkler, Keith J., James W. Pengelly, William G.Parkins, and Jaan Terasmae

1992 Evidence for High Water Levels in the ErieBasin during the Younger Dryas Chrono-zone. Journal of Paleolimnology 7(3):215-234.



ABSTRACT

This chapter reviews the categories and nature oforganic materials that have been identified for theOhio Hopewell Moundbuilder culture. Specialemphasis is given to recent research that has identi-fied new classes of materials under unusual preserva-tion conditions with copper ceremonial artifacts. Inaddition, the author focuses on the role that the iden-tified organic materials may have played in Hopewellrituals centered on the dead and the larger ceremoni-al sphere embedded within earthwork and mound con-struction.

INTRODUCTION

The prehistoric culture known today as“Hopewell” has fascinated both archaeologistsand the public for centuries. The Hopewell pop-ulations, centered in the rich river systems of theOhio Valley, built burial mounds and associatedceremonial earthworks from approximately 100B.C. to A.D. 400. Hopewell archaeology isfamous for the elaborate nature of the burialsrecovered from the mounds, which included anapparently complicated sequence of ritualevents before and during the interment of thedead. Most of the largest and most impressive ofthese mounds were excavated during the late1800s and early 1900s. The excavations were con-ducted to procure the artifacts and ritual para-

phernalia that had been placed with the burials,which included raw materials spanning nearlythe entire North American continent. Obsidianand grizzly bear canines from the AmericanWest, copper from southern Canada, shells andshark teeth from the Florida coast, pearls, andmica from the Carolinas are some of the mostprominent materials turned into beautiful andelaborate ritual artifacts associated with theHopewell culture. (See Brose and Greber 1979;Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Fagan 2000; Greber1983; Greber and Ruhl 2000; Mainfort and Sulli-van 1998; Pacheco 1996; and Seeman 1979 for ageneral discussion of Hopewell archaeology.)These items were carefully placed with crema-tion burials or extended burials, or as ritualcaches inside the Great Houses, which held thedead on clay-lined platforms. The final ritual actseems to have been the burning of the ceremoni-al building followed by the creation of the earth-en mound.

The most noteworthy excavations of thelargest and most complicated of the Hopewellmounds were conducted by such prominentarchaeologists as Frederic W. Putnam, Warren K.Moorehead, and William C. Mills. Mills wrotedetailed and careful descriptions of his work in anumber of seminal articles in the Ohio Archaeo-logical and Historical Quarterly during the early1900s. What is intriguing when reviewing theseearly documents, as well as those of Moorehead

Chapter 4 Organic Preservation on Prehistoric Copper Artifacts of the Ohio Hopewell 45

CHAPTER 4

ORGANIC PRESERVATION ON PREHISTORIC COPPERARTIFACTS OF THE OHIO HOPEWELL

DeeAnne Wymer


and Putnam, is the rather frequent reference toperishable fibers in the burial contexts. Mills, forexample, incorporated separate sections in hispublications describing the fabrics (includingleather) and even had a fabric sample identifiedfor the raw material (bast fibers) by a botanist.

In a number of graves [at the Seip Mound] . . .the final ceremony consisted of setting fire tothe covering of straw, twigs and cloth, andhere the charred remnants of cloth and mat-ting were preserved. In the first section [ofthe charnel house] the charred cloth, show-ing the simplest to the highest art in primi-tive weaving, was found at the burial shrinesoutside the graves . . . the cloth was madefrom bast fiber secured from many of thetrees and plants known to exist in prehistorictimes. (Mills 1909:316)Mills notes that copper objects and the cre-

mations appeared to have been laid upon leather(on top of puddled clay platforms) and thenwere covered by matting or “fine textiles” whichwere set on fire in some cases and then appar-ently quickly covered with dirt before the firehad totally destroyed the organic material. Otherexcavators noted the same pattern as well:

These chambers [at the Edwin HarnessMound] were made by placing logs, from 5to 6 inches in diameter, on the clay whichforms the lowest layer of the mound, in sucha way as to make enclosures six to seven feetin length and from 2 to 3 feet in width andabout a foot in height. In these the bodieswere placed, evidently wrapped in gar-ments, as indicated by the charred cloth andmats found in several of the chambers . . . Onthe breast of one of the skeletons was a thincopper plate . . . The chemical action of thecopper had preserved the texture of a pieceof finely woven cloth lying between the plateand the bones of the chest. (Putnam1887:405-406)Apparently, the perishable fibers were pre-

served under two primary conditions. Some ofthe material, especially what appears to havebeen plant-based matting (principally cane),bark layers or worked bark mats, and fabricsmade of various organic substances, were pre-

served when they became carbonized during rit-ual burning. The second situation includedorganic materials that had come into contactwith metal artifacts, especially the rather signifi-cant quantities of copper, that had been placedwith the dead or in ritual caches. Several of theearly archaeologists, especially Putnam andMills, collected samples of charred perishablematerials from burial contexts, as well as themore intact organics associated with the copperartifacts, for the collections of their variousmuseums.

Ironically, and sadly, little attention was paidto the perishable fibers recovered during theseearly excavations. In fact, it seems apparent thatmuch of the material carefully collected by Put-nam, Mills, and other researchers, especially thelarge quantities of burned organic layers andfabrics, were lost during the curation histories ofthe collections from these prominent mounds.More-recent researchers have examined the finefabrics present on the copper breastplates, forexample, but these studies emphasized theanalysis of weave patterns or preliminary socialinformation (see Church 1984, for example). Insome cases organic material was noted whensamples were evaluated or removed for radio-carbon dating (for example, I have identifiedmaterials over the past several years for N’omiGreber). However, no systematic assessment orstudy of the range of organic materials that maystill be preserved in archived collections hasbeen undertaken. This chapter thus outlines arecent project that has been initiated to expandupon the earlier research conducted withHopewell perishable materials.

THE PROJECT

This chapter describes the procedures andresults of the analysis of 77 copper objects fromthe collections curated at the Ohio HistoricalSociety, Columbus, Ohio, conducted in the sum-mer of 2000 (summarized by site in Table 4.1).The main thrust of the analysis was to identifyand evaluate organic materials and residue pre-served on the surface of Hopewellian copperartifacts. The artifacts selected were dictated bythe parameters of a larger project conducted by

46 DeeAnne Wymer


Table 4.1. Number of Artifacts Examined for Preserved Materials.

Sites Breastplates Celts HeadplatesSeip 31 5 0Hopewell 17 8 3Liberty/Harness 5 0 1Ater 3 0 0Fortney 1 1 0Fort Ancient 1 0 0Rockhold 1 0 0Total 59 14 4

Dr. Christopher Carr and consequently included“breastplates” (59 in number), “celts” (14), and“headdresses” (4) [the original project term“headdress” has been replaced by the moreappropriate term “headplate” for this chapterand Chapter 5, this volume]. The larger numberof breastplates reflects both the greater quantityof these artifacts in the curated collections andtheir tendency to have retained organic materialsin a fairly good state of preservation. Seven sitesare represented in the analysis, including exam-ples of prominent Hopewell sites with large col-lections (Seip, Hopewell, and Liberty/Harness),plus sites with either smaller numbers of curatedartifacts or less-well-known localities (Ater, Fort-ney, Fort Ancient, and Rockhold) (Figure 4.1). Infact, both Seip and Hopewell are fairly well rep-resented with examples of breastplates and celts;the Hopewell site includes three headdresses aswell. The other sites’ analyses tended to be basedupon the examination of breastplates; Fortneydid produce one celt specimen (see Table 4.1).

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

The detailed examination of the copper arti-facts followed a specific format that I created forthis project. The analysis consisted of carefullyscanning the surface of each artifact side with theaid of a stereobinocular microscope (with mag-nifications ranging from 7x to 30x), the standard“tool” of paleoethnobotanical research. The scanfollowed a set pattern, typically beginning at theupper right edge/corner of the artifact, with theartifact being slowly moved to the right until the

entire upper edge had been examined; the nextpass, moving from left to right, included anoverlap of the field of vision of the first transectto ensure that nothing was missed. The patternof overlapping transects was continued until theentire side had been completed. Once the entireside had been inspected and notations made (seebelow), selected areas that revealed complicatedlayers of materials, unusual substances, or par-ticularly well-preserved fragments were reexam-ined in detail. Once the first side was completed,the object was turned over and a scan completedfor the opposite surface. Each side was treatedindependently and forms and notes were madefor each object side.

The location and identification of organicmaterials on the artifacts was facilitated by theuse of transparencies marked in a grid layoutthat were placed on top of digital color photo-graphs (not to scale) of each side of each object(see Figure 4.2). The outline of the object, such asthe edges of a breastplate, was marked on thetransparency with black permanent marker penand the object catalog number and side numberwere also identified on the transparency. Conse-quently, materials identified on the object withthe microscope could be directly outlined anddrawn on the transparency along with writtencomments. An assortment of different coloredmarker pens was utilized with commonlyencountered materials represented by selectedcolors (e.g., the outline of hide marked in orangeink, plant fabrics in purple, and wood charcoaland other macrobotanical specimens in red).Thus, the use of this method created an immedi-

ate visual impact of the type, location, andnature of the preserved organic materials stillextant on the surface of the copper. In addition,the use of a grid system on the transparencyallowed for precise locations of materials oritems (or edges/boundaries of substances) in thehandwritten or typed notes.

In addition, an extensive five-page form wasutilized to ensure that uniform and accuratenotes were kept for each object side. The forms

included objective data, such as a series of check-lists recording the presence of specific organiccategories (e.g., the presence of hide/leather,plant fabrics, feathers, fur, and others). Subjec-tive data, which may be some of the more impor-tant descriptions of the material, included exten-sive and detailed notes and impressions indicat-ed on the last page of the form that were subse-quently typed into a laptop computer at themuseum.

48 DeeAnne Wymer

Figure 4.1. Map showing site locations.

Due to time constraints a few objects (11 innumber) were simply “scanned”; this enabledthe individual sides of the objects to be more rap-idly assessed. This was often done with objectsthat a preliminary visual examination suggestedmight not have much organic material remain-ing. Also, several specimens could only beassessed for a single side (one breastplate, forexample, had been glued to a wooden back afterexcavation, and thus only the visible side couldbe analyzed).

Typically, I first assessed and described theorganic materials on each artifact and thenpassed the object on to the project textile expert,Dr. Virginia Wimberley, if traces of fabrics werepresent (see Chapter 5, this volume, for Wimber-

ley’s assessment of the fabrics). The partnershipof a paleoethnobotanist and textile analystproved to be extremely advantageous. I believethat our assessments of the objects werestrengthened by the interaction and discussionwhile reviewing the same set of artifacts at thesame time.

Surprisingly, a wide variety of organic mate-rials were still present on the copper artifacts.The first phase of the research consisted of devel-oping macro- and micro-level characteristicsuseful for materials identification. Some materi-als, such as hide and bark, revealed remarkablysimilar attributes at first glance; however, closermicro-level examination, along with an increas-ing familiarity with the materials as the project


Figure 4.2. Example of analysis transparency and grid system.

progressed, produced consistent and distinctivecriteria that could be used to identify and differ-entiate among the materials. Identification wasespecially hindered in some cases by the degreeof copper corrosion replacement of organicmaterials. Some substances, such as feathers andhide, seem to more readily uptake and absorbcorrosion products, thus obscuring macro andcell structure. Other substances, such as woodcharcoal, seemed to be little affected by corrosionby-products. However, increasing experienceand the development of a comparative collectiongeared specifically toward the project greatlyfacilitated the identification of materials on thecopper surfaces.

IDENTIFIED MATERIALS

MATERIALS ON BREASTPLATES

All copper artifact classes exhibited traces ofpreserved organic substances. In fact, virtuallyevery object analyzed in this project produced atleast some residue of organic material. Breast-plates, however, revealed the greatest quantityand diversity of identifiable materials. The sub-stances on celts and headdresses seemed toreflect what had been identified on the breast-plates; the only item not observed on the breast-plates that was unique to the celt artifact classincluded a single specimen of a small copperbead adhering to a celt from the Hopewell site(Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4).

A review of the organic materials associatedwith the various breastplates is a good way toinitiate a discussion of the materials identifiedduring the project analyses. One difficulty in thisdiscussion is the sheer diversity of the materialsinvolved. I have grouped the substances intotwelve basic categories: (1) textiles, (2) feathers,(3) leather/hide, (4) hair/fur, (5) hide/bark?, (6)macrobotanical, (7) bone, (8) pearls, (9) beads -other, (10) prehistoric pigments, (11) historicrepair, and (12) unidentified organic (Table 4.2and Figures 4.3-4.14). I first discuss the nature ofthe materials in these categories, emphasizingthe perishable fibers identified on the objects,and then follow with a review of the pattern oftheir occurrence by artifact type and site locality.

50 DeeAnne Wymer

Table 4.2. Materials Identified on Breastplates.a

Materials Identifications(number of sides)

Confirmed Possible

Textiles— plant - Group 1 40 4— plant - matting 2 1— plant - yarns 14 1— plant - unidentified 3 —— hair - interlaced 14 1— hair - unidentified 1 —— bark cloth 2 1

Feathers 15 2

Leather— suede 20 —— outer hide 1 1— unidentified 15 12

Hair/fur— red 4 —— undifferentiated 9 3

Hide?/bark? 1 1

Macrobotanical— bark 19 4— wood charcoal 40 —— seeds 12 —— flower masses 1 —— unidentified plant masses 12 1— monocot stem/leaves 6 2— leaf fragments 2 1— possible unidentified botanical 1 —— nutshell? 1 —

Bone— calcined (burned) 20 —

Pearls— whole, drilled 5 —— fragments 11 —

Beads - other— shell 2 —

Prehistoric pigment— red 2 1— yellow 1 —— green 1 —— cream 1 —

Historic repair— wax 7 —— glues 11 3— plant mass fill 1 —— new copper 2 —— seed/plant mass 3 —— other 1 —

Unidentified organic 22 1aN = 59 objects (116 sides)

Textiles. “Textiles” (as used in this chapter)include materials that exhibited traces of anintact strand or yarn pattern, such as the pres-ence of interlocking strands, often with activeand passive components. The materials exam-ined included frequent examples of a beautiful,finely made fabric composed of yarns madefrom Group 1 plant fibers (the bast fibers fromselect herbaceous plants such as Indian hemp ormilkweed, for example [see Jakes et al. 1993]).These specimens are often well preserved,retaining a golden hue, and exhibit a closelyspaced, well-constructed twined pattern (see

Chapter 5 for further description). This class oforganics was the most common material identi-fied during the analysis and a significant num-ber of breastplate specimens incorporate large,well-preserved fragments on their surfaces (Fig-ures 4.3 and 4.6). It became apparent during thescan and analysis that some of the breastplateshad been entirely covered (sometimes on bothsides) with this material. As noted below, theGroup 1 fabrics are often found in associationwith other materials and, in fact, may have func-tioned in some cases as the backing for theattachment of other items.

Fragments of fabrics created from interlacedanimal hair elements (yarns made from animalhair that had been worked together in a simplebraiding or interlacing pattern) are another com-mon item on the copper artifacts. In a number ofcases, the residue of eroded hide is associatedwith the hair/fur. My impression is that at leastsome of the interlaced animal hair fabrics mayhave been sewn onto various backings, includ-ing hide, plant fabric, and bark cloth (see Defini-tions, and below). I did observe that on onebreastplate from Seip (Specimen B036), which iscovered in well-preserved interlaced animal hairelements, yarns of Group 1 plant fibers loopedover and around individual animal hair yarns.These plant-fiber yarns appear to attach the ani-mal hair fabric to hide that can be seen lyingunderneath the interlaced animal hair elements.


Table 4.3. Materials Identified on Celts.a


Confirmed Possible

Textiles— plant - Group 1 5 —— plant - matting 1 1— plant - yarns 2 —— hair - interlaced 2 —

Feathers 3 —

Leather— suede 2 —— outer hide 2 —— unidentified 3 6

Macrobotanical— bark 3 1— wood charcoal 5 —— seeds 7 —— flower masses — —— unidentified plant masses 3 —— monocot stem/leaves 4 —

Bone— calcined (burned) — 2

Pearls— whole, drilled — —— fragments 1 —

Beads - other— shell 2 —— copper 1 —

Historic repair— wax — —— glues 1 —— plant mass fill — —

Unidentified organic 13 —aN = 14 objects (28 sides)

Table 4.4. Materials Identified on Headplates.a


Confirmed Possible

Leather— suede 2 —— outer hide 1 —— unidentified 1 1

Hair/fur— undifferentiated 3 —

Historic repair— tape 1 —— solder 2 —— applied pigment 2 —

Unidentified organic 4 —aN = 4 objects (8 sides); 3 from Hopewell, 1 from Harness

Also, I examined at least one breastplate onwhich interlaced animal hair yarns lay on top ofa bark-cloth fabric (see Figure 4.7). The majorityof the interlaced animal hair specimens (of thosesegments that had not severely absorbed coppercorrosion by-products) are made of a fine light-colored hair, which may be rabbit; some speci-mens exhibit longer, coarser, more golden-col-ored/reddish strands, which may be fox, andothers a dark-colored hair/fur that could verywell represent bear (Figure 4.10). It will take ananalysis by a specialist in animal hair identifica-tion to verify the taxa represented by the varioushair/fur specimens. I do believe that at leastthree different types (and probably more) offur/hair are extant on the copper objects.

The other examples placed in this textile cat-egory only loosely match the traditional use ofthe term “textile” (see Definitions). For example,two different types of bark fabrics were noted onthe breastplates. First, several examples of whatappeared to be thin strips of a pliable bark thathad been interlaced were noted during the

analysis. Second, some specimens revealedexamples of bark cloth — a soft, pliable bark thathad been pounded into a substance analogous tofelt.

Other examples not usually demarcated astextiles also were included in this broad catego-ry. These include examples of a nearly intactmatting made out of a long, linear leaf interlacedin an over-under-over pattern. Some of theseexamples are verified as cane and some may rep-resent cattail (Typha). I also observed isolated ornon-patterned twisted plant yarns and unidenti-fied processed plant strands.

Feathers. Another common material identi-fied on the breastplate specimens includes birdfeathers. At least 15 breastplate sides producedconfirmed identifications of this material (Table4.2 and Figures 4.4 and 4.8). Both long matureflight or body feathers and down feathers hadbeen utilized. The longer intact feathers seem tobe the most common, and include the shafts aswell as the individual feather segments and pos-sibly barbs. In most cases, it appears that entire

52 DeeAnne Wymer

Figure 4.3. Breastplate B070 from the Hopewell site, with a finely made Group 1 plant fabric on its surface.

surfaces (sides) of breastplates are covered withfeathers with no obvious discernable pattern ortraces of a formal backing. Several breastplatesdid exhibit a general orientation of the feathers;the shafts and feather segments, for example,were generally oriented in the same direction,often “starting” from one of the lengthwiseedges of the plate and sweeping downwardacross the body of the plate. One celt is coveredin what appears to be pigmented short feathers

in alternate bands that may have been originallybacked to some material (discussed below). Onsome breastplate specimens, it is apparent thatthe feathers had formed part of a larger, morecomplicated item made out of diverse materialsthat had adhered to the plates and had thus beenpreserved.

Leather/Hide. Specimens of napped andworked leather/hide were also frequentlyencountered during the project analysis (Figure4.9). The hide specimens include two versions:(1) the outer or “skin” side of leather, and (2) theinterior napped or “sueded” portion of hide.Both types produced distinctive characteristicsand could thus be discerned during analysis.The sueded specimens, for example, revealedunique fiber characteristics, and were probablycreated from deer hide. Most of the extant exam-ples appeared to be from the interior suede ofhide rather than the outer worked skin area.

The leather/hide specimens, like the various“textile” category examples, seem to represent anumber of different uses of this material. Severalbreastplates have one or both sides completely(or nearly completely) covered with hide. Thismay indicate that the copper artifact had beenoriginally wrapped in the material or had lainadjacent to a hide or leather object. In somecases, portions of the hide or leather still had hairattached and may thus represent a fur item thathad been in contact with the copper artifact (dis-cussed below). Second, some examples may bethe remnants of hide backing in which a plant oranimal hair fabric, or other objects (e.g., pearls orbone beads), may have been originally attachedor sewn to the leather. Finally, another commonoccurrence seems to be the utilization of leatheror hide strips or segments that may have been acomponent of a more complicated piece or itemthat had been in contact with the copper.

Hair/Fur/Undifferentiated Fur. This catego-ry represents fur or hair (most likely animal hair)that is present but had not beenworked into a fab-ric. Some of this material is associated with hidespecimens and probably represents remnants ofan animal-fur object; some of the breastplates thathave such materials are entirely covered with furon at least one side. Some breastplates have areasthat seem to be simply a low-density scatter of


Figure 4.4. Celt C011 from the Seip site covered witha possible fabric created from colored feathers.Although remains of the material are eroded, the rowpattern can still be discerned. (See also Figure 5.2).

54 DeeAnne Wymer

Figure 4.5. Headplate specimen H014 from the Hopewell site. The lighter material on the convex surfaceshown in the photograph is a mixture of dirt with traces of hide.

Figure 4.6. Close-up of Group 1 plant fabrics on the surface of breastplate specimen B039 from Seip. The mate-rial and structure are very similar to the example shown in Figure 4.3.


Figure 4.7. Close-up of breastplate specimen B034 from Seip. The photograph shows traces of interlacedanimal hair yarns (upper left and lower right) lying on top of felted bark. Please note that the interlaced fabricexhibits green (lighter color in photograph) and red (darker color) pigments. The opposite side of this breast-plate contains pearl beads mixed with calcined bone and wood charcoal.

Figure 4.8. Close-up of patterned feathers that cover the entire side of breastplate B030 from Seip (the oppo-site side is covered with hide). Feathers are lying directly on the copper with traces of an eroded hide on topof the features. In the lower left corner is a well-preserved area in which plant yarns seem to have been asso-ciated with the quills of several feathers.

56 DeeAnne Wymer

Figure 4.9. Celt C022 from the Hopewell site showing hide wrapped around the non-bit end of the artifact.

Figure 4.10. Breastplate B067 from the Hopewell site showing three different types of fur/hair material cover-ing the surface. The central and right area of the plate is enfolded with an interlaced animal hair textile


Figure 4.11. Breastplate B034 from Seip revealing strands of pearl beads with calcined bone and wood char-coal.

Figure 4.12. Breastplate from Seip (specimen B079) described in text. This photograph shows Side 1, whichis covered with a complex mixture of a bark and Group 1 plant-fiber fabric with a central area of feathers andhides.

58 DeeAnne Wymer

Figure 4.13. Close-up of specimen B079, side 1.

Figure 4.14. Side 2 of specimen B079 with hair/fur and traces of hide and bark.

single or grouped strands still preserved on a fewrandom or isolated locations on the surface (the“undifferentiated” group). These might representanimal skin objects in which erosion and degra-dation had removed much of the original surface.Alternatively, the breastplate might have been inclose proximity or contact with a hair/fur objectat some time as it lay in a burial or ritual context.At least four of the hair/fur examples exhibit thesame reddish-brown color and may represent thesame animal taxon (fox?).

Macrobotanical Materials. Materials in the“Macrobotanical” category represent a widevariety of distinctive plant parts or masses. Per-haps the most common manifestation of thisgroup includes wood charcoal adhering to thesurfaces of many of the breastplates. A numberof these occurrences include small, scatteredflecks of wood charcoal, but a significant num-ber of the breastplates exhibit masses of large(1–4 centimeters in size) fragments of woodcharcoal. There is no obvious orientation to thewood charcoal fragments and they do not seemto be part of any larger wooden object that mayhave burned. These large masses of wood char-coal are often associated with the presence of cal-cined (burned) bone (see Figure 4.11), andundoubtedly represent the placement of copperbreastplates within a burial cremation. At leastone case — Specimen B007 — included humanfacial bones. I suspect that these copper artifactshad been placed in their final position after theinitial crematory episode since the plates did notexhibit burning; in addition, with the exceptionof wood charcoal and calcined bone, the otherorganic materials typically did not reveal anyevidence for burning (that is to say, the othergroups in this category, such as plant masses,flower masses, seeds, and the others were notcarbonized).

Unfortunately, it was extremely difficult toascertain the wood taxa from the charcoal speci-mens associated with the copper artifacts. Inorder to confirm wood identifications, a fairly“clean” cross-section, revealing the vessel (cell)structure and arrangement unique to differenttaxa, must be viewed and assessed. I was able todetermine from a few fragments that walnut(Juglans sp.), hickory (Carya sp.), ash (Fraxinus

sp.), oak–white group (Quercus sp.), and possiblya conifer (pine?) had been utilized as a fuelsource.

Uncarbonized bark also occurs fairly fre-quently on the breastplates. In these cases, thebark specimens typically appeared as randomstrips or fragments without any clear orientationor any evidence of purposeful modification.

Seed specimens were observed, usually asisolated examples in low density, on a number ofbreastplates. Most of the seeds, unfortunately,had been so readily absorbed into the copperthat identification was difficult or impossible.Those that could be identified were typically“weedy” types that were probably incorporatedonto the copper from the surrounding soil. Rush(Juncus), grass (Graminae — probably panicgrass [Panicum sp.]), and possibly ragweed(Ambrosia sp.) are present. No specimens fromthe Eastern Agricultural Complex have yet beenidentified.

Rather unusual plant categories includeexamples where entire plate sides are coveredwith masses of stem and leaf fragments. Many ofthe stems look to be from medium-sized grasses,and several grass florets were in fact identified(see, for example, Specimen B043 from Seip).One unique case, a breastplate from Hopewell,Mound 25, Burial 6, has one entire side com-pletely covered with the preserved remains ofthousands of small flowers (approximately 3mm in size). The small flowers are multipetaledand appear to be on top of hide that is lyingdirectly upon the breastplate’s surface. The inflo-rescences contain mature seeds still incorporatedinto the flower, revealing distinctive linear seeds,and many are still embedded in a honeycombshape within their attachment site on the devel-oping seed head (imagine a sunflower “disc” onan extremely small scale). I am still trying to ver-ify the taxon of the plant, but given the seeds andflower structure, my preliminary assessment isthat the flowers are from one of the Compositae(Aster family) species. Given the apparent freshstate of the flowers upon incorporation onto thebreastplate and the maturation rate of the seeds,it seems evident that this particular ritual or bur-ial episode occurred in late summer or early fall.Unlike the seeds noted above that most likely


represent accidental incorporation onto thebreastplates, and certainly given the nature ofthis flower mass, it appears that this was a verydeliberate and purposeful inclusion with thebreastplate at its final burial.

Six breastplate sides from Seip and Hopewellyielded fragments of large monocotyledon leafsegments. The majority of the specimens seem torepresent remnants of split cane matting or iso-lated cane (or cattail) leaf fragments. At least oneexample, an unusual breastplate with elaborate-ly shaped corners in the “classic” stylized raptorbird claw shape (Specimen B048 from theHopewell site), apparently had been coveredwith a series of long monocotyledon leaves.

Bone. As mentioned above, a commonlyoccurring element on the breastplates is calcinedbone. The bone fragments tend to range in sizefrom 2 mm to several centimeters; the larger sizerange is more typical (see Figure 4.11). The boneappears to be random scatters of material proba-bly from cremation burial events; in fact, thisseems particularly likely because during myexamination, calcined bone was always foundwith accompanying specimens of wood char-coal. Intriguingly, several breastplates with cal-cined bone and wood charcoal on one side haveGroup 1 plant fabrics on the opposite side or fab-rics mixed in with the bone and wood charcoal,yet the fabrics are nearly all entirely uncharred.This indicates, perhaps, that the breastplates hadbeen introduced into the mound or burial fea-ture during a second ritual involving thedeceased, after the initial cremation burningepisode.

Pearls and Shell Beads. A significant numberof breastplates produced specimens of entire andfragmented freshwater pearls (some charred andsome unburned) (Figure 4.11). In addition, a fewspecimens of cut, polished, and drilled shellbeads were found on several breastplates fromthe Seip site. Well-preserved specimens of pearlsalways revealed carefully drilled holes throughtheir centers and many are fairly large. Pearlsseem to have unique associations, appearing onbreastplates that often have a more diverse arrayof complicated materials. Four distinct patternswere noted during my examination: (1) pearls,sometimes surrounded by small circular frag-

ments of hide, were placed over the holes drilledin the breastplates, (2) charred and uncharredpearls were often found randomly mixed withcalcined bone and wood charcoal, (3) somebreastplates revealed what had clearly beenstrings of pearls that had lain upon the breast-plate, sometimes occurring with bone and woodcharcoal (in some cases the string was still pres-ent inside some of the pearls); and (4) somepearls appeared to have been originally sewnonto “Group 1” fabrics or possibly hide.

Prehistoric Pigment. In this category, I onlyincluded examples of traces of clear and obviousartificial pigments that could be differentiatedfrom copper corrosion by-products. Two of theinterlaced animal hair fabric specimens exhibittraces of a definite pigment painted on the sur-face of the fabric. One includes a red and an olivegreen coloration, and a second specimen (andpossibly a third) exhibits what appears to be thesame red pigment. In these cases, both colors ofpigment had been applied as a solution or“wash” on top of the hair, and the stratigraphyof a material substrate overlain by pigment waseasily seen through the microscope (Figure 4.7).One breastplate specimen included an unusualsubstance, cream in color, which looked like anapplied liquid pigment.

One breastplate from Seip is quite unusual.Apparently, when it was first excavated in theearly 1900s it had a preserved portion of a paint-ed, complicated fabric adhering to one side ofthe copper artifact. The original textile, a Group1 plant fabric, is now missing, but traces of it arestill extant on the copper surface together withthe pigment. The painting included a complicat-ed curvilinear design outlined in black pigmentwith the spaces painted with a bright yellow pig-ment. It was clear from the analysis, however,that some time during this specimen’s curationsomeone had “enhanced” the image by paintingon the copper surface; a historic replica of theoriginal fragment is also included with theobject. However, my analysis revealed that therecent replication of the original pattern proba-bly is fairly accurate, judging from the fact thatfaint traces of the original fabric and pigmentcan still be discerned on the copper, which matchthe replicated version.

60 DeeAnne Wymer

Recent Repair. Not surprisingly, a significantnumber of the breastplates exhibit traces of post-excavation repair. Many of these repairs arelocated at the more vulnerable, thinner edges orcorners of the artifacts. A variety of repair tech-niques and materials had been utilized duringthe curation histories of the copper artifacts,including green-pigmented wax, glues, tape,and new (sometimes artificially patinated) cop-per replacement parts. Glues and wax seem to bethe predominant repair techniques.

One interesting element of which futureresearchers need to be aware is that in severalinstances entire sides of particular breastplates(e.g., B059 from the Harness site) had apparentlybeen covered with some form of modern cloth.This is a white material with the appearance ofnylon or perhaps silk, which was then subse-quently covered with plant and seed masses. Infact, at first glance I mistook the masses as origi-nally prehistoric in origin, for they appeared tobe virtually identical to the prehistoric plant andseed/flower masses noted on other breastplates.Their uniformity at first puzzled me and on clos-er examination I could see in eroded areas anunderlying, obviously modern textile under-neath the plant/seed masses. The attribution topostexcavation repair was confirmed when onone of the plates with this treatment I identifiedthe presence of clover (Trifolium repens), a plantintroduced from Europe.

Unidentified Organic. Finally, a “catch-all”category utilized in paleoethnobotanical analysisis that of “unidentified organic.” This includesmaterial that has been so eroded or corroded bycopper salts that no cell structure or definablecharacteristics are still extant.

MATERIALS ON CELTS AND HEADPLATES

Overall, the same types of materials identi-fied on the breastplates were also detected on thecelts and headplates analyzed during this proj-ect, albeit with a lower diversity (Tables 4.3 and4.4). A number of differences are apparent, how-ever, and seem to reflect both the nature of themetal objects themselves and the excavationand/or curation histories of the artifacts. Forexample, it was readily apparent during the

analysis that materials were less well preservedon the celts than the breastplates. There is agreater degree of copper corrosion on the celts,which often obscures identifying features of theorganic materials. Perhaps the increased corro-sion was either due to the greater thickness ormass of copper present in the celts compared tothe breastplates, or related to the different man-ufacturing processes that created these twoclasses of artifacts.

Finally, a major difficulty with analyzing theheadplate specimens is that after their removalfrom their original contexts they had been heav-ily repaired and cleaned. This was undoubtedlyrelated to the crushing that had occurred to thesecomplicated three-dimensional artifacts as wellas the intrinsic interest that this particular arti-fact class held for earlier curators andresearchers.

Celts. Celts were observed to have on theirsurfaces essentially the same types of fabricsnoted on the breastplates. This includes both therelatively common Group 1 plant fabrics and theinterlaced animal hair fabrics (Table 4.3). Feath-ers were also identified on three of the four sidesof two of the celts, including the unusual celtspecimen that has a remnant of colored (dyed?natural? painted?) possible feather fabric ofsome form (mentioned above). This celt has oneside that appears to have on it eroded traces of aGroup 1 plant fabric associated with alternatingbands of orange and dark-colored small feathers(see Figure 4.4).

Some of the celts also yielded examples ofpreserved leather/hide fragments, includingboth interior sueded/napped and exterior outerskin (leather) remnants. Unfortunately, most ofthe hide readily absorbed corrosion by-products,so anything beyond a basic notation of the pres-ence of hide was nearly impossible to evaluate.However, one celt did produce a distinctive pat-tern of the material (Specimen C022 from theHopewell site) that suggested that the non-bitend had been wrapped in the substance with thebit end relatively devoid of organic material(Figure 4.9).

Fragments of carbonized wood, as well asuncharred bark segments, are also fairly ubiqui-tous on the celt specimens. Cross-sections with a


clear view of the vessel structure were not avail-able for the wood charcoal so taxon identifica-tion was not feasible. Anumber of celts also havetheir surfaces covered with fragments of massesof leaf and stem portions from large and smallgrasses (including probably cane). Drilled shellbeads and pearl fragments are also present.

Headplates. Only four objects that are inter-preted as “headplates” or “headdresses” wereanalyzed for the project (Table 4.4; see also Fig-ure 4.5). The assessment as headplates is proba-bly accurate given their unusual shape (a dis-tinctive subrectangular curved form) and therecovery of some of them from the skulls ofextended burials. (Three of the artifacts are fromthe Hopewell site and may be from burials fromMound 25, while the fourth headplate is fromthe Liberty/Harness site.) The most intact andwell preserved of the headplates revealed a sim-ilar form, a rectangular curved shape (curvedlengthwise) with one or two holes drilledthrough the copper close to one of the long endsof the piece. It is most likely that the holes wereutilized to attach the headpiece to a textile orother material (or to attach some other item tothe copper).

Unfortunately, given the state of repair andcleaning of the pieces, most of the organic mate-rial has been removed. However, at least one ofthe headplates (H011 - Hopewell, Mound 25,Burial 24?) exhibits clear traces of the suededportion of hide on the exterior (concave) part ofthe artifact. The best-preserved sections of thissubstance are on the topmost (most concaveexterior) portion of the piece. The other head-plate from Hopewell (H014) also yielded severe-ly eroded hide in the same location (“exterior” orconcave area) as H011, as did the artifact fromHarness (H001) (minute traces of hide on bothinterior and exterior surfaces). Intriguingly, theH014 artifact produced a few strands of whatappears to be long, dark hair near the larger cen-tral hole on the interior of the piece. The samephenomenon may exist on headpiece H003 (onthis object, it is either fur or hair). Thus, it seemsmost likely that the copper headdplates wereprobably originally part of more complicatedobjects that included worked leather/hideattached directly to the copper in some manner.

COMPARISIONS

ARTIFACT CLASS COMPARISONS

One interesting assessment that can be con-ducted with the results of the analysis is a com-parison of any similarities or distinctions thatmay occur in the simple presence or absence(ubiquity) of organic materials by artifact class.Given the small sample size for headplates(four), this evaluation must be limited to thebreastplate and celt artifact categories. For pur-poses of comparison, I selected the most com-mon items that were identified on the artifacts:Group 1 plant fabrics, interlaced animal hair fab-rics, feathers, leather/hide, non-textile bark,wood charcoal, and calcined bone (Table 4.5 andFigure 4.15).

Not surprisingly, the breastplates exhibit thegreatest diversity of materials compared to thecelts. The greatest difference between celts andbreastplates appears for the Group 1 plant fab-rics, wood charcoal, and calcined bone, all ofwhich were more prevalent on breastplates thanon celts. The greater prevalence of wood char-coal and calcined bone on breastplates than celtsmay be due to a more frequent placement ofbreastplates with cremations, if this is indeed thecontext for the majority of the specimens of thisartifact class. The higher prevalence of Group 1fabrics could reflect a ritual distinction betweenthe celts and breastplates in the use of this typeof textile or may merely reflect differentialpreservation conditions (the flat, thinner form ofthe breastplates, for example, perhaps better pre-

62 DeeAnne Wymer

Table 4.5. Comparison of Selected Materialsby Artifact Type.

Material Breastplates Celts(% of (% of

total sides) total sides)Group 1 plants 35% 18%Leather 24% 21%Wood charcoal 35% 18%Bark 16% 11%Feathers 13% 11%Hair/fur 12% 7%Bone 17% 0%

served this delicate fabric than did the celts).Leather/hide and feathers were identified near-ly as frequently on the sides of the celts as theywere on the breastplates. Whether these are sig-nificant patterns or merely fortuitous associa-tions is impossible to assess at this time. Furtherresearch on a larger sample of celts (as well asbreastplates and other copper objects) is neces-sary.

INTRASITE COMPARISONS

Due to sample size, the only artifact classthat could be utilized to compare and contrastdifferences in the frequency of materials by siteis the breastplates. The three major sites produc-ing significant numbers of curated breastplates,Seip, Hopewell, and Liberty/Harness, werecompared for the presence of ten different organ-ic materials on breastplate sides. I analyzed thepercentage of breastplate sides that yieldedGroup 1 plant fabrics, interlaced animal hair fab-rics, feathers, leather/hide, bark, wood charcoal,plant masses, monocotyledon leaves, calcinedbone, and pearls (Table 4.6 and Figure 4.16).Some intriguing differences did emerge amongthe sites.

Seip clearly produced the greatest occur-rence of the Group 1 fabrics compared to eitherHopewell or Harness, while interlaced animal

hair fabrics are more predominant for theHopewell site (and were not identified at all inthe sample of breastplates from the Harness siteanalyzed for this project) (Table 4.6). My initialimpression is that the Group 1 fabrics areextremely similar in plant/yarn processing andfabric structure among all three sites (see alsoChapter 5, this volume). Feathers are fairly com-mon on the breastplates from Harness, withnearly a third of the sides producing evidencefor this organic material; feathers are much lesscommon on the breastplates from the other twosites. Leather/hide fragments are fairly uniformin occurrence on the breastplates from all threesites, being identified on approximately 20 to 28percent of the sides. Uncarbonized bark speci-mens are more common on the Seip breastplates,and wood charcoal is quite common on the Seipartifacts as well. (The Harness site also produceda significant percentage of wood charcoal bybreastplate side.) Plant masses range around 10to 12 percent of the breastplate sides for all threesites. Monocot leaf fragments only occur onbreastplates from the Hopewell and Seip sites.Finally, bone and pearls are more common onthe breastplates from the Seip site, and are eitherabsent or present in lower percentages for theother two sites (Figure 4.16).

Thus, the Seip site is significantly distinctivein yielding a greater presence of Group 1 plant


Figure 4.15. Graphical comparison of selected materials by artifact type. “Group 1” indicates fabrics made fromGroup 1 plant fibers. “Fur” includes both animal hair from fur pelts and interlaced fabrics made from animal hairyarns.

64 DeeAnne Wymer

fabrics, bark, wood charcoal, bone, and pearls.The Hopewell site produced the greatest fre-quency of leather/hide fragments and mono-cotyledon leaf fragments. The Harness sitereturned the highest percentage of feathers and afairly good quantity of wood charcoal as well.Overall, the breastplates from Seip produced thegreatest diversity and quantity, often with goodpreservation, of the organic material identifiedduring the scope of this current project (see Table4.6). I should note that the most common materi-als that appeared on the Seip and Hopewellbreastplates — Group 1 plant-fiber fabrics, inter-laced animal hair fabrics, and leather/hide frag-ments — also were identified on the breastplatesfrom the other project sites of Ater, Fortney, FortAncient, and Rockhold; the fabrics and itemsmade out of these materials (especially theGroup 1 plant and interlaced animal hair fabrics)seem quite similar in manufacture and appear-ance among all of the project sites (Table 4.6).

MATERIAL ASSOCIATIONS ANDOBJECT COMPLEXITY

During the examination of the copper arti-facts, it was readily apparent that they incorpo-rated a palimpsest of diverse substances andmaterials, often yielding a complex stratigraphyof different compounds layered upon each other.For example, reviewing the breastplates fromSeip alone (which produced the greatest varietyof organics among the artifact classes and theproject sites), it is evident that nearly every sideof each breastplate produced a diversity of mate-rials (Table 4.6). Of the 60 breastplate sides exam-ined for this site, 52 (86.70% ) yielded two ormore distinct organic materials.

The most common association of materialson the Seip breastplates, as well as on platesfrom the other sites, included Group 1 plant fab-rics that were often found on the same side withtraces of leather/hide. It was not unusual, for


Figure 4.16. Graphical comparison of materials associated with breastplates. Percentages of object sides withselected materials, by site. “Group 1” indicates fabrics made from Group 1 plant fibers. “Fur” includes both ani-mal hair from fur pelts and interlaced fabrics made from animal hair yarns.

example, to find plant-fiber fabrics identifiedwith fragments of hide, interlaced animal hairfabrics, and plant yarns (for example, SpecimensB034 and B044). Feathers were also typicallyfound associated with faint traces of leather/hide (e.g., Specimen B079; see Figures 4.12 and4.13). The same pattern occurs with celts: inter-laced animal hair fabrics or feathers are oftenfound with traces of hide, along with the pres-ence of processed plant yarns (on SpecimenC011, for example). These associations may indi-cate the faintly preserved fragments of a oncemore elaborate item (cloak? garment? bag??) oftwo different types: (1) a finely interlaced animalhair fabric (rabbit, bear, or possibly fox) that hadbeen attached with plant yarns to a hide backingor to a Group 1 plant-fabric backing, or (2) feath-ers attached to hide or to Group 1 plant-fabricbackings. In several cases, I could see processedplant yarns looped over and around individualanimal hair yarn elements, apparently attachingthe elements to either a hide or plant-fabric back-ing. Furthermore, on at least one artifact, Iobserved Group 1 plant yarns associated withthe quills of feathers. My impression of thisexample, especially given the definite alignmentof the feathers in symmetrically placed rows, isthat this could represent feathers that once hadbeen attached to a hide backing (Specimen B030and possibly B035; see Figure 4.8). As notedabove, two breastplates from Seip also exhibitedat least two colors of pigment painted on top ofpreserved segments of an interlaced animal hairfabric, so these objects must have also beenvividly colored during their use-life.

The stratigraphy of the materials on the cop-per indicated that for some of the artifacts thesequence may have been copper followed byfeathers or interlaced animal hair fabric, fol-lowed by plant yarns followed by hide or Group1 plant fabric. In some cases the sequence wasvirtually the reverse: copper overlain by plantfabric or hide followed by feathers or interlacedanimal hair fabric. This pattern may indicate thatin some cases, the copper artifact may have lainupon the outer surface of a once complicatedhair/fur or feather fabric (thus the hair/fur orfeathers were first embedded in the copper fol-lowed by the backing laying upon the hair/furstrands or feather quills), or that something had

once wrapped the copper object (with the hideor plant backing against the copper surface).Further research will, of course, be necessary toverify these possibilities as well as alternativeideas. The nearly identical format of interlacedanimal hair fabric perhaps attached with plantyarns to a hide backing (or a Group 1 fabricbacking), which was found on artifacts fromSeip, Hopewell, Harness, and Fortney, indicatessome degree of similarity in the construction ofritual or ceremonial items among the differentMiddle Woodland contexts.

In fact, there may be some deliberate associ-ation between animal hair and bird feathers inthe Hopewell ceremonial realm, reflected in theorganic materials appearing on the copper arti-facts examined for this project. Intriguingly, dur-ing the 2000 summer pilot project for this largerstudy I examined a well-made breastplate fromthe collection at Mound City (Hopewell CultureNational Historical Park, Chillicothe, Ohio). Oneside was entirely covered with what lookedalmost like a carefully cut and/or applied sec-tion of dark fur (bear?) and the opposite side wascovered with feathers; in fact, it appeared to be anearly complete wing (skin and feathers) of alarger bird sweeping across the entire side. (Isuspect, given the overall shape and topographyof the breastplate, that the fur side may havebeen the “presentation” or “front” of the piece.)

The complexity of materials preserved on thesurfaces of copper objects, especially the breast-plates, was in some cases nearly overwhelming.One specimen from Seip (B079) is a good exam-ple of the diverse nature of these artifacts, andthe frustration associated with viewing the erod-ed and faint traces of what must have been acomplicated object at one point in time. Side 1 iscovered with an oblique-interlaced fabric madefrom two-ply bark yarns (the inner bast fibers ofa non-conifer bark), with possible traces ofGroup 1 plant-fabric yarns still extant in certainsections of the bark fabric (Figures 4.12 and 4.13).Feathers are then found on top of this material.In the center of this side, on top of the bark fab-ric, had been some object or addition to the platemade of hide (which was on top of the bark andgeneral feather layer), with a thick mass of larg-er feathers and down feathers on top of the hide.The feathers are impressed with an irregular

66 DeeAnne Wymer

shape that hints of a heavy, but no longer extant,object that had once been attached to or coveringthe feathers in the center.

Side 2 is equally perplexing. This side is cov-ered with a short, dark fur (bear?) that is orient-ed in a linear fashion on the plate (Figure 4.15);this is not an interlaced animal hair fabric. Someareas of this side produced traces of an erodedsueded/napped hide that had been on top of thefur. The center of this side revealed a thicker areaof fur with an impression of a more complicatedsequence of materials. The “edges” of the centralshape were bounded by thick, flexible segmentsof bark (not a textile), and hide was identified ontop of the fur contained within the shape definedby the bark. Unidentified (and probably uniden-tifiable) organic materials are also associatedwith this central area, often adjacent to the bark“arc” shapes. Historic glue around the drilledholes, and the presence of large pearls in a plas-tic bag, suggest that possibly pearls may havecovered the breastplate holes on this side (butthis association is not clearly known at this time).And, just like the breastplate from Mound City,there seems to be a pattern of feathers on oneside and fur on the other of the breastplate.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the analysis for organic componentspreserved on the copper artifact classes of breast-plates, celts, and headplates reveals that nearlyevery item produced some residue. Typically, itwas more common to find a mix of several dif-ferent materials on a single side than just a soli-tary substance. The breastplates yielded thegreatest diversity and best preservation of theartifacts examined. Some of the more prevalentorganic materials included Group 1 plant fabrics(with a similar structure across all of the projectsites; see, for instance, Figure 4.3), interlaced ani-mal hair fabrics, hide, feathers, pearls, woodcharcoal and bark, and calcined bone. Moreunusual categories included grass, flowers, andunidentifiable plant masses. The breastplatesfrom Seip revealed some of the more complicat-ed and best-preserved examples of organicitems.

Celts tended to yield hide, feathers, andinterlaced animal hair fabrics as well as the same

Group 1 plant fabrics noted for the breastplates.Plant (grass) masses and large monocotyledonleaf segments were also identified. Headplatestended to be severely repaired and cleaned dur-ing curation, but all specimens did producetraces of the sueded portion of hide and at leastone may have preserved a few strands of humanhair.

Many of the artifacts, especially the breast-plates, preserved traces of what originally musthave been complicated textiles or items. Theidentified combinations and stratigraphy sug-gest that some of the items may have been inter-laced animal hair fabric (some of it painted)attached with plant yarns to a hide or to a Group1 plant-fabric backing, and to a lesser extent,bark; pearls and other objects also may havebeen attached to such fabrics. Feather fabricsalso may have been utilized, and some evidencefrom specimens suggests that these, too, mayhave been attached to a hide or plant fabric.

I believe that perhaps one of the most impor-tant results of the examination of the copper arti-facts under the parameters of this project is theclear evidence for the preservation of diverseand complicated organic materials still extant onthese curated objects. It seems apparent that thislittle-investigated realm of Middle Woodlandarchaeology may offer remarkable insights intothe ceremonial sphere of the Hopewell people.Perhaps, however, it is not surprising that thisanalysis reveals a microscopic world of artifactsthat reflects the degree and depth of complexitythat has made the Hopewell culture so fascinat-ing to both professional archaeologists and thepublic.

NOTE

In addition to the results reported herein, apilot study undertaken during the summer of1999 in Chillicothe, Ohio, at the Ross CountyHistorical Society and the Hopewell CultureNational Historical Park also revealed organicresidue still extant on the surface of several cop-per artifacts in the collections of those institu-tions. This research is continuing with the analy-sis of copper objects curated in the collections ofa number of institutions.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This analysis was part of a larger projectdirected by Dr. Christopher Carr, Arizona StateUniversity, under the auspices of National Cen-ter for Preservation, Technology, and Traininggrant MT-2210-0-NC-12, Eastern National Parksand Monuments Association, Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research, TheOhio State University’s Provost’s Research Fund,Arizona State University’s College of LiberalArts and Sciences Mini-Grant Program, and Ari-zona State University’s Department of Anthro-pology Research Incentive Fund. The digitalphotographs utilized during the analysis phaseof the project were taken by Christopher Carrand Andrew D. W. Lydecker and enhanced bythem, Deann Gates, Karen Tefend, and Kate Tier-ney. The high-resolution digital camera was pro-vided by Archaeological Services Consultants,Inc., Columbus. Canon color prints for analysiswere produced by Scot Reese of ColortechGraphics and Printing, Columbus. I would espe-cially like to thank Martha Otto, Cheryl John-ston, and Melanie Pratt, and all of the personnelof the Ohio Historical Society who greatly facili-tated the success of this analysis and whosehumor and camaraderie softened the edges of anintense and complicated paleoethnobotanicalassessment. The wonderful photographs of thecopper artifacts and the organic materials onthem that were utilized in this publication weretaken by William B. Pickard of the Ohio Histori-cal Society. A special thanks also goes to VirginiaWimberley for her impeccable scholarship, kindregard, and patience in helping me to betterunderstand the area of fiber arts. Finally, I wouldlike to thank the editor and two anonymousreviewers for their most useful criticisms andcomments that greatly improved this chapter.

REFERENCES CITED

Brose, David S., and N’omi Greber (editors)1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Confer-

ence. Kent State University Press, Kent,Ohio.

Church, Flora1984 Textiles as Markers of Ohio Hopewell Social

Identities.Midcontinental Journal of Archaeol-

ogy 9:1-26.Dancey, William S., and Paul J. Pacheco (editors)1997 Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. Kent

State University Press, Kent, Ohio.Fagan, Brian M.2000 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a

Continent. Thames and Hudson, New York.Greber, N’omi (editor)1983 Recent Excavations at the Edwin Harness

Mound, Liberty Works, Ross County, Ohio.Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Spe-cial Paper 5. Kent State University Press,Kent, Ohio.

Greber, N’omi, and Katharine C. Ruhl2000 The Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis

Based on the Work of Charles C. Willoughby.Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Jakes, Kathryn A., Hsiou-lien Chen, and Lucy R. Sib-ley

1993 Toward the Development of a ClassificationSystem for Plant Fibers. Ars Textrina 20:157-179.

Mainfort, Robert C., and Lynne P. Sullivan (editors)1998 Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern

Woodlands. University Press of Florida,Gainesville.

Mills, William C.1907 Explorations of the Edwin Harness Mound.

Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly16:113-193.

1909 Explorations of the Seip Mound. OhioArchaeological and Historical Quarterly18:269-321.

Pacheco, Paul J.1996 A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio

Hopewell Archaeology. The Ohio Archaeolog-ical Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Putnam, Frederic W.1887 Eighteenth Report of the Curator [February

1884-February 1885]. In Reports of thePeabody Museum of American Archaelogy andEthnology, Volume III, 1880-86, pp.401-418.Salem Press for The Board of Trustees, Cam-bridge, MA.

Seeman, Mark F.1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence

for Interregional Trade and Structural Complex-ity. Prehistory Research Series 5(2). IndianaHistorical Society, Indianapolis.

68 DeeAnne Wymer

ABSTRACT

This chapter presents the analysis of textile frag-ments adhering to particular types of copper artifactsfrom Ohio Hopewell burial mounds at the Hopewell,Seip, Mound City, Liberty/Harness, Ater, and Rock-hold sites. Non-destructive analysis of the textileremains was used to gather data on fibers, yarn struc-tures, and fabric structures, with the object of discov-ering possible relationships among artifacts related tovariations in the fabric structural elements. Anom-alous attributes often were found in yarns withintwined structures adhering to copper artifacts fromthe same site. The mixture of yarn attributes withinsingle fabrics may indicate multiple spinners supply-ing one textile creator with the necessary volume ofyarns to create high-thread-count textiles more rapid-ly for ceremonial purposes.

INTRODUCTION

Textiles serve important functions in mostsocieties. They may function as an economiccommodity for local consumption or trade, as anaesthetic expression of individual or corporateartists, as decoration of the individual or ofhis/her surroundings, as protection from naturalelements, and/or as semiotic messages for com-munication of information about the individualand the groups to which s/he belongs. Suchinformation includes indications of age, gender,social status, and/or power within the society.Weiner and Schneider compiled research studies

demonstrating the multifaceted functions of tex-tiles within society in their volume, Cloth andHuman Experience (1989). In choices of raw mate-rials, yarn and textile construction, modes ofdecoration, and methods of finishing, fabrics canreveal clues to the technological level of thegroup or of individuals producing them, as wellas to the constraints on materials and workman-ship in the society (Carr and Maslowski 1995;Minar 2000; Petersen and Wolford 2000; Sibleyand Jakes 1989). The purpose of this chapter is tocontinue the investigation of how textiles func-tioned within the Ohio Hopewell Middle Wood-land period, from this semiotic and material cul-ture perspective.

HOPEWELL CULTURE

From 100 B. C. to A.D. 400 the Hopewell cul-ture flourished within the Middle Ohio Valley.Although Ohio Hopewell populations participat-ed in a pan-eastern Hopewellian cosmology, evi-dence is that they were not “culturally homoge-neous” (Pacheco 1996:18), and settlement sys-tems varied in separate geographical areas ofdrainage basins. These areas were the GreatMiami and Little Miami Valleys in southwesternOhio, the Central Scioto Valley in south-centralOhio, and the central Muskingam-Licking Valleyin east-central Ohio. These independent variantsand their social interaction form the definition ofOhio Hopewell. This Ohio Hopewell culture iswell known for gigantic geometric earthworks,

Chapter 5 Preserved Textiles on Hopewell Copper 69

CHAPTER 5

PRESERVED TEXTILES ON HOPEWELL COPPERVirginia S. Wimberley


burial mounds associated with earthworks, andexotic artifacts found in the mounds, such aszoomorphic platform pipes; mica and coppercutouts; and copper plates, headdresses, and earspools. It has taken time for researchers to dis-cover the more mundane aspects of the Hopewellculture, including habitation sites and day-to-daylife events. The archaeological evidence fornucleated villages has not been convincing(Pacheco 1996). Rather, the preceding Adena set-tlement pattern prevailed: scattered householdclusters of one to three houses, composed of fam-ilies probably linked by some larger relationshipsuch as clans or lineages (Brose and Greber 1979;Cowan 1996; Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Greber1979; Pacheco 1996; Prufer 1965; Woodward andMcDonald 1986). Cowan proposed a model forthe use of the large-scale earthworks as places for“world renewal rituals” (Cowan 1996:131). Burialmounds were erected over the sites of formerstructures. While some of these mounds wereconstructed as a single event, Greber and others

have shown that complex centers, such as theSeip mound group, were the result of long-termactivities of a small number of cooperatinghouseholds over a long period of time. Moundsof simple types (Mound City) or complex, multi-room structures (Seip, Liberty/Harness, andMound 25 of the Hopewell mound group) servedas “repositories of the bones and earthly posses-sions of the honored members of the lineages orclans” (Brown 1979; Cowan 1996:133). Three-fourths of Hopewell burials were cremations.Tomb burials in the flesh have been presumed tobe reserved for the highest social class. Caches ofartifacts in basins or sections within the moundsare definitely dedicatory in nature, with itemspossessing suprafamilial, semiotic properties(Cowan 1996).

The sites considered in this chapter werelocated in the Great Miami River and SciotoRiver valleys (Figure 5.1). Each had its own dis-tinctive features. Hopewell contained 40 conicalmounds enclosed by an extensive embankment

70 Virginia S. Wimberley

Figure 5.1. Map of Lower Ohio showing locations of Hopewell sites.

(Greber and Ruhl 1989). Another major concen-tration of burial mounds associated with anearthwork enclosure occurred at Mound City.Seip mound group, located on several terraces ofSouth Paint Creek, a tributary of the Scioto, hadtwo large mounds and five smaller civic and cer-emonial structures. At the Liberty/Harness site,the remains of a “Great House” beneath EdwinHarness Mound incorporated complex symbolsof special colors, trees, and directions that indi-cated usage beyond mortuary rituals (Greber1983). Tremper Mound is located on a high ter-race along the western edge of the Scioto Valley.An embankment originally enclosed the mound.Within the mound was a multichambered ovalcharnel house with added “wings.” Rather thanindividual burials characteristic of otherHopewell sites, Tremper contained four commu-nal depositories for the dead and their graveofferings (Woodward and McDonald 1986:110).

Opulent, non-utilitarian grave offerings andthe fine craftsmanship and artistry of Hopewellart distinguish Hopewell burials from the pre-ceding Adena period. The raw materials forthese objects came from a far-reaching trade net-work. Copper from the Great Lakes was formedinto breastplates and headdresses. Mica from thesouthern Appalachians was carved into effigyforms and sometimes used to cover burials like ablanket. Freshwater pearls were strung togetherand sewn onto clothing. These pearls represent-ed great wealth in individual burials; 100,000pearls were recovered from the Hopewellmound group and approximately 15,000 pearlscovered a multiple burial in Seip Mound 1(Moorehead 1922; Woodward and MacDonald1986). Excavation of an Ater Mound burial of anadult male and infant revealed 1,350 pearl andshell beads on the chest of the adult and a deco-rated blanket covering the infant, with 1,500conch shell beads forming a diamond pattern ona twined fabric substrate (Ohio Historical Socie-ty 1976:4).

PREVIOUS HOPEWELL TEXTILESTUDIES

Gifted as an artist, observer, and writer,Charles C. Willoughby wrote extensively aboutthe artifacts of North American excavations,

including studies of textile collections from anumber of sites. His research involved replica-tion studies as to how the fabrics could havebeen produced. His report on the excavations atthe Hopewell site from 1891 to 1892 provides aview of the textiles in association with theiraccompanying remains. He documented thetypes of twined constructions commonly attrib-uted to Hopewell sites (Willoughby 1938).

Flora Church (1984) studied the variation intextiles within and between sites for OhioHopewell. Within burial contexts, not every indi-vidual was associated with textiles. Some per-sons had more elaborate textiles, some had lesselaborate ones, and some had no textiles at all.Textiles appeared to be part of some form ofranking. Church studied 120 fabric specimensfrom the Liberty/Harness, Hopewell, and Seipsites, housed at the Ohio Historical Center. Theoriginal group was narrowed to 62 specimens formore intensive analysis. The sample includedtextile fragments described as charred, frag-ments with evidence of metallic salts absorption,fragments in situ on copper, and impressions oftextiles on copper. She noted thirteen types offabric structures, including five types of wefttwining, one type of weft wrapping, five types ofinterlacing (including both twill and plainweave), and two variations of beaten bark cloth(Church 1984: Fig. 4). Sixty-four per cent of thetotal samples were twined.

Seip fabric samples studied by Church evi-denced finer yarn elements than fragments fromHarness or Hopewell. Table 5.1 summarizes theresults of Church’s yarn analysis. Spaced alter-nate-pair twining (see “Twining” in Definitions )predominated at all sites over the other 12 struc-tures. Compact alternate-pair twining andspaced plain twining occurred at Hopewell andSeip. All three sites had small numbers of fabricsin oblique interlacing. Church attributed thespaced alternate-pair twining and oblique inter-lacing to clothing uses for higher ranked indi-viduals, based upon the fine yarn elements, highthread counts, and contact with copper artifacts.She predicted that the fine-scale spaced alter-nate-pair twining and oblique interlacing foundin the burial contexts would not be found inhabitation context textiles (1984:11).

Willoughby (1938) reported eight types of


textile structures, including three types of inter-lacing, four types of twining, and one type oflooped netting (Willoughby 1938:Fig. 1). WhileChurch’s sample did include most of Willough-by’s fabric structure classes, there were no exam-ples of “coiled” (looped) netting. Interestingly,she found several slits or openings, stained withcopper salts, which she suggested were button-holes for copper buttons (Church 1984:8). WhileChurch refers to the work of Whitford (1941) onfiber analysis, she does not report fiber diame-ters from her analysis.

Song, Jakes, and Yerkes (1996) studied pri-marily textiles mounted between glass platesfrom the Seip mound group, curated at the OhioHistorical Center. They examined visual charac-teristics of fabric structures, coloration, and fibertypes for the purpose of understanding OhioHopewell textile production and utilizationbehaviors. The analysis of this sample revealedthe use of animal fibers, bast fibers, and a combi-nation of the two. “Blackened” (carbonized) tex-tile fragments were smaller in size than“unblackened.” Of the unblackened fragmentsall but 15 showed copper staining and 27showed evidence of other coloration, in agree-ment with Shetrone and Greenman’s 1931 reportof the excavation of textiles with painted designstypical of Hopewell patterns. Song was not ableto distinguish patterns, due to the small size ofthe fragments and the amount of surface degra-dation. Willoughby (1938) had reported hairfibers in his samples, speculating that they mightbe buffalo, bear, and rabbit. Song et al. (1996)found that the animal fibers in their sample hadpigmented internal structures or medullas.Seven samples (14%) had the fiber structures

typical of rabbit or hare fibers. Forty-one sam-ples (81%) of fibers occurred in bundles withnodal structures throughout the length, typicalof bast fibers. Surface encrustation and degrada-tion prevented a more specific identification.Four samples (5%) contained both bast and rab-bit fibers. Fiber type was tied to textile construc-tion, in that the combined-fiber yarns were fromoblique interlacing fragments and bast-onlyyarns were from spaced alternate-pair twiningfragments, with only two exceptions (one sam-ple each of oblique interlacing and spaced twin-ing).

The widest survey of Hopewell MiddleWoodland textiles was reported by KathleenHinkle (1984), using the Hopewell collections ofthe Ohio Historical Society, Kent State Universi-ty, the Cleveland Museum of Natural History,and the Field Museum of Natural History inChicago. While her original sample was of 389fabrics from nine Hopewell sites, a sample of 154specimens was studied most intensely, notingfiber type, fabric structure, yarn size, and warpand weft yarn spin direction. The emphasis wasto determine the textile attributes that wouldrange from the most visible to the least visiblefor conveying social meaning in the develop-ment of a synthetic theory. This theory proposedthat the attributes of an object that pertain toindividual social and manufacturing processesare organized hierarchically in the manner ofWobst’s (1977) information exchange model.Hinkle recorded 12 variations in textile structure,which included six variations of twining, fivevariations of interlacing and oblique interlacing,and spiral interlinking. Working with the prob-lem of provenience for many Hopewell artifacts,


Table 5.1. Yarn Diameter Comparisons Made by Church (1984).

Site N Spaced Alternate-Pair N Oblique InterlacingWeft Twining

Warp Mean Weft Mean Warp Mean Weft Mean(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Liberty/Harness 6 1.12 1.32 1 2.49 2.46Hopewell 8 1.02 1.18 2 3.00/3.18 2.96/3.23Seip Mound 1 9 0.48 0.55 1 1.24 1.32Seip Mound 2 3 1.16 1.25 1 0.32 1.06Seip No Mound 3 0.83 0.78 0 - -

Hinkle encoded the fabrics with the most accu-rate locational data possible in order to compareintra-site attributes. Her data analysis comparedthe Scioto River Valley sites, since data were toolimited for the Great Miami River Valley andMuskingum River Valley sites. Hinkle also tabu-lated context and end uses for the textiles. Hercategories included fabric canopy, blanket, bag,burial shroud, carbonized on charnel housefloor, carbonized on mound floor, preserved oncopper bracelet, preserved on copper ear spool,and cane matting. The Hopewell site evidencedthe largest number of variations, with 10 of the12 fabric structures. Seip samples included fiveof the variations. Tremper had three, includingthe only example of countered compact twining.Liberty/Harness specimens included only twovariations. Ater, Fortney, Mound City, and Rock-hold each produced only one or two fabric sam-ples of a single structural variation. Besides thecountered compact twining, three other varia-tions were found in single specimens: obliqueinterlacing, spiral interlinking, and weft-facedplain weave, all of them from Hopewell.

Ellanor P. White (1987) utilized a sample ofHopewell mound group fabrics curated at theField Museum of Natural History in Chicago.Her sample included 1,101 pieces of fabric, 490of which were fragments on metal celts andplates. The Field Museum collection includesprimarily the artifacts found with skeletons 260and 261, which had the largest collection of cop-per plates and celts of all the Ohio Hopewellsites. These two burials contained 90 copperplates and 66 celts, with the plates broken intoshapes similar to the mica forms, and then laidon top of the skeletons with the edges touching(Christopher Carr, personal communication2002). While some of White’s findings are similarto those coming from studies of the Ohio Histor-ical Center collections, her data show someunique occurrences in textile production. First,she reported fine, open fabrics of oblique inter-lacing over 95 percent of the copper artifacts inher sample (1987:60). She concluded that allpieces of copper were wrapped in this fine gaugeoblique interlacing before being interred. Thereported yarn element mean diameter was 1mm. There were also examples of a coarser

oblique interlacing with mean element diame-ters of 2 mm. Second, White (1987:70, 73-74)described five fragments of very fine twined tap-estry and one fine, flat woven cloth with fringe.She also found that remnants of fur, feathers,and/or down were restricted to a few categoriesof copper artifacts (1987:79). Finally, she reportedthat oblique interlacing was the most commoncovering on celts (1987:83).

Comparison of data from these studies andthe present one is difficult because of (1) some-times idiosyncratic and poorly defined defini-tions of fabric structure types; (2) in the case ofstudies that utilized Ohio Historical Society col-lections (all but White), analysis of samples thatoverlapped to an unknown extent with the onereported herein; (3) the fact that most studiesincluded but were not limited to fabrics adher-ing to copper artifacts, and data usually were notpresented in such a way that fabrics associatedwith copper could be singled out; and (4) whilethe present study included only fabrics associat-ed with copper celts, breastplates, and head-plates, other studies included fabrics associatedwith other types of copper artifacts such as but-tons and beads.

THE PRESENT STUDY

The research reported in this chapter waspart of a larger project conceived by ChristopherCarr to employ a multidisciplinary approach tothe analysis of the full range of copper artifactsheld by the Ohio Historical Society in Columbus,Ohio. The purpose of my study was to analyzefabrics adhering to a variety of copper artifactsfrom seven Hopewell sites (Figures 4.1 and 5.1),and to assess the possible function(s) of the fab-rics; whether, for instance, the fabric remainswere the result of bagging or wrapping beforedeposition or of clothing in contact with copperor some other purpose. Metallurgists, digital andinfrared imagists, and a paleobotanist, DeeAnneWymer, were also part of the team assembled byCarr. See Chapter 4, this volume, for Wymer’sdiscussion of additional organic materials pre-served on these artifacts. Since the Carr studyemployed only textiles currently attached to cop-per artifacts, the sample does not consider car-


bonized textiles, cane matting not attached tocopper, or non-carbonized textiles that were pre-served by contact with copper corrosion prod-ucts but are no longer in contact with an artifact.It is not possible to indicate the amount of over-lap of the present sample with samples in previ-ous studies, because the artifacts are not num-bered in such a way as to facilitate that compari-son. Frequently, the artifacts are identified onlyby the general site number. Since the currentsample was limited to textiles adhering to cop-per plates, it is a much less extensive samplethan those of Church (1984), Hinkle (1984), Song,Jakes, and Yerkes (1996), and White (1987),which also included textiles between glassplates, carbonized textiles, and cane matting.

SAMPLES AND SELECTION CRITERIA

I selected a preliminary list of possible tex-tiles and copper pseudomorphs (inorganicmetallic replacements or casts of organic materi-als)1 for analysis in 1997, using color prints ofartifacts made by Carr, who also provided thenumbering system for the artifacts. In the sum-mer of 2000, Wymer surveyed the prints, and asecond list of 77 artifacts was derived to guidethe analysis of organics and textiles adhering tocopper. The use of the color prints helped reducethe unnecessary handling of artifacts during thesample development. These photographs alsopreserve the appearance of the samples at thetime of the photograph and can be consulted tosee if any portion has shifted over time. Thenumbers assigned by Carr will help alleviate theproblem of comparison between studies of tex-tiles adhering to copper, since each artifact nowhas an individual or unique number. His exten-sive database of photographs includes OhioHopewell collections beyond the Ohio HistoricalSociety holdings. The textile analysis was per-formed upon the artifacts at the Ohio HistoricalSociety facility in Columbus, Ohio, during theweeks of July 26 through August 7, 2000.

METHODS USED

Following the protocol developed by Sibleyand Jakes for the analysis of Etowah textiles, a

centimeter grid withY-axis rows labeled consec-utively from A and X-axis rows labeled consecu-tively from Number 1 was placed over the pho-tograph of the artifact for the purpose of map-ping locations of textiles and organics and com-puting areal coverage by textiles and pseudo-morphs. See Figure 4.2 for an example of thetransparency grid placed over the color photo-graph for recording position of organics and tex-tiles. This grid system allows for the precise des-ignation of locations of observations. First,Wymer analyzed artifacts for organics, andnoted possible textile materials. Then I inspectedthe artifacts and fabric samples by stereomicro-scope with a micrometer disc inserted into oneeyepiece for measurement of fiber diameter,yarn diameter, and thread counts of textile con-structions. All objects were handled only withgloved hands to prevent damage from skin oils,perspiration, and so on. The stereomicroscopehad a maximum magnification of 70X power, notgreat enough in most cases to facilitate identifi-cation of fiber types, only general classificationsof fiber characteristics.

Following standard ASTM test method pro-cedures, fiber and yarn diameters were averagedfrom five measurements sampled over the entirefragment. A handheld protractor was used todetermine the angle of twist for single and pliedyarns. A protractor disc in an eyepiece wouldhave been preferable but was not available. Forthread counts (see Definitions) of fabric frag-ments, five measurements taken by samplingover the entire piece of fabric were made usingan ocular micrometer disc, and then averaged. Inthe case of some fragments, five measurementswere not possible due to the small size of the tex-tile; therefore, as many measurements as possi-ble over the entire area of the sample were madeand averaged.

With respect to the determination of functionof the textile, some estimates of coverage andorientation were made to guide assessment. Itwas thought that if bagging were the purposethen one textile construction type would leavelarger coverage of the artifact on both sides. Theorientation of the textile structure would alsoindicate bagging function, in that broken frag-ments should be oriented with the warp or sys-


tem A yarns all lying in the same direction onboth sides of the artifact. Determination of warpdirection is dependent upon existence of a fin-ished edge or selveage. None of the fragmentsstudied had such a finished edge; therefore, nofragments in this study were identified as warptwined, unlike Hinkle’s study, which reported 18warp twining examples, all from the Hopewellsite. Since some of the Hopewell artifacts weredeposited in stacks, textile remains along theedges of the artifact (while none were on theobverse and reverse sides) could still indicate awrapping or bagging function, with the artifactperhaps coming from the middle of the stack.Additionally, it was thought that areal coverageof 80 percent or greater would be associated withbagging and wrapping functions. Burial shroudfunction could also result in large areal coveragebut attributes of amount of fiber processing,intricacy of interworking and patterning, andone-sidedness may help differentiate clothingfunction from bagging and wrapping end uses.

RESULTS

In viewing the 116 prints, 85 (73%) werejudged to have textile remains and 38 (33%) tohave possible pseudomorphs. Only 2 (1.7%)appeared to have both textile and pseudomor-phic evidence. It became apparent during thetextile analysis that artifacts could have themacroappearance of a textile grid, but at themicroscopic level it could be seen that there wasno fiber, yarn, or cloth left on the artifact, andthat no pseudomorphs were present. The “textilemarks” could be “ghosts” of a previous textile,or a circumstance of the copper mineralization orcorrosion, but without any three-dimensionalshape (see Figure 5.2). Some fabrics did have sec-tions where copper replacement of organic fiberswas complete, as indicated by blue colorationand slightly larger diameters than those in theadjacent natural colored sections; but in othercases mineralization was probably partial. Onlychemical testing would indicate that. Of the 39artifacts upon which I did a detailed textileanalysis, 6 had fabric on only one side and 16had fabric on both sides. On 6 artifacts, onlyyarns remained; 4 of these had yarns on both

sides, and 2 had yarns on one side.The sample is definitely skewed toward the

Seip and Hopewell sites in the Scioto drainage.The other sites produced few examples of tex-tiles adhering to copper. Breastplates providedthe most textile evidence. A few celts were asso-ciated with textile remains or pseudomorphs.Headplates, originally thought to have evidenceof associated textiles, universally proved to haveno fabric remains present.

Eighty percent or greater coverage of an arti-fact side by fabric was a rare occurrence, exceptfor Seip breastplates. Only one celt had fabric onboth sides. That, too, originated from the Seipsite. Five out of ten breastplates from the


Figure 5.2. Copper celt (C011, Carr designation) withthe appearance of a fabric structure at the macrolevel. However, the apparent yarns are only incom-plete remnants, preserved as pseudomorphs. (Seealso Figure 4.4.) Photograph courtesy of William B.Pickard of the Ohio Historical Society.

Hopewell site had sides with evidence of fabric,but all had less than 80 percent coverage. FromHopewell also came three celts with fabric on 5percent of the total area of one side only. Thiswould appear to indicate that the textile had notnecessarily been used to bag or wrap the artifact.The other sites were represented by only one ortwo copper items with any amount of fabric cov-erage, all at considerably less than the 80 percentlevel. No other signs of bagging, such as draw-strings or casings, were found in associationwith the copper artifacts.

Thread counts (the number of yarn elementsper centimeter; see Definitions) presented someinteresting results. In general, Seip textiles hadhigher thread counts for spaced alternate-pairtwining and oblique interlacing than were pres-ent at other sites. The range in thread count forspaced alternate-pair twined fabrics was from 17to 24 inactive elements per centimeter, with 6 to10 active elements per centimeter. Only a breast-plate, which had cremation remains on theobverse side, had a thread count outside of thatrange (8 inactive wrapped by 4 active elementsper centimeter). Hopewell site spaced alternate-pair twining fabric counts ranged from 10 inac-tive by 4 active elements to 16 by 8 per centime-ter. Oblique interlaced fabrics from Seip and Aterhad 6 by 6 yarns per centimeter. The Hopewellsite oblique interlacing example was coarser,with 4 by 4 elements per centimeter.

Considering possible uses for textiles in con-tact with artifacts, the question arose of whethermore than one fabric construction or fabric typeoccurred on a given side of an artifact. The pres-ence of more than one type of fabric structure orof the same structure but with different meanyarn diameters and/or thread counts, whichwould indicate two different fabrics, could be acontraindication of wrapping or bagging. Fewartifacts had more than one cloth construction ona given side. One textile was mixed with featherand/or hair or fur fiber (Carr B067). Only theHopewell site had one breastplate with twoidentifiably different textiles on one side of theartifact (Carr B020), and also the only example ofdifferent fabric structures on obverse and reverseside (Carr B071), which are illustrated in Figure5.3.

Table 5.2 lists the fabric structures found onthe surveyed artifacts. Textile structures foundadhering to copper, not including cane mattingor hide, were limited to five types: oblique inter-lacing, spaced two-strand twining,2 compactalternate-pair twining, spaced alternate-pairtwining, and plain weave (Emery 1980:201-202;see Definitions). Spaced two-strand twining wasidentified only on artifacts from the Hopewellsite. There is a possible example of featherworkwith feathers attached to a textile substrate onbreastplate B030. There is a definite textile-likeopen grid of orange coloration forming diagonallines over the entire plate side, but no fibers oryarns are wrapped around the feather shafts. Ina few places, the feather shafts can be seen tohave been bent in the traditional form for attach-ment, but no yarns were evident with the bentshafts (see Figure 4.8).

Oblique interlacing was found only onbreastplates, from Seip, Hopewell, and Ater. Sev-eral samples of oblique interlacing showed pig-ment coloration in green and maroon (see Figure4.7). Hinkle also reported fabrics with maroonand green pigmentation. No design patterncould be ascertained from the fragments. Com-pact alternate-pair twining was found on onebreastplate from Seip. Spaced alternate-pairtwining occurred on ten breastplates from Seip,one breastplate and one celt from Hopewell, andone breastplate from Rockhold. Spaced two-strand twining was characteristic of only onebreastplate from the Hopewell site. Five breast-plates from the sites of Ater, Hopewell, Liber-ty/Harness, and Seip were associated withunidentifiable textile structures.

The fibers used for the spaced alternate-pairtwining are cream colored, and at 70X magnifi-cation appear to be “Group 1” type fibers, whichinclude nettles, mulberry, dogbane, and milk-weed (Jakes et al. 1993). Because the sample is sobiased toward Seip and Hopewell, it is not pos-sible to generate any conclusions for between-site and between-artifact-type occurrences. ALiberty/Harness site breastplate (Carr B055) hada second type of fiber that was less refined than“Group 1” types, being darker in color and of acoarser fiber diameter. Yarns were typically two-ply with final Z twist (see Definitions).



Figure 5.3. Fabrics on obverse and reverse sides of breastplate B071 (Carr designation). Top: Oblique inter-lacing. Bottom: Spaced alternate-pair twined fabric. Photographs courtesy of Christopher Carr and Andrew D.W.Lydecker. Breastplate courtesy of the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

In several cases, multiple layers of the sametype of textile were present on one side of theartifact. Some examples were double- or triple-layered, and one had as many as 10 to 14 layers.In some places, one can see the fabric foldingback to form another layer. Seip breastplate CarrB040 has multiple layers of cloth, and the varia-tion in yarn twist and ply in the fragments seemsto indicate two different fabrics in the spacedalternate-pair twined structure. On severalplates, the textile occurs on top of cane mattingor hide and at other locations is underneath hideor fur. Without provenience, it is difficult to indi-cate purpose for this layering; either bagging orwrapping by fabric occurred before the objectwas laid on a cane mat, or the textile was in con-tact with the copper first and then it was coveredwith hide or cane matting. In several cases, thespaced alternate-pair fabrics occurred withfeathers. There could be some ritual pairing ofmaterials happening. This is similar to Sibley’s

findings (1986) for a breastplate from Tuna-cunnhee Hopewell site in Georgia.

In samples examined for the current study,yarns used for oblique interlacing were ofgreater diameter than those used for spacedalternate-pair twined fabrics. The yarn diame-ters from oblique interlacing on copper artifactsare smaller than those reported in the Churchsample, which were almost twice as thick asyarns used for other structures. The yarns fromoblique interlacing that were examined in thecurrent sample appear to have a configurationthat typically would be designated as a “com-plex” or “novelty” yarn today. The surface wascovered by hair fibers, which initially led to adesignation by Wymer as “woven fur,” but theseare not interlaced strips of fur. Rather, the inter-laced elements are two-ply yarns into whichshort hair fibers were incorporated during ply-ing, or around which fibers had been wrappedafter plying.


Table 5.3 summarizes singles yarn and pliedyarn diameters by sites. The coarser thread countfor the breastplate with the cremation remainsraises the question of whether differences in fab-ric fineness may be related to fabric function.The majority of spaced alternate- pair twiningfound in association with breastplates had fineyarns and high thread counts. Yarns and threadcount are coarser in spaced alternate-pair twinedfabrics probably used as wrappings to keep cre-mation remains in place on the plate after thecremation process. Could this indicate that thewrapping function for cremation was of lessimportance and therefore required less-fineworkmanship in the associated fabric? A surveyof textiles in association with cremation remainsmay prove useful.

In reporting results from her study of OhioHistorical Society fabric specimens from threeOhio Hopewell sites, Church (1984:10) notedthat “some of the textiles . . . appear to be close-ly related to the distribution of copper,” but didnot tabulate fabric differences based on associa-tions with copper. However, data from White’sstudy of Hopewell site fabric fragments in theField Museum collections (1987) do make thatdistinction. White noted that “profoundly differ-ent frequencies of textile construction are foundin the preserved fabrics and [in fabrics visible]on copper” (1987:60). Data from her sample(unlike data from most other published analy-

ses) do not overlap with those of the presentstudy.

Table 5.4 compares frequencies of fabricstructure types reported by White (1987) in car-bonized textiles and in textiles associated withcopper against data from the present study, inwhich only fabrics associated with copperbreastplates and celts were analyzed. The newdata corroborate the above observations. Itwould appear that fabric structure types in asso-ciation with copper are more limited than thetotal known types from Ohio Hopewell sites. Forinstance, in these samples close (compact) plaintwining, present in a high proportion of car-bonized fabric fragments, is not in evidenceamong fabrics associated with copper artifacts.

White reported fine oblique interlacing ofone-millimeter diameter elements covering bothsides of 95 percent of the 1,101 copper artifactsand artifact fragments that she examined. Shehypothesized that all the artifacts were wrappedin fine oblique interlacing and that the fabricplayed a functional role in artifact production.Color images made by Carr of copper items inthe Ohio Historical Society Hopewell collectionsdo show fine threads, but one cannot identifyany oblique interlacing pattern (ChristopherCarr, personal communication 2002).



DISCUSSION

Future lines of study for these artifactswould include an effort toward identification ofplant fibers as well as of hair, fur, and feathersamples. From notes on Hopewell and Missis-sippian textiles made by the late Dr. Lucy Sibleyof the Ohio State University College of HumanEcology, dated April 14, 1987 (provided to me byN’omi Greber), it is apparent that an investiga-tion of the use of milkweed fibers, from seedand/or stem, should be made. Sibley thoughtfibers associated with breastplate #283/450(Carr designation B067) might be of milkweed“down” rather than of feather. Magnificationgreater than 70X is needed to check for featherbarbs and other surface characteristics. Bast-likefibers, identified by both Sibley and me, requirefurther investigation before a more specific iden-tification can be made. In comparative samplesof milkweed, fibers are easy to extract and havesimilar structure to those in the study, being lightin color, relatively clean, and not fully separatedinto individual fibrils.

In my observations, some curious anomalieswere noted that were not expected from thereview of previous research. I found anomalous-ly tightly or loosely twisted yarns within the tex-tiles associated with several breastplates, includ-ing Seip breastplate 17, side 2, and breastplate35, side 1. None of the other researchers investi-gating Hopewell fabrics have commented on theunequal size of any two singles plied togethernor the extreme variation in twist angle ofcordage within a single textile fragment. Figures5.4 and 5.5 illustrate these variations. In Figure5.4, one can see a more tightly twisted yarninserted at intervals, and the variation in diame-ters for yarns with lower twists per centimeter.In Figure 5.5 there is a thick singles yarn pliedwith a thinner singles yarn. This occurred withthree breastplates (B034, B036, and B040). Sincethe fibers are the same type, the question is, whythe twist variation within the same fabric?

These anomalous yarns are being investigat-ed from several different angles. Once a spinneris experienced, the twist per centimeter remainsfairly consistent for the yarn type being pro-duced for a particular end use. On these breast-

plates, the bast-like yarns all appear to be of thesame Group 1 fiber type, and are used in thesame type of twined structure. It would beexpected that yarns would have the same or sim-ilar degree of twist per centimeter for the entirecloth if made by one spinner. Most commonly, toobtain a smooth, consistent fabric surface, singleelements of the same diameter are twistedtogether to form a plied yarn, rather than mixingsingles of dissimilar diameters. The presence ofthese varying yarns may indicate that more thanone person provided yarn for the textile or thatyarns originally prepared for different purposeswere incorporated into the structure, due to timeconstraints for quick preparation. Althoughdiameters varied from yarn to yarn along theirlengths, the twists were consistent, probablyindicating that the spinner was not a beginner atplying, which is usually evidenced by tightlytwisted sections alternating with more looselytwisted sections along the length of the yarn, orby some sections untwisting. Jakes and Tiede-mann (Jakes, personal communication 2002)suggest that one explanation for the thick andthin jointures may be the method of plying. Theystudied craftspeople performing different meth-ods of spinning, finding that the thigh-spinningmethod typically caused one of the singles yarnsto untwist as two singles were being twisted asecond time in plying. This untwisting wouldincrease diameter of the yarn as it gained lesscompression. Yet one might ask why this was nota more common occurrence if thigh spinningwere the common method of plying yarns, forthe untwisting appears in only five out of seven-teen breastplates for Seip.

These yarns of Group 1 fibers are so fine andthe thread counts so dense in the alternate-pairtwining that tremendous labor would beinvolved in producing the yarns for the fabrics(Jakes et al.1993). Thousands of hours would berequired just for cordage production, from col-lection of raw materials through extraction fromthe plant stems to spinning and plying. If yarnswere needed quickly, the work of several spin-ners could be pooled to produce the textile. Thevolume of fabrics evidenced by those attached tocopper and reported by excavators could neces-sitate such collective behavior. Eight breastplates



Figure 5.4. Breastplate B035 (Carrdesignation) with more highly twist-ed yarns inserted at intervals in thespaced alternate-pair twined fab-ric. Top: Whole plate. Bottom:Detail. Photographs courtesy ofChristopher Carr and Andrew D.W. Lydecker. Breastplate courtesyof the Ohio Historical Society,Columbus.

of the seventeen from Seip and one each fromthe Hopewell and Rockhold sites have theseyarn anomalies (B009, B017, B029, B032, B035,B036, B039, B040, B042, B078). With the lack ofprovenience for many of the Hopewell artifacts,the yarn anomalies may help to track which arti-facts were bagged or wrapped together, or werefrom the same burial with fragments of the samegarment or shroud. While it is recognized thatwithin-site provenience is problematical for themajority of Ohio Hopewell artifacts, informationis available for some as to whether they werepart of a cache, or individually disposed. Futurework will include compiling archaeologicalproveniences for the copper artifacts studied, toascertain whether they were in contact with askeleton or were part of a cache in a crematorybasin. Until that information can be added to thetextile data, function is difficult to assess. Thelack of fabric on both sides for many artifactsmay indicate that separate wrapping or baggingwas not done. There are examples of textileremains on only the edges of plates that mayindicate that breastplates were stacked togetherand then wrapped to keep them in place. Someplates were associated with two or more layersof the same fabric structure, which may indicatefolding of a larger piece of fabric to fit the sur-face of the plate for ceremonial purposes. Wherematting and fabric occur on the same plate, thefabric might be hypothesized to have served asclothing or shroud if it can be established thatthe plate was found beneath the body where itwas lying on a mat.

NOTES

1. In this chapter, the term “pseudomorph”includes mineralized artifacts (see Defini-tions).

2. Two-strand twining refers to the number ofactive elements twisting around the inactiveelements. In this case, two strands twistaround one element at a time, as in Emery’sdefinition (1980:201). In two-strand wefttwining, the wefts are known to be the activeelements. Without selvages or finishededges, it is difficult to specifically designatewarp or weft directions, traditionally vertical


Figure 5.5. Thick and thin singles plied together. Top:Yarns on breastplate B035A (Carr designation).Bottom: Yarns on breastplate B036B (Carr designa-tion). Photographs courtesy of Christopher Carr andAndrew D. W. Lydecker. Breastplate courtesy of theOhio Historical Society, Columbus.

and horizontal directions as the fabric is pro-duced. Analysis of the yarns employed inrelation to the weave may indicate direction-ality with reasonable surety in modern tex-tiles. In one example, there may be thinnerand more highly twisted yarns in one direc-tion as compared to thicker, less-twisted onesin the opposite direction. Generally, the thin-ner, more tightly twisted yarns lie in thewarp direction, because they are more resist-ant to stresses involved in construction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by a grant fromthe NCPTT Project, Development of High Reso-lution, Digital Color and Infrared PhotographicMethods, Christopher Carr, principal investiga-tor; and a travel grant from the Alabama Muse-um of Natural History, The University of Ala-bama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Special thank you isextended to Martha Otto and the entire staff ofthe Ohio Historical Society for their help in con-ducting this study.

Digitial photography of breastplates andtheir fabrics was supported by grants to Christo-pher Carr, Arizona State University, from the fol-lowing institutions: National Center for Preser-vation Technologies and Training Grant MT-2210-0-NC-12; Eastern National Parks and Mon-uments Association; Wenner-Gren Foundationfor Anthropological Research; Ohio State Uni-versity’s Provost’s Research Fund; Arizona StateUniversity’s College of Liberal Arts and SciencesMini-Grant Program; and Arizona State Univer-sity’s Department of Anthropology ResearchIncentive Fund. The photographs were taken byChristopher Carr and Andrew D. W. Lydeckerand enhanced by them, Deann Gates, KarenTefend, and Kate Tierney. The high-resolutiondigital camera was provided by ArchaeologicalServices Consultants, Inc., Columbus. Canoncolor prints for analysis were produced by ScotReese of Colortech Graphics and Printing,Columbus. Thanks to the Ohio Historical Socie-ty, Columbus, and its staff, including MarthaOtto, William B. Pickard, Cheryl Johnston, andMelanie Pratt, for access to its artifact collections,and for permission to publish photographs of itsartifacts.

REFERENCES CITED

Brose, David S., and N’omi B. Greber (editors)1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chilicothe Confer-

ence. Kent State University Press, Kent,Ohio.

Brown, James. A.1979 Charnel Houses and Mortuary Crypts: Dis-

posal of the Dead in the Middle WoodlandPeriod. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chilli-cothe Conference, edited by David S. Broseand N’omi Greber, pp. 211-219. Kent StateUniversity Press, Kent, Ohio.

Carr, Christopher, and Robert F. Maslowski1995 Cordage and Fabrics: Relating Form, Tech-

nology, and Social Processes. In Style, Socie-ty and Person: Archaeological and EthnologicalPerspectives, edited by Christopher Carr andJill E. Neitzel, pp. 297-340. Plenum Press,New York.

Church, Flora1984 Textiles as Markers of Ohio Hopewell Social

Identities.Midcontinental Journal of Archaeol-ogy 9:1-27

Cowan, C. Wesley1996 Social Implications of Ohio Hopewell Art.

In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of OhioHopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J.Pacheco, pp. 130-148. The Ohio Archaeolog-ical Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Dancey, Wiliam S., and Paul J. Pacheco1997 Community Model of Ohio Hopewell Set-

tlement. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organ-ization, edited by William S. Dancey andPaul J. Pacheco, pp. 3-40. Kent State Univer-sity Press, Kent, Ohio.

Emery, Irene1980 The Primary Structures of Fabrics: An Illustrat-


Greber, N’omi. B.1979 Variations in Social Structure of Ohio

Hopewell Peoples. Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology 4(1):35-78.

1983 Recent Excavations at the Edwin HarnessMound, Liberty Works, Ross County, Ohio.Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology SpecialPaper 5. Kent State University Press, Kent,Ohio.


Greber, N’omi. B., and Katherine C. Ruhl1989 Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis Based

on the Work of Charles C.Willoughby. West-view Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Hinkle, Kathleen A.1984 Ohio Hopewell Textiles: A Medium for the

Exchange of Social and Stylistic Information.Unpublished master’s thesis, University ofArkansas, Fayetteville.


sions on Pottery. Aldine Manuals on Archeol-ogy 3. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C..

Jakes, Kathryn A., Hsiou-lien Chen, and Lucy R. Sib-ley

1993 Toward the Development of a ClassificationSystem for Plant Fibers. Ars Textrina 20:157-179.

Minar, C. Jill2000 Spinning and Plying: Anthropological

Directions. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage:Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas,edited by Penelope B. Drooker and LaurieD. Webster, pp. 85-99. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.

Moorehead, Warren King1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Fiel-

diana Anthropology 6(5):75-185.Ohio Historical Society1976 Blanket Restoration Nearing Completion.

Museum Echoes 15(3):4, 9.Pacheco, Paul J.1996 Ohio Hopewell Regional Settlement Pat-

terns. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis ofOhio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J.Pacheco, pp. 18-35. The Ohio Archaeologi-cal Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Petersen, James B., and Jack A. Wolford2000 Spin and Twist as Cultural Markers: A New

England Perspective on Native Fiber Indus-tries. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: CurrentApproaches to Archaeological Textile Researchin the Americas, edited by Penelope B.Drooker and Laurie D. Webster, pp. 101-117.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Prufer, Olaf H.1965 The McGraw Site: A Study in Hopewellian

Dynamics. Cleveland Museum of NaturalHistory, Scientific Publications, 4(1), Cleve-land.

Shetrone, Henry, and Emerson Greenman1931 Explorations of the Seip Group of Prehis-

toric Earthworks. Ohio Archaeological andHistorical Quarterly 40:343-509.

Sibley, Lucy R.1986 Use of Pseudomorphic Evidence in the

Reconstruction of Ancient Fabric Technolo-gies. In 24th International Archaeometry Sym-posium, edited by J. S. Olin and M. J. Black-man, pp. 153-163. Smithsonian InstitutionPress Series, Washington, D.C.

Sibley, Lucy R., and Kathryn A. Jakes1989 Etowah Textile Remains and Cultural Con-

text: AModel for Inference. Clothing and Tex-tiles Research Journal 7(2):37-45.

Song, Cheunsoon A., Kathryn A. Jakes, and RichardYerkes

1996 Seip Hopewell Textile Analysis and Cultur-al Implications. Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology 21(2):247-265.

Weiner, Annette B., and Jane Schneider1989 Cloth and Human Experience. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington, D. C.White, Ellanor P.1987 Excavating in the Field Museum: A Survey and

Analysis of Textiles from the 1891 HopewellMound.Masters Project, Department of His-tory, Sangamon State University, Spring-field, Illinois.

Whitford, Andrew. C.1941 Textile Fibers Used in Eastern Aboriginal

North America. Anthropological Papers of theAmerican Museum of Natural History 38(Pt.1):6-22.

Willoughby, Charles C.1938 Textiles from the Burial Mounds of the

Great Earthwork Builders of Ohio. The OhioState Archaeological and Historical Quarterly47:273-287.

Wobst, H. Martin1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information

Exchange. In Papers for the Director: ResearchEssay in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited byCharles E. Cleland, pp. 317-342. Museum ofAnthropology, Anthropological Papers No.61. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Woodward, Susan L., and Jerry N. McDonald1986 Indian Mounds of the Middle Ohio Valley: A

Guide to Adena and Ohio Hopewell Sites. TheMcDonald and Woodward PublishingCompany, Blacksburg, Virginia.



ABSTRACT

Over the last four decades, analysis of the twistdirection of cordage preserved on the surfaces ofceramics in the Eastern Woodlands has been usedincreasingly to demonstrate ethnic population bound-aries and their continuity or change over time. Thisapproach is applied to cordage preserved as impres-sions on the surfaces of Late Woodland ceramics fromthe Allegheny Plateau in northwestern Pennsylvania.The resulting data strongly argue for population con-tinuity throughout the last 600 years of prehistory inthe glaciated portion of the Allegheny Plateau, despitechanges in ceramic technology and decorative modes.As well, these data demonstrate the gradual dispersalof this indigenous population into surroundingunglaciated Allegheny Plateau and contiguous areasduring the last half of the 15th and the 16th centuries.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter reports on an ongoing long-term research project, and thus, should beregarded as work in progress. In it, we examinethe final twist direction of cordage impressions— either Z or S — on the surface of Late Wood-land and Late Prehistoric cord-marked ceramicsherds from the Upper Ohio River Valley of

western Pennsylvania. In particular, we focus onthe Late Woodland period in both the glaciatedand unglaciated Allegheny Plateau section ofnorthwestern Pennsylvania (Figure 6.1). The jun-ior author collected the majority of the data fromthe interior of the Clarion River and TionestaCreek drainage basins and from the IndianCamp Run and Taylor sites on the valley floor ofthe Middle Allegheny River. Richard Georgegraciously provided most of the cordage twistfrequencies from the Monongahela culture John-ston phase Johnston, Squirrel Hill, and McJunkinsites for an earlier version of this paper. Thesedata were subsequently published in George(1997). The senior author collected the remainderof the cordage twist direction data presentedhere.

As an introduction to this chapter, we reviewprevious cordage twist direction and ethnicitystudies in the Northeast and Middle Atlanticareas to document the utility of this line ofresearch. We then briefly discuss the methodolo-gy used in this study and present a short culturehistory of the Late Woodland sequence in theglaciated Allegheny Plateau of northwesternPennsylvania as background to elucidate theproblems addressed in this research. After pre-senting the results of our cordage twist analysis,

Chapter 6 Population Continuity and Dispersal 87

CHAPTER 6

POPULATION CONTINUITY AND DISPERSAL:CORDAGE TWIST ANALYSIS AND THE LATE

WOODLAND IN THE GLACIATED ALLEGHENYPLATEAU OF NORTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

William C. Johnson and Andrew J. Myers


88 William C. Johnson and Andrew J. Myers

Figure6.1.

Sites,phases,andculturesmentionedinthetextandtables.


Figure6.2.LateWoodlandculturechronologyfornorthwesternPennsylvaniaandsurroundingareasadjustedtoreflectcalibratedradiocarbonages

orcalendaryears.

we apply these data to two problems. First, weexamine arguments for population replacementversus population continuity during the LateWoodland period in the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau section in northwestern Pennsylvania.Second, we assess evidence for the apparentgradual dispersal of the late McFate phase peo-ple from the glaciated Allegheny Plateau by theearly 16th century (see Figure 6.2 for a summaryof the time frame). We do this by examining sur-rounding areas for evidence of the McFate phasepeoples’ distinctive ceramics as well as other ele-ments of their material culture — specifically theproxy evidence for their presence provided bythe preferred twist direction of the cordage pre-served as impressions on those ceramics.

In investigating these problems, we employ1,542 latex casts of cordage impressions onsherds from 31 sites representing 38 terminalMiddle Woodland and Late Woodland compo-nents in the glaciated and unglaciated portionsof the Allegheny Plateau section of northwesternPennsylvania and the adjacent Lake Erie Plain ofChautauqua County, New York.

CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

A word about regionally utilized chronologi-cal terminology will be helpful. In New York,northern Ohio, and northwestern Pennsylvania,the “Late Woodland” period is considered tobegin around A.D. 1000 in uncalibrated radio-carbon years, which is equivalent to approxi-mately A.D. 1100 in calendar years. It is consid-ered to persist until the appearance of Europeantrade goods or native-made items that can bereasonably assigned to the last decade or two ofthe 16th and to the early 17th centuries in thelower Great Lakes. In Middle Ohio River Valleyparlance, however, “Late Woodland” is general-ly understood to be the period between aboutA.D. 400 and A.D. 1050 in radiocarbon years, orapproximately A.D. 550 to A.D. 1150 in calendaryears. The period from A.D. 1150 to 1580/1590 incalendar years is referred to as the Late Prehis-toric period and the short interval to A.D. 1635and the dispersal of the indigenous populationfrom the lower Upper Ohio Valley as the Proto-historic period.

We use the Middle Ohio Valley terminologywith reference to the chronology of the Monon-gahela culture of the lower Upper Ohio RiverValley because the Monongahela archaeologicaltradition, although not derived directly from thedownstream Eastern Fort Ancient culture, isclearly closely related to it. As well, the preced-ing Late Woodland period in the lower UpperOhio Valley seems to be more closely related toLate Woodland manifestations in the upper Mid-dle Ohio Valley in settlement pattern, subsis-tence strategies, and material culture than toeither the essentially contemporary late MiddleWoodland or chronologically later Late Wood-land complexes inside the terminal Wisconsinanglacial moraine.

Thus, for the lower Upper Ohio Valley, theperiod from ca. A.D. 400–1050 (radiocarbonyears) is termed “Late Woodland.” It is succeed-ed by the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric peri-od Monongahela culture, ca. A.D. 1050–1635 inradiocarbon years or, again, approximately A.D.1150-1635 in calendar years (see Figure 6.2). Par-enthetically, it should be noted that the chrono-logical chart in Figure 6.2 attempts to presentphases and events in calendar years rather thanuncalibrated radiocarbon years, particularlybecause the upper end of the various sequencespresented are anchored in the Protohistoric peri-od. In the remainder of this chapter, dates arerendered in calendar years.

PREVIOUS CORDAGE TWISTDIRECTION AND ETHNICITY STUDIES

Since the mid-1960s, archaeologists havebeen sporadically reporting the twist direction ofcordage impressions on Eastern Woodlandceramic sherds and noting chronological trendsor differences within wares as well as betweengeographic areas. For example, in Virginia, C. G.Holland (1966) noted that the predominant finalcordage twist direction displayed by an assem-blage of Keyser Cord-Marked sherds from theQuicksburg site on the North Fork of theShenandoah River was Z (see Z twist in Defini-tions). In southwestern Virginia, Holland (1970)also noted that particular cordage twist direc-tions were associated with certain ceramic types,


including Dan River Cord-Marked, GraysonCord-Marked, Grayson Net and Knot Rough-ened, and Wythe Cord-Marked. Of even greaterinterest is the fact that Holland also recognizedthat the cordage used to construct the nets uti-lized in the manufacture of Dan River Net-Impressed wares evidenced a final S twist whenpreserved on sherds derived from sites in thePiedmont but a final Z twist on sherds recoveredin the Ridge and Valley province. It now appearsthat Holland was describing the twist of cordimpressions on sherds as they appeared in thenegative (impression) rather than as they wouldhave appeared in the positive (original object orcast) before reporting conventions were estab-lished (see, e.g., Johnson 2001b).

In the Potomac River basin, severalresearchers have documented the predominanceof final-S-twist cordage on Early, Middle, andearly Late Woodland ceramics (see, for instance,Egloff and Potter 1982; Johnson 2001a; Klein1991; Petersen 1999; Stevens and Klein 1994;YoungRavenhorst 1994). After ca. A.D. 1100, aswitch in the preferred final twist direction ofcordage to Z is documented in the impressionson succeeding Late Woodland Shepard Cord-Marked, Page Cord-Marked, and Potomac CreekCord-Impressed ceramics from components inthe Potomac Great Valley, Piedmont, and InnerCoastal Plain (e.g., Johnson 1996, 1999b, 1999c,2001a, 2001b). These data suggest a populationreplacement in the Potomac River basin early inthe Late Woodland period, ca. A.D. 1100–1200,with the simultaneous appearance of new pot-tery styles and decorative techniques and motifs,including added-on collars and pseudo-cord anddirect-cord impressed and incised decoration onlocal Potomac Valley ceramics. Finally, Johnson(1999b, 2001a, 2001b) has demonstrated a secondpopulation intrusion and replacement in theUpper and Middle Potomac River Valley afterca. A.D. 1400, with the appearance of the Luraycomplex and its diagnostic shell-temperedKeyser Cord-Marked ware. Frequencies of final-S-twist cordage displayed by Keyser Cord-Marked ware from seven components rangefrom 75 percent to 93 percent.

In the upper James River estuary of south-eastern Virginia, Johnson and Speedy (1992) and

Johnson and Deitrick (2000) recently examinedcordage impressions derived from sherds repre-senting three Middle Woodland period cord-marked wares and one so-called “fabric-impressed” variety from four sites in PrinceGeorge and Chesterfield counties, Virginia. Thecordage impressions displayed by the cord-marked Varina, Prince George, and Mockleywares and by the Prince George Fabric-Impressed variety are predominantly final-S-twist. This suggests population continuity in thisarea during the entire Middle Woodland periodas it is defined there, ca. 500 B.C.–A.D. 800.

The cordage in the nets that had beenemployed to roughen paddles used to malleatethe walls of the net-impressed vessels in all threewares also was examined (Johnson and Deitrick2000; Johnson and Speedy 1992). Although notas pervasive as the final-S-twist pattern for thecordage impressions in the cord-marked andfabric-marked varieties, the preferred twistdirection of the cords utilized in the manufactureof the nets impressed in the exterior surfaces ofthe three wares was predominantly final Z.Although John Smith and William Strachey(cited in Swanton 1946) reported that women inthe Early Historic period Powhatan chiefdom inthe Chesapeake Bay vicinity made cordage forboth nets and fishing lines, the hypothesis thatmales made the cordage used in the constructionof Middle Woodland nets seemed to be the mostparsimonious explanation for the two opposedcordage-making patterns found at the four Vir-ginia sites (Johnson and Deitrick 2000; Johnsonand Speedy 1992). As the production of cordagefor the construction of nets was assumed to be amale task, the persistence of two parallelcordage-making traditions — female and male— for over 1,300 years strengthened their argu-ment for population continuity across the Mid-dle Woodland interlude.

Final-Z-twist cordage, however, wasemployed predominantly in the production ofcordage used to plait together dowels that wereutilized, in turn, to malleate the walls of the LateWoodland Shockoe and Townsend so-called“fabric-impressed” vessels recovered from thesame four sites. These data suggest a populationreplacement in this part of the James River estu-


ary sometime after the end of the Middle Wood-land period, ca. A.D. 800. As well, this estab-lished Z as the preferred final twist direction ofcordage produced by the Weyanock, thePowhatan tribe historically documented in thisarea (Johnson and Deitrick 2000; Johnson andSpeedy 1992).

In northern New England, James Petersenand his colleagues (e.g., Petersen and Wolford2000) have used cordage twist direction — nor-mally preserved as impressions on the surfacesof prehistoric pottery — to identify final-Z-twist,coastal, and final-S-twist, interior, patterns innorthern New England from Massachusetts toMaine. This contrasting pattern appears to havepersisted from the Early Woodland to Contacttimes. Although tentative because of small sam-ples, Petersen and Wolford (2000) also indicatedthat this pattern conforms to that seen in exam-ples of ethnographic basketry and textiles manu-factured with final-Z-twist cordage and weftslant by the coastal Passamaquoddy and thosewith final-S-twist cordage and weft slants madeby the interior Malecite.

Research related to twist direction of cordagepreserved on the surfaces of Woodland and LatePrehistoric pottery in the Upper Ohio River hasbeen ongoing for almost 30 years, since the pub-lication of Robert Maslowski’s seminal 1973 arti-cle documenting the twist direction of cordageon Late Woodland period Watson Cord-Markedceramics from the Watson Farm type site(Maslowski 1973). Since then, Maslowski (Carrand Maslowski 1995; Maslowski 1984, 1996) andJohnson (1999a, 2001b, 2002; Johnson et al. 1989;Johnson and Speedy 1993) as well as many oth-ers, particularly Richard George (1983, 1997,2002; George et al. 1990) and James Herbstritt(1981; Carr and Maslowski 1995; NPW Consult-ants, Inc. 1983), have recorded the twist directionof cordage impressions on prehistoric ceramicsthroughout the Middle and Upper Ohio RiverValley.

Recently, Jill Minar’s (2000) study of modernhand-spinners has added an important facet tothese studies. She demonstrated that handed-ness (right- or left-handed) has little or nothingto do with the direction of the initial spin andfinal twist direction of cordage. Nor, in her view,

is the direction determined by the inherent prop-erties of the raw material (see also Petersen et al.2001). Rather, it is simply: Who taught you. Inpre-industrial societies, cordage making istaught to juveniles by family or group members,most likely mothers or grandmothers. The direc-tion of twist becomes an ingrained motor habitearly in a child’s development and is not subjectto change. Thus, the cordage twist preference ofa family group is perpetuated from generation togeneration as long as the group survives. Thecollective pattern of the band or village to whicha family belongs will be recognized across gen-erations by the fingerprint of their collectivecordage twist direction preferences, as long asthe band or village remains a coherent group.

Regrettably, cordage can only be twisted intwo directions, to the right or to the left, so thereare limits to the interpretations that one cansqueeze out of the data. But clearly, the examina-tion of cordage twist direction is an importantkey along with other elements of material cul-ture for demonstrating population continuity orreplacement in prehistoric societies.

METHODOLOGY

Latex casts of cordage impressions from1,542 sherds from the Allegheny Plateau andLake Erie Plain of northwestern Pennsylvaniaand adjacent Chautauqua County, New York,were examined and typed for this study. Anoth-er 137 casts of cordage from the Quiggle site onthe West Branch of the Susquehanna River in theAppalachian Mountain section also were ana-lyzed, for comparative purposes. Initial spin andfinal twist direction, Z or S (see Definitions), arereported as outlined in Maslowski (1973) andHurley (1979). Spin and twist directions wererecorded as the cords appear on the cast andthus as they would have appeared originally inthe actual cordage. This is the prevailing con-vention in North America, rather than reportingthe twist as it appears in the impression on thesherd, which is the norm in Japan. The NorthAmerican reporting convention is extremelyimportant to observe and to report when docu-menting cordage twist preferences derived fromceramic sherds.



The twist directions derived from cordageimpressions from late Middle Woodland Intru-sive Mound complex igneous-rock-temperedsherds, and from igneous-rock, mixed-rock-and-shell, and shell-tempered early Late WoodlandMahoning phase and Mead Island phase ceram-ics in northwestern Pennsylvania, and fromigneous-rock-tempered Ontario Iroquois tradi-tion Middleport horizon sherds from the adja-cent Lake Erie Plain of New York are presentedin the Appendix, Table 6.1. The distribution ofthese frequencies is displayed in Figure 6.3.Table 6.2 in the Appendix presents the twistdirection data from post–A.D. 1250–1300 shell-tempered ceramic components in the same areasof northwestern Pennsylvania and the adjacentLake Erie Plain of New York. The data fromthese impressions were derived from traditional-ly defined Chautauqua Cord-Marked andMcFate Incised ceramics from components thatcan be tentatively assigned to the later LateWoodland period French Creek and succeedingMcFate phases. Again, the distribution of theassociated frequencies derived from the shell-tempered ceramics is displayed in Figure 6.4.

Cordage twist frequencies from shell-tem-pered cord-marked ceramics from Late Prehis-toric period Monongahela culture village sitesin the Kiskiminetas River Valley and adjacentuplands are presented in the Appendix, Table6.3. The cordage samples from the Johnston(36In2), Squirrel Hill (36Wm35), and McJunkin(36Al17) sites were derived from sherds fromessentially pure late Middle Monongahela peri-od Johnston phase components. The remainingfour samples represent cordage impressionsfrom shell-tempered cord-marked ceramicsfrom sites with mixed Early Monongahela peri-od Kiskiminetas phase and later Johnston phasecomponents. Generally, the undecorated shell-tempered cord-marked sherds from these lattersites cannot be consistently separated by com-ponent, thus the combined totals of the mixedassemblages are presented. The distribution ofthe twist direction frequencies on shell-tem-pered ceramics from these sites is displayed inFigure 6.5.

Finally, Table 6.4 presents cordage twistdirection frequencies for 4,336 casts from a sub-

set of 32 Late Prehistoric period Monongahelacomponents in the Monongahela River drainagebasin, which includes the tributary Youghioghe-ny River. These latter twist direction frequenciesare proffered to emphasize the contrast with thepattern displayed by the contemporaneous LateWoodland period shell-tempered sherds fromthe glaciated Allegheny Plateau of northwesternPennsylvania.

OVERVIEW OF THE LATE WOODLANDPERIOD CULTURAL SEQUENCE ON

THE GLACIATED ALLEGHENYPLATEAU OF NORTHWESTERN

PENNSYLVANIA

To clarify the problems set forth later in thischapter, we review the culture history of theglaciated Allegheny Plateau section during theLate Woodland period, as we presently under-stand it. While this section is overly long, itshould be understood that there has been nopublished synthesis of the Late Woodland peri-od in the glaciated Allegheny Plateau of north-western Pennsylvania since Johnson (1976),which was an unedited and unproofed paperthat had been presented at a symposium in 1972.

The following will seem to be an overview ofthe glaciated Allegheny Plateau Late Woodlandceramic sequence rather than a cultural sequencesynthesis. It should be noted, however, thatmany of the late Middle and Late Woodlandcomponents from the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau mentioned here are known only fromrecovered ceramic sherds, many without anyprovenience other than a site number. Many ofthe artifact assemblages exist only as boxes onmuseum shelves or in avocational archaeolo-gists’ collections. Many of the Late Woodlandsites on the glaciated Allegheny Plateau wereexcavated under the auspices of the W.P.A. andthe then Pennsylvania Historical Commission.The actual location of at least one site excavatedby the W.P.A., with a small assemblage of recov-ered artifacts, only recently has been established.Site maps, artifacts, and even excavators areunknown in some cases. With the notable excep-tion of Harry Schoff’s (1938) excavation of largeportions of three of the four villages at the


Figure6.3.Distributionandfrequencyoffinal-S-twistcordageonlateMiddleWoodlandperiodIntrusiveMoundcomplexandearlyLateWoodland

periodceramics.


Figure6.4.

Distributionandfrequencyoffinal-S-twistcordageon

lateLateWoodlandperiodFrenchCreek,McFate,Kalgren/Bell,andQuiggle

phaseceramics.


Figure6.5.

Distributionandfrequencyoffinal-S-twistcordageon

LatePrehistoricandProtohistoricJohnsonphaseandmixed

Kiskiminetas-

Johnstonphaseceramics.

McFate site (36Cw1) for the Pennsylvania His-torical Commission, precise plan view maps,artifact catalogs, and curated artifacts withprovenience numbers are generally lacking.Even the important McFate site has only recent-ly reached publication in an important reviewarticle (Burkett and Cunningham 1997). Whileceramics from several more recent site excava-tions reviewed below have been excavated withmore precision and have site maps and tightprovenience control of documented cultural fea-tures and recovered artifacts, none have beenpublished. Several ceramics collections were theproducts of ad hoc salvage excavations that areunanalyzed or unreported. Fortunately, excava-tions of sites beyond the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau of northwestern Pennsylvania have beenconducted with more precision, and the resultsof the investigations and analysis often havebeen published and certainly more widely circu-lated.

The analysis of cordage twist direction pat-terns recovered from ceramic sherds from siteson the glaciated Allegheny Plateau of northwest-ern Pennsylvania and beyond has proven to bean important tool for discerning cultural conti-nuity in the glaciated Allegheny Plateau as wellas establishing, however preliminarily, a hypoth-esized pattern to the variety of Late Woodlandsite types in northwestern Pennsylvania and sur-rounding areas. Thus, we present a review of theLate Woodland period sequence on the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau of northwestern Pennsylva-nia with passing observations on surroundingareas where they are pertinent to better under-stand the importance of our cordage twist direc-tion data. Without these cordage twist data,many aspects of the Late Woodland sequence innorthwestern Pennsylvania could not be demon-strated.

MIDDLE WOODLAND

Middle and early Late Woodland pottery inthe glaciated Allegheny Plateau section of north-western Pennsylvania is generally termedMahoning ware (Mayer-Oakes 1955). Thisbroadly defined type is tempered with pulver-ized igneous rock. It is almost exclusively cord-

marked.Most Middle Woodland ceramics from the

glaciated Allegheny Plateau are tempered withcrushed igneous rock and are cord-marked,undecorated, and generally undiagnostic.Ceramic assemblages of the late Middle Wood-land Intrusive Mound complex components inthis region, however, often can be recognized bycoarse cord-wrapped-paddle edge- or dowel-stamped impressions on the exterior surface inthe sublip and/or neck areas of vessels. This dec-oration is normally in the form of horizontalbands of parallel oblique or opposed stampedimpressions. Occasionally, low, thin added-oncollars or rim strips — essentially the Jack’s ReefCorded Collar type — may be present in someassemblages, particularly on the MahoningRiver in the far southwestern corner of theglaciated Allegheny Plateau. These componentshave been assigned to an Allegheny River phase(Lantz 1989) or, informally, by the senior authorto an Edinburg phase after a site on the MahoningRiver with the largest documented IntrusiveMound complex ceramic sample (Johnson et al.1979; Seeman 1992). Both we and Lantz are refer-ring to the same phenomenon. These compo-nents also are characterized by the presence ofJack’s Reef Corner-Notched and Pentagonal,Raccoon Notched, and Levanna projectile points(see, for example, Lantz 1989; Seeman 1992).

Only five sites from the study area displayIntrusive Mound complex components withassociated ceramics, and only two of theseappear to exhibit more-or-less pure IntrusiveMound complex ceramic components. Thisstudy samples one of these two components,Port-Melnick (36Er31) on French Creek. Datafrom a second site, Bolinger (36Lr21), located onthe Mahoning River directly opposite the afore-mentioned Edinburg site, are also presented.This latter site, however, exhibits a ceramicassemblage representing at least three Woodlandcomponents; therefore, the majority of thecordage twist data, derived largely from undiag-nostic cord-marked body sherds, cannot beascribed specifically to either the Edinburg or theearly Late Woodland Mahoning phase compo-nents.


LATE WOODLAND

The succeeding early Late WoodlandMahon-ing phase (ca. A.D. 1100–1300 in calendar years)has been proposed as the first of three successiveLate Woodland phases that compose the ca.500–600-year-long Glaciated Allegheny Plateau(GAP) tradition (Johnson 1994a, 1999a) (see Fig-ure 6.2). Associated projectile points appear to beexclusively triangular Levanna and Madisonforms. Mahoning phase settlement patterns arenot well understood, but current data suggestthat known components represent small basecamps or hamlets. No nucleated or palisaded vil-lages have been documented.

Components assigned to the Mahoningphase are characterized by relatively high fre-quencies of igneous-rock-tempered MahoningCord-Marked vessels with more prominent lowadded-on collars or rim strips that are often dec-orated with a horizontal band of parallel oropposed oblique cord-wrapped paddle edge-stamped or linear-stamped impressions. Thecontinuation of Intrusive Mound complexceramic decorative modes into the early LateWoodland period suggests but hardly demon-strates population continuity in the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau across the Middle to LateWoodland boundary.

Toward the end of the Mahoning phase,approximately A.D. 1250–1275 in calendar years,igneous rock as a tempering agent in Mahoningware was gradually supplanted by pulverizedmussel shell. This new shell-tempered and cord-marked ware is essentially the ChautauquaCord-Marked type, originally named anddescribed by Alfred Guthe (1958) from a samplederived from the Westfield-Mac site (30Ch1) onthe Lake Erie Plain in Chautauqua County, NewYork. It is generally understood to be undecorat-ed except for the common occurrence of variouscord-wrapped-paddle edge-stamped impres-sions and less frequently incised lines on vessellips. At two sites, McFate (36Cw1) and ShenangoDam No. 1 (36Me60), components that date fromthis period of transition in ceramic technologydisplay both igneous-rock-tempered and shell-tempered rim sherds with low added-on collars,both often decorated with horizontal bands ofparallel oblique cord-wrapped-paddle edge-

stamped impressions or incised or gashed lines.These latter shell-tempered ceramics clearlyreflect their derivation from the contemporaryMahoning ware at the same two sites. This peri-od of transition in temper aplastic brings theMahoning phase to a close (Johnson 1994a,1999a; Johnson et al. 1979).

The succeeding time period in the GAP tra-dition has been named the French Creek phase(Johnson 1999a). It persisted from ca. A.D.1275/1300 to A.D. 1400 in calendar years. TheFrench Creek phase is characterized by uncol-lared Chautauqua Cord-Marked ceramics thatare otherwise undecorated except for the highfrequency of various cord-wrapped-paddleedge-stamped impressed or incised decorationon vessel lips (Johnson 1999a). These later Chau-tauqua Cord-Marked ceramics are clearly associ-ated with moderate-sized, nucleated, and pal-isaded villages in the French Creek Valley,including one at the Wilson Shutes site (36Cw5)and apparently three at the McFate site (36Cw1).Contemporaneous settlements in the ShenangoRiver drainage basin and the Pymatuning Marsharea, however, appear to be small hamlets, farm-steads, or specialized extraction camps (see, forexample, Dragoo 1972).

During this same period, essentially undeco-rated shell-tempered cord-marked ceramicsappear on contemporaneous proto-Iroquoiansites in the Upper Allegheny River Valley upriv-er from the Kinzua Dam, as well as along theLake Erie Plain from Conneaut Creek in Ashtab-ula County, Ohio, to Cattaraugus Creek in ErieCounty, New York (e.g., Brose et al. 1978; Dragoo1966, 1976, 1977). Johnson et al. (1979) suggestedthat this phenomenon was best interpreted as anexample of economic cooperation betweenupland hunting and foraging GAP traditiongroups and full-time Iroquoian horticultural vil-lagers on the Allegheny River floodplain ratherthan an antagonistic one represented by endem-ic warfare and captured women. They arguedthat this pattern was analogous to the ethnohis-torically documented symbiotic economic rela-tionship between various Shield Algonquiangroups and primarily the Ahrendarhonon tribeof the Huron Confederation (e.g., Tooker 1964;Trigger 1969). These contrasting settlement pat-terns and economic strategies exhibited by GAP


tradition groups in the late 13th and 14th cen-turies appear to be a prelude to even more flexi-ble adaptive behaviors evident in the succeeding15th and early 16th centuries.

Toward the end of the Late Woodland peri-od, ca. A.D. 1400–1425, shell-tempered and elab-orately decorated McFate Incised ceramicsappeared on the glaciated Allegheny Plateauand adjacent Lake Erie Plain. This final GAP tra-dition period is referred to as the McFate phase,and it lasted from approximately A.D. 1400 to1550/1575, after which time the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau in northwestern Pennsylva-nia appears to have been abandoned by thedemonstrably indigenous Late Woodland popu-lation (Johnson 1999a).

The McFate Incised pottery type is distin-guished by rectilinear incised decoration —opposed triangles filled with parallel horizontallines and separated by plats of parallel obliquelines — on medium to high molded collars ofotherwise Chautauqua Cord-Marked vessels.Less frequently, these same motifs appear in thesublip area of uncollared Chautauqua Cord-Marked vessels. The surface finish of the sublipor collar areas of these vessels is predominantlysmooth (Johnson 1976, 1994b, 1999a), contrary tothe traditional definition of McFate Incised inMayer-Oakes (1955) and Dragoo (1955). The baseof the design frequently is underlined with ahorizontal band of parallel oblique or verticalpunctations or, very occasionally, short incisedlines (Johnson 1999a). The McFate motif — usu-ally on medium to high molded collars — is veryreminiscent of approximately contemporaneouslate Middleport horizon Ontario Iroquoian tradi-tion ceramics from the Westfield-Mac and Silver-heels sites located on the Lake Erie Plain of adja-cent southwestern New York. These typesappear to be variants of the Pound Blank andHuron Incised types (Johnson 1994b, 1999a). Rimsherds displaying incised decoration in the formof opposed triangles separated by bands of par-allel obliques typical of the McFate Incised typeoccur in both igneous-rock-tempered and shell-tempered mediums at the Westfield-Mac and Sil-verheels sites. Diagnostic lip decorative motifscharacterizing McFate Incised and contempora-neous late Chautauqua Cord-Marked potteryalso appear on the lips of the igneous-rock-tem-

pered incised rim sherds from the same twosites. These similarities suggest the direct deriva-tion of early McFate Incised ceramics from lateMiddleport to post–Middleport Ontario Iro-quoian tradition ceramic styles present on theadjacent Lake Erie Plain of southwestern NewYork (Johnson 1999a). The preceding FrenchCreek phase ceramic industry displays no evolv-ing tradition of low to medium-high molded col-lars or complex incised decoration that wouldindicate that these innovations originated in theglaciated Allegheny Plateau rather than alongthe Lake Erie Plain.

Village No. 1 at the McFate type site, asdefined by Burkett and Cunningham (1997), isthe latest of four stockaded villages there, and itappears to be the earliest component on theglaciated Allegheny Plateau where McFateIncised ceramics were produced. The proposedearly placement of Village No. 1 at the beginningof the McFate phase is based on several attrib-utes of the McFate Incised ceramics documentedthere. First, the incidence of incised decorationon the sublips of uncollared vessels is relativelyhigh. The addition of molded collars to Chau-tauqua Cord-Marked vessels was coincidentalwith the appearance of elaborate incised decora-tions on vessel sublips and collars. Village No. 1vessels also display the highest frequency (66%)of the most conservative of the McFate decora-tive motifs (opposed triangles separated by platsof parallel obliques). As well, a horizontal bandof parallel punctations or incised lines formingthe lower border of the main incised decoration,which appears frequently on McFate Incised ves-sels at putatively later sites, occurs on only fiverim sherds at Village No. 1. Notably, several col-lared vessels and rim sherds from Village No. 1exhibit incised motifs that exceed the height ofthe collar being decorated and, as a consequence,run down onto the neck of the vessel. This latterpeculiarity suggests that the Village No. 1 pot-ters had not completely integrated into theirceramic decorating repertoire the relationshipbetween the incised patterns and the associatedcollars that they were copying from Iroquoisprototypes.

Three 14C AMS assays run by the Universityof Toronto’s Iso Trace Radiocarbon Laboratoryon carbonized organic residue from the interiors


of two McFate Incised rim sherds and one Chau-tauqua Cord-Marked rim sherd with tight Vil-lage No. 1 proveniences calibrate to A.D. 1409,1412, and 1430 calendar years (Johnson 1999a).These dates indicate an early-15th century agefor Village No. 1 and the beginning of the McFatephase. Radiometrically dated McFate phasecomponents are rare, but a small McFate phasecomponent at the Eastwall site (33Ab41) on theLake Erie Plain in Ashtabula County, Ohio, isdated by a calibrated 14C age of A.D. 1448 (Brose1994; Brose et al. 1978). A nucleated and palisad-ed McFate phase village at the WintergreenGorge site (36Er6), located along the slope of thePortage Escarpment overlooking the Lake EriePlain, is dated by two calibrated radiocarbonassays, one with three intercepts. They are cal.A.D. 1468 and cal. A.D. 1521, 1590, and 1623(James T. Herbstritt, personal communication2002; Stanley W. Lantz, personal communication2002). A late upland earthwork in the UpperAllegheny River Valley in Bolivar, New York, theSmith site, exhibits shell-tempered smooth-sur-faced ceramics and McFate Incised ceramics, aswell as igneous-rock-tempered low collared anddecorated Iroquoian ceramics (Lounsberry1977). The Smith site is dated by two calibrated14C assays with multiple intercepts: cal. A.D.1522, 1573, and 1627, and cal. A.D. 1531, 1545,and 1635 (Herbstritt, 1998:3; Kelly M. Lounsber-ry, personal communication 2002). Thus, theSmith site would appear to be the latest radio-metrically dated McFate phase occupation in theglaciated Allegheny Plateau.

The GAP tradition and particularly theMcFate phase people seem to have displayed avery flexible economic adaptive strategy, reflect-ed in the variety of site types and the broad geo-graphic area where their diagnostic McFateIncised and companion Conemaugh Cord-Impressed pottery appears. The recently definedConemaugh Cord-Impressed type is a shell-tem-pered, predominantly cord-marked ware dis-playing essentially McFate Incised decorativemotifs applied with a pseudo-cord-impressedtechnique as that term is used in the circum-Chesapeake Bay area (Johnson 1999a). Site typesinclude moderate-size, nucleated, and palisadedvillages in the French Creek Valley at the McFate

and Wilson Shutes sites and at the WintergreenGorge site on the Portage Escarpment. Sitesinterpreted as McFate phase stockaded huntingvillages (see below) are recorded along thePymatuning Marsh and in the headwaters ofTionesta Creek in the interior unglaciatedAllegheny Plateau, as well. Numerous smallopen-air and rockshelter components in theGeneva Marsh, along the Lake Erie Plain, and inthe interior unglaciated Allegheny Plateau areattributable to the McFate phase (Johnson 1994a,1999a; Johnson et al. 1979). These latter sitesseem to represent small bivouacs or recurrentlyoccupied specialized extraction camps.

Sugar Run (36Wa2) and a second componentin New York present on the floor of the UpperAllegheny River seem to represent villages ofunknown size and configuration. Shell-tem-pered Chautauqua ware seems to be the pre-dominant to exclusive ceramic ware associatedwith these two sites (Stanley W. Lantz, personalcommunication 2002). While it is not certainwhether these villages represent late FrenchCreek or succeeding McFate phase occupations,they presumably represent one or more late GAPtradition intrusions into the mainstem UpperAllegheny River Valley shortly after the removalfrom that area of the populous Allegheny ValleyIroquois villagers sometime in the early 15thcentury. Additionally, McFate Incised and lateChautauqua Cord-Marked pottery have beenreported from proto-Seneca village sites as farafield as Portageville and Dansville Flats in theGenesee Valley of western New York (Barber1965; Johnson 1975; MacNeish 1952) and fromthe Whittlesey tradition Lyman or Indian Pointsite (33La2) on the lower Grand River in LakeCounty, Ohio (Murphy 1971).

The adaptive diversity displayed by theMcFate phase people and, indeed, most likely byearlier GAP tradition groups, seems to be analo-gous to the model recently presented by Madsenand Simms (1998) for the Fremont of the Col-orado Plateau and eastern Great Basin. Theysuggested that during periods as brief as a singlegeneration some Fremont peoples’ lives wouldhave been relatively constant, as either full-timefarmers or foragers, while others may have shift-ed from farming to foraging or to various combi-


nations between the two. While severe droughtand a decreased availability of subsistenceresources would seem to have been the motivat-ing factor in the flexible adaptive strategiesexhibited and the range of site types occupied bythe Fremont, the decline in the climate and theassociated shortening of the frost-free-day grow-ing season at the beginning of the Neo-Boreal cli-matic episode would seem to be the primaryimpetus for the range in adaptive responses ofthe people grouped together under the umbrellaof McFate Incised and companion ConemaughCord-Impressed ceramics (Johnson 1994a,1999a).

Madsen and Simms (1998) also suggestedthat the Fremont hunter-gatherers were closelylinked with more sedentary farming groups.They noted that studies of contemporary farm-ers and hunter-gathering groups who live in rel-atively close proximity indicate that the hunter-gatherers rarely operated in a vacuum; rather,they tended to form symbiotic relationships withnearby farming communities, thus facilitatingeconomic, social, and ideological exchange. Thiscooperative behavior allowed each group tomaximize the advantages of essentially differentbut spatially overlapping ecological niches. Thisanalogy may explain the repeated occurrence ofundecorated shell-tempered pottery on villagesites of full-time horticulturists in the mainstemUpper Allegheny River Valley. This modelwould parallel the symbiotic relationship ofShield Algonquian hunter-gathers and Huronhorticulturists and the residence of these Algo-nquian groups in Huron villages during the win-ter suggested by Johnson et al. (1979) to explainthe occurrence of shell-tempered pottery on ear-lier Allegheny Valley Iroquois sites as well as onproto-Erie sites on the Lake Erie Plain. It wouldalso provide a partial explanation for the slight-ly later occurrence of McFate Incised and Cone-maugh Cord-Impressed ceramics on sitesaround the periphery of the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau at a time when the climate would havebeen slowly deteriorating during the transitionfrom the Pacific to the Neo-Boreal climaticepisode. It should be stressed that the groupslumped together under the umbrella of shell-tempered McFate Incised, Conemaugh Cord-

Impressed, and late Chautauqua Cord-Markedpottery and perhaps even inappropriately in theMcFate phase, were arguably simultaneouslypracticing a number of the adaptive responses toa deteriorating climate. As with the “Fremont”archaeological construct, these groups may nothave been all the same ethnic or linguistic group.Frankly, at this juncture in our research, only thethree late ceramic types and the shared patternof preferred cordage twist holds together thesediverse components.

McFate Incised and the companion Cone-maugh Cord-Impressed types (Johnson 1994a,1994b, 1999a; LaBar 1968; Myers 2001; Ritchie1929; Smith and Herbstritt 1976) have been doc-umented at both earthwork sites and rockshel-ters in the upland unglaciated Allegheny Plateaueast of the terminal Wisconsinan moraine.McFate Incised pottery has been reported fromlarge village sites in the reaches of the upperWest Branch of the Susquehanna River drainagebasin (Herbstritt and Kent 1990; Matlack 1987).Both McFate Incised and Conemaugh Cord-Impressed ware have been documented fromlarge village sites in the Kiskiminetas River Val-ley and surrounding uplands (e.g., Dragoo 1955;George 1978, 1997). In fact, McFate Incised wareis the primary diagnostic of the terminal LatePrehistoric Monongahela culture Johnston phase(George 1978, 1997).

The appearance of the distinctive McFateIncised and Conemaugh Cord-Impressed ceram-ics around the periphery of the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau toward the end of the LateWoodland period could be attributed to the dif-fusion of an attractive ceramic decorative style,perhaps symbol-laden, through trade or othersocial mechanisms. We argue, rather, for thegradual dispersal of the McFate phase peoplewith their ceramic industry from the core area ofthe glaciated Allegheny Plateau toward the endof the Late Woodland period. Selected calibratedradiocarbon dates from the Bell and Kalgrensites, listed in Herbstritt (1988), and a calibrated14C age from the McJunkin site (George 1997)suggest the gradual abandonment of the glaciat-ed Allegheny Plateau by the McFate people mayhave begun as early as the middle to the last halfof the 15th century. These dates include cal. A.D.


1445 and cal. A.D. 1481 from the Bell site, cal.A.D. 1448 from the Kalgren site, and cal. A.D.1481 from the McJunkin site. There are other, ear-lier radiometric ages from all three sites, but webelieve that they are too early to accurately datethe appearance of McFate Incised ceramicsaround the periphery of the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau.

There is no evidence for the military expan-sion of McFate phase people’s neighbors, eitherthe terminal Late Woodland Erie or Seneca, atthis time. Nor, at that point in time, would thedesire to seek a more advantageous position inpossible trade between polities in the lowerGreat Lakes on the one hand and the MiddleOhio Valley or Chesapeake Bay on the otherseem to have been a motivating factor per se.These facts, in turn, suggest to us that the impe-tus for the dispersal may lie with a shortening ofthe frost-free-day growing season at the onset ofthe Neo-Boreal climatic episode, which wouldhave adversely affected the reliable cultivationof maize (Figure 6.6). The glaciated AlleghenyPlateau, including the French Creek Valley,today exhibits a relatively short average and —more importantly — unpredictable frost-free-day growing season (Hasenstab and Johnson2001; Johnson 1994a, 1999a; Johnson et al. 1979).As well, the recently-documented severedrought during the Pacific and succeeding Neo-Boreal episodes in the Upper Ohio Valley andMiddle Atlantic (Blanton 2000; Richardson et al.2002; Stahle et al. 1998) may have had an impacton the McFate phase villagers’ maize-based sub-sistence already weakened by the shorteninggrowing season. The variety of 15th- and 16th-century McFate phase site types and geographicareas where they occur would seem to reflect thevariety of their adaptive responses to a deterio-rating climate.

Control of the timing for the appearance ofMcFate Incised and related ceramics in the smallrockshelter and open air loci and earthworks inthe interior unglaciated uplands of the Alleghe-ny River Valley as well as in the large horticul-tural village sites around the periphery of theglaciated Allegheny Plateau is very poor. Whilethe argument favored here is that the appearanceof these distinctive ceramics around the periph-

ery is a case of population movement rather thana diffusion of pottery styles, it is not at all certainwhether the smaller upland components repre-sent an early shift to foraging by some of theMcFate phase people followed by a later majorexodus of population to the upper West Branchof the Susquehanna River and the KiskiminetasRiver Valley, or whether all of these sites repre-sent components of a more rapid out-migrationof the McFate phase groups from the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau after the collapse of theirmaize-based economy.

To the northeast of the McFate phase corearea in Chautauqua and adjacent CattaraugusCounty, New York, the McFate and ChautauquaCord-Marked ceramic types are present in rela-tively high frequencies at the beginning of JackSchock’s (1974) Chautauqua phase. A number ofMcFate Incised rim sherds were documented atthe J. Falcone site, the earliest site in Schock’sChautauqua phase. Given the proximity of theChautauqua phase sites to the Lake Erie Plainand the Westfield-Mac and Silverheels sites,which arguably presented the inspiration for theMcFate Incised type, the beginning of the Chau-tauqua phase would seem to have been atapproximately the same time as the beginning ofMcFate phase to the southwest, that is, ca. A.D.1400, or a decade or two later. The precise rela-tionship between the approximately contempo-raneous Chautauqua phase and McFate phasepeoples is not known. Clearly, their ceramicindustries were moving along different trajecto-ries (contra Johnson 1994a; Johnson et al. 1979).For example, shell-tempering was documentedin only 46 percent of the sherds from the J. Fal-cone site, the earliest village in the Chautauquaphase sequence (Schock 1974). Shell never com-pletely replaced igneous rock as the preferredtemper aplastic in Chautauqua phase ceramicseven at the Lawrence site, the latest village in thesequence. Simple-stamped surface finishes werealready present at a frequency of 10 percent atthe J. Falcone site. Simple-stamping rapidlyreplaced cord-marking as the preferred surfacefinish and is the primary diagnostic of the Chau-tauqua phase. At the Lawrence site at the end ofthe documented Chautauqua phase sequence,simple-stamping was present on 91 percent of



Figure6.6.

ProposeddispersaloftheMcFatephasepopulationtowardtheendoftheLateWoodlandperiod.

the ceramics (Schock 1974). With one exception,shell-tempered simple-stamped pottery has notbeen documented at any site on the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau of northwestern Pennsylva-nia.

PROTOHISTORIC

At the Crowe-O’Connor site (36Cw39/61) inthe French Creek Valley, shell-tempered simple-stamped and undecorated ceramics with deeplyscalloped lips were recovered with fragments ofIroquoian Acorn ring-bowl pipes (Johnson et al.1979). This site represents the final indigenousWoodland occupation in the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau and arguably dates to the Protohistoricperiod based on the presence of the Acorn orBulbous ring-bowl pipes (Johnson 1994a, 1999a),which are documented on Protohistoric Senecasites between ca. A.D. 1585/1595 and 1655 (seeJohnson 2001c; Wray et al. 1991). None ofSchock’s (1974) Chautauqua phase sites displayAcorn ring-bowl pipes, nor do any of the hilltopearthworks in the Cattaraugus Creek and UpperAllegheny River Valley (e.g., Guthe 1958; Louns-berry 1997). These facts argue persuasively thatthe Crowe-O’Conner site component dates to theProtohistoric period and is the latest document-ed occupation on the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau in both northwestern Pennsylvania andadjacent southwestern New York. It is not cer-tain whether this component represents the ter-minal GAP tradition occupation on the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau or, rather, a ProtohistoricChautauqua phase intrusion from the north.

RESULTS OF CORDAGE TWISTANALYSIS

For this study the authors have analyzed1,542 cordage casts from 31 sites representingtwo terminal Middle Woodland and 36 LateWoodland components from the glaciated andunglaciated portions of the Allegheny Plateau innorthwestern Pennsylvania and from the LakePlain in adjacent Chautauqua County, New York(Figure 6.1). An additional 137 impressions fromthe Quiggle site on the West Branch of theSusquehanna River in the inner Appalachian

Mountain section of north-central Pennsylvaniawere examined for comparative purposes.

All five of the early Late Woodland Mahon-ing ware components displayed predominantlyfinal-S-twist cordage as did the grit-temperedWestfield Cord-Marked ceramics from the West-field-Mac type site (Table 6.1). Where sampleswere adequate, the frequency of final-S-twistcordage on Mahoning Cord-Marked ceramicsranged from 66.7 percent at the Bolinger site to93.8 percent at the Wansack site (Figure 6.3).Notably, the one sample that deviates from thispattern, and in fact from the predominant final-S-twist pattern for the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau, is that derived from the IntrusiveMound complex Port-Melnick site. There, final-Z-twist cordage impressions were documentedat a frequency of 65.6 percent. Although the sam-ple from the Port-Melnick site is small and couldbe skewed, approximately half of the casts werederived from rim sherds each representing aunique vessel. This fact may indicate a diversityof cordage-making traditions associated with thelate Middle Woodland groups of this part of theFrench Creek Valley. If this pattern is duplicatedin other, larger Intrusive Mound complexcordage assemblages, it could indicate that thereis a population discontinuity between the lateMiddle Woodland Intrusive Mound complexEdinburg phase groups and the slightly laterearly Late Woodland Mahoning phase people

Casts of cordage impressions were also ana-lyzed from two contemporaneous Mead Islandcomponents on the valley floor of the MiddleAllegheny River. In contrast to the pattern man-ifested by the Mahoning phase components, theaggregate sample for the Indian Camp Run siteexhibited final-Z-twist cordage at a frequency of75.2 percent. This was essentially duplicated bya small sample from the nearby Taylor site (Table6.1, Figure 6.3).

Casts from six sites with shell-temperedFrench Creek and McFate phase ceramics fromthe glaciated Allegheny Plateau of northwesternPennsylvania and adjacent Lake Erie Plain ofChautauqua County, New York, display pre-dominantly final-S-twist cordage impressions.Where samples were adequate, the frequency ofS-twist cordage ranges from 56.5 percent at the


Westfield-Mac site on the Lake Erie Plain to 94.6percent at the Linesville Earthwork at the edgeof Pymatuning Marsh in the headwaters of theShenango River drainage (Table 6.2, Figure 6.4).Sites in the interior of the unglaciated AlleghenyPlateau in the Clarion River and Tionesta Creekdrainages displaying shell-tempered McFateIncised and Chautauqua Cord-Marked ceramicsand variants of McFate Incised ware that exhibita variety of temper types and combinations alsoevidence predominantly final-S-twist cordageimpressions. The frequencies of final-S-twistcordage at the three Elk County earthworksranged from 72.4 percent at the Russell City siteto 100.0 percent at the Kane Earthwork. At 16upland rockshelter and open air sites, the fre-quency of final-S-twist cordage impressionsranged from 85.1 percent for a large excavatedsample from Dutch Hill Rockshelter (Myers2001) to 100.0 percent for small surface derivedsamples of 1 to 9 casts from the remaining 15sites (Table 6.2, Figure 6.4).

Two very small samples from the interioruplands of the unglaciated Allegheny Plateaudeviate from the pattern displayed by the earth-works and the balance of the rockshelter sam-ples. A sample of eight casts lifted from quartz-tempered Stewart complex Shenks Ferry Incisedceramics from the Powers Run Rockshelter in theupper Clarion basin exhibit predominantly final-Z-twist cordage. This duplicates the patternobserved but not further documented by theauthors on Stewart complex ceramics from theUpper Susquehanna River basin. A single shell-tempered sherd from the Panther Rocks site inthe headwaters of the West Branch of theSusquehanna River evidences final-Z-twistcordage as well. This sherd may be ascribable tothe Kalgren/Bell phase, which succeeded theStewart complex in the headwaters of the WestBranch of the Susquehanna in the unglaciatedAllegheny Plateau (e.g., Herbstritt and Kent1990; Matlack 1986, 1987).

A large sample of casts from the Quiggle siteon the mainstem of the West Branch of theSusquehanna River displayed final-Z-twistcordage at a frequency of 89.1 percent. Herbstrittand Kent (1990) have argued that the shell-tem-pered, collared, and incised ceramics from the

Quiggle site were derived from those of theKalgren or Bell phase sites in the headwaters ofthe West Branch and ultimately from the McFatephase sites farther to the west in the AlleghenyRiver basin. In fact, Herbstritt and Kent (1990)include the later Late Woodland horticulturalvillage sites in the upper reaches of the WestBranch of the Susquehanna River on theunglaciated Allegheny Plateau in a McFate-Kalgren phase. They refer to the terminal LateWoodland-Protohistoric Quiggle site village far-ther down the West Branch in the innerAppalachian section as the McFate-Kalgren-Quiggle complex.

PROBLEM ONE: CONTINUITY OF THELATE WOODLAND POPULATION ON

THE GLACIATED ALLEGHENYPLATEAU PROVINCE OF

NORTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

As late as the middle 1970s, traditional opin-ion saw the shell-tempered cord-marked potteryof northwestern Pennsylvania — ChautauquaCord-Marked and McFate Incised — as theresidue of Late Prehistoric period Monongahelaculture people from the lower Upper Ohio RiverValley who had moved into the upper AlleghenyRiver Valley and the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau, replacing the indigenous igneous-rock-tempered pottery-making early Late WoodlandMahoning population (see, for example, Dragoo1966, 1972; Guthe 1958; Mayer-Oakes 1955). Bythe mid-1970s, the distinction between thedownriver shell-tempered Monongahela ceram-ics and the shell-tempered ceramics of theFrench Creek and McFate phases was beginningto be recognized (see Johnson 1975, 1976). Theshell-tempered ceramics in the upper AlleghenyValley, however, were still viewed as evidencefor a Monongahela population intrusion (e.g.,Dragoo 1976, 1977).

By 1975, the senior author (Johnson 1975)had taken a sufficient number of casts of Mahon-ing Cord-Marked, Chautauqua Cord-Marked,McFate Incised, and contemporaneous Monon-gahela Cord-Marked from the lower Upper OhioValley to demonstrate in a preliminary way thatthe preferred cordage final twist for both the


igneous-rock-tempered and the shell-temperedLate Woodland ceramics from the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau of northwestern Pennsylva-nia was predominantly S. For the contemporane-ous Late Prehistoric period Monongahela cul-ture, the preferred final twist direction was pre-dominantly Z (Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4). Thesedata argue for population continuity betweenthe makers of the earlier initial Late Woodlandigneous-rock-tempered Mahoning ware andthose who produced the later shell-temperedChautauqua Cord-Marked pottery. More certainis the fact that the preferred cordage twist direc-tion displayed by both the Late Woodlandigneous-rock-tempered Mahoning and shell-tempered Chautauqua wares was the opposite ofthat generally evidenced by the downriverMonongahela culture cordage-making industry.While another group making shell-temperedpottery and final-S-twist cordage could haveseamlessly replaced the Mahoning phase peopleat the end of the early Late Woodland period, thecontinuation of late Mahoning ware ceramicstyles including added-on collars and horizontalbands of stamped decoration indicate a continu-ity in decorative ceramic styles across this transi-tion in ceramic technology. Further, at that time,there were no obvious neighboring cultural com-plexes with both a shell-tempered pottery indus-try and an S-twist cordage-making tradition thatcould have supplied a replacement population.The later makers of the shell-tempered Chau-tauqua Cord-Marked and McFate Incised pot-tery were definitively not Monongahelainvaders or emigrants. The technological inno-vation of shell-tempering undoubtedly diffusedto groups in the glaciated Allegheny Plateaufrom the lower Upper Ohio Valley, but there isno perceptible evidence for movement of people.The data from our current study supplement theoriginal sample size and number of components,thus greatly strengthening the senior author’soriginal contention that the Late Woodlandceramic sequence in the glaciated AlleghenyPlateau was arguably the product of the sameindigenous population.

In short, while a large, comprehensive sam-ple of cordage twist directional data fromMonongahela culture sites, now totaling over

7,400 casts, demonstrates an overwhelming pref-erence for the production of final-Z-twistcordage by Monongahela cordage makers (John-son 2002) (see Table 6.4 for a geographic subsetof the Monongahela cordage sample), the finaltwist pattern for the 600-year-long Late Wood-land period in the glaciated Allegheny Plateau ofnorthwestern Pennsylvania is predominantly S(Tables 6.1, 6.2). Based on this evidence, weargue that the later GAP tradition potters whomade Chautauqua Cord-Marked and McFateIncised ceramics could not have been an intru-sive Monongahela population from the lowerUpper Ohio Valley.

PROBLEM TWO: DISPERSAL OF THEMCFATE PHASE POPULATION FROM

THE GLACIATED ALLEGHENYPLATEAU

The McFate phase people seem to havebegun a gradual abandonment of the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau by the middle of the 15th cen-tury (see Figure 6.6). This conclusion is based onthe presence of McFate Incised pottery at the Belland Kalgren sites on the unglaciated AlleghenyPlateau in the uppermost reaches of the WestBranch of the Susquehanna River. McFateIncised and the companion Conemaugh Cord-Impressed ceramics also characterize severallarge Late Prehistoric period Monongahela cul-ture Johnston phase villages on the valley floorof the Kiskiminetas-Conemaugh River and at theMcJunkin site on the drainage divide betweenthe Allegheny and Monongahela rivers (see Fig-ure 6.1).

Diagnostic McFate Incised and companionConemaugh Cord-Impressed ceramics appearedin the Kiskiminetas Valley in southwesternPennsylvania and at the earthwork sites and inthe rockshelters in the Clarion River and Tiones-ta Creek basins apparently during the late 15thand early 16th centuries. McFate Incised ceramicvessels compose a large number of the recon-structed vessels at the late Bell site in the upperWest Branch of the Susquehanna River drainagebasin (Matlack 1987). The assignment of thesepots to the McFate type is reinforced by the co-occurrence on these vessel lips of the diagnostic


lip decoration peculiar to McFate Incised, Cone-maugh Cord-Impressed, and late ChautauquaCord-Marked vessels farther west in theAllegheny River drainage basin. Although wehave not seen the vessels from the Kalgren site,they apparently are McFate Incised or are close-ly related (James T. Herbstritt, personal commu-nication 2002).

The cordage twist data compiled by RichardGeorge (1997) from the Johnston, Squirrel Hill,and McJunkin sites suggest that the Johnstonphase villages were composed of varying per-centages of intrusive McFate folk and localMonongahela people (see Table 6.3). The latterpopulation was presumably derived from theMonongahela drainage basin to the south, as theKiskiminetas Valley seems to have been largelyabandoned or, at least, underutilized betweenthe end of the Early Monongahela periodKiskiminetas phase and the appearance of thelarge late Middle Monongahela period Johnstonphase villages (Johnson 2001c; Johnson et al.1991; Johnson et al. 1979) (see Figure 6.2).

If the Johnston phase population consistedprimarily or exclusively of late Middle Monon-gahela groups who had arrived from the southbeyond the Allegheny-Monongahela drainagedivide, the expected predominant cordage finaltwist direction displayed on the cord-markedceramics would be Z (see, e.g., Table 6.4). Theone adequate cordage twist sample from anEarly Monongahela period Kiskiminetas phasecomponent in the Kiskiminetas River Valley wasderived from the Krafic site (36Ar396). There isno obvious admixture of later Johnston phaseceramics at the Krafic site. The aggregate twistdirection for cord impressions from sherds dis-playing a variety of temper types and mixtures isfinal-Z-twist, 80.0 percent (Johnson et al. 1991).

At the three sites with essentially pure John-ston phase components, the frequency of final-S-twist cordage (typical of McFate phase fiber pro-duction) ranges from 75.9 percent at the John-ston type site to 46.3 percent at the McJunkin site(Table 6.3, Figure 6.5). The frequency of final-S-twist cordage is much lower at the remainingthree sites with Johnston phase components, butthese percentages may reflect admixture of shell-tempered cord-marked sherds from the earlier

Kiskiminetas phase components there. The highto predominant frequencies of final-S-twistcordage on shell-tempered sherds from the John-ston phase sites argues for the actual presence ofMcFate phase immigrants in the KiskiminetasRiver Valley in late Middle Monongahela times.The number of McFate phase immigrants clearlyvaried from village to village. In fact, the fre-quency of final-S-twist cordage from the westernportion of the excavated Johnston site villagewas 82.7 percent while that from the eastern por-tion was only 54.0 percent (George 1997) (seeTable 6.3). This suggests that there may havebeen some physical separation of the mixedMcFate-Monongahela population within thisJohnston phase village. The cordage twist direc-tion data documented in this study argue for amixed McFate-Monongahela Johnston phasepopulation rather than an essentially pure lateMiddle Monongahela group which had incorpo-rated McFate phase ceramics motifs into theirpottery-making industry. As well, the data alsoconfirm the earlier suggestion of the seniorauthor (Johnson 1972, 1976) that the Johnstonsite represented a late population intrusion fromthe glaciated Allegheny Plateau into theKiskiminetas River Valley.

A second aspect of the dispersal of theMcFate people that our data address is that wit-nessed by the Elk County earthwork sites in theupper Tionesta Creek drainage, including Kane,Russell City No. 1, and McKinley, and the vari-ous rockshelters in these and adjacent drainages.The shell-tempered ceramics from these sites,both McFate Incised and Chautauqua Cord-Marked wares as well as variants of the McFateIncised type displaying various opportunistical-ly collected rock aplastic, also exhibit predomi-nantly final-S-twist cordage impressions on theirexterior surfaces. The high frequency of final-S-twist cordage impressions on these late ceramicscan be argued to demonstrate the presence in theinterior Clarion River and Tionesta Creekdrainages of McFate phase people from theFrench Creek Valley or even from the AlleghenyRiver Valley immediately to the west and north.

After the disappearance of the Mead Islandculture from the mainstem Middle AlleghenyValley by the end of the 14th century and the


abandonment of the Upper Allegheny Valley bythe Allegheny Valley Iroquois by the early 15thcentury, a shell-tempered pottery-making popu-lation (but not necessarily the French Creek orsucceeding McFate phase people from theFrench Creek Valley) seems to have filled thevacuum (Johnson 1999a; Johnson et al. 1979).These new arrivals may even have been descen-dants of or otherwise related to the makers ofundecorated shell-tempered pottery who hadappeared to winter in Allegheny Valley Iroquoisvillages in the preceding centuries. Sites such asSugar Run on the floodplain of the UpperAllegheny River and the numerous earthworkslining the uplands around the mainstem UpperAllegheny River in New York can be attributedto this episode. Regrettably, there are no cordagetwist direction data available for any of thesesites.

The Smith site in Bolivar, New York (Louns-berry 1997), and several rockshelter sites alongthe Middle Allegheny River between the conflu-ence of French Creek and Brokenstraw Creekdisplay McFate Incised ceramics. The final twistdirection of the cordage impressions on the asso-ciated shell-tempered ceramics from these sites— a clue to their possible ethnic affiliation —however, is similarly not known. This late occu-pation of the upper Middle and Upper Alleghe-ny Valley could have provided a closer sourcefor the shell-tempered ceramics that appear onlate-15th- and early-16th-century sites in theinterior of the Clarion and Tionesta basins.

We believe there are three possible scenarios— and probably a lot more — to explain theappearance of the predominantly shell-temperedMcFate Incised, Conemaugh Cord-Impressedand Chautauqua Cord-Marked ware in the inte-rior of the Clarion River and Tionesta Creekdrainage basins. First, this shell-tempered wareand related temper variants could represent theend of a local, indigenous pottery-making (andcordage-making) tradition in the interior Clarionand Tionesta valleys. The Late Woodland potterymakers in these interior tributary valleys mayhave adopted Chautauqua-McFate pottery tech-nology in the form of shell-temper, vessel mor-phology, decorative modes, and decorativeapplication techniques at the end of the Late

Woodland sequence. In effect, they would havebecome “McFate-ized.”

A second alternative explanation could inter-pret the shell-tempered sherd residue in theearthworks and at the top of the rockshelters inthe Clarion River and Tionesta Creek basins andelsewhere along the mainstem Middle andUpper Allegheny River as debris left by huntingforays from the French Creek Valley to the westinto the high unglaciated Allegheny Plateau.This expansion of the hunting and foraging ter-ritory of the later GAP tradition people seems tohave occurred at a time when the authors arguethat their adaptive strategies were adjusting to ashortening of the frost-free-day growing season.

This is a particularly attractive explanationfor the presence of the relatively closely clus-tered Elk County earthworks, which Johnson(1999a; Johnson et al. 1979) has argued were for-tified hunting camps rather than horticulturalvillages. Despite the fact that carbonized maizewas recovered from two of the earthworks(LaBar 1968; Smith and Herbstritt 1976), theshort frost-free-day growing season of the interi-or of Elk County (less than 100 days) would haveprohibited or certainly severely restricted thereliability of maize cropping, particularly at thebeginning of the Neo-Boreal climatic episode. Aswell, the high ratio of documented triangulararrow points to ceramic sherds at the McKinleyEarthwork site (Smith and Herbstritt 1976), 1:11(Johnson 1994a, 1999a), indicates that the pri-mary economic focus at this stockaded site washunting. As such, it corresponds to the fortifiedhunting villages of James Fitting and CharlesCleland’s “Ottawa biotype” adaptation duringthe Late Woodland in the Lower Peninsula ofMichigan (Fitting 1971; Fitting and Cleland1971). A similar pattern seems to be evident atthe Russell City No. 1 Earthwork, as well (seeLaBar 1968). As maize horticulture becameincreasingly less reliable during the late 15th and16th centuries, the subsistence strategies of vari-ous McFate phase groups seem to have becomeincreasingly reoriented to a focus on huntingand foraging, supplemented by desultory maizecultivation.

The third scenario would see the rockshelters— particularly — as the temporary location of a


portion of the dispersing McFate population inthe second half of the 15th century. These sta-tions may have been utilized as small groupsmoved east to the so-called McFate-Kalgren orBell phase villages in the upper reaches of theWest Branch of the Susquehanna River basin (seeHerbstritt and Kent 1990; Matlack 1987, 1992).Although the frost-free-day growing seasonthere is not much longer than that in the interiorof Elk County (see Hasenstab and Johnson 2001),the hilltop locations of these sites and presum-ably their associated maize fields may havebuffered the maize crops from the effects of latespring and early fall killing frosts. WilliamRoberts’s (1988, 1990) important research regard-ing frost patterns and Late Woodland site loca-tions in the uppermost Allegheny River basin innearby Potter County, Pennsylvania, demon-strates that hilltop locations in the unglaciatedAllegheny Plateau area of north-central Pennsyl-vania display a frost-free-day growing season upto 30 and as much as 40 days longer than adja-cent valley floors. Matlack (1986) also noted thisphenomenon for the headwater area of the WestBranch of the Susquehanna River. This fact sug-gests that maize horticulture may have been areliable subsistence base in the upper WestBranch of the Susquehanna River basin at leastinto the early portion of the Neo-Boreal episode.As well, Roberts’ careful documentation of thesepatterns (1988) has important implications forthe economic strategy of the shell-tempered pot-tery-making occupants of the hilltop earthworksites ringing the Upper Allegheny Valley to thenorth of the interior reaches of the Clarion andTionesta basins. The regular village layout, thelarge number of houses, the multiple storagestructures and pit features, and the large volumeof pottery vessels and residue displayed by thesefortified village sites in the upper reaches of theWest Branch of the Susquehanna River basinstrongly argue for their function as horticulturalvillages and not fortified hunting camps (see,e.g., Matlack 1986, 1987).

We have casts of cordage impressions fromonly a few grit-tempered earlier Woodlandsherds from the interior Clarion River and Tion-esta Creek basins to compare to the cordageimpressions on the later shell-tempered ware.

The recent excavation of the Indian Camp Runsite and the testing of the nearby Taylor site bythe junior author (Myers and Myers 2002), how-ever, has provided the first large assemblage ofearly Late Woodland ware from the mainstemMiddle Allegheny River Valley for whichcordage twist analysis has been conducted(Table 6.1, Figure 6.3). The primary componentat the Indian Camp Run site appears to be aMead Island phase occupation (Myers andMyers 2002) (Figures 6.2, 6.3). This componentstraddled the time of the introduction of shell-tempering into that portion of the Allegheny Val-ley and, thus, provides both rock-tempered andshell-tempered early Late Woodland periodsherd and cordage samples. The predominantfinal twist direction exhibited by both wares is Z(see Table 6.1). Although no diagnostic ceramicsper sewere recovered from the nearby Taylor site,the predominant final twist direction of thecordage impressions from grit-tempered sherdsthere is also Z (Table 6.1, Figure 6.3). Thiscordage twist direction pattern exhibited by thegrit-tempered and shell-tempered Mead Islandphase ware stands in contrast to that displayedby the contemporary early Late WoodlandMahoning phase components on the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau to the west, which is final Stwist. The twist direction evidenced by the shell-tempered Mead Island ceramics from the IndianCamp Run site is the opposite of that displayedby all the later Late Woodland shell-temperedceramics from the glaciated Allegheny Plateau tothe west as well as the earthwork and rockshel-ter sites to the east in the interior Clarion Riverand Tionesta Creek basins. These facts indicatethat, minimally, the shell-tempered ceramicsdocumented in the earthworks and rocksheltersin these interior tributary basins were not madeby the descendants of the Mead Island phasepopulation.

While this sample comes from only one orpossibly two Mead Island phase componentsand was derived from sites on the valley floor ofthe Middle Allegheny River, it may reflect thecordage twist preferences of the early LateWoodland population of the adjacent interiorClarion River and Tionesta Creek basins. Iffuture research can confirm this pattern, this


would indicate that the shell-tempered McFateIncised and Chautauqua Cord-Marked waresassociated with the earthworks and the upper-most levels of the rockshelters represent theresiduum of an intrusive population rather thanthat of indigenous Woodland groups that hadputatively adopted shell-tempering and McFatephase decorative modes into their pottery-mak-ing tradition toward the end of the Late Wood-land period. This finding would strengthen theargument for these late components, character-ized by shell-tempered ceramics, as representinga population ultimately dispersing from theglaciated Allegheny Plateau section of north-western Pennsylvania. The frequency of thesecomponents across the interior Clarion and Tion-esta basins suggests, at a minimum, a moreintensive utilization of this area at the end of theLate Woodland period by either McFate phasepeople or the local indigenous population.Whether this phenomenon represents a gradualreorientation of McFate phase subsistence strate-gies at the beginning of the Neo-Boreal episodeor a wholesale migration of a population inresponse to the deteriorating climatic conditionsat the beginning of the 16th century, or both, isunknown at the present. An examination of thecordage twist direction of impressions on theceramics of the various ware groups and compo-nents at the McFate-Kalgren or Bell phase sitesmay offer a more definitive scenario.

Somewhat parenthetically, Herbstritt andKent (1990) have contended that the McFateIncised ceramics from the earthworks sites andfrom their McFate-Kalgren or, alternatively, theBell phase sites are essentially the same collaredand incised ware that characterizes the terminalLate Woodland-Protohistoric occupation of theQuiggle site, located below Lock Haven on thelower West Branch of the Susquehanna River(see Smith 1984). This study cannot speak direct-ly to the affiliation of the shell-tempered warefrom the Kalgren and Bell sites because there isno published or circulated documentation forthe preferred cordage twist manifested by any ofceramic temper types present at either of thesetwo sites (see, e.g., Matlack 1987).

A recent detailed comparison of the McFateIncised and Quiggle Incised decorative attrib-

utes and collar and lip morphology (Johnson1999a), however, clearly indicated that the shell-tempered ware from Quiggle is not McFateIncised per se. As well, the predominant finaltwist direction displayed by the cordage impres-sions on the shell-tempered ware from the Quig-gle site is Z (Table 6.2, Figure 6.4). While it isprobable that the McFate phase potters were thesource of the attribute of shell-tempering forboth the McFate-Kalgren or Bell phase and, ulti-mately, the Quiggle complex potters, they clear-ly did not represent a measurable portion of thecordage makers, at least, at the Quiggle site. Thedirect linking of the McFate phase or a substan-tial refugee population from the glaciatedAllegheny Plateau with the Kalgren-Quigglecomplex is no longer defensible.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis and recording of the twist direc-tion of cordage impressed upon 1,542 sherdsfrom 38 terminal Middle Woodland and LateWoodland components in both the glaciated andunglaciated Allegheny Plateau section of north-western Pennsylvania and from the adjacentLake Erie Plain of New York have materiallyaided the construction of the Late Woodlandperiod sequence there. Most importantly, thisresearch demonstrates an unbroken populationcontinuity from the early Late WoodlandMahoning phase, characterized by igneous-rock-tempered pottery, to the terminal Late WoodlandMcFate phase groups who made shell-temperedChautauqua Cord-Marked and McFate Incisedceramics. As well, it demonstrates that the latershell-tempered pottery makers did not representa Monongahela population intrusion from thelower Upper Ohio Valley.

This research is also beginning to answerquestions regarding the presence and affinitiesof McFate Incised and companion ceramic typesat various sites beyond the periphery of theglaciated Allegheny Plateau section of north-western Pennsylvania. The collection of cordagetwist data that may further document the seem-ing dispersal of the makers of McFate Incised,Conemaugh Cord-Impressed, and ChautauquaCord-Marked pottery is still in the early stages.


This latter set of information, however, hasserved to confirm hypothesized populationmovements into the Kiskiminetas River Valley(e.g., George 1997; Johnson 1972, 1976, 1994a,1999a) and onto the high unglaciated AlleghenyPlateau including the head waters of the Tiones-ta Creek and the Clarion and West Branch of theSusquehanna rivers (e.g., Herbstritt and Kent1990; Johnson et al. 1979; Smith and Herbstritt1976). These data also demonstrate that despitethe predominance of shell-tempered collaredand incised ware at the terminal Late Woodland-Protohistoric Quiggle site on the floor of themainstem of the West Branch of the Susquehan-na River, there were relatively few McFate phaserefugees or their descendants in the Quiggle sitepopulation. In short, cordage twist analysisoffers great promise as an important tool alongwith other categories of material culture to facil-itate the explication of cultural sequences in theprehistoric Eastern Woodlands.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to express our thanks to Dr.Barry C. Kent, former Pennsylvania StateArchaeologist, and to Stephen Warfel, SeniorCurator of Archaeology, the Pennsylvania StateMuseum, for permission to work with the collec-tions from the McFate, Linesville Earthwork,Kane Earthwork, Russell City Earthwork,McKinley Earthwork, and Quiggle sites. We alsowant to express our appreciation for theirpatience and enduring interest and encourage-ment in this project. We would also like toacknowledge Ira F. Smith III, Pennsylvania His-torical and Museum Commission, for his per-mission to study the ceramics excavated by himfrom the McKinley Earthwork and Quiggle sitesand for his continued interest in this project. We

would like to thank Dr. Mark A. McConaughyand Janet R. Johnson, Assistant Curators, Sectionof Archaeology, for their aid in accessing collec-tions. We wish to express our appreciation to Dr.Gary F. Fry, Youngstown State University, andRichard P. Kandare, Allegheny National Forest,for permitting us to analyze the ceramics fromthe Wansack and Bollinger sites and from sever-al upland rockshelters in the Allegheny NationalForest, respectively.

We also wish to express our sincere thanks tothe late Dale Morgan, Peter Cholock, W. Freder-ick Veigh, the late Richard Wright, and, mostparticularly, Carl K. Burkett for permitting us toanalyze the ceramics and cordage impressionsfrom several of the sites in the French Creek,Shenango River and Kiskiminetas River valleysand the Lake Erie Plain that are utilized in thischapter. We would like to recognize Mark Fetch,Michael Baker Jr., Inc., for his skillful productionof Figures 6.1–6.6.

We particularly thank Penelope Drooker,Robert Hasenstab, and two anonymous review-ers for their many thoughtful and helpful recom-mendations for strengthening our argumentsand making this chapter a more intelligible andcoherent presentation of our data. We wouldalso like to thank Penny for her enduringpatience, and for asking us to participate in theSymposium on Perishable Material Culture inthe Northeast at the 2002 biannual meeting ofthe Northeast Natural History Conference. Anyerrors of fact or in the interpretation of the datapresented by others and cited here, however, areentirely the responsibility of the authors.

APPENDICES

Tables 6.1-6.4.














REFERENCES CITED

Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.1990 Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 36Fa368,

Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Fayette County,Pennsylvania. Report prepared by Archaeo-logical and Historical Consultants, Inc.,Centre Hall, Pennsylvania, and submittedto the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pitts-burgh District, Pittsburgh. Contract No.DACW59-88-C-0036. E.R. No. 81-1120-051.

Babich, Jay, Natale M. Kirshner, William C. Johnson,and Thomas S. Kirshner

1996 Archaeological Investigations at the Kirshn-er Site (36Wm213), A Middle MonongahelaPeriod Village in the Youghiogheny RiverValley: An Interim Report. Paper presentedat the Sixty-Third Annual Meeting of theEastern States Archeological Federation,Huntington, West Virginia, October 24-27,1996.

Barber, Daniel M.1965 Portageville Site; Cultural and Temporal

Significance. Museum Service, Bulletin of theRochester Museum of Arts and Sciences 58(7-8):65-71.

Blanton, Dennis B.2000 Drought as a Factor in the Jamestown

Colony, 1607–1612. Historical Archaeology34(4):74-81.

Boyce, Hettie L.1985 The Novak Site: A Late Woodland Upland

Monongahela Village. Pennsylvania Archae-ologist 55(3):21-49.

Brose, David S.1994 The South Park Village Site and the Late Prehis-

toric Whittlesey Tradition of Northeast Ohio.Monographs in World Archaeology 20. Pre-historic Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Brose, David S., William C. Johnson, and Michael J.Hambacher

1978 Excavations at the East Wall Site (33AB41),Conneaut, Ohio. Report prepared by theCleveland Museum of Natural History,Cleveland, Ohio, for United States SteelCorporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Burkett, Carl K., Jr., and Richard K. Cunningham1997 The McFate Site and Late Woodland Settle-

ment and Subsistence in French Creek Val-ley, Northwestern Pennsylvania. Pennsylva-nia Archaeologist 67(1):4-20.

Carr, Christopher, and Robert F. Maslowski1995 Cordage and Fabrics, Relating Form, Tech-

nology and Social Processes. In Style, Socie-ty, and Person, Archaeological and EthnologicalPerspectives, edited by Christopher Carr andJill E. Neitzel, pp. 297-343. Plenum Press,New York.

Davis, Christine E., and Amy K. Wilks1997 Phase III Data Recovery, Sony Site, 36Wm151,

Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Reportprepared by Christine Davis Consultants,Inc., Verona, Pennsylvania, for Westmore-land County Industrial Development Cor-poration, Greensburg, Pennsylvania. ER#91-4617-129.

Dragoo, Don W.1955 Excavations at the Johnston Site, Indiana

County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archae-ologist 25(2):85-141.

1966 Archeological Investigations in the Kinzua Areaof the Allegheny Basin of Western Pennsylvaniaduring 1965. Report submitted by CarnegieMuseum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to theNational Park Service, Region 5 Office,Philadelphia. Project No. N.E.R. 82.

1972 The Monongahela Culture – ALook at SomeSacred Cows. SPAAC Speaks 11:1-15.

1976 Prehistoric Iroquoian Culture in the UpperOhio Valley. In The Late Prehistory of the LakeErie Drainage Basin: A 1972 SymposiumRevised, edited by David S. Brose, pp. 76-88.The Cleveland Museum of Natural History,Cleveland, Ohio.

1977 Prehistoric Iroquoian Culture in the UpperOhio Valley. In Current Perspectives in North-eastern Archeology: Essays in Honor of WilliamA. Ritchie, edited by Robert E. Funk andCharles F. Hayes III, pp. 41-47. Researchesand Transactions of the New York StateArcheological Association 17(1). Rochester.

Egloff, Keith T., and Stephen R. Potter1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plain Vir-

ginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America10:95-117.

Fitting, James E.1971 Scheduling in a Shared Environment: Late

Period Land Use Patterns in the SaginawValley of Michigan. Ontario Archaeology16:36-41.

Fitting, James E., and Charles E. Cleland1971 Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the

Upper Great Lakes. Ethnohistory 16(4):289-302.

George, Richard L.1978 The McJunkin Site, A Preliminary Report.

Pennsylvania Archaeologist 48(4):33-47.1983 The Gnagey Site and the Monongahela

Occupation of the Somerset Plateau. Penn-sylvania Archaeologist 53(4):1-97.

1997 McFate Artifacts in a Monongahela Context:McJunkin, Johnston, and Squirrel Hill.Pennsylvania Archaeologist 67(1):35-44.

2002 Comparing Pottery from the Proto-HistoricMcKees Rocks Village and Eisiminger Sitesof Southwestern Pennsylvania. Annals ofCarnegie Museum 71(2):63-86. Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.

George, Richard L., Jay Babich, and Christine E. Davis1990 The Household Site: Results of a Partial

Excavation of a Late Monongahela Villagein Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.Pennsylvania Archaeologist 60(2):40-70.

Guthe, Alfred K.1958 The Late Prehistoric Occupation in Southwest-

ern New York: An Interpretive Analysis.Researches and Transactions of the NewYork State Archeological Association 14(1).Albany.

Hart, John P.1994 Archaeological Investigations at the Mon

City Site (36WH737), Washington County,Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist64(2):7-39.

Hasenstab, Robert J., and William C. Johnson2001 Hilltops of the Allegheny Plateau: A Pre-

ferred Microenvironment for Late Prehis-toric Horticulturalists. In Archaeology of theAppalachian Highlands, edited by Lynne P.Sullivan and Susan C. Prezzano, pp. 3-18.University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Herbstritt, James T.1981 Bonnie Brook: A Multicomponent Aborigi-

nal Locus in West-Central Pennsylvania.Pennsylvania Archaeologist 51(3):1-59.

1988 A Reference for Pennsylvania RadiocarbonDates. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 58(2):1-29.

1998 SPA Radiocarbon Update. The Society forPennsylvania Archaeology, Inc., Newsletter(Spring 1998):3.

Herbstritt, James T., and Barry C. Kent1990 Shenks Ferry Revisited: A New Look at an Old

Culture. Pennsylvania Heritage 16(1):12-17.

Holland, C. G.1966 The John Harter Collection from a Site in

Southern Shenandoah County. QuarterlyBulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia21(2):40-41.

1970 An Archeological Survey of Southwestern Vir-ginia. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthro-pology 12. Washington, D.C.

Hurley, William M.1979 Prehistoric Cordage, Identification of Impres-

sions on Pottery.Aldine Manuals on Archeol-ogy 3. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.

Johnson, William C.1972 The Late Woodland in Northwestern Penn-

sylvania: A Preliminary Survey and Analy-sis. In the Symposium on the Late Wood-land Period in the Lake Erie Drainage at theAnnual Meeting of the Central StatesAnthropological Society, Cleveland, Ohio,April 30, 1972.

1975 The Late Woodland Period in NorthwesternPennsylvania: A Reappraisal and Update,1975. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-ing of the Eastern States Archeological Fed-eration, Columbus, Ohio, November 14-16,1975.

1976 The Late Woodland in Northwestern Penn-sylvania: A Preliminary Survey and Analy-sis. In The Late Prehistory of the Lake ErieDrainage Basin: A 1972 Symposium Revised,edited by David S. Brose, pp. 48-75. Cleve-land Museum of Natural History, Cleve-land, Ohio.

1987 Ceramics. In Phase I Archaeological Investiga-tions at Grays Landing, Fayette County, Penn-sylvania, by A. Quinn, J. M. Adovasio, W. C.Johnson, R. C. Carlisle, and D. R. Pedler, pp.89-110. Report prepared by the CulturalResource Management Program, Depart-ment of Anthropology, University of Pitts-burgh, and submitted to Gannett FlemingWater Resources Engineering, Inc., Harris-burg, Pennsylvania, under Delivery OrderNo. 5, Contract DACW59-85-D-0005, U.S.Army Engineer District, Pittsburgh Corps ofEngineers.

1994a Tracing the Glaciated Allegheny PlateauTradition: A Preliminary Culture History ofthe Late Woodland Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1600) on the Glaciated Allegheny PlateauSection of Northwestern Pennsylvania andSouthwestern New York. Paper presented atthe Sixty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Socie-


ty for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Pitts-burgh, April 22-24, 1994.

1994b McFate Incised, Conemaugh Cord-Impressed, Chautauqua Simple-Stampedand Chautauqua Cord-Marked: Type Defi-nitions, Refinements and PreliminaryObservations on Their Origins and Distri-butions. Paper presented at the Sixty-FifthAnnual Meeting of the Society for Pennsyl-vania Archaeology, Pittsburgh, April 22-24,1994

1996 A New Twist to an Old Tale: Analysis ofCordage Impressions on Late WoodlandCeramics from the Potomac River Valley. InA Most Indispensable Art: Native Fiber Indus-tries from Eastern North America, edited byJames B. Petersen, pp. 144-159. University ofTennessee Press, Knoxville.

1999a Tracing the Glaciated Allegheny PlateauTradition: A Suggested Culture HistorySequence for the Late Woodland Period (ca.A.D. 1000–1600) in the Glaciated AlleghenyPlateau Section of Northwestern Pennsylva-nia (Five Years Later). Paper presented atthe Sixty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Soci-ety for Pennsylvania Archaeology,Brookville, April 23-25, 1999.

1999b Cordage Twist Direction and Ethnicity inthe Potomac River Basin: The Luray Com-plex Conundrum. Paper presented at the1999 Annual Meeting of the Middle AtlanticArchaeological Conference, Harrisburg,Pennsylvania, April 9-11, 1999.

1999c Report of Ceramic Sherd Cord Twist Analy-sis. In The Potomac Creek Site (44ST2) Revisit-ed, by Dennis B. Blanton, Stevan C. Pullins,and Veronica L Deitrick, pp. E-1-E-6. Pre-pared by William and Mary Center forArchaeological Research, Department ofAnthropology, The College of William andMary, Williamsburg, Virginia. VirginiaDepartment of Historic Resources, ResearchReport Series 10. Richmond.

2001a Who Were Those Gals? Cordage TwistDirection and Ethnicity in the PotomacRiver Basin: Preliminary Evidence Suggest-ing Population Continuity Followed byReplacement during the Late WoodlandPeriod. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeolog-ical Conference, Ocean City, Maryland,March 23-25, 2001.

2001b Cordage Twist Direction and Ethnicity inthe Potomac River Basin: The Luray Com-plex Conundrum. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Archeological Socie-ty of Virginia, Williamsburg, October 19-21,2001.

2001c The Protohistoric Monongahela and Casefor an Iroquois Connection. In Societies inEclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern WoodlandsIndians, A.D. 1400–1700, edited by David S.Brose, C. Wesley Cowan, and Robert C.Mainfort, Jr., pp. 67-82. Smithsonian Institu-tion Press, Washington, D.C.

2002 Upper Ohio Valley Cordage Twist Directionand Population Continuity/Dispersal, A.D.1000-1635. Paper presented at the Sympo-sium on Perishable Material Culture in theNortheast at the Northeast Natural HistoryConference, Albany, New York, April 24-27,2002.

Johnson, William C., William P. Athens, Martin T.Fuess, Luis G. Jaramillo, Keith R. Bastianini,and Elizabeth Ramos

1989 Late Prehistoric Period Monongahela CultureSite and Cultural Resource Inventory. Reportprepared by the Cultural Resource Manage-ment Program, Department of Anthropolo-gy, University of Pittsburgh, in fulfillmentof a Survey and Planning Grant from thePennsylvania Historical and Museum Com-mission, Bureau for Historic Preservation,Harrisburg.

Johnson, William C., and Veronica L. Deitrick2000 The Perishable Industry from the Comstock

(44Cf20) and Irwin (44Pg4) Sites and theEvidence for Population Continuity andReplacement on the South Side of the JamesRiver Estuary during the Middle and LateWoodland Periods. Paper presented at theSixtieth Annual Meeting of the Archeologi-cal Society of Virginia, Franklin, October 20-22, 2000.

Johnson, William C., H. Dale Morgan, and Peter S.Cholock

1991 The Kiskiminetas Phase: A New EarlyMonongahela Period Complex. Paper pre-sented at the Sixty-Second Annual Meetingof the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeolo-gy, Brookville, May 3-5, 1991

Johnson, William C., James B. Richardson, III, andAllen S. Bohnert

1979 Archaeological Site Survey in Northwest Penn-


sylvania, Region IV. Report submitted by theSection of Man, Carnegie Museum of Natu-ral History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to thePennsylvania Historical and Museum Com-mission, Harrisburg.

Johnson, William C., and D. Scott Speedy1992 Culture Continuity and Change in the Mid-

dle and Late Woodland Periods in theUpper James River Estuary, Prince GeorgeCounty, Virginia. Journal of Middle AtlanticArchaeology 8:91-106.

1993 Cordage Twist Direction as a Tool in Delin-eating Territorial Boundaries and Demon-strating Population Continuity during theLate Woodland and Late Prehistoric Periodsin the Upper Ohio River Valley. Paper pre-sented at the Fifth Monongahela Confer-ence, California, Pennsylvania, September18, 1993.

Klein, Michael J.1991 Beyond “Inspectional Types”: An Attribute

Analysis of Ceramics from 18PR131, PrinceGeorge’s County, Maryland. Paper present-ed at the Fifty-Eighth Annual Meeting of theEastern States Archeological Federation,Williamsburg, Virginia, November 8-11,1991.

LaBar, Robert J.1968 Report on Archaeological Excavations of

Indian Forts 36EL1 and 36EL2, HighlandTownship, Elk County, Pennsylvania.Kinzua Chapter No. 18, The Society for Penn-sylvania Archaeology 1(3).

Lantz, Stanley W.1989 Age, Distribution and Cultural Affiliation of

Raccoon Notched Point Varieties in WesternPennsylvania and Western New York. Bulletinof Carnegie Museum of Natural History 28.Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Lounsberry, Kelly M.1997 The Smith Site: The Chautauqua-McFate

Culture in the Upper Allegheny River Val-ley in Southwestern New York. PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 67(1):21-34.

MacNeish, Richard S.1952 Iroquois Pottery Types: A Technique for the

Study of Iroquois Prehistory. National Muse-um of Canada, Bulletin 124. Ottawa,Ontario.

Madsen, David B., and Steven R. Simms

1998 The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Per-spective. Journal of World Prehistory12(3):255-336.

Maslowski, Robert F.1973 An Analysis of Cordmarked Watson Ware.

Pennsylvania Archaeologist 43(2):1-12.1984 The Significance of Cordage Attributes in

the Analysis of Woodland Pottery. Pennsyl-vania Archaeologist 54(1-2):51-60.

1996 Cordage Twist and Ethnicity. In A MostIndispensable Art: Native Fiber Industries fromEastern North America, edited by James B.Petersen, pp. 88-99. University of TennesseePress, Knoxville.

Matlack, Harry A.1986 The Mystery of the Fort Field: The Bell Site Dig.

Privately published.1987 Pottery of the Bell Site, Clearfield County. Pri-

vately published.1992 Development of the McFate Culture of

Northcentral Pennsylvania: The Mononga-hela–Shenks Ferry Connection. PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 62(2):66-73.

Mayer-Oakes, William J.1955 Prehistory of the Upper Ohio Valley: An Intro-

ductory Archeological Study. AnthropologicalSeries 2, Annals of Carnegie Museum 34.Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


Directions. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage,Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas,edited by Penelope Ballard Drooker andLaurie D. Webster, pp. 85-100. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.

Murphy, James L.1971 The Lyman Site (33-La-2), Lake County

Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 41(3):12-25.Myers, Andrew J.2001 An Examination of Ceramics from the

Dutch Hill Rock Shelter. PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 71(1):43-68.

Myers, Andrew J., and Malinda Moses Myers2002 A Prefatory Account of Archaeological

Investigations at Indian Camp Run: AnEarly Archaic through Contact PeriodCampsite Located along Allegheny River inForest County, PA. Paper presented at theSeventy-Third Annual Meeting of the Socie-ty for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Greens-


burg, April 26-28, 2002.NPW Consultants, Inc.1983 Excavation of Two Monongahela Sites: Late

Woodland Gensler (36GR63) and HistoricTrockmorton (36GR160). Report prepared byNPW Consultants, Inc., Uniontown, Penn-sylvania, and submitted to ConsolidationCoal Company, Pittsburgh.

Petersen, James B.1999 Prehistoric Textile Remnants and Other Evi-

dence of Native Fiber Industries from theWhitehurst Freeway Project, Washington,D.C. Paper presented at the Sixty-FourthAnnual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Chicago, March 24-28, 1999.

Petersen, James B., Michael J. Heckenberger, and JackA. Wolford

2001 Spin, Twist, and Twine: An Ethnoarchaeo-logical Examination of Group Identity inNative Fiber Industries from Greater Ama-zonia. In Fleeting Identities: Perishable Materi-al Culture in Archaeological Research, editedby Penelope Ballard Drooker, pp. 226-253.Occasional Paper 28. Center for Archaeolog-ical Investigations, Southern Illinois Univer-sity at Carbondale.


England Perspective on Native Fiber Indus-tries. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage, Archaeo-logical Textile Research in the Americas, editedby Penelope Ballard Drooker and Laurie D.Webster, pp. 101-117. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.1990 Archeological Data Recovery from Prehistoric

Site 36FA363, Grays Landing Lock and Dam.Report prepared by R. Christopher Good-win & Associates, Inc., Frederick, Maryland,and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers District, Pittsburgh.

Richardson, James B., III, David A. Anderson, andEdward R. Cook

2002 The Disappearance of the Monongahela:Solved? Archaeology of Eastern North America30:81-96.

Ritchie, William A.1929 An Early Iroquoian Hilltop Fort near Kane,

Pa. In Kane and the Upper Allegheny, editedby J. E. Henretta, pp. 289-296. Philadelphia.

Roberts, William L.

1988 Frost Patterns and Their Implications for Abo-riginal Settlement in Potter County, Pennsylva-nia.M.A. thesis, Pennsylvania State Univer-sity, University Park.

1990 Frost Patterns and Their Implications forAboriginal Settlement in Potter County,Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the Sixty-First Annual Meeting of the Society forPennsylvania Archaeology, April 27-29,1990, Wilkes-Barre.

Schock, Jack M.1974 The Chautauqua Phase and Other Late Wood-

land Sites in Southwestern New York. Ph.D.dissertation, State University of New Yorkat Buffalo, Buffalo.

Seeman, Mark F.1992 The Bow and Arrow, the Intrusive Mound

Complex and a Late Woodland Jack’s ReefHorizon in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In CulturalVariability in Context: Woodland Settlements ofthe Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Mark F. See-man, pp. 41-51. Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology Special Paper 7. Kent StateUniversity Press, Kent, Ohio.

Schoff, Harry L.1938 McFate Site: Report on Archaeological Excava-

tions Conducted in Northwestern Pennsylvaniaby the Works Progress Administration. Reportprepared under the direction of the Penn-sylvania Historical Commission. Manu-script on file with the American Philosophi-cal Society, Philadelphia.

Smith, Ira F., III1984 A Late Woodland Village Site in Northcentral

Pennsylvania: Its Role in Susquehannock Cul-ture History. Pennsylvania Historical andMuseum Commission, William PennMemorial Museum, Harrisburg.

Smith, Ira F., III, and James T. Herbstritt1976 Preliminary Investigations of the Prehistoric

Earthworks in Elk County, Pennsylvania, 1975.Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Com-mission, William Penn Memorial Museum,Harrisburg.

Stahle, David W., Malcolm K. Cleaveland, Dennis B.Blanton, Matthew D. Therrell, and David A.Gay

1998 The Lost Colony and Jamestown Droughts.Science 280:564-567.

Stevens, J. Sanderson, and Michael J. Klein1994 Ceramic Trends or Cultural Chronologies: A


Comparison of Ceramic Attributes amongAccokeek Phase Occupations along theCoastal Plain Potomac. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the Middle AtlanticArchaeological Conference, Ocean City,Maryland, April 8-10, 1994.

Swanton, John R.1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States.

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Tooker, Elizabeth1964 An Ethnography of the Huron Indians, 1615-

1649. Bureau of American Ethnology Bul-letin 190. Smithsonian Institution, Washing-ton, D.C.

Trigger, Bruce G.1969 The Huron, Farmers of the North. Holt, Rine-

hart and Winston, Inc., New York.Wray, Charles F., Martha L. Sempowski, and Lorraine

P. Saunders1991 Tram and Cameron, Two Early Contact Era

Seneca Sites. Rochester Museum & ScienceCenter, Research Records 21. Rochester,New York.

YoungRavenhorst, Cari C.1994 Down by the River Side: Evidence of Termi-

nal Archaic/Early Woodland Occupation inHarpers Ferry. West Virginia Archeologist46(1&2):21-30.


ABSTRACT

Cord-marked vessels belonging to the PointPeninsula and Owasco ceramic traditions are foundat early Late Prehistoric (A.D. 700–1300) sites inNew York. Although many archaeologists have recog-nized differences in the stylistic attributes of thesevessels, an analysis of the technological attributes ofceramic containers from 16 early Late Prehistoricsites suggests that prehistoric potters used similarcordage and fabrics throughout this period. Vesselsexhibiting different cordage and fabric attributes wereoften determined to be non-locally manufactured andmay represent the interaction of regional groups.

INTRODUCTION

Cord- and fabric-impressed sherds are consid-ered a defining characteristic of the early Late Pre-historic period (A.D. 700-1300) in the Northeast(Ritchie and McNeish 1949). Although studiesassociated with the physical construction and sty-listic design of these containers are readily avail-able in the archaeological literature (e.g., Chilton1999; Lizee et al. 1995; Pretola 2000; Prezzano1986; Rieth 1997, 2002b), few studies haveaddressed questions concerning the relationshipbetween fabrics and pottery manufacture (but seeBrowning 1974; Dincauze 1975:5-17; Petersen

1996). This is due to the fact that many archaeolo-gists consider cord and fabric impressions to benothing more than “pretty designs,” which are oflimited use in reconstructing prehistoric behavior.Compounding this problem is the belief that allcord- and fabric-impressed designs are the sameand exhibit limited variation across time andspace (e.g., Ritchie and MacNeish 1949; Whallon1968). When cord- and fabric-impressed designsare considered important, however, researchersare often reluctant to study variation in cordageattributes since whole pots (and/or larger rimsherds) are not available (McPherron 1970; Whit-ney and Travers 1987:1-9).

Recently, I have considered these issues aspart of an ongoing research project designed tostudy early Late Prehistoric interaction in theSusquehanna Valley of New York. As part of thisproject, I examined cord- and fabric-impressedsherds from 16 late Middle Woodland (ca. A.D.700–1000) and early Late Woodland (A.D.1000–1300) sites to assess changes in ceramicmanufacturing techniques as a reflection ofinteraction patterns during this period.Although I also recorded other technological andstylistic attributes, some of the most interestingresults derive from the study of cord and fabricimpressions on these sherds. Another importantaspect of this project was the use of trace element

Chapter 7 Cordage, Fabrics, and Their Use in the Manufacture of Early Late Prehistoric Ceramic Vessels in NY 129

CHAPTER 7

CORDAGE, FABRICS, AND THEIR USE IN THEMANUFACTURE OF EARLY LATE PREHISTORIC

CERAMIC VESSELS IN NEW YORKChristina B. Rieth


analysis to assess individual vessels’ areas of ori-gin and the reciprocal exchange of vesselsthroughout the region (Rieth 2002b).

In this chapter, I provide a brief overview ofthe results of my research in order to show howcordage and fabric attributes can be used in con-junction with other ceramic attributes to recon-struct the manufacturing techniques of early LatePrehistoric potters in the Susquehanna Valley ofNew York. The results of this project suggest thatearly Late Prehistoric potters in the SusquehannaValley of NewYork utilized similar types of mate-rials throughout this 600-year period.

BACKGROUND AND PROJECTOVERVIEW

This research was completed as part of alarger project designed to reconstruct the inter-action patterns of early Late Prehistoric popula-tions in the Susquehanna Valley of New York(Rieth 1997). The early Late Prehistoric encom-passes a dynamic period in Northeast prehistorythat bridges the late Middle Woodland PointPeninsula and the early Late Woodland Owascotraditions. As discussed elsewhere (e.g., Hartand Rieth 2002; Prezzano and Rieth 2001; Rieth2002b; Ritchie 1994; Snow 1980), this period isoften defined by the adoption of maize horticul-ture, the transition from a mobile to a semi-sedentary lifestyle, and important changes inmaterial culture. Archaeologists also speculatethat many of the cultural behaviors practiced bylater Iroquoian groups have their antecedents inthe early Late Prehistoric period (Prezzano 1986;Ritchie 1994; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Snow 1995).

One question that currently is being debatedamong archaeologists centers around the identi-ty and interaction patterns of these Early LatePrehistoric groups. In recent years, Northeastarchaeologists have argued that the period dat-ing between A.D. 800 and 1200 is characterizedby the migration of Iroquoian (Owasco) groupsinto south-central New York between A.D. 700and 900 (Dincauze and Hasenstab 1989; Niem-cyzcki 1994; Snow 1995). The result of this migra-tion would be the absorption and/or displace-ment into surrounding areas of local non-Iro-quoian Point Peninsula groups.

Snow (1995) suggests that evidence of thismigration can be seen in changes in the artifactsmanufactured by these prehistoric populations.Among the most visible changes are the replace-ment of poorly constructed coil manufacturedpots by more refined paddle and anvil manufac-tured pots. Cord-marking continues to be theprimary type of decoration used on these con-tainers. However, Snow (1995) suggests that dif-ferences in the types of cordage used by PointPeninsula and Owasco groups can be expected.

EARLY LATE PREHISTORIC CERAMICS

The ceramic containers used by these earlyLate Prehistoric groups are associated with twodifferent ceramic traditions: Point Peninsula andOwasco (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949). LatePoint Peninsula containers, namely those fromsites radiocarbon dated between A.D. 700 and1000, exhibit cord-marked motifs around theexterior rim and lip and bodies that are eitherplain or in some instances cord-roughened(Prezzano 1986; Ritchie 1994; Ritchie and Funk1973). Decorative motifs often were appliedusing a cord-wrapped stick or paddle. As dis-cussed later in this chapter, impressions fromnets and other woven fabrics are present onthese sherds and may indicate that a wider rangeof materials also was used.

According to Ritchie and MacNeish (1949),Point Peninsula containers were often manufac-tured by coiling, based on evidence of clay filletsand coil breaks visible in many sherds. ManyPoint Peninsula containers exhibit a coarse grittemper largely consisting of quartz, quartzite,and gneiss inclusions. These containers are oftenfriable and have thicker vessel walls than theirOwasco counterparts (Prezzano 1985; Ritchieand MacNeish 1949).

Owasco containers are usually found on sitesradiocarbon dated between A.D. 1000 and 1300.These vessels resemble Point Peninsula contain-ers, generally exhibiting an outflaring rim andflat lip shape (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949). LikePoint Peninsula vessels, these containers areembellished with cord-wrapped stick and pad-dle motifs, which are placed on either a plain ora corded surface. Popular motifs include hori-

130 Christina B. Rieth

zontal, oblique, and vertical lines, chevrons, andherringbones. Horizontal and oblique lines oftenadorn the interior rim and lip of the container.

Most Owasco vessels contain a fine grit tem-per with inclusions ranging in size from fine tocoarse (Prezzano 1985; Rieth 1997, 2002b; Snow1995). Limited amounts of shell-tempered pot-tery also have been recovered from sites in theSusquehanna Valley (Ritchie 1944). Owasco ves-sels have thinner walls than Point Peninsula con-tainers (Rieth 1997). Prezzano (1985) suggeststhat these differences may be related to changesin container use following the adoption and reg-ular use of maize horticulture.

PERISHABLES AS EVIDENCE OF GROUPIDENTITY

Fabrics, and other types of perishables, arewell suited for addressing questions relating togroup identity and interaction. The way an arti-fact is made often can be directly correlated witha particular cultural group (e.g., Adovasio 1986;Adovasio and Andrews 1980; Chapman andAdovasio 1977; Maslowski 1996; Petersen 1996).For instance, Adovasio (1986:46) argues that adetailed study of basket attributes can be used to“distinguish the work of individual ethnograph-ic basket makers within the same socio-politicalentity . . . Similarly, it is possible to separate theproducts of two culturally and linguistically dis-parate groups of basket makers.” Maslowski(1996:89) similarly argues that twist patterns ofcordage used to construct fabrics

result [from] highly standardized, culture-specific motor habits. Such motor habits arelearned . . . and are transmitted from genera-tion to generation within family groups orwork groups. Hence, cordage twist patternsoften have greater temporal continuity thandecoration or environmentally influencedattributes of material cultureStudies examining cord and fabric impres-

sions on ceramics have provided importantinformation about the manufacture of vesselsand fabrics in the prehistoric Northeast. Studiesby Dincauze (1975), Doyle et al. (1982:4-21),Drooker (1990, 1992), Maslowski (1973, 1984,1996), Petersen and Hamilton (1984:413-445),

and others highlight the range of fabrics used inthe production of prehistoric containers and doc-ument the spatial and temporal variation in fiberperishables among Native groups. Finally, asdemonstrated by Petersen and Hamilton’s(1984:431-438) and Petersen andWolford’s (2000)studies of ceramic and fiber perishables fromsites in New England, an analysis of the fiberimpressions left on prehistoric ceramics not onlyhas merit in and of itself, but, when combinedwith other types of data, can provide importantinformation about the settlement and ceramicdevelopment patterns of Northeast prehistoricpopulations.

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This project addresses two questions aboutthe relationship between ceramic manufactureand fabric production. First, were the early LatePrehistoric ceramics recovered from Point Penin-sula and Owasco sites manufactured using simi-lar types of cordage and fiber perishables? Toinvestigate this question, attributes of cordageassociated with Point Peninsula and with Owas-co containers were analyzed to determinewhether they differed temporally or geographi-cally. Second, if differences in cordage attributesare evident, were the containers on which thesedifferent types of cordage were impressed man-ufactured at different locations? This questionwas addressed through trace element analysis ofceramic materials providing a frameworkagainst which the interaction of prehistoricgroups could be determined.

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

For this project, I examined ceramic assem-blages from 16 early Late Prehistoric sites (Fig-ure 7.1). Four of these sites (Street, Fortin II,White, Ouleout Creek) contained componentsdating between A.D. 700 and 1000 that are asso-ciated with the Point Peninsula archaeologicaltradition (Table 7.1). All four sites have beeninterpreted as small seasonal camps (Funk 1993;Hartgen Archaeological Associates, Inc. 1989;



Figure 7.1. Map showing the location of sites in the project area.

Whitney and Gibson 1987). The remaining 12sites (Table 7.2) are associated with the Owascotradition. Boland (Prezzano 1992; Prezzano andRieth 2001), Chenango Point (Wurst and Versag-gi 1993), Apalachian Creek (Shapiro n.d.),Orchard Knoll (Moorehead 1938), Roundtop(Ritchie and Funk 1973), and Castle Creek (Prez-zano and Rieth 2001; Ritchie 1934, 1994) are largevillage sites. Wessels (Oskam 1999), Egli (Hesse1975), Jamba (Whitney 1975), Cider Mill, Hilltop(Hill 1938; Ritchie 1994), and River-Street (Ver-saggi and Jones 1988) are small seasonal campsand resource-processing stations.

These 16 sites are concentrated along themain branch of the Susquehanna River and its

major tributaries (Figure 7.1). Two clusters ofsites exist within the larger valley. One cluster ofsites is found near the modern city of Oneonta,along the valley floor, valley walls, and sur-rounding upland areas. As I have argued else-where (Rieth 2002a), this area probably served asan important resource procurement area for thenative populations of the Susquehanna Valley.The area contains several smaller microenviron-ments that would have provided a diverse arrayof resources, including tubers, reeds, and grassesthat could have been collected for use as foodand medicinal items, and for the production ofmats and baskets. Feathers and hides from birdsand mammals living in the region could have


also been collected and used in the production ofpliable fabrics (Whitney and Gibson 1987).

Downstream, a second cluster of sites can befound near the present-day city of Binghamtonnear the confluence of the Susquehanna andChenango rivers (Figure 7.1). Although the areadoes not contain the diverse microenvironmentfound at the northern end of the valley, second-ary streams and other lowland areas would havebeen important gathering areas for rawmaterialsused to manufacture fabrics. The location oflarge village sites along the floodplain of theSusquehanna River also could have providednative populations with resources that were notavailable at the northern end of the valley.

One thousand sixty-three ceramic sherdsrepresenting 273 vessels were examined (Tables7.1 and 7.2). Assessment of vessels was carriedout through the examination of both body andrim sherds with 212 vessels (77.6%) assigned tothe Owasco ceramic tradition and 61 vessels(22.3%) assigned to the Point Peninsula ceramictradition. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 summarize the totalnumber of vessels analyzed from each site.

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

Casts of impressed cordage/fabrics weremade from 205 (75% of the sample) sherds usingSculpey III Modeling Compound (Figure 7.2).Casts were not made from the remaining vessellots due to artifact fragility, museum restrictionson the use of casting materials, and the likeli-hood that residues from casting materials wouldalter the trace element composition of the sherd(see below, “Problems Encountered”). For thesevessels, cordage information was recordeddirectly from the surface of the sherd. Measure-ments taken directly from the sherd were notedas such and treated separately from informationcollected from casts, since the impressions on thesherds would automatically be the opposite ofthat recorded from casts.

Cordage attributes recorded for each vesselinclude cord diameter, number of cords per cen-timeter, cordage final twist direction, angle oftwist, number of plies, type of object from whichthe impression was made (e.g., netting, basket,cord-wrapped paddle, etc.), fabric structure (e.g.,close twining, open twining, etc.), portion of the

vessel decorated, and fabric size. Fabric structurewas described following the categoriesdescribed in Adovasio (1977), Emery (1966), andHurley (1979). Vessel attributes that were record-ed included rim and lip shape, wall thickness,manufacturing technique, surface finish, andtemper size and type. Recording of these attrib-utes followed procedures outlined in Prezzano(1986), Rieth (1997), and Whallon (1968).Attribute data from all of these sources wereentered into a relational database, and statisticalanalysis of the data was carried out using theSPSS/PC+ (Version 4.0) computer program(Norusis 1990).

One hundred ninety-eight vessels were sub-jected to x-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) at theDepartment of Physics Accelerator Laboratory atThe University at Albany, SUNY, to determinethe trace element composition of the containers.The trace element profiles of the vessels werecompared with clay samples from the Susque-hanna and adjacent valleys to determine thelocation of manufacture of these artifacts. Amoreextensive discussion of the collection of claysamples and the analytical technique used torecord trace element data from ceramic sherds isprovided in Rieth (2002b).


Figure 7.2. Plasticine cast (left) and cord-markedsherd (right) from Owasco Herringbone type vesselfrom the Apalachian Creek site. Attributes of thecordage (including the twist direction, diameters ofthe individual cords, and number of twists per cen-timeter) used to produce the herringbone motif arevisible in the cast.


PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

Assessment of the chemical composition ofceramic sherds presented a unique challengeduring this project, because the casting materialused to record cordage attributes left residues onthe exterior surface of the sherds. Since trace ele-ment composition was measured from the exte-rior surface, residues left by the casting materialshad the potential to alter the measured chemicalcomposition of a sherd by inflating concentra-tions of some elements and deflating concentra-tions of others. In one test case, the residues leftby the casting material resulted in a composi-tional profile that was completely unrelated tothe composition of the sherd (Figure 7.3).

For the purpose of this project, the solutionto this problem was trifold. First, trace elementcomposition was recorded from the sherd beforea cast was made. This allowed sherds to be ana-lyzed without the threat of other materials beingintroduced into the analysis process. Second, thenumber of sherds from which casts were madewas reduced from that initially proposed, reduc-ing the number of affected sherds. In instanceswhere individual vessels were represented bysingle sherds, no casts were made. Instead,cordage attributes were recorded from the sur-face of the sherd as previously described. Third,a comprehensive list of all of the cast sherds wasprepared and left with each collection so thatfuture researchers would be aware of potentialalterations to the sherd after excavation.

While I am not proposing that archaeologistsabandon the use of casts in the study of cordageand fabrics impressed on pottery, I wouldencourage other researchers to be conscious ofthe effects that particular methods have on thecollection of other types of data and what impactthese methods could have on future ceramicstudies. Potential detrimental effects includecontamination of a sherd’s chemical compositionand, with some non-solid casting materials,physical penetration of the sherd surface. Whenthe collection of one type of data has the poten-tial to hinder collection of some other type ofdata, it may be necessary to choose betweenthem.

RESULTS

The results of this project generated impor-tant information about the cord and fabricimpressions found on early Late Prehistoric ves-sels in the Upper Susquehanna Valley of NewYork. The following section summarizes theresults of this work and presents informationregarding the fabrics identified on both PointPeninsula and Owasco vessels.

POINT PENINSULA CERAMICS

Point Peninsula vessels are largely cord-marked and fabric impressed containers withoutflaring rims and a round or “beveled” lipshape with a coarse (2-3 mm) grit and crushedcrystalline (e.g. quartz, quartzite) temper (Table7.1). Thirty-four percent of the containers exhib-it evidence of “coil breaks,” suggesting that thesecontainers were constructed by coiling (Rice1987). Although the majority of the containersexhibit cord-marked designs, additional types ofdecoration, including dentate stamping, wereidentified on four vessels from the White andOuleout Creek assemblages, suggesting that pot-ters may have used multiple techniques.

More than half of the vessels contain one ormore cord-marked designs around the neck andexterior rim of the vessel. In a few instances, theinterior rim of the container also containedoblique lines that were probably applied using acord-wrapped paddle or stick. The cords used inthe decoration of these containers are fairlyhomogeneous, with double-ply cords appearingtwice as often as single-ply cords (Table 7.1). Asseen in Table 7.1, each of the assemblages con-tains a preponderance of cords that were largelyS-spun with a final Z twist (see Definitions). Theaverage cord diameter was 1.94 mm. Most ofthese cords contained a moderate angle of twist,with the number of twists per centimeter rang-ing from three to eight.

The majority of the designs appear to havebeen impressed using a cord-wrapped stick orpaddle (Figure 7.2). A vessel from the White sitecontains evidence that cords were wrappedaround a much larger, unidentified object (per-


Figure 7.3. Differences in trace element profiles of two sherds from the same vessel. The profile from the uncast-ed sherd is shown at the top. It displays concentrations (as represented by peak counts of elements) similar tothose found in other non-casted sherds. The profile from the casted sherd is shown on the bottom. It displaysinflated concentrations of some elements and decreased concentrations of other elements.The elements represented in both profiles include yttrium (Y), iron (Fe), zirconium (Zr), and barium (Ba).


haps a bunch of sticks). Although TheodoreWhitney (personal communication 1999) sug-gests that a series of cord-wrapped cords alsomay have been used to decorate some vessels atthe White site, evidence of such an object has notbeen identified in the archaeological record.

Fabric impressions on the exterior body andbase of Point Peninsula pots include both twinedand interlinked structures (see Interlinking andTwining in Definitions). More than 75 percent ofthe fabrics identified on the bodies of these con-tainers are simple-twined fabrics. As summa-rized in Table 7.1, over 60 percent of the potsimpressed with twined fabrics exhibit a spaced(open) twining in which twining rows do nottouch each other (Scholtz 1975:185). Between 25and 40 percent of the pots are impressed withcompact (close) twining, in which the twiningelements appear to touch each other, concealingthe warp elements.

Trace element analysis indicates that one-quarter of the containers exhibit compositionalprofiles that do not match known clay depositswithin the Susquehanna Valley, suggesting thatthese vessels may have been manufactured with-in groups residing elsewhere. Many of these“foreign” containers (13%) are impressed withcordage that is single-ply and has a final S twist,as opposed to the double-ply cords with final Ztwist that predominate the assemblages at thesesites. The presence of such containers at theStreet, Fortin II, and Ouleout Creek site mayindicate interaction with groups living outsidethe Upper Susquehanna Valley in eastern andcentral New York.

OWASCO CERAMICS

Initially, the Owasco vessels examined wereconsidered to be different from the Point Penin-sula containers in terms of both shape and over-all construction. Unlike Point Peninsula vessels,a rounded base, outflaring rim, and flat lip shapecharacterize the Owasco containers analyzedduring this project. These pots generally havethinner walls than Point Peninsula vessels, andutilize a fine (0-1 mm) or medium (1-2 mm) grittemper (Table 7.2). Over 47 percent of the Owas-co containers examined exhibit evidence of “coil

breaks,” suggesting that these containers, likethe Point Peninsula vessels, also were manufac-tured by coiling (Rice 1987).

When the cordage attributes of Point Penin-sula and Owasco containers are compared, itappears that the makers of these containers uti-lized many of the same structural forms. Over 90percent of the Owasco vessels are decorated withcord-marked and/or fabric-impressed designs(Figures 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6). Cord-marked designsare generally found on the exterior rim and neckof the container. A significant proportion (54%)of the vessels also exhibit cord-marked verticalor oblique lines along the interior rim and/or lipof the container. In 18 percent of the vessels,cord-marking appears on top of a cord- or fabric-impressed surface.

The majority of the cords that were used inthe construction of these designs were double-ply and were impressed using a cord-wrappedpaddle or stick (Figure 7.6). However, an excep-tion was observed at the River-Street site, whereroughly equal distributions of single-ply anddouble-ply cords were found. The site also con-tained roughly equal numbers of S- and Z-spuncords and cords exhibiting a final S and Z twist(Table 7.2). As discussed below, the proportionsof these attributes may be related to the geo-graphic position of this site along the westernboundary of the project area.

In general, the diameters of the cords on

Figure 7.4. Cord-marked rim sherd from the Fortin IIsite. The cordmarked motifs around the rim of thisvessel were impressed with a cord-wrapped stick orpaddle. (Photograph reproduced with permission ofthe New York State Museum.)

Owasco vessels were slightly smaller thanrecorded for Point Peninsula containers, with theaverage being 1.74 mm. Although cords with amoderate angle of twist impressed the largestnumber of vessels (43%), tightly twisted cordsappear on approximately one-quarter (24%) ofthe vessels. The number of twists per centimeteris slightly less than for Point Peninsula contain-ers and ranges between 2 and 7.

Like the Point Peninsula vessels, the majori-ty of the Owasco containers exhibit impressionsof twined or interlinked fabrics along the bodyand base of the container. Twining, whichappeared on approximately 85 percent of thecontainers, is the most common fabric structurefound on the vessels (Table 7.2). Although opentwining was most common, close twining wasobserved on some pots. Weft-faced (close-twined) fabrics are most numerous on vesselsfrom the Apalachian Creek and Castle Creeksites. Most of the cords that were used in the con-struction of the interlinked fabrics contain a finalZ twist.

The trace element profiles of the pots suggestthat most of these containers were locally manu-factured, with the largest number of foreignmanufactured pots appearing at the Cider Milland River-Street sites. The sites are located nearthe eastern and western boundaries of theSusquehanna Valley along the “fringe of theOwasco territory” (Figure 7.1). Given the shortgeographic distance to other neighboring rivervalleys, it seems possible that the occupants ofthese sites may have maintained important rela-tionships with neighboring groups residing innorth-central Pennsylvania and eastern and cen-tral New York. This is suggested by the largenumber of foreign pots that were recovered fromthese sites and impressions of fabrics with non-local attributes that were identified on these con-tainers.

In summary, the results of this project sug-gest that the early Late Prehistoric occupants ofthe Susquehanna River Valley utilized a diversearray of cordage and fabrics to decorate ceramicvessels. On both Point Peninsula and Owascovessels, double-ply cords and cords with a finalZ twist predominate over single-ply cords with afinal S twist. Analysis of non-cordage attributessuggests that both ceramic assemblages werepredominantly manufactured by the coilingtechnique. The inclusions in most sherds fromboth assemblages consist of fine- and coarse-tex-tured grit. The trace element profiles of thesecontainers suggest that most vessels were manu-factured from local clays.


Figure 7.5. Owasco Corded Horizontal vessel fromFeature 52 at the Street site. (Photograph reproducedwith permission of the New York State Museum.)

Figure 7.6. Drawing of Levanna Cord-on-Cord vesselfrom the Apalachian Creek site.


DISCUSSION

The preliminary results of this project sug-gest that a variety of fabrics were used by theearly Late Prehistoric occupants of the Susque-hanna Valley. Despite this diversity of fabrictechniques, many of the same attributes werefavored by both Point Peninsula and Owascogroups. These included final-Z-twist direction,preference for double-ply cords, use of cord-marking around the rim of the container, and useof fabric-impressed designs around the bodies ofcontainers. All appear to have been continuous-ly used in this region from the late MiddleWoodland to the early Late Woodland period.While the results of this study cannot be used toconclusively refute assertions that groupsmigrated into the Susquehanna Valley duringthis period, they provide no evidence to supportthe belief that there was a substantial shift in themanufacturing techniques, type and size ofinclusions, and/or impressed cordage attributesof Owasco and Point Peninsula containers.

In general, the cordage attributes identifiedfor Point Peninsula and for Owasco groupsshow little variation over distance within thelarger Susquehanna Valley (Tables 7.1 and 7.2).Overall, there are no major differences betweenthe types of materials used by groups residing atthe northern and southern ends of the valley.Likewise, there are also few differences betweenthe ceramic assemblages recovered from siteslocated in lowland and upland settings.Although the ceramics from small camps at thenorthern end of the Susquehanna Valley appearto have contained greater quantities of quartzand quartzite than ceramics elsewhere, these dif-ferences may be related to the availableresources in a particular area and not differencesin vessel use or the cultural affiliation of themanufacturers.

The results of this project also suggest thatthe Middle Woodland and Late Woodland occu-pants of New York were not isolated but proba-bly interacted with other local and regional

groups. Several of the sites located along theperimeter of the Susquehanna Valley producedvessels impressed with fabrics that were differ-ent from those found at other sites in the region.The presence of pottery with these attributesmay suggest either that occupants of these siteswere interacting with neighboring groups on aregular basis or that “foreigners” were beingincorporated into villages as a result of warfare,marriage, or other unidentified processes. Whileit is not currently known under what circum-stances or with whom interaction took place,future studies of cord- and fabric-impressedsherds in neighboring river valleys may helparchaeologists understand the prehistoric behav-iors of these populations.

CONCLUSION

Cord- and fabric-impressed ceramic sherdsrecovered from early Late Prehistoric sites in theNortheast contain important information. Com-parison of the ceramic assemblages from 16 sitesin the Susquehanna Valley of New York suggeststhat early Late Prehistoric potters continued touse many of the same manufacturing techniquesthroughout this period. The presence of similarmanufacturing techniques was surprising and isin opposition to current beliefs about thereplacement of Point Peninsula containers withOwasco containers during this period.

Trace element analysis was used to assess thelocation of manufacture of these early Late Pre-historic vessels. Comparison of the trace elementprofiles of the ceramics with known claydeposits from the Susquehanna Valley suggeststhat most of the containers recovered from thesesites were locally manufactured and do not rep-resent artifacts that were reciprocally exchangedby prehistoric groups. Vessels that were identi-fied through trace element analysis as being non-locally manufactured generally exhibit differentcordage attributes from other vessels. These mayrepresent items procured through interactionwith neighboring groups.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlier version of this paper was preparedfor a working group session entitled “ImpressedPottery: Problems and Solutions for the Recov-ery of Data from Cord and Fabric Impressed Pot-tery” at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, Chicago. The sessionwas organized by Jill Minar and I thank her forthe opportunity to present an initial version thispaper as part of the working group session. Ialso thank Penelope Drooker for the opportunityto publish an updated version of this paper inthe current volume. The comments of the twoanonymous reviewers are appreciated andhelped to strengthen this paper. The collectionsdiscussed in this chapter are curated at the NewYork State Museum in Albany, Public Archaeolo-gy Facility at Binghamton University, RochesterMuseum and Science Center, Roland B. HillMuseum in Otego, and Yager Museum inOneonta. Lisa Anderson, Nina Versaggi, DavidAnthony, and Bette Prisch provided access tothese collections. Anne Chojnacki produced thedrawings of the ceramic sherds. X-ray floures-cence analysis was completed at the Departmentof Physics, Accelerator Laboratory, University atAlbany, SUNY. All errors and omissions are theresponsibility of the author.

REFERENCES CITED

Adovasio, J. M.1977 Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identifica-

tion and Analysis. Aldine Publishing Com-pany, Chicago.

1986 Artifacts and Ethnicity: Basketry as an Indi-cator of Territoriality and Population Move-ment in the Prehistoric Great Basin. InAnthropology of the Upper Desert West: Essaysin Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by CarolCondie and Donald Fowler, pp. 45-88. Uni-versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Adovasio, J. M., and R. L. Andrews1980 Basketry, Cordage and Bark Impressions

from the Northern Thorn Mound (46Mg78),Monongalia County, West Virginia. WestVirginia Archaeologist 30:33-72.

Browning, Kurt1974 Indian Textiles as Reconstructed from the

Impressions Left on Long Island. Archaeolo-gy of Eastern North America 2:94-98.

Chapman, Jefferson, and James A. Adovasio1977 Textile and Basketry Impressions from Ice-

house Bottom, Tennessee. American Antiqui-ty 42:620-625.

Chilton, Elizabeth A.1999 Ceramic Research in New England: Break-

ing the Typological Mold. In The Archaeolog-ical Northeast, edited by Maryann Levine,Kenneth. E. Sassaman, and Michael Nas-saney, pp. 97-111. Bergin Garvey, Westport,Connecticut.

Dincauze, Dena F.1975 Ceramic Sherds from the Charles River

Basin. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society ofConnecticut 39:5-17.

Dincauze, Dena F., and Robert Hasenstab1989 Explaining the Iroquois: Tribalization on a

Prehistoric Periphery. In Centre and Periph-ery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology, edit-ed by Timothy C. Champion, pp. 67-87.Unwin and Hymen, London.

Doyle, Richard A., Nathan D. Hamilton, and James B.Petersen

1982 Early Woodland Ceramics and AssociatedPerishable Industries from SouthwesternMaine. Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin22(2):4-21.

Drooker, Penelope B.1990 Textile Production and Use at Wickliffe

Mounts (15BA4), Kentucky. MidcontinentalJournal of Archaeology 15(2):163-220.

1992 Mississippian Village Textiles at Wickliffe. Uni-versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.



Funk, Robert E.1993 Subsistence, Settlement and Seasonality. In

Archaeological Investigations In the UpperSusquehanna Valley, New York State, vol. 1,edited by Robert E. Funk, pp. 245-312. Per-simmon Press Monographs in Archaeology,Buffalo, New York.

Hart, John P., and Christina B. Rieth (editors)2002 Northeast Settlement and Subsistence Change,

A.D. 700-1300. New York State MuseumBulletin No. 496, The University of the Stateof New York, Albany.



Hartgen Archaeological Associates, Inc.1989 Ouleout Site (8W-32-7) Marcy South 345 kV

Transmission Line, Town of Franklin, DelawareCounty, New York. Submitted to the NewYork Power Authority. Copies availablefrom the Office of the State Historic Preser-vation Officer, Waterford, New York.

Hesse, Franklin J.1975 The Egli and Lord Sites: The Historic Com-

ponent “Unadilla” 1753–1778. The Bulletinand Journal of the New York State Archaeologi-cal Association 63:14-31.

Hill, Roland B.1938 Willard E. Yager Collection. InAReport of the

Susquehanna River Expedition, edited byArthur C. Parker, pp. 18-19. The AndoverPress, Andover, Massachusetts.

Hurley, William M.1979 Prehistoric Cordage: Identifications of Impres-

sions on Pottery. Aldine Manuals onArcheol-ogy 3. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.

Lizee, Jonathan M., Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glas-cock

1995 Clay Acquisition and Vessel DistributionPatterns: Neutron Activation Analysis ofLate Windsor and Shantok TraditionCeramics from Southern New England.American Antiquity 60:515-630.

Maslowski, Robert F.1973 An Analysis of Cord-marked Watson Ware.

Pennsylvania Archaeologist 43:1-12.1984 The Significance of Cordage Attributes in

the Analysis of Woodland Pottery. Pennsyl-vania Archaeologist 54(1-2):1-60.

1996 Cordage Twist and Ethnicity. In A MostIndispensable Art: Native Fiber Industries fromEastern North America, edited by James B.Peterson, pp. 88-99. University of TennesseePress, Knoxville.

McPherron, Alan1970 On the Sociology of Ceramics, Pottery Style

Clustering, Marital Residence, and CulturalAdaptations of an Algonkian-IroquoianBorder. In Iroquois Culture, History, and Pre-history, Proceedings of the 1965 Conference onIroquois Research, edited by Elisabeth Tooker,pp. 101-105. New York State Museum andScience Service Bulletin, The University ofthe State of New York, Albany.

Moorehead, Warren K. (editor)1938 A Report of the Susquehanna River Expedition.

Andover Press, Andover, Massachuetts.Niemcyzcki, Maryann P.1994 Iroquois Tribalization in the Northeast: A

View from Heartland. Paper presented atthe 34th Annual Meeting of the NortheastAnthropological Association, Geneseo,New York.

Norusis, Maria J.1990 SPSS/PC+ Statistics 4.0 for the IBM

PC/XT/AT and PS/2. SPSS Inc., Chicago.Oskam, Allison K.1999 An Examination of Lithic Technology and

Gender at the Wessels Site. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, Department of Anthropolo-gy, Binghamton University, Binghamton,New York.

Petersen, James B.1996 A Most Indispensable Art: Native Fiber Indus-

tries from Eastern North America. Universityof Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Petersen, James B., and Nathan D. Hamilton1984 Early Woodland Ceramic and Perishable

Fiber Industries from the Northeast: A Sum-mary and Interpretation. Annals of theCarnegie Museum of Natural History 53:413-445.

Petersen, James B., and Jack A. Wolford.2000 Spin and Twist as Cultural Markers: A New

England Perspective on Native Fiber Indus-tries. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeo-logical Textile Research in the Americas, editedby Penelope B. Drooker and Laurie D. Web-ster, pp. 101-118. University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City.

Pretola, John P.2000 Northeastern Ceramic Diversity: An Optical

Mineralogy Approach. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Prezzano, Susan C.1985 Physical Properties of Ceramic Sherds from

Five Middle and Late Woodland StageComponents in the Susquehanna Drainage.Unpublished master’s thesis, Departmentof Anthropology, State University of NewYork, Binghamton, New York.

1992 Longhouse, Village, and Palisade: CommunityPatterns at the Iroquois Southern Door.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-ment of Anthropology, Binghamton Univer-sity, Binghamton.

Prezzano, Susan. C., and Christina B. Rieth.2001 Late Prehistoric Cultures of the Upper

Susquehanna Valley. In Archaeology of theAppalachian Highlands, edited by Lynne P.Sullivan and Susan C. Prezzano, pp. 168-172. University of Tennessee Press,Knoxville.

Rice, Prudence1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.Rieth, Christina B.1997 Culture Contact During the Carpenter Brook

Phase: A Tripartite Approach to the Spatial andTemporal Movement of Early IroquoianThroughout the Upper Susquehanna River Val-ley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-ment of Anthropology, State University ofNew York at Albany, Albany.

2002a Early Late Prehistoric Settlement and Sub-sistence Diversity in the Southern Tier ofNew York. In Northeast Settlement and Sub-sistence Change, A.D. 700–1300, edited byJohn P. Hart and Christina B. Rieth, pp. 209-226. New York State Museum Bulletin 496,The University of the State of New York,Albany.

2002b Trace Element Analysis and Its Role in Ana-lyzing Ceramics in the Eastern Woodlands.In Archaeological Chemistry-Materials, Meth-ods, and Meaning, edited by Kathryn Jakes,pp. 199-213. ACS Books, Washington, D.C.

Ritchie, William A.1934 An Algonkian-Iroquois Contact Site on Castle

Creek, Broome County, New York. ResearchRecords of the Rochester Municipal Muse-um No. 2. Rochester, New York.

1944 The Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New YorkState. Rochester Museum. Memoir No. 1.Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences,Rochester, New York.

1994 The Archaeology of New York State. Rev. ed.Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmans, NewYork.

Ritchie, William A., and Robert E. Funk1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the North-

east. New York State Museum and ScienceService, Memoir 20, The University of theState of New York, Albany.

Ritchie, William A., and Richard S. MacNeish1949 The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York.

American Antiquity 15:97-124.

Scholtz, Sandra Clements1975 Prehistoric Plies: A Structural and Comparative

Analysis of Cordage, Netting, Basketry, andFabric from Ozark Bluff Shelters. ResearchSeries No. 9, Arkansas Archaeological Sur-vey, Fayetteville.

Shapiro, Murrayn.d. Field Notes for the Apalachian Creek Site. Man-

uscript on file at the Waterman Conserva-tion Center, Owego, New York.

Snow, Dean R.1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic

Press, New York.1995 Migration in Prehistory: The Northern Iro-

quoian Case. American Antiquity 60:59-80.Versaggi, Nina M., and Timothy Jones1988 Archaeology Boundary Study SUBi-677, The

William-River Street Site, Owego, New York.Report prepared for the Village of Owego,New York. Copies available from the Officeof the State Historic Preservation Officer,Waterford, New York.

Whallon, Robert1968 Investigations of Late Prehistoric Social

Organization in NewYork State. InNew Per-spectives in Archaeology, edited by Lewis Bin-ford and Sally Binford, pp. 223-244. AldinePress, Chicago.

Whitney, Theodore1975 The Jamba Site, Nrh-6, 1974-1975. Bulletin 2.

Chenango Chapter, New York State Archae-ological Association, Norwich, New York.

Whitney, Theodore, and Stanford Gibson1987 The White Site, Nbn-2. Chenango Chapter,

New York State Archaeological Association Bul-letin 22(2):1-26.

Whitney, Theodore, and Jean Travers1987 Unusual Indian Burials, Fabric and

Cordage. Chenango Chapter, New York StateArchaeological Association Bulletin 22(2):1-9.

Wurst, Louann, and Nina M. Versaggi1993 Under the Asphalt: The Archaeology of the

Binghamton Mall Project, SUBi-1274. Submit-ted to the City of Binghamton UrbanRenewal Agency, Binghamton, New York.Copies available from the Office of the StateHistoric Preservation Officer, Waterford,New York.


ABSTRACT

Analysis of samples of Native American textilesand other organic perishables excavated by Warren K.Moorehead from several sites in coastal Maine wasundertaken at the Robert S. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology in preparation for repatriation of theremains to culturally affiliated tribes. Fragmentaryspecimens preserved due to association with cop-per/brass artifacts at the Sandy Point and Walker’sPond sites reveal something of the diversity of indige-nous clothing, ornaments, and utilitarian artifactsduring the late 16th and early 17th centuries at thetime of initial European contact on the Maine coast.Based on stylistic and technological evidence, bothsites date to approximately A.D. 1580–1600. Thischapter summarizes these details and places these rarefinds within a broader northeastern North Americanframework.

INTRODUCTION

Textiles and other organic artifacts of any ageare rarely preserved archaeologically in north-eastern North America. Thus, we have very littleinformation about early Native American (FirstNations) material culture made from perishableorganic materials, even though their use wasundoubtedly important. However, where

unusual preservation conditions pertain, theintricacies and sophistication of such artifactsreveal important information about the NativeAmerican past.

Based on reconstructions of perishables pre-served through proximity to copper and/orbrass at the Contact period sites of Sandy Pointand Walker’s Pond, the present research pro-vides a view into the early history of the centralMaine coast. Situated near Penobscot Bay (Fig-ure 8.1), both preserved are examples of “copperkettle burials” of a type that is more commonand better known in contemporaneous sites ofthe Maritime Provinces of Canada and else-where in the Northeast. These historic burialstypically include whole or fragmentaryreworked copper/brass1 kettles that sometimeswere interred with numerous other mortuaryofferings (Bourque 2001:Fig. 5.7; Bradley1987:Fig. 13; Gibson 1980; Hadlock 1947; Kent1984:203-210; Kenyon 1982; Kidd 1953; Mason1986:Pl. 13.16; Quimby 1966; Whitehead 1991,1993:23).

In addition to other artifacts of Native Amer-ican and European manufacture, at Sandy Pointand Walker’s Pond several types of perishablegoods were associated with at least four humanburials dated to ca. A.D. 1580–1600. The burialassemblages included fabrics, cordage, and pre-

Chapter 8 In the Land of “Mawooshen” 143

CHAPTER 8

IN THE LAND OF “MAWOOSHEN”: NATIVEAMERICAN PERISHABLES FROM TWO CONTACTPERIOD SITES ON THE CENTRAL MAINE COAST

James B. Petersen and Malinda S. Blustain


144 James B. Petersen and Malinda S. Blustain

Figure 8.1. Map of the central Maine coast, showing the locations of the Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond sites.

sumed hide/leather clothing;2 ornaments ofcopper/brass, marine shell, and bark; cop-per/brass and iron fragments, an iron axe, lithictools, and glass beads. The recovery and analysisof the human remains are reported elsewhere(Bradley et al. 1994; Erickson 1996).

The Sandy Point site (41-10 ME) is located ona point of the same name in the town of StocktonSprings, Waldo County, Maine. Sandy Point is atidal setting on the western side of the PenobscotRiver near Penobscot Bay proper. The Walker’sPond (or Grindel) site (42-20 ME) was discov-ered near the western shore of a pond of thesame name. It was initially reported to be in the“Sargentville” district of the town of Sedgwick,but the actual site location is within Brooksville,Hancock County, Maine. Walker’s Pond is rela-tively close to Eggemoggin Reach, which con-nects East Penobscot Bay and Blue Hill Bay.Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond lie about 20 kmapart “as the crow flies.” Both sites were exca-vated during the early 20th century by field par-ties directed byWarren K. Moorehead, under theauspices of the Robert S. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology at Phillips Academy, Andover,Massachusetts.

Moorehead excavated a single burial at theWalker’s Pond site on one day in July 1912. InAugust 1914, he exhumed approximately 10graves with “eleven skeletons” during thecourse of “about a week” at the Sandy Point site.Much of what we know about these sites isbased on written documentation in the form ofsketchy field notes and portions of a publicationby Moorehead (1922:145, 147, 219-220). Morecomplete details were never presented for eithersite. The surviving field documentation, humanremains, and associated mortuary goods residedin the collections of the Robert S. Peabody Muse-um of Archaeology for more than eighty years.

In the early to mid-1990s the then Director ofthe Museum, James W. Bradley, invited Petersento study the perishable specimens from these andother sites. Given the likelihood that these collec-tions would be repatriated under the conditionsof the Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, the need foranalysis became increasingly pressing over time.Petersen, working as a volunteer Research Asso-

ciate, undertook research on perishables with theregular help and advice of Blustain (then Curator)during multiple visits to the Museum thatspanned a period from 1994 to 1996.

Given that the assemblage would otherwisereceive little attention before repatriation, theresearch expanded to include all aspects of theEuropean and Native American mortuarygoods, once their full importance was realized.The collections have subsequently been repatri-ated to a consortium of culturally affiliated tribesin Maine and New Brunswick, Canada.

As the entire assemblage is to be describedelsewhere (Petersen et al. 2004), this analysisconcentrates on selected aspects of the perish-ables inventory, specifically fiber specimens or“textiles ” and other bark and hide construc-tions. All records, color slides, and originalblack-and-white negatives are curated at theRobert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology.

ETHNOGRAPHIC/ETHNOHISTORICCONTEXT

The ethnographic context of the Sandy Pointand Walker’s Pond sites is important since bothsites are attributable to the early Contact periodand were very likely related to one or another his-torically recorded Native group in coastal Maine.Although it is debatable just when contactbetween Native Americans and Europeans beganin the Gulf of Maine and the central Maine coastin particular, Bruce Bourque has emphasized thatsubstantial and regular contact did not beginlocally until ca. A.D. 1600 (Bourque 1989, 2001).Giovanni Verrazano was the first documentedEuropean visitor to Penobscot Bay, in 1524.Unrecorded European travelers might have pre-ceded him. Later others came, including SamuelChamplain, who may have passed directly byboth sites in 1604 while sailing through Eggemog-gin Reach and up the lower Penobscot River(Bourque 2001:Fig. 5-1; Quinn 1994:52, Fig. 17).Burials at the two sites were interred sometimebetween 1580 and 1600, perhaps before Cham-plain, but at about the time that regular Europeanvisitation to the region began.

At the time of European arrival, culturallyrelated Native tribes in coastal and non-coastal


Maine and nearby areas were collectively the“Wabanakis,” or “People of the Dawn,” asknown today. These included groups presentlyknown as the Abenaki, Maliseet-Passamaquod-dy, Micmac (Mi’kmaq), and Penobscot, althoughnot all of these names appear in the earliestaccounts. As recorded by Champlain in the early1600s, the western and more southerly groupswere horticulturalists, while those to the east ofthe Kennebec River in central Maine and farthereastward, including Penobscot Bay and theSandy Point and Walker’s Pond sites, werehunter-gatherers. This has been borne out byrecent archaeological work in the region(Petersen and Cowie 2002).

Champlain and others recorded farmingamong the Abenaki and a poorly known horti-cultural people called the “Almouchiquois” tothe west and south of the Kennebec River. Thehunter-gatherer “Etchemin” occupied the centralMaine region. In time, they became the Maliseetsand closely related Passamaquoddys, andapparently also were ancestral to the Penobscots,as described by Champlain. Farther east in theMaritime Provinces of Canada lived the“Souriquois,” or ancestral Micmacs (Mi’kmaq).By the mid-1500s, if not earlier, the Micmacs haddirect and sustained contact with Europeans inthe Gulf of St. Lawrence, serving as Native “mid-dlemen” in the trade between Europeans andother Native groups in the far Northeast(Bourque and Whitehead 1994:132-135; Prins1994). Although copper kettle burials are moretypical of Micmac territory, Sandy Point andWalker’s Pond were situated within the areacontrolled by the Etchemin and may be connect-ed with the ancestral Maliseet, Passamaquoddy,and/or Penobscot. As recorded ca. 1605 and1609, this region was known as “Mawooshen,”reportedly the homeland of a broad Native con-federacy that covered a large expanse of theMaine coast and that might have included 10,000or more people. Mawooshen was “fortie leagues[96-184 miles] in bredth, and fiftie [120-130miles] in length [comprising] nine rivers,”apparently reaching from Schoodic Point (nearMt. Desert Island) to Cape Neddick and theUnion River to the Saco River, but also perhapsextending to Lac Megantic in Quebec and south-westward to Massachusetts (Bourque 2001:115,

119; Prins 1994:110-111; Quinn 1981:60-63,1994:50).

Inevitably, with the beginning of substantialEuropean contact and intertribal trade camesevere epidemics of European disease that afterca. 1580–1600 decimated Native groups alongthe Atlantic coast in Maine and elsewhere acrossthe region. Epidemics occurring in 1610,1616–1619 and 1633–1634 were especially devas-tating, and the indigenous population nevercompletely recovered (Bourque 2001:118-120;Bourque and Whitehead 1994:143-145; White-head 1991:265-266). In fact, early instances ofsuch illnesses may have contributed to or causedthe deaths of the individuals interred at SandyPoint and Walker’s Pond.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS

Relatively little documentation is availablefor reconstructing the archaeological contexts ofthese two unusual and highly significant archae-ological sites. Despite this, examination of thephysical evidence enables a fine-grained, if frag-mentary, window into a time when NativeAmericans in coastal Maine were encounteringthe first European visitors to their shores. Nativematerial culture was soon in flux. The combina-tion of traditional and newly introduced tech-nologies present together in the burials at SandyPoint and Walker’s Pond, including Europeantrade goods such as metal kettle pieces, an ironaxe, and glass beads and indigenous stone, shell,fiber, and leather or hide artifacts, exemplify theinteraction and change so characteristic of theContact period. The European artifacts suggest adate of ca. 1580–1600 for Sandy Point, and Walk-er’s Pond is assessed as roughly contemporane-ous (James Bradley, personal communication1994, 2002; Petersen et al. 2004).

SANDY POINT

Moorehead (1922:219) presents us with verytantalizing information about his investigationsat the Sandy Point site (41-10 ME). His briefreport (with emphasis added) states:

There is an Indian site of some size on thewest bank of the [Penobscot] river at a placeknown as Sandy Point. In August, 1914, the


survey went down there from Bucksport andspent about a week in excavating along asloping sand ridge. Eleven skeletons werediscovered within a space ten meters inextent, but all were very much broken anddecayed. They lay not more than thirty-fiveor forty centimeters below the surface. Thesewere interesting burials in that they seemed tomark contact between Indians of the stone ageand Europeans. There were great quantities ofordinary shell wampum [discoidal and lesscommon columella beads] strewn over fourof the bodies. The exact number of pieces hasnot been determined, but there were originallybetween 20,000 and 25,000 of these beads. Fromthe position of some of them we concludethat they were strung on thongs and worn asnecklaces and that others were used in fring-ing deerskin jackets or were woven on belts.A few large shell beads were found with thesmallest skeleton, that of a child. With oneskeleton were two rude flint knives and alarge, rough, iron axe weighing at least sevenpounds. It seems too heavy to have seenservice as a tomahawk and was probably acamp axe. Large iron kettles [sic; they werecertainly iron-fitted copper/brass kettles]were placed over the heads of two of theburials and these have decayed except thehandles and portions of the thicker upperparts. There were many cylinders of brass[tubular beads] but no native copper. Two ofthe bodies had been wrapped in beaver andmoose hides and there were traces of bearskin. Where the hair came in contact with thebrass enough of it was preserved to permitidentification. It is to be regretted that thereare no photographs of these interesting buri-als. Our field camera was in Bucksport beingrepaired at the time.This is the entirety of Moorehead’s published

report about his discoveries. Many artifacts werenot mentioned, and there is little informationabout the human remains. In fact, this is effec-tively all that has been ever published about theSandy Point site, although Charles C. Willough-by (1935:234, 236, Fig. 126i) later presented addi-tional information that apparently was based onhis own examination of the collection:

A . . . sheet copper band, twelve and one halfinches in length, . . . with serrated edges, wastaken from the grave of a child by Dr. Moore-head at Sandy [P]oint . . . This grave [Burial205] contained also twenty-seven tubularbeads of sheet copper and an iron axe. Thebeads were lying side by side on a piece ofwell dressed buckskin which had been col-ored red and which was perfectly preserved,owing to contact with the copper. There werealso a few white and blue discoidal beads ofshell strung alternately on thong or sinew.

Willoughby (1935:276) also reported:In the archaeological museum at Andoverare upwards of five thousand white discoidalbeads approximately one half of an inch indiameter, and a very few massive tubularbeads, all of which came from a grave [Burial199] in the small cemetery at Sandy Point . . .Similar small beads were found with threeother skeletons.Michael Gibbons analyzed the human

remains from the Sandy Point site in the early1990s. His preliminary analysis reports 12 indi-viduals from the 10 “burials” excavated byMoorehead (Bradley et al. 1994). More detailedanalysis by Harley Erickson later identified amimimum of 17 mostly fragmentary individualsin the 10 graves, representing 5 adults and 12children. The oldest child was 10 to 11 years old.Considered with other forensic evidence, thehigh mortality rate of juveniles (representingover 70% of all individuals) suggested to Erick-son that this was “a population that was stressedand in poor overall health” (1996:32).

WALKER’S POND

Possibly because there was only a single bur-ial, more precise information about the archaeo-logical context is available for the Walker’s Pondsite (42-20 ME). Moorehead (1922:146-147)reported:

In 1912 some members of the expeditionwent to Sargentville in the town ofSedgewick [sic] and explored the shores ofWalker’s pond. . . . On July 9th pits weresunk on a knoll twenty meters from the lake


on the land of Mr. Grindel. The place is called“the Indian burying ground.” On the verytop of this knoll, in dry, stony soil, werefound the remains of a single skeleton,accompanied by copper and shell beads.Only such bones were left as were preservedby the copper. Of the skull, only the lowerjaw and teeth remained. At the neck werefound two rolled copper cylinders abouteight centimeters long, still strung togetheron a piece of thong. The remains of a thirdcylinder were also found. Resting upon whathad been the chest of the body was a rectan-gular copper plate, about 22 x 5 centimeters,containing three small, irregular perforationsalong the middle line. Beneath this was awell-preserved sheet of hide, of leathery tex-ture. Upon this being carefully removed, alayer of white and black shell beads, still inorder was disclosed. They consisted of onelong string and many shorter ones at rightangles to this. They all rested on another foldof hide. About them occurred shreds andlumps of bark or matting. Five or six of thecervical vertebrae, all stained green, werepreserved. Some of the smaller ribs werelikewise preserved. Apparently some copperobject had rested upon the body, as severalsplinters of copper were wedged among thevertebrae. Parts of the scapella [sic] andhumerus remained. The white beads werecomparatively thick and probably of clamshell ([V]enus mercenaria?) while the black ormore properly purple beads were very thinand were sometimes strung double. A num-ber of loose beads were found, and all theearth coming from the grave was siftedthrough the fingers before being thrownaside. In working out the grave beyondwhere the objects occurred it was sometimespossible to trace discolorations in the clayeysoil, marking the decay of the larger bones orof the bark or matting wrapping. No stoneobjects were found with this burial, nor anytrace whatever of other metal than copper.The body was about thirty-three centimetersbelow the surface, and as nearly as could bedetermined lay north and south at full lengthand with the head to the south, and the

bones were those of a young person. Subse-quent pitting on this knoll and adjacent areasrevealed nothing further. An analysis of thecopper proves it to be European rather thannative American.Michael Gibbons analyzed the human

remains from the Walker’s Pond burial duringthe early 1990s. He reported a single partialskeleton of a male child about 7–8 years old withno observed pathologies or anomalies. The causeof death is unknown (Bradley et al. 1994). Basedon Petersen’s observation (not confirmed by anosteologist), a second child, apparently an infant,may also have been in this burial. Combining thedata from Walker’s Pond and Sandy Point, atotal of 13–14 children are represented at the twosites, or 72–73 percent of the total number ofindividuals.

Isotope values for the primary Walker’sPond burial and four of the Sandy Point burialswere calculated as part of a broader study ofhuman bone isotopes from Maine conducted byBruce Bourque and Harold Krueger. The resultssuggest that the local Native diet at the onset ofthe Contact period was midway between onehigh in marine protein and one high in terrestri-al protein. Although the isotope values differnotably from those of earlier, more unequivocalhunter-gatherers in the same area, it appears thatdiet along the central Maine coast at the begin-ning of European contact had little, if any,dependence upon maize (Bourque and Krueger1994:200, 205). Perhaps the slight variancebetween the earlier and later values indicates alate prehistoric subsistence shift toward a dietpartially based on horticulture (Petersen andCowie 2002).

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

All fiber perishables from Sandy Point andWalker’s Pond were studied using systematicmethods, although some specimens were sounusual that new methods were developed toanalyze them. This was particularly the case forsome of the birch-bark, quill, and hide/leatherartifacts, not all of which are presented in fulldetail here. This chapter concentrates on theplant-fiber constructions, including basketry,


flexible fabrics, and cordage, in addition to otherperishables from the two sites.

Except where noted otherwise, Adovasio’s(1977) nomenclature for textile structures is usedin this discussion. The designations “textile” and“fabric” are applied interchangeably to describea potentially diverse range of interlaced andtwined artifacts (see Definitions, “Textile,” “Fab-ric”), including blankets, bags, garments,shrouds, and straps, among many other forms.As items manually produced without a loom orframe, these objects also meet the criteria sug-gested by Adovasio for basketry.

“Twining” and “plaiting” are two subclassesof fabrics that were identified among the fiberperishables from Sandy Point and Walker’sPond. Twining typically employs two or more“active” elements that twist around, or engage,single or multiple “passive” elements (see Defi-nitions, “Twining”). The arbitrary designation ofactive elements as “wefts” and inactive elementsas “warps” is useful for fragmentary archaeolog-ical specimens in which the original relationshipof warps and wefts cannot be ascertained(Adovasio 1977:15). In cases where the originalstructure is more complete and the orientation ofthe active and the passive elements (whetheralong the “transverse,” or “weft” axis, or alongthe “longitudinal, or “warp,” axis) can be seen,both “weft twining” and “warp twining” may beidentified (Emery 1990:75-77, 196-201). However,because warp and weft orientation often cannotbe determined, these attributes frequently gounrecorded.

Twining is used in a wide variety of finishedforms. In the Northeast these are typically flexi-ble (see, for instance, Chapter 11, this volume),but elsewhere twining also is used to make morerigid structures (e.g., Petersen and Wolford2000:Figs. 6.4, 6.5). Plaiting involves the interac-tion of at least two sets of elements that alter-nately pass over and under one another withoutengagement (i.e., interlace). Since none of theelements remain stationary, all are classified as“active” (Adovasio 1977). Plaiting is used to pro-duce flat mats or three-dimensional containersthat can be pliable or rigid, depending on thematerials used (Adovasio et al. 2001). When theelements are sufficiently fine and flexible, plait-

ing can be used to manufacture pliable fabrics.Two forms of twining and one form of plaitingwere identified in this analysis.

Following Adovasio and Andrews (1980:54),cordage comprises “a class of elongate fiber con-structions, the components of which are general-ly subsumed under the common terms ‘string’and ‘rope.’” Cordage can be assigned to struc-tural types based on the number of plies, thedirection of initial spin of individual elements(“S” or “Z”), and the direction of final twist (seeDefinitions). Standard classification criteria havebeen described elsewhere (e.g., Adovasio 1977;Adovasio et al. 2001; Emery 1980:10-13; Hurley1979:6). Two structural types of cordage wereidentified in the overall sample: two-ply, S-spun,Z-twist cordage and braided cordage.

Selected attributes of the fabrics, includingwidth or diameter of individual and compositeelements, number of elements per centimeter,and other details, were measured and recorded.(For the sake of brevity, not all data are present-ed herein.) The fabrics were assigned to structur-al types based on the number and configurationof warp and weft elements. For cordage, meas-urements of overall diameter, twists per cen-timeter, and helix angle were made using proce-dures specified by Emery (1980:11). Additionally,each fragment was examined for splices, knots,repairs, and other characteristics. Finally, a pre-liminary assessment of the raw materials for allfabric and cordage specimens was made, andother unusual conditions such as staining werenoted.

The relatively small size and highly frag-mentary condition of the fiber perishables ham-pered the scope of the analysis; at times it wasdifficult to ascertain how many separate con-structions were represented. Other factors con-founded the analysis as well. The descriptionpublished by Charles Willoughby illustrates thefact that Sandy Point yielded a large and inter-esting collection that has been repeatedly exam-ined since its recovery. Museum staff andresearchers investigating the collection duringthe 1990s to determine cultural affiliation and todocument the finds noted obvious admixture ofthe burials. Some of this was attributed to confu-sion of nearby skeletons at the time of excava-


tion, or shortly thereafter. However, articulatingpieces of broken artifacts were also found storedwith materials from different graves. Rather thanfield error, we suspect that these representunnumbered items that were mixed up duringexamination of the collection well after its recov-ery, and are specimens that were not returned tothe correct provenience. The final obstacle to theanalysis was that, due to the sensitive nature ofthe remains, examination could not be complete-ly comprehensive. Perhaps more could havebeen learned by removing material thatobscured detail in the organic masses especially,but at the request of affiliated tribes, care wastaken not to disturb them further.

That the original inventory of fiber perish-ables made and used by the people who buriedtheir dead at Sandy Point and Walker’s Pondwas large has been obvious for some time. A pri-mary objective of the present analysis was toassess the overall number of structural types inthe collection. The reported totals within typesreflect conservative estimates of the actual quan-tity of original items, and in some cases more, ormany more, discrete objects (cordage specimens,for example) may have been represented.

Only a partial representation of the completerange of material culture was likely to be interredwith a given individual, and perishable materialswere clearly degraded by the postdepositionalenvironment. Consequently, while the availablesamples provide an intriguing glimpse into per-ishable technologies, they document a less thanfully representative inventory of the originalrange of perishable items used in Maine coastalcommunities approximately 400 years ago.

CONTACT PERIOD PERISHABLES

Each surviving perishable specimen con-tributes toward cumulative understanding ofprehistoric and early historic Native Americanmaterial culture. The key to the preservation ofperishables across the far Northeast appears tobe the presence of metal, especially copper(although iron also will serve), in close proximi-ty to organic remains. In the burial environment,certain metals degrade in the aqueous solutionformed during the decay of the body, producing

a biocide that selectively cancels deterioration ofnormally perishable substances. The materialsfrom the Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond siteswere almost certainly preserved through theaction of antibiotic properties of degrading Euro-pean copper/brass trade goods interred with theburials (Figure 8.2).

The Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond speci-mens are summarized below in three categories:fabrics, cordage, and “other composite construc-tions.” The latter include quill (n=1), bark andhide/leather (n=1), and hide/leather (n=1) spec-imens. Full details of these perishables and a fewmore-equivocal ones, shell ornaments, stonetools and flakes, European trade goods, andhuman remains from the two sites, are not pre-sented here. They are fully described in a morecomprehensive upcoming report (Petersen et al.2004). Although photographs, notes, and otherdocumentation remain at the Robert S. PeabodyMuseum, the collection is no longer physicallyavailable for study.

FABRICS

Three twined fabrics were identified in theSandy Point inventory. No fabric was recoveredat Walker’s Pond. Given such a small samplesize, the specimens receive individual descrip-tion followed by general comment. Each is iden-tified by the Warren K. Moorehead burial num-ber plus a second number added to distinguishindividual components of burial lots.

Because it was not discovered during thefirst inventory of the combined collection, the“Burial 198” fabric, or Fabric No. 1 (Figures 8.3and 8.4), was one of the greatest surprisesencountered during the analysis. It was revealedonly when a large organic block containing theremains of a 2- to 3-year-old child was inverted.The fabric was visible on a large portion of theback of the mass, suggesting that the burial hadbeen lying on fabric that once had been muchlarger, but no longer was fully present. FabricNo. 1 is interpreted to have been part of a largecloth, mat, or bag.

Overlying Fabric No. 1 was a hide fragmentwith adhering animal hair. On top of this was alayer of shell beads (white quahog alternating


with purple mussel?) and cordage, then thechild’s skeleton (perhaps clothed in ahide/leather garment?), followed by additional(or the same?) strand of shell and long cop-per/brass tubular beads. As preserved, anotherhide covered the mass, with the hair topmost.This configuration suggests that the child hadbeen wrapped with strings of beads and, basedon modern comparisons, blanketed above andbelow with moose hides. Finally, the wrappedbody was placed on Fabric No. 1. The organicmass, including the fabric, exhibited cop-per/brass staining and was undoubtedly pre-served because of the large copper/brass beadsor a larger specimen of copper/brass, no longerpresent.

Fabric No. 1 measured about 188 mm acrossthe weft rows and 62–140 mm or more across thewarp rows. It was the largest fiber perishablepreserved at either site, although one of the com-posite hide and bark constructions was close to itin size. The weft rows in Fabric No. 1 ran direct-ly perpendicular, and the warps parallel, to the

axis of the child’s body. This suggests that thepiece may have been constructed, in part, withweft twining (Figure 8.3).

Fabric No. 1 was a combination of open sim-ple twining and simple plaiting (see Definitions).Every third weft row was twined (see Figure8.4). Between twined rows were two plaitedrows. All of the weft and warp elements were ofcomparable dimensions and none appeared tohave been spun. The rows of twining werespaced 14.90–18.30 mm apart (mean spac-ing=16.50 mm). The plaited (interlaced) weftswere more closely spaced, 0.0–11.15 mm apart,with a mean value of 5.38 mm.

Individual weft elements were 1.45–3.45 mmin diameter, with a mean value of 2.22 mm. Thecombined set of two twining elements was2.90–4.70 mm in diameter, with a mean of 3.54mm. The plaiting elements parallel to the twin-ing rows interlaced in a simple over-one, under-one (1/1) structure. Individual diameters were1.85–3.20 mm, with a mean value of 2.54 mm.Thus, as preserved, this specimen incorporated


Figure 8.2. Fragment of a copper/brass kettle from Burial 207 at the Sandy Point site. Note holes for bail, scoremark (toward the left), cut marks (top and left), hammer marks from manufacture, and burned-on food acrosssurface.

open simple twining combined with plaiting.The warp elements perpendicular to the twiningranged from 1.55 to 4.70 mm in diameter, with amean value of 2.99 mm.

The twining wefts were twisted together inthe Z direction (i.e., had a Z weft slant). The rawmaterial of all elements seemed similar, appear-ing to be some sort of inner bark. Originally,these elements might have been retted or other-wise disaggregated before use. Some of the lon-gitudinal splitting and cracking of the fibers mayhave been due to degradation and weathering inthe archaeological environment. Based on visualcomparison with modern samples, this fabricappears to have been made using a cedar-likeinner-bark fiber, perhaps white cedar (Thuja occi-dentalis). There was no observable “start,” center,or selvage, but it was obvious that the plaited(interlaced) wefts were simply laid in as desiredunder a “warp” (plaited) element, twistedapproximately 45°, then obliquely tucked inunder two “warps.” Among the weft crossings

in the two preserved weft rows (n=22 and n=33),no obvious evidence of weft splices was dis-cerned. Given the nature of the fibers employedand the loose construction, this was once a some-what delicate, open, and flexible fabric. Compa-rable specimens exhibiting combinations of fineopen twining and plaiting are known from sev-eral other Contact period sites in Massachusettsand Rhode Island, where at least one has beencalled a “mantle” (Bower 1980:Fig. 77; Gibson1980:140-141; Willoughby 1935:247, Fig. 133d).

The “Burial 205” fabric, or Fabric No. 2, waspreserved as a much smaller fragment than Fab-ric No. 1, only about 47.80 x 15.25 mm in size(Figure 8.5). Association with other artifacts orhuman remains had been lost by the time it wasexamined, and it is impossible to ascertain anyrelationship to the three children in Burial 205(aged newborn to several months, severalmonths to 1.5 years, and 2.5–3.5 years). It waspreserved by proximity to a copper/brass head-band, long tubular copper/brass beads, and/or


Figure 8.3. Overview of Fabric No. 1 from Burial 198 at the Sandy Point site.

an iron trade axe found in this burial, but thedetails of this association have been lost (seeWilloughby 1935:234).

Fabric No. 2 contained one weft row withtwining twists that engaged eight warp ele-ments, but only small fragments of warp ele-ments remained. It appears that all elementswere of uniform size (Figure 8.5). Given the lackof preserved wefts on either side of the singlepreserved weft row, it is probable that Fabric No.2 was an open simple twined construction. Weftand warp elements were not twisted. The twoweft elements were twined around single warpelements, with a Z weft slant. Individual weftelements ranged from 1.10 to 3.50 mm in diame-ter, with a mean value of 2.26 mm. The combineddiameter of the weft row ranged from 3.10 to4.75 mm, with a mean value of 3.71 mm. Thewarps ranged from 1.30 to 3.00 mm in diameter,with a mean value of 2.12 mm. Fabric No. 2appeared to have been made from a bark-likematerial, probably white cedar like Fabric No. 1.

As originally constituted, it would also havebeen delicate, open, and flexible. Other examplesare known within the region, although they areof variable size and coarseness (e.g., Willoughby1935:Fig. 133a).

The “Burial 206” fabric, or Fabric No. 3, wasthe smallest fabric specimen in the sample, andalthough it has been described as a “fabric” here,it might more properly be called a selvage (Fig-ure 8.6). This specimen, too, was found separat-ed from any human remains, so its location rela-tive to the two children in Burial 206 (aged 3.5 to4.5 and 4 to 5 years) is unknown. It is likely thatpreservation was due to the proximity of tubularcopper/brass beads.

Fabric No. 3 was only about 17.15 x 14.40mm in size. It was a composite construction con-sisting of cedar-like elements twined aroundworked hide or leather elements. Only fourhide/leather “warps” and one fiber weft rowwere preserved. The hide/leather warps seem tohave been attached to a larger piece of solid


Figure 8.4. Detail view of Fabric No. 1 from Burial 198 at the Sandy Point site.

hide/leather that may have been part of a morecomplex construction, possibly a garment. Con-sidering the solid hide/leather piece to whichthe “warps” were connected, “Fabric” No. 3 may

have represented a fringe on the garment, withthe twined elements utilized to maintain consis-tent spacing, or the twining may have func-tioned as a side or end selvage. In any case, thehide/leather “warps” had been cinched inwardby the plant fiber wefts used to twine themtogether. If more than one twining row original-ly had been present, the weave structure wouldhave been open twined. The individual cedar-like weft elements were very thin, 0.15 to 0.40mm in diameter, with a mean value of 0.25 mm.The twining row made by the paired weft ele-ments was likewise very delicate, ranging from0.60 to 0.85 mm in overall diameter, with a meanvalue of 0.72 mm. The cinched hide/leatherwarps ranged from 1.15 to 3.85 mm in diameter,with a mean value of 2.45 mm. The weft slantwas down to the left, or Z. The individual vege-tal-fiber weft elements were probably whitecedar, and exhibited no twist. Roughly compara-ble Contact period analogues, although employ-ing only vegetal fibers and not hide/leather, areknown from the region (e.g., Kenyon 1982:24, Pl.25; Willoughby 1924:17, Fig. 20, 1935:Fig. 132f).

In summary, all fabrics identified from theSandy Point site exhibited a cedar-like rawmate-rial for the wefts. Warps were more variable.Fabric No. 3 had hide/leather warps, althoughthe other two fabrics retained use of vegetal fiberin both warps and wefts. All three forms incor-porated open simple twined structures with a Z


Figure 8.5. Detail view of Fabric No. 2 from Burial 205 at the Sandy Point site.

Figure 8.6. Detail view of Fabric No. 3 from Burial 206at the Sandy Point site.

weft slant. Fabric No. 1 exhibited a combinationof simple twining and simple plaiting. All threefabrics clearly were constructed to be flexible;two might have been part of a bag, mat, or tex-tile. The third may represent a leather garmentselvage or comparable construction.

CORDAGE

Both cordage and hide/leather thongs werepresent in the Sandy Point and Walker’s Pondinventories. The majority of specimens appearedto have been used to stitch or string togethermarine shell and copper/brass beads. Althoughhide/leather thongs were more common in thesamples and directly analogous in function tothe fiber cordage, only the vegetal-fiber cordageis described here.

All of the 41-plus individual specimens ofvegetal-fiber cordage appeared to be made fromraw material similar to the fiber in the three fab-rics described above, tentatively identified aswhite cedar (Thuja occidentalis). All cordagefibers had the appearance of having been rettedor otherwise processed prior to use.

Two major structural groups were identified:two-ply, S-spun, Z-twist cordage (Type I), towhich the majority of specimens belonged, andthree-element braided cordage (Type II).

Type I cordage was comprised of a two-ply,S-spun, Z-twist group that included a minimumof 39 individual specimens (composed of a larg-er number of pieces) and likely many more (Fig-ure 8.7). Type I cordage was recovered wherecopper/brass artifacts facilitated its preservationin Sandy Point Burials 198, 205, and 206. Indi-vidual pieces tended to be very short and frag-mentary; the longest was about 180.30 mm intotal length. Cordage diameter ranged from 0.70to 7.20 mm at Sandy Point (n=24), with a meanvalue of 1.86 mm.

At Walker’s Pond, all cordage originated inthe single burial. The length of many piecescould not be measured because they wereembedded in the large organic mass. The longestmeasured piece was 132.75 mm, as preserved.Diameters for Type I cordage specimens at Walk-er’s Pond (n=15) ranged from 0.95 to 1.35 mm,with a mean value of 1.00 mm. Although rare as

extant specimens, comparable cordage is knownfrom prehistoric contexts and from variouscoastal Contact period sites (e.g., Willoughby1935:242, 248, Figs. 127b, 127e, 127f, 133c, 133e).

Type II three-element braided cordage wasrecovered only from the Walker’s Pond site, andincluded two specimens. These specimens were29.00 and 40.35 mm long, as preserved. Overalldiameters of both ranged from 2.45 to 4.40 mm,with a mean value of 3.18 mm. Comparablecordage is known from Contact period sites inthe region (e.g., Willoughby 1935:248, Fig. 133f).

In summary, two forms of cordage were rep-


Figure 8.7. Three specimens of Type I two-ply, S-spun, Z-twist cordage from Burial 206 at the SandyPoint site.

resented at these two sites, but the vast majoritywas of the first type, two-ply, S-spun, Z-twist,including a total of 39 out of 41 specimens, orabout 95 percent. Rather remarkably, of the 39specimens of two-ply cordage, 100 percent wereS-spun and Z-twist in construction, a point thatwe will return to below.

OTHER COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTIONS

By virtue of their construction, three otherperishables bear consideration here. Theseinclude two specimens from Burial 205 at theSandy Point site and one from theWalker’s Pondsite. A fourth vegetal-fiber-and-hide/leatherstructure from Sandy Point Burial 206 wasdescribed earlier as Fabric No. 3.

The unique qualities of the composite andapparent composite constructions warrantdetailed description. Of particular note are aconstruction of cut bark, worked hide/leather,copper/brass beads, and cordage, and a veryrare fragment of porcupine quill that had beenwrapped around a now-missing foundation.Both were associated with Burial 205 at SandyPoint. Likewise of interest is part of a presumedgarment made from hide or leather ornamentedwith copper/brass and marine-shell beads thatwas recovered at Walker’s Pond. This wasunique in local and regional contexts. Each spec-imen is described below.

The composite bark, hide/leather, and metalbead specimen from Burial 205 at Sandy Point(“Other Composite Artifact No. 1”) represents adecorative object that may have been worn as abreast plate (Figures 8.8 and 8.9). Although thisartifact was not mentioned by Moorehead(1922), Willoughby (1935:234, 236) later pub-lished the description of it cited above. Cop-per/brass beads were strung horizontally overthe exterior face of this object in at least two ver-tical rows. The beads were secured by stitchessewn through hide or leather backed with birchbark (the latter not mentioned by Willoughby).The bark backing was apparently added to stiff-en the construction and consisted of two articu-lating sections approximately 1.65–2.80 mmthick. They exhibited at least one cut end that,due to the orientation and terminus of the beads,

is interpreted to have been at the top (Figure 8.9).Although the other three edges were incomplete,the piece was probably originally rectangular. Aspreserved, the bark backing was at least 163.00mm long and 124.00 mm wide, with four rough-ly parallel rows of punched holes for attachmentof two vertical columns of beads. The two morecentral rows of punched holes were closelyspaced and all four rows showed the terminationof the holes toward the cut (top?) end, but theholes were abruptly truncated on the opposite(bottom?) end. Approximately 70 holes wereobserved, many of them paired. In most cases,the holes had been punched through the birch


Figure 8.8. Other Composite Artifact No. 1 from Burial205 at the Sandy Point site, showing a combination ofcopper/brass beads, hide/leather backing, and birch-bark back plate.

bark from its “obverse”/outer-facing surfaceand only a few had been punched through in theopposite direction. A small human clavicle epi-physis was adhered to the back of the bark, indi-cating that this piece was originally lying on topof one of the three children in Burial 205.

Originally serving as the ground onto whichthe copper/brass beads were sewn, thehide/leather section was probably once the samesize as the bark backing. By the time it was stud-ied, the hide/leather had broken into large frag-ments and portions had been lost. The two sur-viving sections were respectively 136.70 x 46.65mm and 139.80 x 52.65 mm in size. No original

outer edges were detected. Several tubular cop-per/brass beads were still attached on theobverse/outer surface of each fragment, indicat-ing that the hide/leather was preserved fromstitch to stitch following the extent and configu-ration of the beads and not far beyond (see Fig-ure 8.8). The hide/leather was roughly 1.10–1.70mm thick in cross-section and itsreverse/interior surface was rough relative tothe obverse. The obverse had a heavy greenishcopper stain that had soaked completelythrough to the other side. As noted by Willough-by (1935:236), a lighter and more localized red-dish stain, possibly red ocher, was also evident.

The copper/brass beads had been attachedonto the hide/leather horizontally, one abovethe other, in two parallel vertical rows, creatingan effect similar to bone hairpipe breastplatesworn by Plains groups during the 19th century.The beads were manufactured from thin, rolledsheet metal that had probably originally beenpart of a kettle. They had large (7.5–8.2 mm) andsmall (3.8–5.8 mm) outer diameters and rangedbetween 24.25 and 54.75 mm in length. Notably,several beads still attached to the hide/leatherbacking had a purplish, wax-like paste appliedover the open ends of beads that terminated aset, possibly to seal them and improve theirappearance and/or to immobilize them.A presumably contemporaneous fly pupa wasfound within one of the beads, suggesting deathand burial during the warm season.

The stitching medium for most beads on thisartifact was hide/leather thong, averaging 1.15to 1.85 mm in diameter. However, as describedabove, some Type I fiber cordage was associatedwith a few beads. Unfortunately, no hide/leatheror cordage remained in the holes through thebark backing. Unidentified animal hair adheringto copper/brass bead exteriors indicates that theornament and the child beneath had been cov-ered by an animal skin.

Generally similar sets of stitched or strungcopper/brass beads were widespread during theearly historic Contact period in the Northeast,although they apparently did not occur earlier.Where an original structure has been identifiedat all, most researchers have labeled comparableContact period bands of beads as “belts” or


Figure 8.9. Birch-bark back plate without copper/brass beads and hide/leather backing, OtherComposite Artifact No. 1 from Burial 205 at the SandyPoint site.

“bandoliers,” due to the presence of thehide/leather thongs that string them together,although their location with respect to a buriedindividual rarely has been reported (e.g., Gibson1980:Figs. 110, 150; Spiess and Cranmer 2001;Willoughby 1935:233, 240-241, Figs. 126, 127;Wray et al. 1987:Fig. 3–19). The bark-backedspecimen reported here seems unique, althoughsomething similar may have been recoveredfrom a Contact period burial in Rhode Island(Willoughby 1935:236). Regardless, this speci-men from Sandy Point represents a sophisticatedand ingenious combination of trade goods andindigenous materials.

The “Other Composite Artifact No. 2” origi-nally was associated with Burial 205, although itwas found loose in a larger sample. It is a sectionof flattened, wrapped, and stitched porcupinequill that was golden brown in color, as pre-served (Figure 8.10). The piece measured about23.75 mm in length, although it undoubtedlyonce was much longer. The flattened quill wasabout 1.95–2.10 mm wide. It had been wrappedabout something and twisted, producing anelliptical cross-section that was approximately5.65 mm wide overall. The original foundationhad been lost, but given the shape and size of thecross-section, it must have been delicate, per-haps as thin as 1.0 mm. Each wrap of the quills

passed around the foundation and was thentwisted around once (in a half hitch?) and passedonward so that the quill was turned over foreach wrap.

This artifact must represent some sort of dec-orative quilled construction, possibly an edgingsimilar to those described and illustrated in var-ious historic and even modern Native construc-tions. The latter are primarily garments such asleather shirts and moccasins, plus leather bagsand other items. The technique most closelyresembles “quillwork stitchery” and eitherhide/leather or wood may have served as themissing foundation (e.g., Whitehead 1980:11-12,1982:13-15). We are not aware of other evidenceof quill wrapping quite as old as this example,although near-contemporaneous analogues pre-served in museums are known from northernNew England and elsewhere (e.g., Dodge 1959).

The third and final composite specimen(“Other Composite Artifact No. 3”) seems evenmore certainly to have been part of a garment. Byvirtue of the combination of hide/leather andbeadwork, this specimen from the Walker’s Pondburial was similar to Other Composite ArtifactNo. 1 described above, although in this case thebeads were shell and not metal. In fact, the Walk-er’s Pond specimen may have represented afrontal section of a leather shirt or similar garment


Figure 8.10. Other Composite Artifact No. 2 from Burial 205 at the Sandy Point site, showing porcupine quill thathad been wrapped or stitched around a now-missing foundation.

decorated with marine shell beads stitched direct-ly onto it (Figure 8.11). It was preserved as a rela-tively large organic mass, about 146.70 x 88.10mm in overall size, and was intimately associatedwith the remains of two children, one aged 7–8years and the other apparently an infant. Onceagain, copper/brass staining covered outer por-tions of this specimen, indicating that associationwith copper/brass was the preservative agent.Another hide/leather covering apparentlyencased the “garment,” since at least one relative-ly large fragment was present that had evidenceof red ocher on its presumed exterior and theimpressions of fine shell beads on its interior. Thiscovering was visible on the exterior of the mass ina few places. Fragments of a copper/brass kettleand tubular copper/brass beads with this burialhelp account for the fine quality of its preserva-tion.

The younger child’s mandible was preservedin situ on one (upper?) end of the organic mass.

The hide/leather may have been overlappedand tucked beneath the chin of the child toenfold its post-cranial remains. At least ten ribs,two clavicles and a sternum indicate that theupper torso of one child was present. In fact, itmay be that Other Composite Artifact No. 3 rep-resents a shirt or tunic worn by the child at bur-ial. The hide/leather varied from 1.00–1.30 mmin thickness, and possibly more across its fullextent. Although more could be learned by fur-ther dismantling the mass, it was left undis-turbed at the wishes of the culturally affiliatedtribes.

Perhaps the most remarkable attribute of thisprobable garment was preservation of a complexpattern of marine shell beads stitched onto itsobverse/outer surface. The shell came from twomarine species, fashioned into thick white speci-mens that were presumablyMercenaria mercenar-ia or quahog, and thin, purplish beads from themussel Mytilus edulis. Identification of the pur-


Figure 8.11. Other Composite Artifact No. 3 from the Walker’s Pond site, showing alternating white quahog andpurple mussel shell beads stitched onto a probable garment, situated across the chest of a child.

plish beads was based on overall delicacy andsharp curvature relative to the quahog beads,which were substantially larger and two to threetimes heavier. The beads had been sewn in ahorizontal row across the hide in the neck area ofthe young child. The individual beads were ori-ented vertically and attached with Type I fibercordage every few centimeters. Opposing verti-cal rows were added beneath the single horizon-tal row. All rows had an alternating pattern ofwhite and purplish beads. Bead color sequencesin the longest preserved row were, from left toright and starting at a cordage tie, 3 white, 1 pur-ple, 1 white, 1 purple, 1 white, 1 purple, 1 white,2 purple, 4 white, 2 purple, 2 white, 1 purple,and 1 white shell bead against a tied cordage ter-minus. The beads were so firmly stitched to thegarment that they left deep furrowed impres-sions in the hide/leather beneath.

Of note, quahog and mussel shell beadsforming similar patterns in several parallel rowswere discerned on a small portion of the obverseof the large organic mass in Burial 198 at SandyPoint. Fabric No. 1, the open simple twined andplaited textile described above, was preservedon the reverse of this specimen. Given their posi-tioning, these beads may have been sewn onto aground, perhaps a garment; however, neithercordage stitches nor possible garment fragmentssurvived. Several other less equivocalhide/leather garment fragments with shelland/or copper/brass beads were found in Buri-als 205 and 206 at Sandy Point, suggesting thathide/leather garments, some with bead decora-tion, may have been common there. All thesepossible garments are described in a more com-prehensive upcoming report (Petersen et al.2004).

As hide or leather clothing, theWalker’s Pondpiece and the possible specimens at Sandy Pointare highly unusual discoveries. Garments in gen-eral are extremely rare in northeastern archaeo-logical contexts and elsewhere (e.g., Heckenberg-er et al. 1990, Heckenberger et al. 1996; Willough-by 1924:7; Wray et al. 1987:125-127). That theWalker’s Pond specimen and at least one otherfrom Sandy Point were also decorated using pat-terned rows of marine shell beads is even moreextraordinary. It is quite possible, of course, that

these specimens were not uncommon in their day.However, few such examples survive, and it ispurely through accidents of preservation that wecan glimpse something of the subtlety and beautyof Native garments as they were made and worn400 years ago.

CORRELATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond perish-able fiber constructions and possiblehide/leather garments show continuity withwhat is known from earlier prehistoric examplesrecovered within the broad region, in terms oftechnology, structural types, and degree ofworkmanship. Although rare, these correlatesrange from fragmentary specimens recovered atarchaeological sites in the region, to historic gar-ments, baskets, bags, mats, and other textilespreserved in museums.

The prehistoric analogues showing continu-ity include rare extant examples of highly frag-mentary twined fabrics and “ghost impressions”of fiber perishables from several Late Archaicperiod finds in the region. The Hartford andOverlock (Harts Falls) cemetery sites in Maine,both locally ascribed to the Mooreheadphase/tradition dating from 3000–1800 B.C.(Blustain et al. 1999; Whitehead 1987:Appendix2), yielded twined fabric pseudomorphs andghost impressions of fiber containers that oncehad encased stone tools. A cordage specimen atthe Millbury III site in eastern Massachusetts isattributable to the subsequent Susquehanna tra-dition, ca. 1800–1000 B.C. (Largy and Leveillee1995; Leveillee 2002). Older examples of fiberperishables have been recovered elsewhere ineastern North America (Adovasio et al. 2001;Andrews and Adovasio 1996), but the oldestknown fiber perishables in the far Northeastdate only to the Late Archaic period, as citedabove for the Moorehead phase/tradition (Blus-tain et al. 1999).

Comparable extant fabrics and cordage areknown from Adena-related Middlesex complexsites of the Early Woodland (Ceramic) period inthe far Northeast, including, for example, Bouch-er (Vermont), Mason (Maine), and AugustineMound (New Brunswick) (Gordon 1995:13;


Heckenberger et al. 1996; Whitehead 1980:11).These are broadly dated to between 1000 and 100B.C. Birch-bark basketry also has an establishedregional antiquity of at least the Early Woodlandperiod on the basis of a small sample recoveredat a “waterlogged” fish weir site on SebasticookLake in the Maine interior. One fragment of acontainer found there has been directly AMSdated to 300 B.C. (Petersen et al. 1994:211-212).

Although there are a few examples of extantprehistoric analogues from later times in theregion, Middle and Late Woodland (Ceramic)period finds of fiber perishables are unusual.This may be explained as due to the paucity ofcopper and other preservative agents in use atthe time (Petersen et al. 1987). Nonetheless, theSandy Point/Walker’s Pond artifacts fit wellwithin the context of known late prehistoric andearlier examples. These specimens also are con-sistent with other contemporaneous (but incom-pletely reported) early Contact period fiber per-ishables known elsewhere in Maine and thebroader Northeast. These include archaeologicalmortuary goods from Rhode Island, easternMassachusetts, and coastal Maine, as well as afew complete ethnographic specimens (e.g.,Bower 1980; Dodge 1959; Jeppson 1964; Turn-baugh 1984; Willoughby 1905, 1924, 1935).

The finds from southern New England andthe Gulf of Maine exhibit widespread similaritieswith others, ranging from “copper kettle” buri-als of the Maritime Provinces (e.g., Gordon 1993,1995; Hadlock 1947; Whitehead 1980, 1987, 1993)to analogous and generally contemporaneousspecimens from many other areas, includingNew York, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Michigan, theMid-Atlantic states, and beyond (e.g., Curry1999; Kent 1984; Kenyon 1982; Kidd 1953; Mason1986; Quimby 1966; Wray et al. 1987). Unfortu-nately, precise comparison is hampered by therarity and poor condition of all such discoveries.

Beyond correlations for the fiber specimens,the available overall artifact sample from SandyPond and Walker’s Pond demonstrates broad-based continuities with other perishables, partic-ularly marine shell beads. Precise correspon-dences can be seen in the forms, apparent sizes,and materials of the many thousands of shellbeads from these two sites when compared with

contemporaneous examples. Although some-times collectively labeled as “wampum,” aswhen Moorehead described shell beads fromSandy Point, the various types of shell orna-ments at these sites predate the more familiarsmall-diameter tubular wampum. The small dis-coidal quahog and mussel beads reported herewere apparently the most common and widelyused type made in the Northeast until the 1620s,when tubular wampum became popular after itwas adopted as a curency and metal tools beganto be used in its manufacture (Ceci 1977:15-18,1989:63; Thomas 1979:180-181; Willoughby1924:13).

In fact, generally comparable discoidal shellbeads date to as early as the terminal Late Archa-ic (ca. 3000–1000 B.C.) and Early Woodland (ca.1000–100 B.C.) periods, but these earlier examplesare substantially larger and thicker than the Con-tact period style. Smaller, more delicate exampleslike those from Sandy Point and Walker’s Pondmay have occurred as early as the Middle Wood-land period in New York, but they certainlybecame more widespread during late prehistoricand protohistoric times. Nearly identical exam-ples are known for protohistoric and historicalAlgonquian-speaking Native groups from theMaritime Provinces, elsewhere in Maine, south-ern New England, and the Mid-Atlantic states.They are also found among the Iroquois properand other Iroquoians in New York, Ontario, andbeyond (e.g., Ceci 1989; Curry 1999; Quimby 1966;Whitehead 1980:14, 1993:43, 67, 77, Figs. 114, 116,117; Willoughby 1935:264-274).

Still other perishable artifacts from the buri-als, like the shell-decorated hide/leather gar-ment and the composite hide/leather, birch-bark, and copper/brass-beaded breastplate, aremore difficult to correlate with previous findsdue to exceedingly rare preservation and recov-ery. However, another hide/leather garment isknown from the Early Woodland period Bouch-er site in Vermont (Heckenberger et al. 1990:Fig.21), and others are likely represented in broadcontexts (e.g., Quimby 1966:54-63). Still more,along with other perishables, may be lurking inunanalyzed museum collections.

Represented among the non-perishable arti-facts at Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond were


copper/brass kettle fragments, copper/brassbeads made from kettle fragments, and moreunusual trade items such as an iron axe and blueglass beads. These resemble examples knownfrom elsewhere in coastal and interior areas ofthe Northeast, all of which have been datedbetween 1550 and 1575, if not earlier. Such metalitems were key to the preservation of perishableorganic items during this time period. The pres-ence of European trade goods demonstrates thatby A.D. 1580–1600, Native people were incorpo-rating European artifacts and components intotheir material culture inventory. Moreover, alongwith typical pre-European-contact mortuaryofferings like marine shell beads, these itemswere “worthy” of inclusion in human burials asgrave goods. In fact, because they were noveland exotic, such European-derived items mighteven have been “preferred” mortuary goods.

One final category of correlation bears men-tion here. Although fiber perishables and otherforms of perishables are rare in archaeologicalcontexts in the far Northeast, there is a growingcorpus of data on fiber perishables that are pre-served through negative impressions on potteryand other substances, in addition to the smallbut significant numbers of extant organic speci-mens. These combined data reveal some strikingpatterns in the regional record. Again, we see thelong-term presence of differences in cordagetwist and twining weft-slant patterns betweenthe coast and the interior throughout the Gulf ofMaine and adjacent areas in the far Northeast(Doyle et al. 1982; Gordon 1993, 1995; Petersen1996; Petersen and Hamilton 1984; Petersen andWolford 2000; Whitehead 1987, 1993). Thecoastal pattern was consistently Z-twist cordageand Z-weft-slant twining over time, while thenon-coastal, interior pattern was consistently S-twist and S-weft-slant. This patterning includesall prehistoric periods from at least the EarlyWoodland period onward, extending to the lastsuch specimens manufactured during the Con-tact period. Thus, a minimum of about 2,700years of continuity within each area and discon-tinuity between them (ca. 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1700or so, and perhaps earlier) is demonstrated.Likewise, a comparable distinction apparentlypertained between Iroquoian-speaking andAlgonquian-speaking populations in late prehis-

tory and early historic times, but this patterningis less well documented.

Although the significance behind regionalvariations in cordage twist and twining weftslant patterns continues to be debated, it seemsreasonable that such consistent patterning repre-sents Native social distinctions on some level,perhaps even discernable social identities inlocal and broad regional contexts. Habitual pref-erence and long-term continuity expressed in theproduction of twining and cordage typically per-tain within many, many archaeological contextsworldwide. Broad examination of this issue invarious regions of North America where fiberperishables are preserved directly and/or indi-rectly has become one means of assessing localand regional continuity and discontinuity overtime (Petersen 1996; Petersen and Wolford 2000).Moreover, an ongoing analysis of thousands ofethnographic specimens from the Amazon hasdemonstrated comparable group-level twiningand cordage construction preferences and result-ant patterning among a sample collected fromover 90 individual tribes and their language fam-ilies, sometimes over huge distances (Petersen etal. 2001; Petersen and Wolford 2000).

It is therefore not at all surprising to discernthis patterning within the available sample fromthe Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond sites. How-ever, the consistency in twist direction shownamong the twined fabrics and cordage speci-mens is remarkable. Although various other con-struction details differ, all three twined fabricsshare a common Zweft slant. Perhaps even moresurprising, among the 39 specimens of non-braided two-ply cordage, 100 percent of the sam-ple shares a consistent initial S spin and final Ztwist. This uniformity occurs despite the fact thatalthough one or another final twist or weft slantusually dominates within any given sample,generally there is also minority representation ofthe opposite final twist or weft slant.

The cordage and fabrics from Sandy Pointand Walker’s Pond reaffirm previously reportedZ-twist and Z-weft-slant pattern preferences onthe coast and clearly represent continuation ofthis pattern into the early Contact period. In fact,during the Contact period, the coastal pattern ofZ-twist cordage and twining rows extended overa large area of the northeastern coast, from at


least Nova Scotia to Maine, Massachusetts, andRhode Island. This widespread commonalityprovides further evidence of long-distance socialinteraction among Native peoples during theContact period and earlier, much like thatobserved for marine shell beads. These data sup-port the idea that basic fiber-perishable construc-tion techniques can mark unconscious, or“isochrestic,” style and social identity withinlocal and broad regional contexts (Minar2000:95-99; Petersen and Wolford 2000:107-108).

CONCLUSIONS

The present research demonstrates the utilityof fine-grained artifact analysis in northeasternarchaeology, especially as applied to fiber per-ishables and other perishable categories. Unfor-tunately, it is impossible to fully reconstruct anyone of the perishable specimens from eitherSandy Point or Walker’s Pond. Even the patternof colored beads is difficult to reassemble withconfidence, because individual constituents, notfinal forms, were preserved. Nonetheless, theobjects described herein provide highly signifi-cant glimpses into the richness of indigenousmaterial culture during early contact betweenNative and European peoples in the land of“Mawooshen.”

The composition and stylistic attributes ofartifacts from these two sites reveal broad-scaleconnections with other areas of the Northeast.Although the people of “Mawooshen” faced theEuropean arrivals as members of a distinct cul-tural entity or a closely related set of tribal enti-ties, they were at the same time broadly connect-ed to other Native communities in both littoraland non-littoral areas of the Gulf of Maine, aswell as more distant Native groups to the south,west, and north.

Although the earliest historical trading mayhave been centered to the north in the Gulf of St.Lawrence area, European traders soon visitedthe Atlantic coast along the Gulf of Maine inNew England and the Maritimes. The ancestralMicmacs (Mi’kmaq), and perhaps others beforethem, experienced “positive” effects of tradewith Europeans that spread far beyond the Mic-mac homeland. The wealth of Native traders in

the region must have been tangible, if short-livedin relative terms.

Tragically, interaction also carried over-whelmingly negative consequences that wereequally widespread. Late-16th- and early-17th-century trading was almost certainly the vehiclefor disseminating European disease and its dev-astation well beyond the Native communitieswho first met the Europeans directly. During theperiod between 1550 and 1600, regular foreignvisitation to the central Maine coast was undoubt-edly responsible for the introduction of pandemicdisease of European origin. Aperiod as long as 50to 70 years may have passed before the Frenchand English actually colonized the area in theearly 1600s. Consequently, the initial devastationof introduced disease may have gone undocu-mented. The earliest epidemics surely appearedbefore the recorded epidemics of 1616–1619, atwhich time the decimation of many Nativecoastal communities from Cape Cod northwardto the central coast of Maine was widespread. Theearlier Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond sitesalmost certainly provide evidence of unrecordedEuropean-induced trauma in this part of the Gulfof Maine. That more than 70 percent of the indi-viduals interred were children, many sufferingfrom poor health, suggests a populationwith verydifferent mortality statistics than are indicated bypre-European-contact Native populations in localand regional contexts.

Given the availability of European goods, itmight seem surprising that “traditional” Nativemanufactures were still being produced incoastal Maine ca. 1580–1600, albeit accompaniedby new forms incorporating European tradegoods. However, it is clear that much of thematerial culture in this region was still based onindigenous forms, whether or not non-indige-nous materials were utilized. It is regrettable thatit is so difficult to recreate the final formsexpressed by the fragments of perishable arti-facts from Sandy Point and Walker’s Pond. Nev-ertheless, careful examination does inform us ofthe creativity, sophistication, and resilience ofthe people who produced them in the face ofunimaginably catastrophic change during theContact period.


NOTES

1. Because highly corroded copper and brassartifacts such as those from the Sandy Pointand Walker’s Pond sites cannot be differenti-ated without fine-grained analysis, the mate-rial is generalized as “copper/brass”throughout this chapter. The 16th-centuryMaritime Province sites fromwhich came thename “copper kettle burials” typically con-tained copper vessels, many with iron fit-tings (e.g., Whitehead 1993:23-31); brass ves-sels became more common during lateryears.

2. All of the animal-skin materials aredescribed as “hide/leather” since it isunclear to what degree they were worked,although some degree of working seemsvery likely.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Both of the authors gratefully acknowledgethe help of many people during the analysis, andthose who have contributed before and after aswell. In particular, we owe a deep sense of grati-tude to Jim Bradley as a colleague and a friend,and in the case of the junior author, as a formersupervisor at the Robert S. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology. Jim has been consistently upbeatand supportive over many years for both of us(and many other people as well) and we thankhim for this and many other things, not the leastof which were related to this study. Likewise,Leah Rosenmeir and Sarah Germain also con-tributed in various ways. Petersen also grateful-ly acknowledges his former employer, theArchaeology Research Center at the Universityof Maine at Farmington, which patiently permit-ted his multiple visits to Andover at times whenhe always had many other more “pressing”things to get done. Others who contributeddirectly and indirectly include many compatri-ots in the study of fiber perishables in general,including, amongmany others, those formerly atthe University of Pittsburgh and the Universityof Kentucky for the two authors, respectively. Ahost of other people shared the results of theirresearch with one or another of the authors overthe years and they should be properly acknowl-

edged, but space precludes full rendition here. J.M. Adovasio, Joleen Gordon, Brian Robinson,and Ruth Whitehead deserve special mention,however. Finally, we gratefully thank PennyDrooker for her invitation to participate in thesymposium where this chapter was first present-ed and for thus providing the incentive forpreparation of this preliminary report.

REFERENCES CITED

Adovasio, J. M.1977 Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identification

and Analysis. Aldine, Chicago.Adovasio, J. M., and R. L. Andrews1980 Basketry, Cordage, and Bark Impressions

from the Northern Thorn Mound (46Mg78),Monongalia County, West Virginia. WestVirginia Archeologist 30:33-72.

Adovasio, J. M., R. L. Andrews, D. C. Hyland, and J.L. Illingworth

2001 Perishable Industries from the WindoverBog: An Unexpected Window into the Flori-da Archaic. North American Archaeologist22(1):1-90.

Andrews, R. L., and J. M. Adovasio1996 The Origins of Fiber Perishables Production

East of the Rockies. In A Most IndispensableArt: Native Fiber Industries from Eastern NorthAmerica, edited by James B. Petersen, pp. 30-49. University of Tennessee Press,Knoxville.

Blustain, Malinda S., Margaret A. Levesque, andBrian S. Robinson

1999 Two Fossilized Late Archaic Textiles fromMaine: Pyrite Pseudomorphs from the Hart-ford Cemetery Site. Archaeology of EasternNorth America 27:185-196.

Bourque, Bruce J.1989 Ethnicity on the Maritime Peninsula,

1600–1759. Ethnohistory 36(3):157-183.2001 Twelve Thousand Years: American Indians in

Maine. University of Nebraska Press, Lin-coln.

Bourque, Bruce J., and Harold W. Krueger1994 Dietary Reconstruction from Human Bone

Isotopes for Five Coastal New England Pop-ulations. In Paleonutrition: The Diet and


Health of Prehistoric Americans, edited byKristin D. Sobolik, pp. 195-209. Center forArchaeological Investigations OccasionalPaper 22. Southern Illinois University, Car-bondale.

Bourque, Bruce J., and Ruth Whitehead1994 Trade and Alliances in the Contact Period.

In American Beginnings: Exploration, Culture,and Cartography in the Land of Norumbega,edited by Emerson W. Baker, Edwin A.Churchill, Richard D’Abate, Kristine L.Jones, Victor A. Konrad, and Harald E. L.Prins, pp. 138-147. University of NebraskaPress, Lincoln.

Bower, Beth1980 Aboriginal Textiles. In Burr’s Hill, a 17th

Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren,Rhode Island, edited by Susan Gibson, pp.89-91, 140-144. Haffenreffer Museum ofAnthropology, Brown University, Provi-dence, Rhode Island.

Bradley, James W.1987 Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois: Accommo-

dating Change, 1500–1655. Syracuse Univer-sity Press, Syracuse, New York.

Bradley, James W., and others1994 Preparing for Repatriation: An Assessment

of Human Remains from Maine in the Col-lections of the Robert S. Peabody Museum.Unpublished report. Robert S. PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy,Andover, Massachusetts.

Ceci, Lynn1977 The Effect of European Contact and Trade on the

Settlement Pattern of Indians in Coastal NewYork, 1524–1665. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-ment of Anthropology, City University ofNew York, New York. UMI, Ann Arbor,Michigan.

1989 Tracing Wampum’s Origins: Shell Bead Evi-dence from Archaeological Sites in Westernand Coastal New York. In Proceedings of the1986 Shell Bead Conference: Selected Papers,edited by Charles F. Hayes, Lynn Ceci, andConnie C. Bodner, pp. 63-80. ResearchRecords 20. Rochester Museum and ScienceCenter, Rochester, New York.

Curry, Dennis C.1999 Feast of the Dead: Aboriginal Ossuaries in

Maryland. Archaeological Society of Mary-land and Maryland Historical Trust Press,Crownsville, Maryland.

Dodge, Ernest S.1959 A Seventeenth-Century Pennacook Quilled

Pouch. Publications of the Colonial Society ofMassachusetts 38:3-9.

Doyle, Richard A., Nathan D. Hamilton, and James B.Petersen

1982 Early Woodland Ceramics and AssociatedPerishable Industries from SouthwesternMaine. Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin22(2):4-21.


ed Classification. Rev. ed. The Textile Muse-um, Washington, D.C.

Erickson, Harley1996 Sandy Point, Maine: Skeletal Analysis of

Burials Excavated by W. K. Moorehead in1914. Unpublished report. Robert S.Peabody Museum of Archaeology, PhillipsAcademy, Andover, Massachusetts.

Gibson, Susan G. (editor)1980 Burr’s Hill, A 17th Century Wampanoag Burial

Ground in Warren, Rhode Island. HaffenrefferMuseum of Anthropology, Brown Universi-ty, Providence, Rhode Island.

Gordon, Joleen1993 Construction and Reconstruction of a Mi’kmaq

Sixteenth-Century Cedar-Bark Bag. CuratorialReport 76. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax.

1995 Mi’kmaq Textiles: Sewn-Cattail Matting, BkCp-1 Site, Pictou, Nova Scotia. Curatorial Report80. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax.

Hadlock, Wendell S.1947 The Significance of Certain Textiles Found

at Redbank, New Brunswick, in Relation tothe History of the Culture Area. AcadianNaturalist 2(8):49-62.

Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, LouiseA. Basa, Ellen R. Cowie, Arthur E. Spiess,and Robert E. Stuckenrath

1990 Early Woodland Period Mortuary Ceremo-nialism in the Far Northeast: A View from


the Boucher Cemetery.Archaeology of EasternNorth America 18:109-144.

Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, FrancesB. King, and Louise A. Basa.

1996 Fiber Industries from the Boucher Site: AnEarly Woodland Cemetery in NorthwesternVermont. In A Most Indispensable Art: NativeFiber Industries from Eastern North America,edited by James B. Petersen, pp. 50-72. Uni-versity of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.


sions on Pottery. Taraxacum, Washington,D.C.

Jeppson, Britta D.1964 A Study of Cordage and Rolled Copper

Beads, Burial # 6, Titicut Site. Bulletin of theMassachusetts Archaeological Society 25(2):37-38.

Kent, Barry C.1984 Susquehanna’s Indians. Anthropological

Series 6. Pennsylvania Historical and Muse-um Commission, Harrisburg.

Kenyon, W. A.1982 The Grimsby Site: AHistoric Neutral Cemetery.

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.Kidd, Kenneth E.1953 The Excavation and Historical Identification

of a Huron Ossuary. American Antiquity18(4):359-379.

Largy, Tonya Baroody, and Alan Leveillee1995 Earliest Evidence for Textiles from Millbury

III: A Transitional Archaic Cremation Ceme-tery Site in South-Central Massachusetts.Northeast Anthropology 50:31-33.

Leveillee, Alan2002 An Old Place, Safe and Quiet: A Blackstone

River Valley Cremation Burial Site. BerginGarvey, Westport, Connecticut.

Mason, Ronald J.1986 Rock Island: Historical Indian Archaeology in

the Northern Lake Michigan Basin. MCJA Spe-cial Paper 6. Kent State University Press,Kent, Ohio.


Directions. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage:

Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas,edited by Penelope B. Drooker and LaurieD. Webster, pp. 85-99. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Moorehead, Warren K.1922 A Report on the Archaeology of Maine. Depart-

ment of Archaeology, Phillips Academy,Andover, Massachusetts.

Petersen, James B.1996 Fiber Industries from Northern New Eng-


Petersen, James B., Malinda Blustain, and James W.Bradley

2004 “Mawooshen” Revisited: TwoNativeAmer-ican Contact Period Sites on the CentralMaine Coast. Archaeology of Eastern of NorthAmerica 32:1-71.

Petersen, James B., and Ellen R. Cowie2002 From Hunter-Gatherer Camp to Horticul-

tural Village: Late Prehistoric IndigenousSubsistence and Settlement in New Eng-land. In Northeast Subsistence-SettlementChange: A.D. 700–1300, edited by John Hartand Christina Rieth, pp. 265-287. New YorkState Museum Bulletin No. 496, The Univer-sity of the State of New York, Albany.

Petersen, James B., and Nathan D. Hamilton1984 Early Woodland Ceramic and Perishable

Fiber Industries from the Northeast. Annalsof Carnegie Museum 53:413-445.

Petersen, James B., Michael J. Heckenberger, and JackA. Wolford

2001 Spin, Twist, and Twine: An Ethnoarchaeo-logical Examination of Group Identity inNative Fiber Industries from Amazonia. InFleeting Identities: Perishable Material Culturein Archaeological Research, edited by Pene-lope B. Drooker, pp. 226-253. OccasionalPaper 28. Center for Archaeological Investi-gation, Southern Illinois University, Car-bondale.

Petersen, James B., Tonya B. Largy, and Robert W.Carlson


1987 An Aboriginal Basketry Fragment fromLake Cochituate, Natick, Massachusetts.Bulletin of the Massachusetts ArchaeologicalSociety 48(1):2-8.

Petersen, James B., Brian S. Robinson, Daniel F.Belknap, James Stark, and Lawrence K.Kaplan

1994 An Archaic and Woodland Period Fish WeirComplex in Central Maine. Archaeology ofEastern North America 22:197-222.


England Perspective on Native Fiber Indus-tries. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: CurrentApproaches to Archaeological Textile Researchin the Americas, edited by Penelope B.Drooker and Laurie D. Webster, pp. 101-117.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Prins, Harald E. L.1994 Children of Gluskap: Wabanaki Indians on

the Eve of the European Invasion. In Ameri-can Beginnings: Exploration, Culture, and Car-tography in the Land of Norumbega, edited byEmerson W. Baker, Edwin A. Churchill,Richard D’Abate, Kristine L. Jones, Victor A.Konrad, and Harald E. L. Prins, pp. 95-117.University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Quimby, George I.1966 The Dumaw Creek Site, A Seventeenth Century

Prehistoric Indian Village and Cemetery inOceana County, Michigan. Fieldiana: Anthro-pology 56(1). Field Museum of Natural His-tory, Chicago.

Quinn, David B.1981 Sources for the Ethnography of Northeastern

North America to 1611. Canadian EthnologyService Paper 76. National Museum of ManMercury Series, Ottawa.

1994 The Early Cartography of Maine in the Set-ting of Early European Exploration of NewEngland and the Maritimes. In AmericanBeginnings: Exploration, Culture, and Cartog-raphy in the Land of Norumbega, edited byEmerson W. Baker, Edwin A. Churchill,Richard D’Abate, Kristine L. Jones, Victor A.Konrad, and Harald E. L. Prins, pp. 37-59.University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Spiess, Arthur E., and Leon Cranmer2001 Native American Occupations at Pemaquid:

Review and Results. Maine ArchaeologicalSociety Bulletin 41(2):1-25.

Thomas, Peter A.1979 In the Maelstrom of Change: The Indian River

Trade and Cultural Process in the Middle Con-necticut River Valley, 1635–1665. Ph.D. dis-sertation. Department of Anthropology,University of Massachusetts, Amherst.UMI, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Turnbaugh, William A.1984 The Material Culture of RI-1000, A Mid-17th-

Century Narragansett Indian Burial Site inNorth Kingston, Rhode Island. Department ofSociology and Anthropology, University ofRhode Island, Kingston.

Whitehead, Ruth Holmes1980 Elitekey: Micmac Material Culture from 1600

A.D. to the Present. Nova Scotia Museum,Halifax.

1982 Micmac Quillwork, Micmac Indian Techniquesof Porcupine Quill Decoration: 1600–1950.Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax.

1987 Plant Fibre Textiles from the Hopps Site: BkCp-1. Curatorial Report 59. Nova Scotia Muse-um, Halifax.

1991 The Protohistoric Period in the MaritimeProvinces. In Prehistoric Archaeology in theMaritimes: Past and Present Research, editedby Michael Deal and Susan Blair, pp. 235-266. Reports in Archaeology 8. Council ofMaritime Premiers, Fredericton, NewBrunswick.

1993 Nova Scotia: The Protohistoric Period,1500–1630. Curatorial Report 75. Nova Sco-tia Museum, Halifax.

Willoughby, Charles C.1905 Textile Fabrics of the New England Indians.

American Anthropologist 7:85-93.1924 Indian Burial Place at Winthrop, Massachu-

setts. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology11(1). Harvard University, Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts.

1935 Antiquities of the New England Indians. Har-vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.


Wray, Charles F., Martha L. Sempowski, Lorraine P.Saunders, and Gian C. Cervone

1987 The Adams and Culbertson Sites. ResearchRecords 19. Rochester Museum and ScienceCenter, Rochester, New York.


ABSTRACT

Archaeologists in southern New England occa-sionally find textiles and leather adhering to metals inNative American burials and existing in microenvi-ronments such as coffins and privies. Textiles are list-ed and described in New England site reports datingfrom the 1920s. Archaeologists describe layers of tex-tiles covering skeletal remains in cemeteries, yet oftenonly miniscule fragments have been recovered. Per-ishables have a history of being difficult to recoverfrom sites with variable climatic conditions, as inNew England, so they have been neglected in thearchaeological record. In recent years archaeologistshave recognized the importance of textiles and leather,and have consequently improved their methods ofexcavation and treatment. With recent attention toissues of gender and the importance of the body, tex-tiles and leather for apparel are recognized as animportant part of material culture. This chapter pro-vides an overview of the conditions that contributedto preservation, on-site and laboratory treatments,and analysis of textiles and leather from five 17th- to19th-century sites in southern New England.

INTRODUCTION

During the past two decades, textiles andleather from three cemeteries and two privieslocated in southern New England (Figure 9.1)

have been analyzed at the University of RhodeIsland (URI). Spanning three centuries, these fivesites have provided yarns and fabrics that addmuch to the written record in regard to source,variety, quality, and use. Pieces of leather, animalskin, or sinew came from four sites. No otherknown southern New England sites have yield-ed such a quantity and variety of fibrous materi-als.1 This chapter is a compilation of the treat-ment and research of the textiles and leatherfrom these sites.

FIVE SOUTHERN NEW ENGLANDARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Three of the sites date from the middle of the17th century; these are discussed first beginningwith two Native cemeteries followed by theolder of two privies from Boston’s Big Dig. Thelast two sites are younger, one dating around theturn of the 18th century and the other mid-19thcentury.

RI 1000, A NARRAGANSETT CEMETERY INNORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND2

After accidental disturbance of this cemeteryby a bulldozer in 1982, members of the Narra-gansett Tribe and a team of archaeologists fromthe Rhode Island Historical Preservation Com-

Chapter 9 Textiles and Leather in Southeastern New England Archaeological Sites 169

CHAPTER 9

TEXTILES AND LEATHER IN SOUTHEASTERN NEWENGLAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Margaret T. Ordoñez and Linda Welters


mission and Brown University excavated thegraves of 56 individuals buried between 1650and 1670. The RI 1000 site yielded a wide varietyof Native-made and European textiles, plus apiece of deerskin. These survived due to proxim-ity to copper and iron objects, which mitigatemicrobial degradation. The surviving textilesincluded wool, cotton, and native plant fibers.

At the site, the textiles were wetted with a 5percent aqueous glycerin solution, bagged, andrefrigerated in preparation for freeze-drying. Inthe lab, the textile fragments were humidified toflatten them, soaked in an aqueous thymol bathto kill bacteria, washed in a 5 percent ethanolicglycerin solution, consolidated with ethyl

hydroxyethyl cellulose solution, and stored inindividual mounts, which have protected thefragments very well.

Linda Welters (1985) analyzed the European-made textiles from the site using a simplifiedversion of the “Textile Attribute Dimensions”form presented in Chapter Two of Beyond Clothand Cordage: Archaeological Textile Research in theAmericas (Kuttruff and Strickland-Olsen 2000:43-50). Welters identified 32 different fabrics fromthe 80 fragments. Most of these are plain- andtwill-woven wool; a few, such as the fragmentshown in Figure 9.2, were cotton. After compar-ing the fabrics with documentary sources, Wel-ters associated them with contemporaneous

170 Margaret T. Ordoñez and Linda Welters

Figure 9.1. Locations of five southern New England archaeological sites from which archaeologists retrievedtextile and leather fragments.

names such as duffel, trading cloth, baize, andshag. A detailed explanation of these fabricnames and characteristics is in the Winterthurpublication Historical Archaeology and the Study ofAmerican Culture (Welters et al. 1996).

The Native-made fragments include close-twined and plaited containers and mats (McNeil2003). In her master’s thesis, Cameron McNeilobserved that degradation of the native plantmaterial fragments is greater where they hadcontact with wool. This contact is frequent sincethe Narragansetts used matting layered withwool fabrics as liners inside the graves. McNeilsuggests that the wool may have acted like asponge and soaked up water, thus increasing thebreakdown of the plant material. Whether thisdegradation occurred in the graves or after-wards as a result of the various treatmentsdeserves more attention.

Two other aspects of the RI 1000 artifacts —color and mineralized fabrics — have been ana-lyzed. Although most of the archaeological frag-ments are various shades of brown, some have adeep blue cast. Also, individual fibers viewedunder a light microscope often reveal colorssuch as red, yellow, blue, and green — from a


Figure 9.2. Plain-weave cotton fragment (RI 1000 82-48).

Figure 9.3. Degradedwool fibers with no cutic-ular scales intact; notevariety of fiber diameters(Long Pond 16-2-8).

combination of yellow and blue. Rebecca John-son-Dibb andMargaret Ordoñez (1996) analyzed91 of the RI 1000 fragments representing a vari-ety of colors from 14 graves. Using chromatogra-phy and spectrophotometry for mordant dyesand a reduction test for indigotin, they identifiedindigotin in 28 specimens, madder in 27, andpossibly kermes in 2 (see Definitions for nameddyestuffs). The historic record confirms thatNative Americans had a preference for blue andred fabrics (Gookin 1970 [1792]:17; Montgomery1984:159, 228).

Some of the fabrics from RI 1000 surviveddue to the mineralization process. Both positiveand negative pseudomorphs3 (see also Defini-tions) had formed on iron and copper alloyobjects as well as non-metallic surfaces such asmatting and pipes (Coho 1996). Sometimes bothforms of pseudomorphs occurred in the samefragment indicating different microenviron-ments in close proximity. The surfaces of somenegative pseudomorphs preserve impressions ofscales on wool fibers, meaning that the scalesremained intact during the process that formedthe molds around the fibers.4 Most scales on theextant wool fibers in the two 17th-century ceme-tery sites had been degraded completely by con-ditions in the soil (Figure 9.3). The surfaces of thepositive pseudomorphs are similar to those ofthe unmineralized fibers. The pseudomorphsduplicated some of the extant fabrics identifiedby Welters (1985) and also preserved others thathad not survived in the graves.

LONG POND, A MASHANTUCKETPEQUOT CEMETERY IN LEDYARD,CONNECTICUT

Located above a lake on the MashantucketPequot Reservation that had been established in1667, this cemetery dates from 1670 to 1720.Again, construction equipment revealed burials,destroying as many as 20 of them before the Pub-lic Archaeology Survey Team at the University ofConnecticut and the Mashantucket Pequot Trib-al Council received notification. This team exca-vated 21 graves that could have been disturbedby further construction. The excavated frag-ments received no conservation treatment

because the Tribal Council planned to re-interthe contents of the graves.

The Mashantucket Pequots used Europeantextiles and some Native-made matting asshrouds and grave linings (Ordoñez et al. 1991).The 122 extant European textile fragments wereof coarse- to medium-quality wool. The woolfibers included a variety of diameters with agreater percentage of large fibers (Figure 9.3)than would be seen in European fabrics a centu-ry later (Welters et al. 1996). The most frequentlyobserved colors of fibers under a light micro-scope were red and green (blue dyed over yel-low). All of the fragments were plain weaveexcept for two twill weaves and four stockinette-stitch knits. A protein matrix adhering to the sur-face of two matting fragments could have comefrom skins or furs.

The locations of wampum band fragments inthe graves implied that they had served as head-bands, sashes, and bracelets (Figure 9.4). Sinewmade up the longitudinal elements of thewampum bands with pairs of two-ply, Z-twistIndian hemp yarns holding copper and quahogshell beads in place between the rows of sinew.

This site produced mineralized wool (Figure9.5) and cotton fabrics (Ordoñez 1992). Theplain-weave cotton fragments were similar tothose in the seventeenth-century privy that willbe discussed next. The finest wool textile fromthe Long Pond site survived because of corro-sion products that covered the surface of the fab-ric before the fibers degraded (Welters et al.1996:225-228). Found inside the bowl of an ironladle, the fabric was wrapped around a bearclaw and a folded page from a London edition ofa King James Version Bible (Figures 9.6 and 9.7)(Hugh Amory, personal communication 1992).

Tarleton and Ordoñez (1995) surveyed pub-lished reports for methods to treat archaeologicaltextiles, and set up experiments to compareways of cleaning, consolidating, and drying bur-ial textiles from wet sites. Using wool fabricsdegraded by burial in representative southernNew England soil, they found that wet cleaningthem with a non-ionic surfactant removed moresoil and mold than water or ethanol, but theabrasion created by moving the cleaning solu-tion around the fabric and rinsing three times


weakened the textiles. All treatments thatinvolved immersion of the burial textiles in a liq-uid resulted in soil redeposition, with the solventmethod causing the most repositioning of soilbetween fibers. The researchers also tested woolfabrics soaked in a 1.0 percent ethyl hydrox-yethyl cellulose (Ethulose) solution. This consol-

idant added structural stability to the samples,but also coated clumps of soil and mold on thetextiles. All of the air-dried samples becamestiffer and experienced more shrinkage thanthose that were freeze-dried.

An investigation of freeze-drying layers ofwet new wool fabric versus air-drying found


Figure 9.4. Segment of a wampum headband of Indian hemp, sinew, degraded quahog beads, and copperbeads (height 3.7 cm) (Long Pond 18-2-83).

Figure 9.5. Plain-weave wool fabric preserved by corrosion products (scale below fragment is 1 inch square)(Long Pond 19-12-12B).


Figure 9.6. Coating of corrosion products preserved the shape of a fine wool fabric covering a page of a Bible(height of letter “W” is 1.0 mm) (Long Pond 18-2-72). Bottom: Detail.

that air-drying without freezing caused less fiberdamage and fabric shrinkage (Fischer 1998).Freezing wet wool to -85°C caused surface dam-age to fibers. When air-drying is not feasible,vacuum drying at 30°C drying temperature andfreeze-drying by freezing to -20°C with a 30°Cshelf temperature are acceptable drying meth-ods.

CROSS STREET BACK LOT PRIVY,BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

An archaeological survey in 1992 for theCentral Artery Project — the “Big Dig” — locat-ed this privy in Boston’s North End (Lewis2001). The well-to-do family of Katherine NannyNailer used the privy from the 1660s until a clayseal was installed in 1709. The excavating teamfrom Timelines, Inc., and John Milner Associates,Inc., did not expect to find textiles in the largebrick-lined vault and had not budgeted for therecovery of leather and fabrics. They found 161fragments from 82 textiles, 20 yarns, and over 60leather pieces.

Microenvironments sealed by layers of clay

probably produced separate contexts that miner-alized cellulosic materials and preserved wool,silk, and leather (Doug Currie, personal commu-nication 2002). The presence of silk was particu-larly surprising. Silk from New England archaeo-logical sites is rare. Known examples include onestrip of silk trim with a silver-wrapped-core yarnthat survived from a 1650–1675 Wampanoagcemetery at Burr’s Hill in Warren, Rhode Island(Gibson 1980:153), and a few silk fragments fromanother Big Dig privy, discussed below.

The fibrous materials were kept wet untilthey were consolidated with an ethyl hydrox-yethyl cellulose solution and polyethylene glycol(molecular weight (1450) and frozen prior tofreeze-drying. Concreted fragments were treatedwith a chelating agent (EDTA) to remove ironcorrosion products.

The 14 wool fabrics are of high quality, withhigh fabric counts (Figure 9.8), tightly spunyarns, and/or heavy fulling — a finish that com-pacts a woven wool fabric to increase its density(Ordoñez andWelters 1998). Finding 35 differentsilk fabrics corroborates the fact that the eco-nomic status of the family was high enough for


Figure 9.7. Scanningelectron photomicro-graph showing a cross-section of a yarn pre-served by iron corrosionproducts; the casts ofcuticular scales identifyfibers as wool (LongPond 18-2-72).

them to wear silk lawfully in a Puritan town reg-ulated by sumptuary laws. Further support ofthe hypothesis that this was a fashion-consciousfamily includes fragments such as a silk gauze, asilk knit, a patterned silk ribbon with metallictrim (Figure 9.9), and a strip of silk bobbin lace,plus expensive mixtures of silk and wool (Figure9.10) and silk with either cotton or flax (the miss-ing cellulosic fibers precluded identification).Many of the 22 types of ribbons are short scrapswith straight-cut ends, suggesting that theycame from trimming dresses and accessories(Figure 9.11). The silk ribbons and two-thirds ofthe silk fabrics are unbalanced plain weavesprobably called taffeta or lustring (Figure 9.12).

Unlike the fabrics from the two 17th-centurysites discussed earlier, the wool and silk fabricsfrom the privy include many elements of cloth-ing construction. Someone sewed seams (Figure9.12), pleats, hems, and trims with two-ply silkthread in a variety of stitches. One lightweightsilk fabric fragment resembles the lower sectionof a full sleeve.

Mineralization of fibers by corrosion prod-

ucts occurred in sections of the privy as it had inthe two 17th-century cemeteries. Most of thepseudomorphs had been wool fabric; moreunusual were the pseudomorphs of cotton cloth(Figure 9.13). Merchants imported cotton fabricsto Boston in the second half of the century(Baumgarten 1975:230-233). Corrosion productspreserved six plain-weave cotton fragments butno linen, although bast-fiber sewing thread insoles of shoes survived due to mineralization(Figure 9.14).

From the 60 pieces of leather from the privy,Jeffrey Butterworth (1998) reassembled threechildren’s and two adults’ shoes. Working in theTextile Conservation Laboratory at URI withguidance from Doug Currie, he reassembledparts of shoes that are among the earliest extantexamples of American footwear, representingboth high and common styles (Figure 9.15). But-terworth carved ethafoam mounts and coveredthem with fabric to support each of the recon-structed shoes. He also reassembled a workingman’s shoe and an elegant boot from anotherNorth Boston site, the 19th-century Mill Pond.


Figure 9.8. Wool 2/2 twill-weave fabric (scale in mm) (Cross Street 6519/38,004).


Figure 9.9. Three-colored patterned silk ribbon (scale in mm) (Cross Street 6660/38,031C).

Figure 9.10. Single wool fibers and grouped silk filaments of a 2-ply yarn (diameter of silk filaments averages0.013 mm) (Cross Street 6647/38,123).


Figure 9.11. Ribbon fragments with cut edges, left over from trimming gowns or accessories (greater widths are3.4 cm) (Cross Street 6863/38,132).

Figure 9.12. Figure-eight stitch along a butted seam of an unbalanced plain-weave silk fabric; note horizontalrib created by high warp yarn count (scale in mm) (Cross Street 6467/37,783).


Figure 9.13. Mineralized cotton plain-weave fabric; very similar to cotton pseudomorphs from the Long Pondsite (scale in mm) (Cross Street 6690/38,198A).

Figure 9.14. Mineralized bast-fiber yarns in stitch holes of shoe sole (scale in mm) (Cross Street 6662).


Figure 9.15. Drawing of child’s shoe sole with heel (6662/36,089) and reassembled shoe (drawings by JeffreyButterworth).

The question arises of why these textiles andleather pieces were in a privy. Possible reasonsinclude someone’s deliberately using the privyas a receptacle for refuse or accidentally knock-ing clothing or an accessory into one of the holesin the outhouse seat. Considering the number ofchildren in the house, this latter possibility isworth consideration.

WAMPANOAG SENECA ROAD BURIALS,MASHPEE, MASSACHUSETTS5

Again, construction unearthed burials, but inthis case, the soil had been moved from its origi-nal location on Seneca Road in Mashpee, Massa-chusetts. On a rainy day in 1989, MassachusettsHistorical Commission archaeologists salvagedskeletal remains, wood and nails from coffins,and fabrics from what probably had been twograves containing three individuals. Welters andOrdoñez (Chapter 10, this volume) removedroots and some soil before rinsing the wet wooltextiles in ethanol. Microscopic examination ofthe 718 fragments determined that they arepieces of 83 different wool fabrics. Sixty-threepercent of the fabrics are plain weave, 22 percenttwill. The remaining fragments include knits, abraid, and a fabric woven of wool yarns and cel-lulosic yarns that did not survive burial condi-tions. Stitch holes and hems indicate construc-tion, but many fragments have clean-cut edgeswith no sign of stitching. These fragments, alongwith the large number of different fabrics in thegraves of just three people, led to the conclusionthat one or more of the individuals had a pillowfilled with fabric scraps placed under his or herhead.

Another unique characteristic of the fabricsfrom this site is that a number of fragments arenarrow (< 1/2 inch) shaped strips adhering toheavier fabric. The strips may have been sewn tothe ground fabric, but no stitching threads sur-vive. The authors believe these are appliques(Chapter 10, this volume). Based on a number offactors including the quality of the wool in theyarns, fabric weight, hand sewing with cellulosicthreads that no longer exist, and the appliques,the burials probably date from the very late 18thto early 19th centuries.

27/29 ENDICOTT STREET PRIVY, BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS6

The occupants of 27/29 Endicott Streetincluded females, possibly prostitutes, from 1852to 1867, and William F. Padelford (a homeopathicdoctor), his wife (formerly one of the prostitutes),his step-son, and various boarders from 1867 to1876. This was a lower-middle-class neighbor-hood near the red-light district of North Boston(Benes 1995:40). The site was outside the officiallyidentified perimeter of the Mill Pond site, a loca-tion also found during the Central Artery Projectarchaeological survey by Timelines, Inc., in 1992.Archaeologists who had beenworking on theMillPond site volunteered to excavate the privy that,like the 200-years-older Cross Street latrine, con-tained textiles and leather.

The Endicott Street privy yielded 18 textilefragments, 61 buttons, and 134 pieces of leather(Stevens 2000). Stevens found differences in arti-fact patterns based on the composition of thetwo households. The prostitute household had agreater amount and variety of artifacts in allthree categories. Like the Cross Street assem-blage, this collection includes fragments withevidence of clothing construction, such as intactsewing thread and stitching holes. Similarly, afabric that had been a protein-cellulose mixturesurvives as a group of parallel wool yarns withundulations left by a missing set of cotton or flaxyarns.

Archaeologists located glass, shell, bone,metal, and rubber buttons dispersed among var-ious levels of the privy. Only plain shell andglass buttons came from the levels that corre-sponded to the time of Dr. Padelford’s occupa-tion of the site, while those from the prostitutes’earlier use of the privy were more varied anddecorative.

The pieces of leather from shoes also illumi-nate the different occupants of 27/29 EndicottStreet (Stevens and Ordoñez 2002). Nine to tenwomen lived in the houses before 1867 and lostor threw away more shoes of a greater variety instyle than the doctor’s family. Many of theircastoffs were turned shoes that would have hadfabric uppers; only the soles of these indoor slip-pers survive. Extant soles reveal the construction


of the shoes; style was more evident from theleather uppers. One type of shoe made withwooden pegs is typically working-class footwearand is rare in historical collections.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Archaeologists excavated plain- and twill-weave European wool fabrics from each of thefive sites discussed here (Figure 9.8). Importedsilk fabrics in plain, twill, and satin weaves cameonly from the two privies. All three NativeAmerican cemeteries contained imported low-fabric-count cotton plain-weave textiles (Figures9.2 and 9.13). These survived at Long Pond andthe Cross Street privy due to mineralization,which also preserved bast-fiber stitching in shoesoles from the Cross Street site (Figure 9.14). AtLong Pond, Indian hemp yarns survived inwampum bead constructions that contained cop-per beads (Figure 9.4).

Few high-quality fabrics came from theNative cemeteries. Generally, the wool fabricsfrom the Native cemeteries equal the poorestquality in the Cross Street privy. The fashion-conscious, well-to-do family of Katherine NannyNailor also left the greatest quantity of fancy fab-rics, which included patterned silk ribbons (Fig-ure 9.9), a leno-weave gauze (see Definitions,“Gauze weave”), a complicated silk float weave,and expensive mixtures of silk and wool (Figure9.10) or silk and a cellulosic fiber that is nowmissing. Only the later sites at Seneca Road andEndicott Street had fabrics of mixed fibers suchas these.

The Narragansett and Mashantucket Pequottribes in the 17th century followed traditionalburial practices but used European textiles inplace of furs for grave linings and burialshrouds. Strong evidence of clothing construc-tion came from the other three sites. The varietyof seam types (Figure 9.12) and methods of con-trolling fullness shown in fragments from the17th-century privy are especially valuablebecause few extant New World garments existfrom that period. For the same reason, extantshoes or shoe fragments from that early timecontribute significantly to our knowledge (Fig-ure 9.15).

Similarly, extant pieces of wampum neck-laces, sashes, and bracelets from Long Pond fur-nish a useful record of materials — Indian hemp,sinew, wampum, and copper beads — and con-struction methods (Figure 9.4). The Native tex-tiles, especially the earliest ones from RI 1000,provide a unique opportunity to learn moreabout mats and containers.

The variety of textiles preserved by corrosionproducts in the three 17th-century sites is amaz-ing (Figures 9.5-9.7, 9.13). They are recent forma-tions compared to the more famous silk pseudo-morphs on Chinese Han Dynasty swords. Thepresence of both positive and negative pseudo-morphs, especially in the same fragment, isinspiration for more research on the process.

These studies show the value of taking thetime to treat and study archaeological textilesand leather from the historical period. Such frag-ile artifacts provide information on availabilityand consumption of products used in everydaylife. This is especially important for the earlier17th-century sites because so little has survivedfrom that time period. For later sites, the abilityto identify artifacts with known persons, occu-pations, and economic levels is valuable.

NOTES

1. A comparatively smaller collection of Euro-pean textiles from excavations at Burr’s Hill,Rhode Island, included 73 wool fragmentsplus one of cotton and one long strip of silkand metallic trim (Dillon 1980:100).

2. The Rhode Island Historical Preservationand Heritage Commission, formerly theRhode Island Historical Preservation Com-mission, is the repository of the objects fromthe RI 1000 site.

3. In this chapter, “positive pseudomorph” isused synonymously with “mineralization”(see Definitions), and “negative pseudo-morph” may be used synonymously with“pseudomorph,” “mold,” or “cast” (see Def-initions).

4. Mineralization of fibers occurs within daysof deposition in the burial environment andacts to preserve the fiber morphology(Gillard et al. 1994).


5. The University of Rhode Island Textiles,Fashion Merchandising and Design Depart-ment is the repository of these textiles (seeOrdoñez et al. 1992).

6. Care and storage of the objects from theCross Street and Endicott Street privies arethe responsibility of the University of Massa-chusetts Boston.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dennis Piechota was the conservator for theRI–1000 textiles, and Doug Currie for the Bostonprivy artifacts. Martin Dudeck, LaboratoryDirector at Timelines, Inc., is the principal inves-tigator of the Endicott Street Privy artifacts. URIgraduate students who assisted with analysesincluded Claudia Iannuccilli, Tora Sterregaard,and Katherine Tarleton. Support for analysescame from the Rhode Island Historic Preserva-tion Commission, the Mashantucket PequotTribal Council, Timelines, Inc., URI Grant-in-Aid, URI Research Office Development Grant,and the URI College of Human Science and Serv-ices.

REFERENCES CITED

Baumgarten, Linda R.1975 The Textile Trade in Boston, 1650–1700. In

Arts of the Anglo-American Community in theSeventeenth Century, edited by Ian M. G.Quimby, pp. 219-273. University Press ofVirginia, Charlottesville.

Benes, Milena A.1995 Dr. Padelford’s Privy: A Study of the Socioe-

conomic Status of a Nineteenth-CenturyNon-Traditional Physician in Boston.Unpublished senior honors thesis, Depart-ment of Anthropology, Brandeis University,Boston.

Butterworth, Jeffrey A.1998 Forming the Past. Historical Archaeology

32:91-98.Coho, Cathy J.1996 Textile Pseudomorphs from 17th-Century

Native American Burials. The AmericanInstitute for Conservation Textile SpecialtyGroup Postprints, pp. 70-78. Norfolk, Vir-ginia.

Dillon, Phyllis1980 Trade Textiles. In A 17th Century Wampanoag

Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, editedby Susan G. Gibson, pp. 100-107. BrownUniversity Haffenreffer Museum of Anthro-pology, Bristol, Rhode Island.

Fischer, Shawn Gardner1998 The Effects of Freeze-Drying on Selected

Properties of Wool Fabric. The AmericanInstitute for Conservation Textile SpecialtyGroup Postprints, pp. 53-628. Arlington, Vir-ginia.

Gibson, Susan G. (editor)1980 A 17th Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in

Warren, Rhode Island. Brown University Haf-fenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Bristol,Rhode Island.

Gillard, R. D., S. M. Hardman, R. G. Thomas, and D.E. Watkinson

1994 The Mineralization of Fibres in Burial Envi-ronments. Studies in Conservation 39:132-140.

Gookin, Daniel1970 [1792] Historical Collection of the Indians in

New England.Massachusetts Historical Soci-ety, Boston.

Johnson-Dibb, Rebecca T., and Margaret T. Ordoñez1996 Identification of Dyes on Textiles from RI-

1000, a 17th-century Narragansett IndianBurial Site. The American Institute for Conser-vation Textile Specialty Group Postprints, pp.79-90. Norfolk, Virginia.

Kuttruff, Jenna Tedrick, and Mary Strickland-Olsen2000 Handling Archaeological Textile Remains in

the Field and Laboratory. In Beyond Clothand Cordage: Archaeological Textile Research inthe Americas, edited by Penelope BallardDrooker and Laurie D. Webster, pp. 25-50.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lewis, Ann-Eliza H. (editor)2001 Highway to the Past: The Archaeology of

Boston’s Big Dig. Massachusetts HistoricalCommission, Boston.

McNeil, Cameron L.2003 Narragansett Basketry and SewnMats From

RI 1000. Unpublished master’s thesis, Uni-versity of Connecticut, Storrs.

Montgomery, Florence M.1984 Textiles in America: 1650–1870.W.W. Norton,

New York.Ordoñez, Margaret T.1992 Textile Pseudomorphs from the Long Pond

Site: Supplement to the 1991 Report. Sub-mitted to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal


Council. Copies available from the authorsor Kevin McBride, Mashantucket PequotMuseum and Research Center, Mashantuck-et, Connecticut.

Ordoñez, Margaret T., Kathryn Tarleton, and LindaWelters

1992 Support for Archaeological Textile Frag-ments. In Storage of Natural History Collec-tions: Ideas and Practical Solutions, edited byCarolyn L. Rose and Amparo R. de Torres,pp. 7-8. Society for the Preservation of Nat-ural History Collections, York, Pennsylva-nia.

Ordoñez, Margaret T., and Linda Welters1998 Textiles from the Seventeenth-Century

Privy at the Cross Street Back Lot Site. His-torical Archaeology 32:81-90.

Ordoñez, Margaret T., Linda Welters, and KathrynTarleton

1991 Analysis of Textiles from the Long Pond Site.Submitted to theMashantucket Pequot Trib-al Council. Copies available from Ordoñezor K. McBride, Mashantucket Pequot Muse-um and Research Center, Mashantucket,Connecticut.

Stevens, Sarah C.2000 Costume-Related Artifacts from the Mill

Pond Site, Boston, Massachusetts. Unpub-

lished master’s thesis, Department of Tex-tiles, Fashion Merchandising and Design,University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

Stevens, Sarah C., and Margaret T. Ordoñez2002 Fashionable and Work Shoes from a 19th-

Century Boston Privy. Historical Archaeology(in press).

Tarleton, Kathryn, and Margaret T. Ordoñez1995 Stabilization Methods for Textiles from Wet

Sites. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(4):81-95.Welters, Linda1985 Narragansett Bay Survey: Conservation and

Analysis of European Textiles from RI–1000.Submitted to the Rhode Island HistoricPreservation Commission, Providence.Copies available from the author or PaulRobinson, Rhode Island Historical Preser-vation and Heritage Commission, Provi-dence, Rhode Island.

Welters, Linda, Margaret Ordoñez, Kathryn Tarleton,and Joyce Smith

1996 European Textiles from Seventeenth-CenturyNew England Indian Cemeteries. In Histori-cal Archaeology and the Study of American Cul-ture, edited by LuAnn A. De Cunzo andBernard L. Herman, pp. 193-232. HenryFrancis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Win-terthur, Delaware.


ABSTRACT

When bones, coffin nails, and textile fragmentsmixed with roots were found in fill dirt from the acci-dental disturbance of an unmarked, undated MashpeeIndian cemetery on Cape Cod, the MassachusettsHistorical Commission (MHC) performed an emer-gency salvage operation. MHC asked the authors toanalyze the textiles and establish a probable date.

All 718 fragments were wool; cellulosic fibersonce present had degraded. In previous work with17th-century textiles from Native American burials,wool fragments contained large-diameter coarsefibers. The predominance of fine- to medium-diameterwool fibers at the Mashpee site indicates a date aftersheep breeding improved wool quality in the first halfof the 18th century.

Eighty-three different fabric types exhibited arange of weights, thread counts, constructions, andtextures. Evidence of apparel included hand-sewnhems and seams, braids, appliques, knotted tape clo-sures, and parts of stockings. These characteristicspoint to tailored, European-style clothing.Comparison to extant examples in New England col-lections indicates a late-18th- to early-19th-centurydate for the clothing, and consequently for the burials.These conclusions are corroborated by writtenrecords, which mention spinning and weaving skillsof Mashpee Indians.

INTRODUCTION

In 1991, at the Winterthur conference on his-torical archaeology and the study of Americanculture, Stephen Mrozowski of the University ofMassachusetts Boston mentioned an early-17th-century site called Sandy’s Point on Cape Codthat had an entire level of what appeared to be“blue roots.” Eventually, the blue roots wereidentified as indigo-dyed wool twill fabric(Mrozowski 1993). About that same timeEdward Bell, an archaeologist at theMassachusetts Historical Commission, called usto arrange analysis of samples from a layer of“fuzzy dirt” compressed over the body of anadult male Native American from the SantuitPond site in Mashpee, Massachusetts. The fuzzydirt proved to be a napped plain-weave woolenfabric.

We have long argued that “blue roots,”“fuzzy dirt,” and other archaeological textilesfrom the post-Contact period in southern NewEngland provide valuable information about theculture of the people who used them. For NativeAmerican culture, “perishable” textiles are espe-cially important because documentary evidenceis so scarce.

In this chapter, we use a material cultureapproach to research a group of textiles from an

Chapter 10 Blue Roots and Fuzzy Dirt: Archaeological Textiles from Native American Burials 185

CHAPTER 10

BLUE ROOTS AND FUZZY DIRT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES FROM NATIVE

AMERICAN BURIALSLinda Welters and Margaret T. Ordoñez


accidentally disturbed Mashpee cemetery onCape Cod; this approach includes identification,analysis, and interpretation. (This collection alsois discussed in Chapter 9, this volume.) Theabsence of other funerary objects left precise dat-ing of the burials to the textiles.

SITE DESCRIPTION

In May 1990, house construction on HeronDrive in Mashpee, Massachusetts, uncoveredhuman bones in fill dirt. (See map, Figure 9.1.)The dirt had been trucked in from a nearbyhouse lot on Seneca Road close to John’s Pond.An emergency burial salvage was undertaken byEdward L. Bell, Leonard W. Loparto, and PeterMills of the Massachusetts HistoricalCommission (MHC), at which time it was deter-mined that the Seneca Road site was a NativeAmerican cemetery of the historical period(Massachusetts Historical Commission 1990).This cemetery was unmarked and did notappear in any historical records (Edward Bell,personal communication 1993). The presence ofiron alloy nails and wood from coffins indicatedthat the individuals had been given Christianburials. The backfill yielded numerous textiles,but no buttons, pins, or other fasteners.

Along with the textile fragments, the MHCrecovered the skeletal remains of three individu-als. Michael Gibbons, an anthropologist at theUniversity of Massachusetts Boston, analyzedthe skeletal remains (Gibbons 1992). He deter-mined that the bones came from three individu-als. The first was a 4-foot-tall child, approxi-mately 6 years old, probably female, whoseremains exhibited developmental problems. Shemay have suffered from malnutrition and wasunhealthy when she died. Copper stains on herhair imply the use of copper head or hair orna-ments, or perhaps shroud pins. The second indi-vidual was an adult male, 45–50 years old, whowas 5’ 6” tall. His skull also displayed the frag-ments of a copper headband. The third individ-ual was an adult female, 40–45 years old, whoseremains were very fragmentary. The remains ofher hair also indicated that copper head or hairornaments had been present.

Unfortunately, most of the textile fragments

were no longer associated with particular indi-viduals. MHC personnel bagged the textileswhere they were found, noting in the field reportthat the textiles seemed like “pockets of materialwithin otherwise sterile dirt,” possibly scoop-fulls from the backhoe (Massachusetts HistoricalCommission 1990). One of the bags containedtextiles found near the child’s remains. The fieldreport indicated that all textiles had the charac-teristics of “wet and rotting cloth.” The locationof the graves on an elevated knoll with gooddrainage accounts for the preservation of the tex-tiles, even though they were wet. The pH of thesoil was acidic but was too mixed up by thebackhoe to get an accurate reading.

MHC asked the authors to analyze the tex-tiles and establish a probable period of manufac-ture and use. In the words of Brona Simon, thestate archaeologist, “analysis of the textiles couldprovide an idea of the date of the burials, as wellas cultural information on burial practices, man-ufacturing technology, and dress” (Brona Simon,personal communication 1990). Simon hopedthat: “the textiles could provide the most cultur-al information on the people interred at thecemetery.”

PROCEDURE

As indicated, the textiles were wet whenrecovered on May 23, 1990. The recovery teamplaced them in two medium-sized sealable plas-tic bags and refrigerated them until they couldbe transported to the University of Rhode Island.The textiles arrived on July 27, 1990, in their plas-tic bags. They were in clumps mixed with cranialfragments, hair, roots, and soil. The hair and cra-nial fragments were removed and boxed forsafekeeping. The textile fragments were soakedin ethanol to remove soil and then carefully sep-arated. Some layered fragments remained intactfor examination. The textiles were placed onplastic plates marked with identifying informa-tion and dried.

Graduate student Kathryn Tarleton studiedfiber, yarn, and fabric construction usingOlympus stereo and polarizing microscopes. Sheidentified fibers, measured the diameter ofyarns, performed a yarn count, noted yarn con-

186 Linda Welters and Margaret T. Ordoñez

struction and direction of twist, and determinedtextile construction, recording all the details onworksheets. She also drew pencil sketches of thetextiles. Longitudinal views of fibers were stud-ied under the light microscope with both whiteand polarized light. For wool fibers, scales, fiberwidth, and medulla width were observed.Overall dimensions of fragments were noted.When possible, color was observed, although alltextiles had taken on a chocolate brown hue.

For those fragments with an underlyingdeep blue hue, a yarn sample was extracted andplaced in a small test tube. Equal amounts ofsodium thiosulfite and concentrated ammoniawere added to cover the yarn. The test tube washeated to boiling in a water bath. An equalamount of butanol was added, and the mixturewas shaken. If indigo was present, the butanollayer that rose to the top appeared blue.

Fragments were grouped according to fabrictype, then pinned to foam core boards with brasspins. Tape handles were attached for easy han-dling. The boards were placed in specially con-structed acid-free boxes and stored in theHistoric Textile and Costume Collection at theUniversity of Rhode Island, where they remaintoday per agreement with the MassachusettsHistorical Commission (Brona Simon, personalcommunication 1990).

RESULTS

The emergency recovery yielded a total of718 samples, exhibiting 83 different fabric typesor varieties (Table 10.1). All of the fragmentswere wool. The wool fabrics contained fibers offine to medium diameter as well as large diame-ter. Any cellulosic fibers once present — whetherstitching thread made of linen or cotton, or yarnsused in fabric mixtures — had degraded in theacidic soil. Stitch holes along seams and hemsindicated hand sewing; however, the thread,which must have been cotton or linen, was miss-ing. In some samples cellulosic warp yarns haddisappeared, leaving wool weft yarns withimpressions of missing warps.

Some yarns had been spun with Z spin,while others had S spin (see Definitions). Manyfabrics had only Z-spin yarns; others had only S

spin, while a third group had both S- and Z-spinyarns. Nearly all of the woven fabrics containedsingles rather than plied yarns, which is charac-teristic of apparel-weight fabrics. A few of theknit samples had two-ply yarns, which is typicalof hand-knitted stockings. The yarns rangedfrom fine glossy worsteds made from long-sta-ple wool to coarse woolens (see Definitions).Yarn twist ranged from very low to high.

The fabrics included 52 types of plainweaves, 18 different twill weaves, eight knits,and five other constructions. The largest catego-ry of plain weaves (23 varieties with a total of321 fragments) had Z-spun yarns, including oneexample with over 100 fragments (Figure 10.1).This category included balanced weaves,checked fabrics, and rib fabrics. The second-largest category of plain weaves (20 varietieswith a total of 181 fragments) had S-spun yarns.This category included fabrics with paired wefts.Half of the 20 varieties were thick, dense fabricswith evidence of napping and fulling. The plain-weave fabrics made from S-spin and Z-spinyarns sometimes alternated “S” and “Z” in thewarp, and other times had warps of one type ofspin (usually Z) with wefts of the opposite direc-tion. This category included numerous frag-ments of a two-color check. Eighteen differentkinds of twills included 2/1, 2/2, twill stripes onplain ground, and a fancy twill (Figure 10.2). Thetwills included both worsted and woolen fabrics.Coarse fabrics displayed woolen yarns in 2/2twill weaves while smooth, glossy fabrics inunbalanced twill weaves had worsted yarns. The


Table 10.1. Classification of Textile Fragments (wool).

Fabric Structure No. of No. ofvarieties fragments

Plain weave, Z-twist yarns 23 321

Plain weave, S-twist yarns 20 181

Plain weave, S- and Z-twist yarns 9 57

Twill weaves 18 87

Knits 8 29

Other constructions 5 43

Total 83 718

knit fabrics, which varied in fineness, displayedmostly stockinette stitch with just one rib stitch.Some of the knitted fabrics were once part ofstockings, as evidenced by top edges and shapedareas to fit around the ankle and heel of the foot(Figure 10.3). Some areas of the knit fragmentsshowed heavy wear, including a darned section.The category labeled “other constructions”included one braid as well as another narrowfabric that might have been a trim. Selvages werepresent in 13 fragments.

In general, the fabrics exhibited a wide rangeof weights, thread counts, and textures. Somefabrics appeared to be homespun, as they dis-played highly twisted, irregular yarns. Otherswere probably commercially produced. Thickwoolens with napped and fulled finishes mayhave been broadcloth, a popular men’s coatingfabric of the 18th and 19th centuries.

All of the textiles initially appeared to be uni-formly brown, the color of the soil. On closer


Figure 10.1. Fragments of plain-weave fabric with Z-twist yarns.

Figure 10.2. Diagram of fancy twill weave.


Figure 10.3. Knitted stocking fragment showing shaped area at heel.


Figure 10.4. Rectangular fragment with cut edges.

Figure 10.5. Fragment of a hem.

examination, the brown hues ranged from buffto brown-black. Some of the checked fragmentshad yarns of two or three colors. A few of thenapped fragments appeared reddish-brown.Samples with a dark blue cast tested positive forindigo.

A number of samples were almost intact,with little degradation. Their edges looked fresh-ly cut along the grainline with no deterioratedsections (Figure 10.4). They looked as if they hadonce been sewing scraps, as some were irregu-larly shaped, perhaps left over from cutting outa tailored garment. These clean-edged sampleshad been layered on top of one another in theplastic bags, so may have once been sandwichedtogether in the burials.

Many of the fragments were once apparelitems. Evidence of apparel included seams,hand-sewn hems, braids, appliques, knottedtape closures, and stockings. Seam allowances

typically measured 3/8”. Hems had been rolledor folded (Figure 10.5). The folded edges dis-played abrasion, as could be expected from acuff or a hem, sometimes containing lint in theirfolds. Many samples had stitch holes. Othershad multiple layers of the same textile or com-posites of two textiles. Braid fragments werefound along seamlines. The appliques are partic-ularly interesting. Some were deliberately cutinto bias strips to form triangles or curvedshapes (Figure 10.6), while others were cut intosmall squares or circles. Several square frag-ments had been folded and stitched, as if to formtab-like trimmings. The knots may have beenclosures, a possibility made more likely by theabsence of other types of fasteners. The numer-ous textile fragments raise many interestingquestions about the clothing styles of theMashpee Indians at the time of the burials.


Figure 10.6. Cut-out applique.

DISCUSSION

To place the textile fragments in context, abrief review of the history of the MashpeeIndians is necessary. As members of theWampanoag tribe, the Mashpee had a long his-tory of interaction with the English colonists. Inthe 17th century, Mashpee became one of 14praying towns in the Massachusetts BayColony established by John Eliot (Campisi1991). Eliot aimed to “civilize” the Indians byregrouping them into separate settlements.Richard Bourne, the first minister at Mashpee,arrived in 1658 and began the process of con-version of the so-called praying Indians toEnglish customs, including appearance. Eliot’splan met with initial resistance. He did not suc-ceed in teaching the women to spin and weave;instead he relied on donations of clothing fromEngland (Salisbury 1974). But changes slowlytook hold. By 1698, a delegation from theSociety for the Propagation of the Gospel visit-ed Mashpee and reported that “they are in gen-eral well clothed” (Campisi 1991: 80-81).

A series of disputes over property rights inthe 18th century left the Mashpee Indians settledon reservation land where they farmed andfished. Much of the settlement occurred aroundponds, including the area around John’s Pondwhere the burials were disturbed. Over thecourse of the 18th century, the Indians atMashpee adopted shingled houses instead ofwigwams, as well as the Christian custom ofburying the dead extended instead of in a flexedposition (Hutchins 1979; Salisbury 1974).

Adoption of English-style tailored clothingcontinued. For women this would have meantshifts, stays, petticoats (skirts), short gowns,caps, stockings, and cobbled shoes. For men,shirts, waistcoats, breeches, and coats along withstockings and cobbled shoes constituted the typ-ical 18th-century outfit. An 18th-century portraitof Samson Occom (1723–1792), the Moheganpreacher who initiated the Brothertown move-ment, shows him attired in coat, waistcoat, andbreeches, probably of wool broadcloth. GideonHawley, minister at Mashpee from 1757 to atleast 1802, reported in 1802 that the women weregood spinners, combers, and weavers, andclothed themselves and their husbands “in

everyday homespun . . . in the English mode,”fashioning “very decent and showy” apparel forSunday church services (Hutchins 1979: 68). Healso noted that some women manufactured woolfor their families’ clothing, but many madebrooms and baskets for sale to their white neigh-bors (Hawley 1968 [1815]).

In the 19th century, settlement moved out-ward from the ponds. The people continuedfarming, fishing, cranberry-picking, and manu-facturing brooms and baskets. As the whalingindustry developed, many men joined whalingvoyages. The Mashpee were ministered to byWilliam Apes, a Pequot preacher who helpedthem achieve self-governance in 1834 (Peters1987). Although the Wampanoag and otherIndians of southern New England dressed inEuropean-style clothes for the most part, as seenin surviving photographs (Figure 10.7), ethnicmarkers include long hair for men and head-bands (Welters 1993).

Returning to the textiles, 83 is an unusuallylarge number of different textiles to be associat-ed with just three individuals. Although some ofthe fragments no doubt once comprised the bur-ial clothing of the deceased individuals, anotherexplanation is necessary. When we opened oneof the bags of textiles that contained substantialamounts of hair, we observed that the hair sam-ples were adjacent to a depressed part of the fab-ric and that the fabric appeared to have beenrolled. When burial customs are studied, thepossibility arises that the corpses’ heads restedon pillows.

Little is known about how Christians in NewEngland laid out the deceased in the late 18thand early 19th centuries; even less is knownabout how the praying Indians buried theirdead. Secondary sources report that burials inNew England took place fairly soon after deathbecause the body was not embalmed (Larkin1988; Nylander 1993). The body was laid out,dressed in a shroud or other grave clothes, thenplaced in a coffin (usually pine) for viewing. Theclosed coffin was transported to the cemeterycovered with a black fabric “pall.” Some shroudsfrom the first half of the 19th century survive inthe region’s collections. Made of inexpensivecotton cambric, their loose stitching revealshasty construction.


To find evidence for the use of pillows, wehad to go further afield. The exhumation of twomid-19th century burials on a Louisiana planta-tion revealed that the bodies of the deceasedwere laid out in the typical clothing of the peri-od, then covered in a shroud and/or windingsheet, with the heads resting on pillows(Brantley 2000; Welker and Kuttruff 2000). In one

case, the pillow was stuffed with cotton fiber,which makes sense given the location of theburials on a southern plantation. Pillows andbolsters had been common in New Englandhouseholds since the 17th century (Earle 1969).The better ones were stuffed with feathers, butwool scraps also sufficed (Bogdonoff 1975).Given the large variety of textiles in the burials


Figure 10.7. Deacon Simon Johnson, ca. 1856-1860. Wampanoag preacher at Martha’s Vineyard. Ambrotype.Unknown photographer. Courtesy of the Martha’s Vineyard Historical Society.

from Seneca Road, we believe these MashpeeIndians most likely were laid to rest with theirheads elevated on homemade pillows stuffedwith wool scraps.

To return to the question about the date ofthe site, the skeletal analysis and the documen-tary evidence point to a late-18th-century date.Gibbons (1992) estimated the skeletons to beapproximately 200 years old, placing the site atapproximately 1790. He speculated that theremains of the girl could have been older. Bell, inresearching land records, maps, and local histo-ries, concluded that the burial ground was usedsometime before the early 19th century (EdwardBell, personal communication 1993).

The fabrics themselves provide further cluesto help date the site. The varieties of wool fibersin the fragments ranged from fine to coarse, butthe relatively few coarse hairs present indicate adate well into the 18th century when sheepbreeding improved the quality of wool.Seventeenth-century Native American sites wehave studied yielded mostly coarse woolens rifewith large-diameter fibers from hairy fleeces(Welters et al. 1996). Such cloth, known as dufflesor trucking cloth, was made expressly for tradeto Native Americans. This was not the type ofcloth found in these burials.

The textile fragments are similar to the fab-rics found in clothing worn by rural NewEnglanders during the late colonial period andinto the early Republic. Clothing made of certainhomespun fabrics was worn in southern NewEngland until about 1830. After that, the factory-made textiles produced in area textile mills wereso affordable that homespun clothing became athing of the past. Simple plain-weave home-spuns, checks, and plaids could have been madeby the native women of Mashpee. Some fabrics,such as broadcloth, may have been acquired forwaistcoats or coats. The fulled wools (seeDefinitions) approximated apparel-weight fabricrather than the heavier material used in hats.

New Englanders still knitted their ownstockings well into the 19th century becausesuch garments wore better than factory-madestockings (Ulrich 2001). Braided or knittedgarters tied above the knee held up the stock-ings. The knotted tape mentioned previouslycould have been a garter. As far as other types of

fasteners are concerned, garments could havebeen closed with fabric-covered buttons, as theseare characteristic of the period before 1830. Madeof cloth over wood, bone, or other stiff basematerial, this type of button has a much lowerchance for survival in the archaeological settingthan ceramic, glass, or metal buttons.

Because the fragments indicate hand sewingrather than machine stitching, the burials cannotbe dated after the mid-19th century. Clothingwas sewn by hand until the widespread adop-tion of the sewing machine. This occurred by1860, judging by surviving clothing of southernNew Englanders.

Some of the clothing, particularly the coats,could have been issued by government-appoint-ed overseers. Massachusetts Bay Colony legisla-tion in 1660 instituted a program of awardingcoats to children who entered apprenticeshipswith white families (Salisbury 1974). Wool coatshad been traded to Native Americans byEuropeans since at least the early 17th century.Some of these coats are described in the histori-cal record as “laced,” which means trimmedwith specially woven tapes and braids (Welters1993). A tailored coat has numerous layers ofcloth near the neck — collar, lapel, and facing.Coat styles from about 1790 to 1830 had unusu-ally high collars, creating a substantial mass ofmaterial around the neck (Figure 10.8).Surviving coats from the period are made ofdense wool fabrics which have been heavilyfulled. Given the large amounts and layers offulled wool among the Seneca Road fragments,the adult male could have been buried wearing atailored wool coat.

In the case of the Mashpee textiles, theappliques and cut-out trims represent somethinguniquely native. Among the textiles associatedwith the young girl, triangular motifs on aseamed fragment imply that her body was laidout in an outer garment unlike those that survivein collections. The only garments that suggestthe use of wool appliques are 19th-century outergarments and bags made by Woodland Indians.The beaded outfit worn by Caroline Parker, aSeneca woman (Figure 10.9), illustrates the deco-rative clothing worn by some Eastern WoodlandIndians in the mid-19th century. Photographsfrom the late 19th and early 20th century reveal


that numerous tribes employed applique as adecorative technique. For instance, a 1912 imagein the collections of the Smithsonian Institutionshows a Western Niantic woman named MercyNonsuch Matthews holding an appliqued andbeaded pouch of curvilinear motifs similar tothose on Caroline Parker’s clothes. Along withthe copper headbands, such decorated textilessignify Native American cultural practice amongthe Mashpees.

CONCLUSION

The 718 textile fragments from Seneca Roadcould easily have been overlooked since theircolor was the same as the soil and roots hadgrown through them, giving them the appear-

ance of “fuzzy dirt.” These fragile wool fabricsprovide information about sewing techniques,apparel materials, native textile production, andunique Indian modifications to English styleapparel. The presence of so many fabrics withevenly cut edges suggests that Mashpee Indiansused pillows stuffed with wool in mortuarypractice. Close examination of the textiles helpedto confirm the dating of the site to late 18th toearly 19th century.


Figure 10.8. Wool tailcoat, circa 1820. University ofRhode Island Historic Textile and CostumeCollection. 1953.23.03.

Figure 10.9. Caroline G. Parker wearing traditionalSeneca clothing made by herself. Photograph copy ofa lost hand-tinted daguerreotype with the image lat-erally reversed, taken slightly before 1850. Courtesyof the Southwest Museum, Los Angeles (Photo#N24963).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The exacting process of examining and cate-gorizing the textiles was performed by KathrynTarleton through a URI research assistantship.Thanks to Edward Bell of the MassachusettsHistorical Commission for providing site infor-mation and related references.

REFERENCES CITED

Bogdonoff, Nancy Dick1975 Handwoven Textiles of Early New England.

Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.Brantley, Elizabeth2000 Burial Dress of an Adolescent Male from the

Early 1850s. The Costume Society of America:26th Annual Meeting and SymposiumAbstracts, p. 23. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Campisi, Jack1991 The Mashpee Indians: Tribe on Trial. The Iro-

quois and Their Neighbors, Lawrence M.Hauptman, Series Editor. Syracuse Univer-sity Press, Syracuse, New York.

Earle, Alice Morse1969 [1893] Customs and Fashions in Old New Eng-

land. Corrner House, Williamstown, Massa-chusetts.

Gibbons, Michael F.1992 Skeletal Analysis, Seneca Road Burials,

Mashpee, Massachusetts. Letter report toBrona Simon, 11 February. On file, Office ofthe Massachusetts State Archaeologist, Mas-sachusetts Historical Commission, Boston.

Hawley, Gideon1968 [1815] A Description of Mashpee, in the Coun-

ty of Barnstable, Sept. 16th 1802. Collectionsof the Massachusetts Historical Society, Ser.2, No. 3. Reprint 1968. Johnson ReprintCorp., New York.

Hutchins, Francis G.1979 Mashpee: The Story of Cape Cod’s Indian Town.

Amarta, West Franklin, New Hampshire.Larkin, Jack1988 The Reshaping of Everyday Life, 1790–1840.

Harper and Row, New York.

Massachusetts Historical Commission1990 Human Remains Found at Heron Drive,

Mashpee. Field report on file, Office of theMassachusetts State Archaeologist, Massa-chusetts Historical Commission, Boston.

Mrozowski, Stephen1993 Archaeological Evidence of Native Ameri-

can Horticulture. Paper presented at thePequot History Conference, Mystic, Con-necticut 21 October 1993.

Nylander, Jane C.1993 Our Own Snug Fireside: Images of the New

England Home, 1760–1860. Alfred A. Knopf,New York.

Peters, Russell M.1987 The Wampanoag of Mashpee: An Indian Per-

spective on American History. Indian Spiritualand Cultural Training Council. NimrodPress, Boston, Massachusetts.

Salisbury, Neal1974 Red Puritans: The “Praying Indians” of

Massachusetts Bay Colony and John Eliot.William and Mary Quarterly 31:27-54.

Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher2001 The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in

the Creation of an American Myth. Alfred A.Knopf, New York.

Welker, Deborah, and Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff2000 A Black Silk Burial Gown from an 1852 Bur-

ial. The Costume Society of America: 26thAnnual Meeting and Symposium Abstracts, p.24. Williamsburg, Virginia.

Welters, Linda1993 From Moccasins to Frock Coats and Back

Again: Ethnic Identity and Native AmericanDress in Southern New England. In Dress inAmerican Culture, edited by Patricia A. Cun-ningham and Susan Voso Lab, pp. 6-41.Bowling Green State University PopularPress, Bowling Green, Ohio.

Welters, Linda, Margaret T. Ordoñez, Kathryn Tar-leton, and Joyce Smith

1996 European Textiles from Seventeenth-Centu-ry New England Indian Cemeteries. In His-torical Archaeology and the Study of AmericanCulture, edited by Lu Ann De Cunzo andBernard L. Herman, pp. 193-232. HenryFrancis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Win-terthur, Delaware.


ABSTRACT

This chapter discusses the materials, techniques,and convoluted history of a late 17th century NewEngland twined bag, one of the earliest extant histor-ical examples from this region.

INTRODUCTION

The art of making patterned twined bags,once widespread in the Northeast, withered andgradually disappeared during the two centuriesafter the advent of Europeans. Only hints of thisskill and its products have survived in thearchaeological record (see Chapter 1 and“Comparisons” below), but a handful of extanthistorical examples provide hints as to what hasbeen lost.

One such patterned twined bag, from late-17th-century New England (Figure 11.1; previ-ously published in Dongen 1996:194 and Ulrich2001:49-50), is described below. The quality ofpreservation compared to that of twined materi-als from the archaeological record provides awindow into an almost unknown pre-European-contact body of work. The “life story” of the bag,as pieced together by George Hamell from fami-ly tradition and written documents, containssome gaps and some inconsistencies betweenoral and written history. Technical analysis of thebag (carried out by Penelope Drooker) comple-ments its history, and provides additional infor-mation about its likely place of origin.

HISTORY

Hamell was introduced to the bag in 1992 byits owner, an Albany, New York, area residentwho had received it from his paternal grandfa-ther, Walden Denison Brough. Three documentsaccompany the bag, recording information and afamily tradition about its origin. The first, dated1896, was penciled on a cardboard insert cutfrom a hat box to stiffen the bottom of the bag.The second probably dates to the turn of the 20thcentury. The third, written on letterhead of aSchenectady business perhaps by Mr. Broughhimself, is a later 20th century document. (See

Chapter 11 Susannah Swan’s “Wampun Bag” 197

CHAPTER 11

SUSANNAH SWAN’S “WAMPUM BAG”Penelope B. Drooker and George R. Hamell


Figure 11.1. Side view of bag.

Appendix 1 for annotated transcriptions of thesedocuments.)

In these documents, the twined bag is char-acterized as a “wampum bag,” and identifiedwith a “Susan Swan,” an ancestor who had beencaptured by the Indians during the “ConnecticutWar” over 200 years earlier. According to thefamily tradition, “Susan Swan” made her escapeafter two years of captivity with the assistance ofan old Indian woman, identified in one of thedocuments as “the chief’s mother.” This womangave “Susan Swan” a “wampum bag” contain-ing food, along with a blanket, and provideddirections to a nearby Euro-american settlement.

During the 19th century, holes in the bagwere mended and it was converted into a“sewing basket.” A circular cardboard disk wascovered with fabric on one side and inserted intothe bottom of the bag to flatten and stiffen it(Figure 11.2), the top edge was bound with fab-ric, and a fabric strap was added.

According to the late-19th–early-20th-centu-ry documents, not only the bag but also the blan-ket were extant, the bag preserved in the Waldenfamily, from which probably came WaldenDenison Brough’s first name, and the blanket inthe Gallup family. The earliest of the three docu-

ments further links “Susan Swan” and the bagwith the Ball family, and probably the Miner [orMinor] family. It was written on the underside ofthe cardboard insert (Figure 11.3), cut from a hat-box that bears the stamp of a Schoharie County,New York, hatter and furrier, J. H. Boyce & Son,in business during the mid-19th century (Child1873). Among the penciled notes is the statementthat “Susan Swan” was the “great great greatgreat great great / Grand Mother” of Mr.William Miner Ball. The cardboard also bears thenotation, “Wm M Ba[ll] / Mrs / H F Bal[l] /1896.”

Thus, although the family tradition placesthe origin of the bag in the captivity and escapeof a female ancestor during the 17th-centuryIndian wars in New England, internal evidencefrom the documents themselves suggests that ithas been in the possession of Albany areadescendents for at least the past 100 years. Thisinference is corroborated by genealogicalresearch.

The bag now has been identified with thecaptivity of Mrs. Susannah Wood (1673-1772),daughter of Phillip Eastman (1644–died before1714) and resident of Haverhill, Massachusetts(Rix 1901, I:10, 19-20) (see Appendix 2). During

198 Penelope B. Drooker and George R. Hamell

Figure 11.2. Cardboard insert for bottom of bag, cov-ered with chintz.

Figure 11.3. Reverse side of cardboard insert, show-ing identification marks and handwritten remarks.

the French and Indian attack upon that northernfrontier community on March 15, 1697,Susannah Wood was taken captive by theIndians, and her husband Thomas and daughterSusannah were killed. Susannah Wood wasamong many captives taken in the attack on thisvulnerable frontier community, most notablyamong them the infamous Hannah Dustin(Coleman 1925, I:337, 342-345). The release ofSusannah and other New England captivesamong the Narridgawag [Norridgewock],Narrackomagog [Rocameca], and Amassacanty[Amaseconti] bands of Abenaki was secured twoyears later at a treaty at Marepoint (nowBrunswick), Casco Bay, Maine (Coleman 1925,I:77-79).

Shortly after her release, Susannah marriedJohn Swan of Haverhill, where they continued toreside until about 1709 (Rix 1901, I:19-20).During the French and Abenaki Indian attack onHaverhill in late August 1708, the now SusannahSwan, armed with the fireplace spit, reportedlyskewered the first of two Indians attempting toforce their way through the doorway of the fam-ily home (Mirick 1832:123-124; White 1842:95-96). By 1709, Susannah and her husband hadmoved to Stonington, Connecticut, where shedied on 20 December 1772, in her hundredthyear. Although the Eastman genealogy statesthat Susannah Wood/Susannah Swan had beentwice captured by the Indians (Rix 1901, I:10),historical records document only the one inci-dent of 1697–1699.

Plausibly the bag descended in the Swan lin-eage, at least into the early 19th century, passingfrom Susannah’s son John Swan (1710-?), to hisson Joshua Swan (1736–1802). Joshua Swan andfamily moved from Stonington to the Albanyarea in 1788, settling in Saratoga County, whichabuts Albany County to the north. Joshua Swandied in the town of Milton, Saratoga County, in1802.

While this genealogical reconstructionallows for the bag’s subsequent family descentwithin the Albany area, genealogical researchhas failed to directly link the Swan family toWalden Denison Brough, grandfather of thepresent owner. Research does suggest an indirectlinkage by means of two other Stonington fami-

lies, the Denisons and the Gallups, members ofwhich played prominent roles in King Philip’sWar, and descendents of whom also emigratedto the Albany area in the late 18th and early 19thcenturies, settling in Schoharie County, NewYork (Denison 1963; Gallup 1893). Denison andGallup family genealogies (e.g., Denison 1963;Gallup 1893) document the frequent intermar-riages of these two Schoharie County families.More significantly, while resident in Stonington,Susannah Swan’s son John Swan, and three ofher grandchildren, including Joshua Swan, mar-ried members of the Denison family, which alsolinked them to the Stonington Gallup family (Rix1901, I:passim). The Walden family surname (Mr.Brough’s given name) and the Miner [Minor]family surname (see Appendix 1, Document 3)also appear in Denison and Gallup familygenealogies of the 19th century. However, a mar-riage sometime in the first half of the 19th centu-ry of a male Swan family descendent into theBall and/or Miner [Minor] families is also sus-pected, but has not been attested to date.

The identification of the bag as a “wampunbag” in the late-19th-century and turn-of-the-20th-century recorded traditions of the bag’s sig-nificance. There is nothing about the bag itselfthat would identify its use as such. Certainly,loose wampum beads, wampum strings, andwampum belts could have been stored or carriedabout in basketry bags or other containers.Given this bag’s original form and large size, itsdedicated use to store or transport wampumseems very unlikely.

Undoubtedly, survival of the twined bag intothe 19th century can be traced to the tradition ofcaptivity identified with it. Susannah EastmanWood Swan lived into her hundredth year, dying75 years after her captivity and release. Sheundoubtedly repeated her story many times toher children and grandchildren, which accountsfor its survival as a family oral tradition well intothe 19th century and the anonymous writtenaccounts of it dating to around the turn of the20th century.

Contributing to the bag’s survival was itsconversion into a sewing basket sometime dur-ing the last half of the 19th century, at which timeit was mended and stabilized. However, the


additions made to the bag at that time alsoobscured some of the original details of con-struction, as discussed below.

ANATOMY OF A TWINED BAG

Susannah Swan’s bag is one of an extremelysmall group of extant 17th-century New Englanddecorated twined bags (see comparison below).Its complex geometrical pattern, fine-scalecordage, and consistent, skillful execution ear-mark it as the product of an experienced, metic-ulous craftsperson. Its materials, structure, anddesign can inform us of details of its history nottouched upon by the documentary evidence.

SIZE

The bag was difficult to measure because ofits present somewhat-distorted shape. It isapproximately 21 cm high by 28 cm wide (equiv-alent to a diameter of about 18 cm). Its now-flat-tened bottom originally might have been at leastsomewhat rounded, adding to its height.Because of the fabric binding, it is unknownwhether the current top edge is at the same levelas the original; it might possibly be worn downor cut off.

ORIGINAL MATERIALS

The warp and weft elements of this bag areof plant materials, more highly processed in thewarps than the wefts.

The reddish-brown warp elements, approxi-mately 2 mm in diameter, consist of two S-twistsingles cords plied together with a Z twist (seeDefinitions). This cordage is well made and con-sistent in diameter except where damage to thebag has resulted in fraying or untwisting. Thematerial is basswood; “individual elements areflat strips” (Welters and Ordoñez 2002).

The dark weft elements consist of untwisted,unplied flat strips of basswood (Welters andOrdoñez 2002), with color varying from mediumto very dark brown. This color variation appearsrandom, rather than intended to create aplanned pattern. The lighter, straw-colored weftsare hollow plant stems, possibly rush (Welters

and Ordoñez 2002). No twist direction is appar-ent in either weft material. These elements, too,are approximately 2 mm wide, but flattened incross section compared to the cordage.

LATER ADDITIONS

Three industrially woven fabrics were addedto the bag at a later date.

Damage to the bag was repaired by patchesof a brown, denim-like fabric with one set ofwhite and one set of brown elements as warpand weft. In combination with the uneven twill-weave structure (see Definitions), this results ina different coloration on each side of the fabric.The darker side, showing a greater proportion of

the brown elements, is oriented to the outside ofthe bag. The fibers have not been analyzed, butare likely cotton. Alternatively, the fabric mightbe a combination of cotton and wool (“jean”) orlinen and wool (“linsey-woolsey”). A circle ofthis fabric was sewn into the severely damagedbottom of the bag (Figures 11.4 and 11.5). Therealso is a small patch covering a hole in the side(Figures 11.6 and 11.7). A small slit in the sidewas sewn together rather than being patched(Figure 11.8).

A glazed cotton chintz was used to bind theedge of the bag, and also to cover the circular


Figure 11.4. Bottom view of bag, damaged andrepaired.


Figure 11.5. Interior bottom of bag, showing largepatch of twill fabric.

Figure 11.6. Patched hole in side of bag, exterior.

Figure 11.7. Patched hole in side of bag, interior.

Figure 11.8. Mended small slit in side of bag, exterior.

cardboard liner employed to stiffen and flattenthe bottom of the bag (Figures 11.2 and 11.3). Thechintz pattern — a bird amid branches, leaves,and flowers, rendered in brown, deep reddish-brown, olive green, black, and white — is con-sistent with products of the first half of the 19thcentury such as an 1831 roller-printed designwith flowers and birds “copied directly fromAudubon’s Birds of America” (Robinson 1969:Pl.45; see also Montgomery 1970:328-329, Pl. II).According to Diane L. Fagan Affleck (personalcommunication 2002), the pattern on this fabricdoes not appear to be any later than the 1830s,although similar designs were cyclically popularboth earlier and later than that decade. She sug-gests that this textile probably was an Englishimport. The base fabric is balanced plain weavewith approximately 30 elements per cm (Figure11.9). The yarn elements appear to be single-plywith a Z twist.

A deep blue silk ribbon, woven in herring-bone twill (see Definitions), was sewn to eachside of the bag to act as handle (Figure 11.10). Itnow is in two pieces, tied together at the center,and has torn away from one side, leaving a smallrectangle of ribbon still attached (Figure 11.11).The silk yarn is two-ply, with initial S and final Ztwist.

All of the repair and other sewing were car-ried out using the same light-brown two-ply, S-

twist thread, 0.5 mm in diameter. The fiber hasnot been analyzed, but appears to be cotton orlinen, not silk. Stitches are expedient rather thanneatly consistent (Figures 11.4–11.9, 11.11).


Figure 11.9. Top edge of bag, bound with chintz fab-ric, interior. Figure 11.10. Side view of bag, showing silk ribbon

strap.

Figure 11.11. Closeup of silk twill ribbon fragmentattached to interior of rim.

FABRIC STRUCTURE

Structurally, the bag is weft-faced, combiningplain (half-turn) twining and full-turn twining(Figures 11.12a, 11.12c; see also Definitions) toform a geometric design on the sides. Much ofthe patterned area fits the definition of“wrapped twining,” in which one twining ele-ment is held rigid (Figures 11.12d, 11.12e); thus,the inside of the bag has a different texture thanthe outside (e.g., Figures 11.6 and 11.7). Thetwining rows are twisted in the Z direction.

To start the bag, 14 bundles of warp elementswere bound together in the center of the bottom,

then fanned out in a radial pattern. Around these“spokes,” plain twining was carried out in atight spiral (Figure 11.4). Because of damage tothe bottom of the bag, it is not possible to countthe exact number of weft rows, but after approx-imately 6 rows of twining, the warp bundleswere split in two. This was repeated at intervalsof 10–15 rows, resulting in a total of 266 warps(not an exact multiple of 14). After the lastincrease in warp ends, straight sides were main-tained, and the structure changed to patternedwrapped twining. On the sides of the bag, therewere approximately 3.5 warp elements per cen-timeter and 4.5 weft rows per centimeter.

Due to the fabric binding, the top edge struc-ture cannot be seen. In some places, what seemslike the intact rim can be felt through the cloth; inother places, the rim feels trimmed. The assump-tion is that this area of the bag, like the bottom,was significantly damaged.

DESIGN

At bottom center of the bag, 5 rows of darkweft form a central “bulls-eye.” Across theremainder of the bottom, a striped pattern wasmaintained (Figure 11.4), with single rows ofdark weft alternating with 5–6 rows of light-col-ored weft.

The geometric design on the sides of the bagcombines stepped lines with serrated-edge diago-nals (Figures 11.1, 11.13). The design, which incor-porates a motif with 180° rotational symmetry, isbuilt on diagonal translation (displacement orshift) of the pattern motif (Washburn and Crowe1988:44-50, 128-131, 164-167, 184-186). This is asophisticated pattern, requiring advanced plan-ning and careful counting of twining twistsbetween color changes. In fact, the total numberof warp ends did not allow an integral number ofpattern unit repeats around the bag, so the maker“fudged” on one side, placing two sets of diago-nal elements instead of one within one set ofstepped lines (Figure 11.14; cf. Figure 11.1).

The intricate design coupled with the finescale of the twining result in a product that prob-ably took hundreds of hours to make (see non-patterned twining time estimates in Drooker1992:164-169).


Figure 11.12. Twining structures mentioned in thetext. a. Plain twining (Z-twist). b. Plain twining with“false embroidery.” c. Full-turn twining (S-twist). d.Wrapped twining (full-turn twining with one elementheld rigid), front side. e. Wrapped twining, back side.(After Fraser 1989:Diagrams 50, 83, 84.) See alsoDefinitions.

NORTHEASTERN PATTERNEDTWINED BAGS

Within the Northeast, bags with colored pat-terns rendered in variations of compact wefttwining are known both from historical contextsand, much more rarely, from archaeological con-texts. Two different structures, one utilizing twowefts and the other utilizing three, are knownfrom New England.

BAGS PATTERNED WITH “FALSEEMBROIDERY”

Most extant 17th-18th century patternedtwined bags from the Northeast were construct-ed in the technique known as “false embroi-dery,” in which a supplementary colored weft iswrapped around the two structural twining weftelements (Figure 11.12b; see Definitions). Colorchanges in the supplementary weft can be usedto form design motifs. This technique is particu-larly well suited to short supplementary materi-als such as porcupine quills or moose hair, sincethe ends of the supplementary elements can behidden easily within the structural twining.


Figure 11.13. Diagram of Swan bag design motif.

Figure 11.14. Side of bag, showing doubled designmotif.

Early bags decorated with “false embroi-dery” that are attributed to Algonquian groupsinclude a possibly cylindrical Mohegan bag fromthe Tocamwap family of Connecticut, said tohave been 300 years old in 1842; an early-18th-century cylindrical bag, possibly Ojibway; and alate-18th-century, envelope-shaped “pocket-book,” formed from a flat fabric, which wasmade by Marie Agathe (Molly Ocket[t],“Mollocket”), a Pigwacket Abenaki woman wholived in New England ca. 1740–1816 (see Table11.1 for summary information and references;see Ulrich 2001:248-276 for detailed informationon the historical context and literary embellish-ment of events in which Molly Ocket took partand on the European and Native contributionsto the form, materials, and production techniqueof the pocketbook; and see McBride:1999:43-67for a more personal exploration of Molly’s lifeand travels). All of these containers were deco-rated with multicolored geometrical designscontained within horizontal bands.

Brasser discusses a group of flat, rectangularIroquoian pouches from the St. Lawrence Valleydecorated with moosehair “false embroidery,”which are dated to 1720–1740 (see Table 11.2,which summarizes information about those thathe illustrates). He notes that, in contrast to thebanded designs often found on Algonquianbags, most of these Iroquoian pouches exhibitdecorative designs that fill a rectangular space(Brasser 1975:39).An undecorated archaeological example from

the 1670–1687 Seneca Iroquois Boughton Hill sitesouth of Rochester, New York (Figure 1.3), isclose to identical in shape, size, and braidededge finish (Drooker 1996).

Brasser also illustrates a cylindrical bagfrom the St. Lawrence region, an extremely rareexample of a cylindrical decorated bag from apresumed Iroquoian provenance. It exhibitstwo thin, separated horizontal bands contain-ing geometric designs worked in “false embroi-dery” on a background of “hexagonal” twining(Brasser 1975:77; see Definitions), a very unusu-al combination. The “hexagonal” twined struc-ture is known from Delaware Indian, upperGreat Lakes Algonquian, and trans-MississippiRiver contexts (e.g., Brasser 1975:82; Drooker

1992:70; Whiteford 1977a:54), so perhaps thisbag actually is Algonquian rather thanIroquoian in origin.

BAGS PATTERNED WITH FULL-TURNTWINING

One small decorated basket, curated at theRhode Island Historical Society (Brasser 1975:64,73, 97; Gordon 1997:36, 99-100 [n. 12]; McNeil2003; Sturtevant 1992; Turnbaugh andTurnbaugh 1997:121; Ulrich 2001:42-74;Willoughby 1935:251, 252, 254), is the closestknown in construction, pattern design, andshape to the Swan bag (Table 11.3). It is recordedas having been received from “a squaw, a nativeof the forest” by Dinah Fenner at what is nowCranston, Rhode Island, and was long dated ascontemporaneous with King Philip’s War of themid-1670s. However, Ulrich’s research into itshistory makes an early-18th-century date morelikely (2001:42, 61, 71-73).

Like the Swan bag, the structure of theFenner basket is Z-twist wrapped twining(Figures 11.12d, 11.12e), but due to the deteriora-tion of some of the weft elements, the patterndesign is now incomplete (Figure 11.15a).Because of the missing wefts, it has sometimeserroneously been described as having a bandeddesign, or an open twined structure. The single-ply (McNeil 2003), S-twist warps are of bark, per-haps basswood (Ulrich 2001:72). The basket’sweft materials included corn husk or some otherlight-colored plant fiber, and red, blue, and blackwoolen yarns (Turnbaugh and Turnbaugh1997:121; Ulrich 2001:47, 72). Only fragments ofthe wool yarns remain, mostly on the interior ofthe container. It is possible that not only thedarker-colored wool yarn but also some of thelighter-colored plant-fiber weft elements aremissing. If so, the pattern design might well bearmore than a passing similarity to that of theSwan bag (e.g., Figure 11.15b). Rather than geo-metric pattern motifs contained in horizontalbands or motifs centered within a rectangularshape, the design motifs of the Fenner bag, likethose of the Swan bag, likely formed a continu-ous pattern of stepped and diagonal linesaround the sides of the cylindrical container.


Besides the design format, points of similari-ty between the Fenner and Swan bags include acylindrical shape built upon radial warps, a fab-ric structure of Z-twisted wrapped twining, two-ply bark warps, single-ply plant-fiber wefts, andthe general time period.

Although rare in the archaeological record,the wrapped twining structure is known from 11fragments of two different fabrics from the EarlyWoodland (ca. 1000–100 B. C.) Boucher site innorthwestern Vermont (Heckenberger et al.1996:54-55, 62, 63; for site location, see Figure1.3). In the Boucher examples, the active twiningelements were animal-hair yarn, while the pas-sive (rigid) element was vegetal. On one fabric,two varieties of hair yarns were utilized as activeelements to form a geometric design.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries,full-turn twining with paired active wefts(Figure 11.12c) was utilized by members ofAlgonquian and closely related Siouan groupsliving in the upper Great Lakes region to makeflat, rectangular bags decorated with geometricpatterns contained in horizontal bands (e.g.,Gordon 1997:Fig. 23; Phillips 1989; Whiteford1977b), many of which still survive. Flexible

woolen yarns in contrasting bright colors wereused for the twining wefts.

GENERAL COMPARISONS

Tables 11.1–11.3 summarize similarities anddifferences among the 17th-18th century bagsmentioned above and Susannah Swan’s.Common among the five Algonquian examplesin Tables 11.2 and 11.3 is a weft-faced Z-twisttwining structure. All but one — which wasmade for a Euro-American in the then-popularform of a pocketbook (Ulrich 2001:263, 265) —exhibit a cylindrical shape underpinned by radi-al warps. All but Susannah Swan’s bag are tallerthan wide. It is possible that the Swan bag origi-nally was, as well. The Swan and Fenner bagsshare the patterning technique of weft wrappingas well as stepped-line and diagonal patternmotifs. The other two Algonquian cylindricalbags, decorated with “false embroidery,” bothwere made from plant-fiber yarns with porcu-pine quill supplementary wefts, and exhibit pat-tern designs based on small geometric motifswithin horizontal bands.


Figure 11.15. a. Pattern design from Fenner bag, Rhode Island, late 17th-early 18th century (Ulrich 2001:48,drawing by Mindy Chiou; used with permission). Dark areas indicate missing wefts or (at the top of the bag)darker wefts. b. Partial reconstruction of complete pattern motif of Fenner bag. (The uppermost extant patternarea, the bottom of which is identical to the lowermost extant pattern area, has been superimposed upon thelatter.)



Baskets from New England were fashionedfrom a variety of materials. Charles Willoughbyquotes a description of baskets made byMassachusetts Indians from a 17th century man-uscript by Daniel Gookin:

“Several sorts of baskets were made, bothgreat and small. Some . . . are made of rushes,some of bents (coarse grass), others of maizehusks, others of a kind of silk grass, others of akind of wild hemp, and some of the barks oftrees, many of them very neat and artificial withportraitures of birds, beast, fishes and flowersupon them in colors.” (Willoughby 1935:250;from Gookin 1792)

The Swan bag is consistent with this descrip-

tion, as are the other bags discussed above; theuse of colored wool in addition to local plantmaterials would be a logical extension. None ofthe extant New England containers, however,contain depictions of plants or animals.

The Z-twist twining direction and final Ztwist of warp cordage in the Swan bag are con-sistent with a 2,750-year record of predominant-ly Z-twist cordage and twining direction alongcoastal Massachusetts, Maine, and the MaritimeProvinces that has been documented by JamesPetersen and Jack Wolford (Petersen 1996;Petersen and Wolford 2000:101-107), based onthousands of impressions of cordage on pottery.This contrasts with the typical S-twist cordage


and twining direction used at interior sitesthroughout much of the non-IroquoianNortheast, including areas north and west of theGulf of Maine, and various locations within theConnecticut River and Lake Champlaindrainages.

A number of 16th- and 17th-century archaeo-logical examples of weft-faced twined bags areknown from New York, several of which arecited in Chapter 1. None has a visible patternmotif, nor do any that Drooker has examinedexhibit either of the patterning structures dis-cussed above. The non-archaeological 18th cen-tury patterned examples summarized in Table11.2 all utilize the “false embroidery” patterningtechnique. 16th–18th century Iroquoian twinedbags, patterned and non-patterned, are almostexclusively in the form of flat rectangles ratherthan cylinders, a form that they share with bagsfrom the upper Great Lakes (e.g., Phillips 1989;Whiteford 1977a, 1977b, 1978). Most of thearchaeological fragments of twined fabrics fromNew York that Drooker has examined have Z-twist twining, like the bags with known twiningtwist directions that are listed in Tables 11.1–11.3(see also Petersen and Wolford 2000). The vastmajority of 17th-19th-century Chippewa/Ojibway, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Sauk/Fox, andWinnebago Great Lakes twined bags, however,are twined in the S direction (for example, seeexamples illustrated in references cited above).

Thus, Susannah Swan’s bag is consistent inmaterials, structure, and patterning with a NewEngland origin; twist direction points toward acoastal rather than interior venue. Although thisbag has a very large number of similarities to thesmall basket from Rhode Island, because of thepaucity of comparative examples it is impossibleto pinpoint its exact place of origin or ethnicaffiliation.

CONCLUSION

Besides its fascinating historical connections,Susannah Swan’s bag is remarkable for itsuniqueness — one of only four known NewEngland twined patterned bags — and for itsintricate design and skill of execution. Oral his-tory, documentation, and technical analysis all

contribute to our knowledge of this specialobject. In turn, they contribute to our under-standing of the few and fragmentary remains oftwining from the archaeological record of theNortheast. If this bag is typical of work beingdone by 17th-century New England craftspeopleand their ancestors before them, we can onlylament the loss of so much beauty.

APPENDIX 1

This appendix contains transcriptions ofthree documents pertaining to the twined bag’sfamily history, annotated by George Hamell.The endnotes refer to word insertions and dele-tions in the original, and to clarifications ofambiguous sections of the text suggested by him.Hamell added bracketed periods [.] to indicateapparent sentence breaks. In doing so, he did notin turn capitalize the initial letter of the firstword of the resulting sentence.

DOCUMENT 1

The earliest document consists of numerouspenciled notations on the bag’s cardboard liner,which was cut from a hatbox (Figure 11.3). Allappear to have been made by the same person,but not necessarily at the same time, whichmight account for slight differences in the hand-writing and in the stated age of the bag, and inthe relative lightness or darkness of the notationsthemselves.

Occupying most of the area of the cardboardis a printed hat supplier’s order form for bowleror derby hats in sizes 6-5/8 to 7-3/4. It features alarge image of a bowler or derby, upon whichappear the legends “Exus Ac Solidus.” across thecrown and “AMERICAN MANUFACTURE.”around the headband. Below this, the local hatretailer’s identification appears in a smaller ovalstamp, which reads: “J. H. BOYCE & SON /HATTERS / And FURRIERS / SCHOHARIEC.H., N.Y.” Within the hat supplier’s printedorder form are penciled notations relating to anorder, which have not been transcribed here.

With the printed manufacturer’s and retail-er’s information in proper reading orientation,the penciled notations relating the bag’s family


history appear above (at the 12:00 position), tothe right (at the 3:00 position), below (at the 6:00position) and to the left (at the 9:00 position).Two additional annotations appear just withinthe border of the hat supplier’s order form.

Within the order form, to the left of thebowler or derby, is penciled: “Wm M Ba[ll /Mrs / H F Bal[l] / 1896”.Within the order form, to the right of thebowler or derby, is penciled: “ConneticutWar”.In the space above the order form is penciled:“Basket / this is two Hundred / years old”.In the 3:00 position, to the right of the orderform, is penciled: “This came from the /Indians[.] Was Brought by / Susan Swan aprisoner”.Beginning in the 6:00 position, below theorder form, and running through the 9:00position to the left of the order form, is pen-ciled: “Mr[.] Wm Miner Balls great greatgreat great great great / Grand / Mother”.Also at the 6:00 position, below the first halfthe previous notation, is penciled: “She alsobrought a box [indecipherable] food / and aBlanket[.] this is over 200 years / 200 and 30or 40 years old / 1896”.

DOCUMENT 2

Following is a line-by-line transcription ofthe second of three written family traditionsidentified with the twined bag. This documentmay be contemporaneous with the notations inDocument 1.

Miss1 Susan Swan was taken by theIndians[.]after her capture and while with theIndians she was Set2 in the Cornfieldsto watch the Corn from the Bears witha fire Brand[.] she had the Tommyhawksshook over her3 head a good many timesand told that her turn would comenext[.] the Indians would go off on

a hunting Expedition and if they camehome without good success they wouldkill one of their prisoners and thenhave a pow Wow + Dance over it[.]4and at the time that Miss Swan Left theIndians they had gone off on a huntingExpedition and an5 old squaw Living withthe Indians helped Miss Swan off out ofthe way6 of the Indians. She7

filled a wampum Bag with somethingto Eat on her8 Journey through the woodsand then went with her through the9 woodssome ways and directed her the best wayshe Could so that she got Home all safe[.]She10 Slept in Halow Logs day timesand Traveled Nights as the Old [squaw]11told her[.]the Old Squaw gave her a Blanketand I think it is in Possession of theGallups yet[.] this bag is 200 and 30or 40 years,old[.]12 it was in Connecticut war.

DOCUMENT 3

Following is a line-by-line transcription ofthe third of three written family traditions iden-tified with the bag. It postdates Document 2, andis handwritten in ink on letterhead, printed:“BROUGH’S TOY WORKS / W. D. BROUGH,PROP. / 927 STANLEY ST., SCHENECTADY,N.Y.” Beneath that header is the followingaccount.

Record of the captivity of Mrs Susan Swan.

Mrs Susan Swan was taken by the indiansafterthey had killed her husband & hired man - +set fire to the barn - Their camp was 2 daysjourney away. Thro’ woods fording rivers[+c.]While with the indians she was set to watchthe corn from the bears with a fire brand.When they had war dances - around burning


victims she had the tomahawk shaken at her+was told her turn would soon come - Theindianswould go off on a hunting exposition13 & iftheycame back without good success they wouldkilla prisoner & then have a powow14 & danceover it.15After 2 years captivity the chief’s motherdirectedMrs Swan & helped her escape - She16 filleda wampumbag with food & then went with her17 throthe woods[,]directing her to follow a star - travelling onlybynight. She slept in hollow logs by day - Thesecond morn. she spied a white settlement along way off as the squaw had directed her.The squaw gave her a blanket which is in thepossession of the Gallup family & thewampumbag is with the Waldens - between 200 & 300yearsold.

APPENDIX 2

Susannah Eastman’s family is remarkable forthe many members taken captive during theNew England Indian wars. In addition to thebrief family tradition of Susannah’s captivity,three other family members left narratives oftheir Indian captivity: Mary Neff, Susannah’saunt and Hannah Dustin’s nurse, also taken cap-tive in Haverhill in 1697; another aunt, HannahEastman, taken captive in Haverhill in 1703; anda second cousin, Amos Eastman, Hannah’s son,then residing at Concord, New Hampshire, whowas taken captive in 1752.

Phillip Eastman (1644–1714) [Susannah’sfather] also was taken captive in the French andIndian attack on Haverhill on March 15, 1687,but subsequently made his escape. He had ear-

lier served as a soldier in King Philip’s War (Rix1901:I:10).

Thomas Eastman (1646–1688) [Phillip’sbrother and Susannah Eastman’s uncle] also hadserved as a soldier in King Phillip’s War.Thomas was killed in an Indian attack onHaverhill on April 29, 1688, and his wife,Deborah Eastman (1655–?) [Susannah’s aunt],was taken captive. Following the attack, JohnEastman (1640–1720), Philip and Thomas’sbrother [and another uncle of Susannah], wasappointed guardian of Jonathan Eastman, thenage 8, the only son of Thomas Eastman and ofDeborah Eastman then in captivity (Rix 1901:I:9,10-11).

Sarah Eastman (1683–1697), Jonathan’s sisterand daughter of Thomas and Deborah Eastman[and cousin of Susannah Eastman], was killedduring the March 15, 1697, attack on Haverhillduring the so-called “Dustin massacre” (Rix1901:I:10-11).

Deborah Eastman (1655–?), ThomasEastman’s wife [and Susannah Eastman’s aunt],was the daughter of George and Joannah Corlisof Haverhill. Deborah’s oldest sister, MaryCorlis [another aunt of Susannah], marriedWilliam Neff. Mary Neff, by then a widow, wasserving as Hannah Dustin’s nurse when bothwere taken captive during the French and Indianattack on Haverhill on March 15, 1697 (Rix1901:I:10-11). Hannah Dustin and Mary Neff’scaptivity was brief, but their escape by toma-hawking their sleeping Indian captors with thehelp of Samuel Lenorson, a boy taken captivetwo years before, is infamous in the captivity lit-erature. In 1699, Cotton Mather published theearliest account of the Dustin party’s captivity,escape, return to Haverhill, and subsequentcelebrity (Coleman 1925:I:342-343; Lincoln1913:263-266; Lossing 1875).

Hannah Eastman (1701–?), born HannahGreen on Dustin Hill, Haverhill, marriedJonathan Eastman, the only son of Thomas andDeborah Eastman above [and cousin ofSusannah Eastman]. Hannah Eastman was cap-tured, and their infant daughter, Abigail, waskilled during the Indian attack on Haverhill onFebruary 8, 1704. Hannah’s probable St. FrancisAbenaki captors carried her off to the Three


Rivers area, pausing first at Ossipee Lake andthen at the “Ox-Bow” in Newbury, Vermont.Continuing on their way, they tarried briefly atCowass, where Stephen Williams saw them. AtThree Rivers (St. Francis), a French woman froma nearby French community saw Hannah andarranged her escape, secreting Hannah for threeyears in her home. Hannah was eventuallyreunited with her husband, whom she recog-nized passing by the French woman’s house,ending his three-year search for her. She left abrief narrative of her captivity (Coleman1925:I:349-350; Rix 1901:I:28-33).

Amos Eastman (1719–1808), son of Jonathanand Deborah Eastman [and a second cousin ofSusannah Eastman], was born in Haverhill, butlater removed with his father to Concord, NewHampshire, where they resided in 1746. Whilehunting and trapping along Baker’s River nearRumney, New Hampshire, on April 28, 1752,Amos Eastman, John and William Stark, andDavid Stinson were attacked by a party of St.Francis Indians. William escaped and Stinsonwas killed. However, Amos Eastman and JohnStark were carried to St. Francis, where both ranthe gauntlet, during which Eastman sufferedand Stark seized a club and knocked downIndians left and right. Eastman was sold to aFrench master. Stark was treated kindly by theIndians, who liked him. Both men wereredeemed six months later (Coleman 1925:II:291-294; Rix 1901:I:84-86).

One final genealogical note of art-historicalinterest: Captain Seth Eastman, “pictorial histo-rian of the Indian” during the 19th century, wasthe great-great-great grandson of CaptainEbenezer Eastman (1681–1748), one of the twosons of Philip Eastman and a younger brother ofSusannah Eastman (McDermott 1961:6; Rix1901:I:10, 20-26).

NOTES

1. “Miss” is spelled with long “s’s” here andelsewhere in the document, as are otherwords ending in double-s. At a later date andin another hand, “Miss” was crossed out,and “Mrs” added above the line.

2. Between “Set” and “in,” a caret was insertedbelow and “her” was inserted above the linein the original document, in the same hand.

3. A caret was inserted below the line and “her”was inserted above the line in the originaldocument and in the same hand.

4. I.e., the body of the slain prisoner.5. Here a caret was inserted below the line and

“an” was inserted above the line in the orig-inal document, in the same hand.

6. Immediately following “of the way,” thisphrase was repeated in the same line in theoriginal document and in the same hand, butsubsequently deleted.

7. The referents of the pronouns “she” and“her” throughout this sentence are potential-ly ambiguous. However, it seems probablethat the “old squaw” filled the “wampumBag” with something to eat for “Miss Swan,”that the “old squaw” went with “Miss Swan”through the woods, and that the “oldsquaw” directed “Miss Swan” safely home.

8. “Miss Swan” is referenced here.9. Here a caret was inserted below the line and

“the” was inserted above the line in the orig-inal document and in the same hand.

10. I.e., “Miss Swan.”11. There is evidence of erasures and overwrit-

ing at this end of the line. In any case, it iscertain that the word “squaw” [or “woman”]was omitted in the original.

12. Without the use of a caret, “old” appears tohave been inserted after the comma, after thefact, in the original document and in thesame hand.

13. I.e., “expedition.”14. I.e., “powwow.”15. I.e., the body of the slain prisoner.16. The chief’s mother is apparently referenced

here.17. The pronominal referent here, and those fol-

lowing, is “Mrs Swan.”

REFERENCES CITED

Brasser, Ted J.1975 A Basketful of Indian Culture Change. Nation-

al Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadi-


an Ethnology Service Paper No. 22. Nation-al Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Child, Hamilton1873 Gazetteer and Business Directory of Schoharie

County, N. Y. for 1872-3. Hamilton Child,publisher, The Journal Press, printer, Syra-cuse, New York.

Coleman, Emma Lewis1925 New England Captives Carried to Canada

Between 1677 and 1760 During the French andIndians Wars. Volumes I and II. The South-worth Press, printer, Portland, Maine.

Denison, Elverton Glenn1963 Denison Genealogy: Ancestors and Descendents

of Captain George Denison. Pequot PressIncorporated for The Denison Society, Ston-ington, Connecticut.

Dongen, Alexandra van (editor)1996 “One Man’s Trash Is Another Man’s Treasure”:

The Metamorphosis of the European Utensil inthe New World. Museum Boymans-VanBeuningen, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Drooker, Penelope B.1987 Mississippian Village Textiles at Wickliffe. Uni-

versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.1996 Fabrics from the Boughton Hill Site (#1384):

General Summary. Manuscript on file. NewYork State Museum, Albany.

Fraser, David W.1989 A Guide to Weft Twining and Related Struc-

tures with Interacting Wefts. University ofPennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Gallup, John D.1893 The Genealogical History of the Gallup Family

in the United States, Also, Biographical Sketch-es of Members of the Family. The HartfordPrinting Company (Elihu Geer’s Sons),Hartford, Connecticut.

Gookin, Daniel1792 Historical collections of the Indians in New

England. Of their several nations, numbers, cus-toms, manners, religion and government, beforethe English planted there . . . Now first printedfrom the original manuscript. At the ApolloPress, by Belknap and Haa, Boston.

Gordon, Joleen1997 Mi’kmaq Textiles: Twining with Rush and

Other Fibres, BkCp-1 Site, Pictou, Nova Scotia.Curatorial Report 82. Nova Scotia Museum,Halifax.

Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, FrancesB. King, and Louise A. Basa

1996 Fiber Industries from the Boucher Site: AnEarly Woodland Cemetery in NorthwesternVermont. In A Most Indispensable Art: NativeFiber Industries from Eastern North America,edited by James B. Petersen, pp. 50-72. Uni-versity of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Lincoln, Charles H. (editor)1913 Narratives of the Indian Wars, 1675–1699.

Original Narratives of Early American His-tory. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.

Lossing, Benson J.1875 The Hannah Dustin and Mary Corliss Neff

Tankard. Potter’s American Monthly4(41):339-340.

McBride, Bunny1999 Women of the Dawn. University of Nebraska

Press, Lincoln.McDermott, John Francis1961 Seth Eastman: Pictorial Historian of the Indi-

ans. University of Oklahoma Press, Nor-man.

McMullen, Ann, and Russell G. Handsman (editors)1988 A Key into the Language of Woodsplint Baskets.

American Indian Archaeological Institute,Washington, Connecticut.

McNeil, Cameron Lee2003 Seventeenth-Century Narragansett Bas-

ketry and Sewn Mats from RI 1000. Unpub-lished master’s thesis, University of Con-necticut, Storrs.

Mirick, B. L.1832 The History of Haverhill, Massachusetts. A. W.

Thayer, Haverhill, Massachusetts.Montgomery, Florence M.1970 Printed Textiles: English and American Cot-

tons and Linens, 1700–1850. The VikingPress, New York.

Petersen, James B.1996 Fiber Industries from Northern New Eng-


Petersen, James, and Jack A. Wolford2000 Spin and Twist as Cultural Markers: A New

England Perspective on Native Fiber Indus-


tries. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeo-logical Textile Research in the Americas, editedby Penelope B. Drooker and Laurie D. Web-ster, pp. 101-117. University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City.

Phillips, Ruth B.1989 Dreams and Designs: Iconographic Prob-

lems in Great Lakes Twined Bags. In GreatLakes Indian Art, edited by David W. Penney.Wayne State University Press, Detroit.

Rix, Guy S. (compiler)1901 History and Genealogy of the Eastman Family of

America. Vols. I and II. Ira C. Evans, print-er, Concord, New Hampshire.

Robinson, Stuart1969 AHistory of Printed Textiles. The M.I.T. Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts.Sturtevant, William C.1992 Unpublished notes on twined basket No. 4-

B. I 132, Rhode Island Historical Society,Providence. Copy on file with GeorgeHamell, New York State Museum, Albany.

Turnbaugh, Sarah Peabody, and William A. Turn-baugh

1997 Indian Baskets. 2nd ed. Schiffer PublishingLtd., West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher2001 The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in

the Creation of an American Myth. Alfred A.Knopf, New York.

Washburn, Dorothy K., and Donald W. Crowe1988 Symmetries of Culture: Theory and Practice of

Plane Pattern Analysis. University of Wash-ington Press, Seattle.

Welters, Linda, and Margaret Ordoñez2002 Analysis of Samples from Susannah Swan

Bag. Department of Textiles, Fashion Mer-chandising, and Design, University ofRhode Island, Kingston. Manuscript on file,New York State Museum, Albany.

White, Henry1842 The Early History of New England, Illustrated

by Numerous Interesting Incidents. 5th ed. I. S.Boyd, Concord, New Hampshire.

Whiteford, Andrew H.1977a Fiber Bags of the Great Lakes Indians, I.

American Indian Art 2(3):55-64, 85.1977b Fiber Bags of the Great Lakes Indians, II.

American Indian Art 3(1):40-47, 90.1978 Tapestry-Twined Bags, Osage Bags and

Others. American Indian Art 3(2):32-39, 92.Willoughby, Charles C.1935 Antiquities of the New England Indians.

Peabody Museum of American Archaeolo-gy and Ethnology, Harvard University,Cambridge, Massachusetts.



Balanced weave. Interlaced fabric in which warpand weft are “equal in size, spacing, and count”(Emery 1966:76). An alternative definition doesnot require equal-sized warp and weft yarns,only approximately the same number of warpelements as of weft elements per unit measure(Kadolph and Langford 1998).Bark cloth. Beaten bark cloth is a fiber construc-tion analogous to wool felt. It is made from lay-ers of inner bark that are soaked, “then beaten orpounded into a flat coherent fabric” (Emery1966:20-21).Bast fiber. Fiber derived from the stems of cer-tain plants, including hemp and flax; “part ofthe inner bark (phloem) of the stem of a dicotyle-donous plant” (Wilson 1979:11).Cambric. During the 18th century, a lightweightlinen fabric first made in Cambrai, France; in the19th century, “a plain weave cotton glazed onone side” (Wilson 1979:244, 281).Cast. An object formed in a mold or impression.Sometimes called a “positive mold” or “positiveimpression.” See also Impression, Mold.Chintz. A printed and glazed plain-weave cottonfabric; originally, a painted, resist-dyed clothmade in India.Chromatography. Amethod to separate complexmixtures by percolating them through a selec-tively adsorbing medium (Morris 1969:240).Cloth. Pliable, fibrous fabric made by anyprocess, including but not limited to weaving,twining, looping, linking, knotting, and felting.Coiling. Basket-making technique in which thefoundation element forms a spiral or coil hori-

zontal to the base and is secured in place by alinking or looping element.Cord. A replied yarn.Cordage. A rope-making term referring to cordsor ropes (see discussion in Emery 1966:13-14).Sometimes used to refer to assemblages of yarns,cords, or ropes not serving as elements of fabricconstruction.Element. A component part of the structure of aninterworked fabric: yarn, thread, strand, cord,sinew, thong, or whatever material is inter-worked to form the fabric. Components of a “setof elements” are functionally undifferentiatedand trend in the same direction (Drooker1992:244-245; Emery 1966:27).Fabric. “The generic term for all fibrous con-structions,” from the Latin fabricare, to make orfabricate (Emery 1966:xvi). It subsumes the term“textile” (see Textile, below).Fabric count. Elements per square centimeter ofa fabric (sum of warp elements per centimeterplus weft elements per centimeter, including anysupplementary elements) (Kuttruff 1993:130).See also Thread count.False embroidery. A basketry term denoting “theembellishment of a weft-twined structure duringthe twining process by means of additional ele-ments.” The supplementary elements arewrapped around “each twining element as itcomes to the surface . . . and . . . do not appear onthe reverse side” (Emery 1966:211; see Figure11.12, this volume). Technically, this is notembroidery, which is carried out with needleand thread on a previously made backing.

Definitions 217

DEFINITIONS1

Float. A warp or weft element of an interlacedfabric that goes over or under more than one ele-ment at a time. A warp float is in the warp direc-tion. A weft float is in the weft direction.Fulling. “A cleaning, shrinking, and felting oper-ation that [gives] wool fabrics a softer surface . .. and [makes] them thicker and more weatherresistant” (Wilson 1979:84).Gauze weave. A weave in which “warp elementsare crossed over other warp elements, retainedin the out-of-line position by the interlacing ofweft elements, and … [then] re-crossed to theiroriginal order” (Emery 1966:180). Leno is a relat-ed term that sometimes is used to indicate acombination of gauze and plain weave (Emery1966:190-191).Heddle. Device on a loom for lifting or depress-ing selected warp threads.Impression. Depression made in a plastic sub-stance by pressing something into it. Occasional-ly termed a “negative impression,” in contrast toa “positive impression” [cast]. See also Cast.Indigotin. A blue crystalline chemical com-pound, the primary coloring matter of indigo.Interlacing. Technique (and the fabric formed byit) in which each element passes over and underother elements that cross its path (Emery1966:62). Interlaced fabric can be constructedfrom a single set of elements (oblique interlac-ing), or from two or more sets (weaving). Inplain (simple) interlacing (1/1 interlacing), ele-ments pass over and under each other one at atime. In twill interlacing, elements pass overand/or under more than one element at a time,with a characteristic diagonal alignment offloats. See also Plaiting, Plain weave, Twillweave, Warp, Weft.Interlinking. A linked structure formed by inter-working a single set of elements, rather than bymanipulating a single element as in linking. Alsocalled plaiting (Emery 1966:60).Interlooping. A looped structure consisting of“loops of a single continuous element drawnthrough other loops . . . formed by the same ele-ment” (Emery 1966:39).

Kermes. A genus of insect and the dried bodiesof females of the species, used to make a red dye.Knitting. Vertically aligned interlooping, withconstruction carried out by means of a set of nee-dles or sticks, or the process of making it (Emery1966:40-42, Figs. 38-41). In plain knitting, allloops in a given row are on the same side of thefabric. In stocking or stockinette stitch, loopingin all rows is on the same side of the fabric; ingarter stitch, loop direction alternates betweenrows.Knotting. Fabric formed by “a tightened inter-working of flexible elements” that effect “a fas-tening or ‘tie’” (Emery 1966:225-226), or theprocess of creating this. Knotted netting is anopen fabric with mesh dimensions fixed byknots at intervals.Linking. One of the structures formed by inter-working a single element. “In simple linking,successive rows of . . . ‘open loops’ are formed bya stitch like that known in sewing as overcastingor whipping... Each row is formed by a progres-sive spiraling of the element round the portionsbetween the stitches of the previous row”(Emery 1966:30).Loom. A device that holds warp elements paral-lel and provides tension to them, and which usu-ally also includes a shedding device to create anopening between selected sets of warp elements(a shed) through which the weft can be insertedin the production of warp-weft interlacing (Bar-ber 1991:5; Broudy 1979:14; Emery 1966:75).Looms with integral shedding devices frequent-ly are designated “true looms” (e.g., Wilson1979:289), to distinguish them from simple ten-sioning frames.Looping. A single-element structure built up bythe repeated interworking of loops, the latterproduced by doubling an element back on itselfso as to leave an opening through which anotherelement may pass (Emery 1966:30-31).Madder. A plant (any of several from the genusRubia), the root of which yields a red dye.Mineralization. A process in which an originalmaterial is gradually replaced by something else,replicating both the exterior form and the inter-

218 Definitions

nal structure of an object (e.g., the formation ofpetrified wood) (Gillard et al. 1994). “Mineral-ization” is sometimes used as an umbrella termto include either the replacement of an object’soriginal material or the formation of pseudo-morphs. See also Pseudomorph.Mold. A form for shaping fluid or plastic materi-al inserted into it.Mordant. A chemical substance used in dyeing(such as a salt of aluminum, iron, tin, or chrome),that combines with both the dyestuff and thematerial being dyed to deposit insoluble color onthe fiber (Wingate 1979:398).Netting. “Open textured single-element fabricwith meshes of fixed dimensions secured byknots,” or, used loosely: “an open-meshed net-like quality” (Emery 1966:46). See also Knotting.Octagonal openwork. A term probably coined byMiner (1936:182, 187) to describe plain twiningcombined with transposed interlinked warps, adecorative structure with an open, lacy appear-ance (Drooker 1992:247, Figs. 9i, 27).Plain weave. 1/1 interlacing with two perpendi-cular sets of elements (warp and weft). Balancedplain weave has warp elements and weft ele-ments that are approximately the same diameterand number per unit measure (Emery 1966:76).See also Balanced weave, Interlacing.Plaiting. In basketry, this term is used to denote“a sub-class of basket weaves in which all ele-ments are active. Single elements or sets of ele-ments, called strips, pass over and under eachother” (Adovasio 1977:99). Structurally, this isequivalent to interlacing. Outside of basketry,this term has been applied to a wide range offabric structures including interlinking, bobbinlace constructions, and braiding (interlacingwith a single set of elements rather than a sepa-rate warp and weft, more specifically termedoblique interlacing) (Emery 1966:60, 68-69).According to Emery (1966:68), even within bas-ketry terminology, “plaiting” refers to construc-tion utilizing a single set of elements. AlthoughAdovasio states that “Plaiting is equivalent tobraiding in weaving,” implying the use of only asingle set of elements, he states that some plaitedbasketry is constructed with two sets of elements

(1977:99, Figs. 122, 124). Simple plaiting refers toplaiting with a 1/1 interlaced structure. In thepresent book, interlacing (with the number ofsets of elements specified) is preferred as themore general term, but plaiting is employed byseveral authors; see their individual definitions.See also Weaving, Interlacing.Plied yarn. A yarn formed by “twisting togethertwo or more single yarns” (Emery 1966:10). A“two-ply” (double-ply) yarn is made of two singleelements, a “three-ply” yarn incorporates threesingle elements, and so forth. The term “plied”often is restricted to yarns constructed of spunfibers (Emery 1966:10); in this book, it also is usedto describe yarns made by twisting together anytwo or more elements, whether they are spun orunspun. Analysts employ a variety of shorthandnotations to describe the structures of plied yarns.For example, a two-ply Z-spun S-twist yarn (inwhich two Z-spun elements are twisted togetherin the S direction) might be denoted as 2z-S, Z2S,or S z/z, among other possibilities. See alsoReplied yarn, Spun yarn.Porcupine twist. A weave structure utilized onsome wood splint baskets, in which a three-dimensional effect is created by twisting a weftsplint before it is reinserted under a warp ele-ment. Some variants are “twist weave,” “thistleweave,” and “wart weave” (Turnbaugh andTurnbaugh 1997:18, 20, 83).Pseudomorph. A mineral, usually a metal corro-sion product, that completely covers and repli-cates the form of a perishable object such as ayarn or feather (Janaway 1985:30). See also Min-eralization.Reduction test for indigo. Method of identifyingindigo dye. Blue yarn is treated with an alkalinesodium dithionite solution and heated. When asolvent such as n-butanol or ethyl acetate isadded, shaken, and then allowed to separatefrom the dithionite solution, the test is positivefor indigo if the upper solvent layer is blue.Replied yarn. A yarn formed by twisting togeth-er two or more plied yarns (Emery 1966:10).Structurally equivalent to cord.Retting. The process of soaking plant materialsin water as a step toward the separation of

Definitions 219

fibrous material from woody material. Rettingrelies on the activity of microorganisms or theaddition of chemicals to aid in the decorticationprocess.Selvage. Edge of a fabric “closed by loopsformed by a change in direction . . . of the ele-ments making up the fabric” (Drooker 1992:246,after Kuttruff 1988:187).Semiotics. Study of “how meaning is conveyedand generated by texts[,] . . . objects, . . . andmaterial culture in general.” Concerns the inter-pretation of signs: “anything that can be used torepresent or stand for something else” (Berger1992:17).Single yarn. An element consisting of one strandof spun fibers. Also called “single-ply” yarn,although the latter is at odds with some defini-tions of “ply” (Emery 1966:9, 13). A “strand ofunspun fibrous material,” either untwisted ortwisted, is called a single (Emery 1966:9)Slant. See Weft slant.Spectrophotometer. Instrument for measuringthe relative amounts of radiant energy as a func-tion of wavelength; can be used in identificationof dyes by matching absorbance spectra of dyesolutions or reflectrance spectra of dyed fabricswith reference spectra.Splice. To join two pieces of rope or yarn byinterworking the ends. The place where partshave been spliced.Spun yarn. “Yarn formed from fibers of limitedlength that have been arranged more or less par-allel, drawn out into a continuous strand, andtwisted together” (Drooker 1992:246; see alsoEmery 1966:9).S spin. A term that refers to the direction of twistof fibers in a single, spun yarn. In some chaptersof this book, this term is used to designate theinitial twist of elements in a double-plied cord(e.g., a “S-spun, Z-twisted” cord), whether or notthe single elements are made from short-staplefibers. See Spun yarn, S twist.S twist. One of two possible directions of twist. Ifan S-twisted strand, yarn, cord, or rope is heldvertical, its elements slant diagonally down from

upper left to lower right, like the center portionof the letter S (Emery 1966:11). The final twist ismost visible. Elements that have been pliedtogether usually have their own internal twist,which is usually but not always the reverse ofthe final twist.Textile. According to Emery, this term refersspecifically to a woven (warp-weft interlaced)fabric, from the Latin texere, to weave (Emery1966:xvi). However, it often is used more gener-ally to refer to cloth (pliable, fibrous fabric) con-structed by interworking elements. Many of theauthors in this book use this term in the lattersense.Thread count. “Number of warp and weft ele-ments to the linear unit of measure” in a fabric(Emery 1966:76). Sometimes this is expressed asseparate warp and weft counts, and sometimes,particularly in the textile industry, it is expressedas the sum of warps per unit of measure andwefts per unit of measure. See also Fabric count.Twill weave. Twill interlacing formed by twosets of elements. In twill weaves, warp and weftelements float over two or more elements of theother set in a progressive succession of diagonalalignments (Emery 1966:75, 92). For example, in2/2 twill, weft elements interlace over 2 warpelements and under 2; in 4/1 twill, wefts inter-lace over 4 warps and under 1, and so on. In anuneven twill (e.g., 2/1, 4/1), “no element passesover the same number of elements it passesunder” (Emery 1966:99). Straight twill has itsfloats aligned in a continuous diagonal; herring-bone twill incorporates zig-zag diagonals. Seealso Interlacing.Twining. The process or result of enclosing oneor more elements within the twisting of two ormore other elements around each other; the lat-ter are called the active elements. In two-strandtwining, there are two active elements (see Fig-ure 11.12); in three-strand twining, there arethree (Emery 1966:Figs. 315, 316). In S twining,twining elements are twisted in the S direction(see S twist). In Z twining, twining elements aretwisted in the Z direction (see Z twist). In coun-tered (chevron) twining, rows of Z twining and Stwining alternate (Emery 1966:Figs. 307, 308,

220 Definitions

311). In plain (simple) twining, two elementstwist around one element at a time, with a half-twist between each passive element (see Figure11.12). In alternate-pair (diagonal, twill, split-pair, zigzag) twining, two active elements twistaround two passive elements at a time, withalternate pairs of elements selected in alternaterows (Emery 1966:Figs. 309, 310; see also Figure2.3, this volume). In plain twining with crossedwarps (hexagonal twining), pairs of warp ele-ments cross each other between each row ofopen plain twining, running diagonally throughthe fabric (Brasser 1975:82). In compact (close)twining, the twining elements are close enoughtogether to completely cover the passive ele-ments. In spaced (open) twining, twining rowsare spaced at some distance apart. In weft twin-ing, the active elements are wefts. In warp twin-ing, the active elements are warps. In half-turntwining, each twining element alternates on thetwo faces of the fabric; in full-turn twining, eachelement is twisted such that it returns to thesame face (Emery 1966:Figs. 313, 314; see Figure11.12, this volume). Full-turn twining is calledwrapped twining if the weft element on the backsurface is kept rigid so that it does not appear onthe front surface at all (see Figure 11.12). If twin-ing elements of different colors are employed,pattern motifs can be constructed by insertingeither a half-turn or a full-turn twist betweenpassive elements, bringing the desired color tothe front side of the fabric. See also Falseembroidery, Weft slant.Twist. See S twist, Twining, Weft slant, Z twist.Warp elements. The parallel elements that runlongitudinally on a loom, weaving frame, or fab-ric, which are crossed and interworked by trans-verse elements (wefts). Supplementary warpsare extra (unnecessary to the fabric structure),and usually are added solely for decorative pur-poses. Discontinuous warps do not span theentire length of fabric, but interwork back andforth within a restricted area. Awarp float occurswhen a warp element passes over or under morethan one weft at a time.Warp-faced fabric. A fabric in which the warpelements are so close together that they cover theweft elements.

Weaving. The process and the product of inter-lacing with at least two sets of elements (Emery1966:68). Some researchers limit this term to tex-tiles produced on a loom with heddles (devicesused to lift selected warp elements automatical-ly). Some writers apply this term to any type offabric construction (e.g., twining).Weft elements. “The transverse elements in afabric (generally but not necessarily parallel toeach other and to the starting and terminal edgesof the fabric), which cross and interwork withthe warp elements at more or less right angles”(Drooker 1992:248). Supplementary, or extra,wefts are unnecessary to the fabric structure,almost always being added solely for decorativepurposes (Emery 1966:140-141). Discontinuouswefts do not pass across the entire width of fab-ric, but interwork back and forth within arestricted area. A weft float occurs when a weftelement passes over and/or under more thanone warp at a time.Weft-faced fabric. A fabric in which the weft ele-ments are so close together that they cover thewarp elements.Weft slant. The slant direction of twined wefts.When a twining row is oriented vertically, an “S”slant goes diagonally from upper left to lowerright, like the center portion of the letter S, and a“Z” slant goes diagonally down from right toleft, like the center portion of the letter Z(Adovasio 1977:20, 30). This term is equivalent toweft twining twist (see Twining). When directionis included, the term often is abbreviated as (e.g.)“S-Twist Wefts”; this is not to be confused withtwist direction in the yarn itself.Woolen yarn. Yarn in which wool fibers arefluffed and aligned by carding, then spun so thatthe fibers are at a significant angle to the lengthof the yarn; they are generally not dense. Woolenfabrics are woven from woolen yarns.Worsted yarn. Yarn in which long-staple woolfibers are aligned by combing, then spun; theygenerally are denser than woolen yarns. Worstedfabrics are woven from worsted yarns.Wrapped twining. “Full-turn twining in whichone twining element (often rigid) remainsalways on the same side of the fabric” (Drooker

Definitions 221

1992:249; see Figure 11.12, this volume). See alsoTwining.Yarn. “The general term for any assemblage offibers or filaments which has been put togetherin a continuous strand suitable for weaving,knitting, and other fabric construction” (Emery1966:10).Z spin. Refers to the direction of twist of fibers ina single, spun yarn. In some chapters of thisbook, this term is used to designate the initialtwist of elements in a double-plied cord (e.g., a“Z-spun, S-twisted” cord), whether or not thesingle elements are made from short-staplefibers. See Spun yarn, Z twist.Z twist. One of two possible directions of twist.If a Z-twisted yarn, cord, or rope is held vertical,its elements slant diagonally down from upperright to lower left, like the center portion of theletter Z (Emery 1966:11). The final twist is mostvisible. Elements that have been plied togetherusually have their own internal twist, which isusually but not always the reverse of the finaltwist.

NOTE

1. A number of these definitions are drawnfrom the glossary of Beyond Cloth andCordage: Archaeological Textile Research in theAmericas (Drooker and Webster 2000:267-282). They include those for: bast fiber, cloth,cord, cordage, element, fabric, fabric count,false embroidery, float, interlacing, interlink-ing, knitting, linking, loom, looping, mor-dant, octagonal openwork, plain weave,plaiting, plied yarn, pseudomorph, repliedyarn, retting, single yarn, S spin, S twist, tex-tile, thread count, twill weave, twining,warps, warp-faced fabric, weaving, wefts,weft-faced fabric, weft slant, yarn, Z spin, Ztwist.

REFERENCES CITED

Adovasio, J. M.1977 Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identification

and Analysis. Aldine Publishing Company,Chicago.

Barber, Elizabeth J. W.1991 Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth

in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with SpecialReference to the Aegean. Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton, New Jersey.

Berger, Arthur A.1992 Reading Matter: Multidisciplinary Perspectives

on Material Culture. Transaction Publishers,New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Brasser, Ted J.1975 A Basketful of Indian Culture Change. Nation-

al Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadi-an Ethnology Service Paper No. 22. Nation-al Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Broudy, Eric1979 The Book of Looms. Van Nostrand Reinhold,

New York.Drooker, Penelope B.1992 Mississippian Village Textiles at Wickliffe. Uni-

versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Drooker, Penelope B., and Laurie D. Webster (editors)2000 Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeological Tex-

tile Research in the Americas. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.


ed Classification. The Textile Museum, Wash-ington, D. C.

Gillard, R. D., Susan M. Hardman, R. G. Thomas, andD. E. Watkinson

1994 The Mineralization of Fibres in Burial Envi-ronments. Studies in Conservation 39:132-140.

Janaway, Robert C.1985 Dust to Dust: The Preservation of Textile

Materials in Metal Artefact Corrosion Prod-ucts with Reference to Inhumation Graves.Science and Archaeology (27):29-37.

Kadolph, Sara J., and Anna L. Langford1998 Textiles. Merrill, Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey.

222 Definitions

Kuttruff, Jenna T.1988 Textile Attributes and Production Complexity

as Indicators of Caddoan Status Differentiationin the Arkansas Valley and Southern OzarkRegions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Textiles and Clothing, OhioState University, Columbus.

1993 Mississippian Period Status Differentiationthrough Textile Analysis: A Caddoan Exam-ple. American Antiquity 58(1):125-145.

Miner, Horace1936 The Importance of Textiles in the Archaeol-

ogy of the Eastern United States. AmericanAntiquity 1(3):181-192.

Morris, William (editor)1969 The American Heritage Dictionary of the Eng-

lish Language. American Heritage Publish-ing Company, New York.

Turnbaugh, Sarah Peabody, and William A. Turn-baugh

1997 Indian Baskets. 2nd ed. Schiffer PublishingLtd., West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Wilson, Kax1979 A History of Textiles. Westview Press, Boul-

der, Colorado.Wingate, Isabel B.1979 Fairchild’s Dictionary of Textiles. 6th ed.

Fairchild Publication, New York.

Definitions 223

224 Definitions

CONTRIBUTORS

J. M. Adovasio — Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute, Mercyhurst College, Erie,Pennsylvania.

Malinda S. Blustain — Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy,Andover, Massachusetts.

Penelope B. Drooker — Research and Collections Division, New York State Museum,Albany, New York.

George R. Hamell — Research and Collections Division, New York State Museum,Albany, New York.

D. C. Hyland — Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute, Mercyhurst College, Erie,Pennsylvania.

J. S. Illingworth — Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute, Mercyhurst College, Erie,Pennsylvania.

William C. Johnson — Michael Baker Jr., Inc., Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.R. S. Laub — Geology Division, Buffalo Museum of Science, Buffalo, New York.J. H. McAndrews — Department of Botany, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Andrew J. Myers — Appalachian Archaeological Consultants, Brockway, Pennsylvania.Margaret T. Ordoñez — Department of Textiles, Fashion Merchandising and Design,

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.James B. Petersen — Department of Anthropology, University of Vermont, Burlington,

Vermont.Christina B. Rieth — Research and Collections Division, New York State Museum,

Albany, New York.Linda Welters— Department of Textiles, Fashion Merchandising and Design, University

of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.Virginia S. Wimberley — Department of Clothing, Textiles, and Design, University of

Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.DeeAnne Wymer — Department of Anthropology, Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg,

Pennsylvania.

Contributors 225

226 Contributors

INDEX

Index 227

27/29 Endicott Street Privy (Massachusetts): buttons,181; clothing construction at, 181, 182; dates,181; location, 170f; occupants of site, 181;shoe fragments, 181-182; textiles, 181, 182

Abenaki: bands as captors of Euroamericans, 199;people, 146; pocketbook, twined, 205

Adams (New York): haft, knife, 6; location, 4fAdena Mound (Ohio): human effigy pipe from, 12;

location, 4fAdena tradition: basketry, 27; textiles, 27Adovasio, J. M., 10, 131, 134, 149Affleck, Diane L. Fagan, 202Albany Almshouse Cemetery site (New York), 8;

garments from, 8-9Algonquian: twined bags and baskets, 205, 206, 207t,

209t, 210Allegheny Iroquois tradition: ceramics, 98; chronolo-

gy, 89f; cooperation with GAP traditiongroups, 98; geographical area, 88f; popula-tion movement, 100, 108; proto-Iroquoiansites of, 98

Allegheny Plateau, glaciated: abandonment byMcFate phase people, 106-110; ceramictypes, 93, 97-102, 104; population continuityin, 105-106; twist of cordage from, 104-105,105-106; Woodland cultural sequence of, 93-104. See also GAP tradition

Allegheny Plateau, unglaciated: growing season,109; village layouts, 109

Allegheny River phase: ceramics, 97; chronology, 89f;components, 97

Amouchiquois people, 146Analogy, ethnohistorical, 12Andrews, R. L., 149Apalachian Creek (New York): attributes of cordage

and fabric impressed on Owasco vesselsfrom, 133t, 138; cord-marked sherds from,

134f, 138f; location, 132f, 132, 134; site type,132

Apes, William (Pequot), 192Appliques: from Seneca Road site, 181, 191, 191f,

194-195Archaic. See Early Archaic, Late Archaic, Transitional

ArchaicArm band, birch-bark: from Pictou site, 6Arnold Research Cave (Missouri): cultural period of

perishables, 22t; sandals, 24; twining, 22t, 24Arrows, wooden: from Sheep Rock Shelter, 4Ater (Ohio): copper artifacts, 47t; fabrics, 73, 76, 78t;

location, 48f, 70f; materials on breastplates,64t, 65, 78t; pearl beads, 71; shell beads, 71;yarn diameters, 79t

Atherley Narrows (Ontario): fish weir at, 4; location,4f

Augustine Mound (New Brunswick): bag, 6; dates,161; fabrics, 6, 160; location, 4f; thongs,leather, 6

Awl, wooden: from Sheep Rock Shelter, 4Axe, iron: from Sandy Point site, 147Bags: from Augustine Mound, 6; from Boucher site,

6; from Cameron site, 7; from Dann site, 7;from eighteenth-century St. Lawrence ValleyIroquoians, 205; from Erie sites, 7; fromHartford Cemetery site, 5; from Hopewellsites, 73; medicine, 7; from New England,197-210; from nineteenth-twentieth centuryupper Great Lakes region, 206, 210; fromPictou site, 6; from RI 1000 site, 8; from sev-enteenth-century New England, 197-210;from Sheep Rock Shelter, 5; from sixteenth-seventeenth-century New York, 209-210;from Tram site, 7; “wampum,” 199, 212

Ball, William Miner, 198, 211Band, interlaced: from Boughton Hill site, 8

Bands, wampum: from Long Pond site, 172Bark cloth: on Hopewellian copper artifacts, 51, 52,

55fBark: arm band, 6; basketry, 5, 161, 200; in composite

construction, 156-158, 156f, 157f; construc-tions, 150; containers, 5, 11; fabric, 52, 152-154; on Hopewellian copper artifacts, 59, 62,63; matting, 5, 46; from MeadowcroftRockshelter, 23, 26; from Sandy Point site,152-154, 156-158; from Sebasticook Lake site,161; wrapping for tool handle, 6

Basketry: artifact types, 21, 33; from Cresap site, 27;as evidence of group identity, 131; as formfor mold for pottery, 9; as influence on pot-tery design, 11; from Massachusetts, 209;from Morrow site, 5; from New York StateMuseum, 5; from RI 1000 site, 6; from SaltsCave site, 26; from Sebasticook Lake site,161; from Sheep Rock Shelter, 5; structuretypes, 21. See also Containers

Bast fiber: sewing thread from Cross Street Back LotPrivy site, 176, 182

Beads. See Glass, Metal, Pearl, ShellBeds, grass-lined: at Sheep Rock Shelter, 5Bell (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 106; dates, 101-102;

location, 88fBell phase: ceramics, 110; chronology, 89f; subsis-

tence advantage of village locations, 109Bell, Edward, 185, 186, 194Belts, leather: from Albany Almshouse Cemetery

site, 8; from Dann site, 8; from Sandy Pointsite, 147; from Washington Boro site, 8

Black Duck pottery, 9Blacklegs Town (Pennsylvania): location, 88fBlanket: from Hopewell sites, 73Blustain, Malinda S., 5, 145Bobbin lace: from Cross Street Back Lot Privy site,

176; from Geneva, New York, 6Boland (New York): attributes of cordage and fabric

impressed on Owasco vessels from, 133t;location, 132f, 132, 134; site type, 132

Bolinger (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 97; cordage twiston ceramics from, 104; location, 88f

Bone, calcined: on Hopewellian copper artifacts, 50t,51t, 59, 60, 62, 63

Boot: from Mill Pond site, 176. See also ShoesBoucher (Vermont): bags, 6; cordage, 6, 160; dates,

161; fabrics, 6, 160; garment, 161; location, 4f;wrapped twining, 206

Boughton Hill (New York): bag, twined, 7, 205; “har-

ness,” 8; location, 4fBourne, Richard: minister at Mashpee, 192Bourque, Bruce J., 145, 148Bow, wooden: from Pictou site, 6Bowl, wooden: from New York State Museum, 5Boylston Street Fish Weir (Massachusetts): location,

4; weir usage at, 4Bracelets: wampum, from Long Pond site, 172Bradley, James W., 145Braid: from Seneca Road site, 181, 188, 191Brass. See MetalBrasser, Ted J., 205Breastplate, composite construction, from Sandy

Point site, 156-158, 156f, 157fBreastplates, copper, Hopewellian, 47, 52f, 55f, 56f,

57f, 58f; complexity of associated materials,65-67; fabrics on, 46, 51-52, 52f, 60, 61, 75-76,78, 78t, 79, 80t; materials identified on, 50t,50-61, 62, 63-67; yarns on, 81

Broadcloth, 188Brough, Walden Denison, 197, 199, 211Burning Springs sub-period: chronology, 89fBurr’s Hill (Rhode Island): fabrics, 175, 182Butterworth, Jeffrey, 176Buttonholes: from Hopewellian fabrics, 72Buttons: from 27/29 Endicott Street Privy site, 181;

from New England, 194Cameron (New York): bag, 7; location, 4fCamp Run (Pennsylvania), 87Cane: matting, 73Canoes, dugout: manufacture deduced from wood-

working tools, 11Canopy, fabric: from Hopewell sites, 73Carbonization: at Hopewell sites, 46, 71, 72, 73, 79;

preservation by, 5Carr, Christopher, 47, 73, 74, 79Castle Creek (New York): artifacts from, 5; attributes

of cordage and fabric impressed on Owascovessels from, 133t, 138; location, 4f, 132f, 132,134; site type, 132

Casts: from cord-marked sherd, 134f; of fabric fromHiscock site, 36-37; from fabric-impressedclay, 27f; from fabric-impressed sherd, 10f;natural, formation of, 36; of perishable arti-facts, 9-10; procedures in making, 134, 135

Celts, copper, Hopewellian, 47, 53f, 56f, 73, 75f; com-plexity of associated materials, 67; fabricson, 75f, 78t, 80t; materials identified on, 51t,61-63, 67, 73, 75

228 Index

Central Artery Project, 181Champlain, Samuel: at Eggemoggin Reach and

Penobscot River, 145; records by, 146Charring. See CarbonizationChautauqua Cord-Marked ceramics, 98, 99, 100, 101,

102, 105; cordage twist on, 105-106; distribu-tion of, 108, 110; from proto-Seneca sites,100; from Whittlesey tradition sites, 100

Chautauqua phase: ceramics, 102-103; chronology,89f, 102, 104; geographical area, 88f

Chenango Point (New York): attributes of cordageand fabric impressed on Owasco vesselsfrom, 133t; location, 132f, 132, 134; site type,132

Chintz: addition to seventeenth-century twined bag,198f, 200, 202, 202f; early-nineteenth-centurypatterns, 202

Church, Flora, 71, 74, 78, 79Cider Mill (New York): attributes of cordage and

fabric impressed on Owasco vessels from,133t, 138; foreign manufactured pots at, 138;location, 132f, 132, 134; site type, 132

Cleland, Charles E., 108Clemsons Island culture: chronology, 89fCleveland Museum of Natural History: Hopewellian

fabrics from, 72Cloth, European: from Fort William Henry, 8; from

Pictou site, 6; from Portland Point site, 6;from Van Etten site, 6. See also Fabric,Textiles

Cloth: from Hopewell sites, 46. See also Fabric,Textiles

Coat fabrics: from Fort William Henry, 8Coiling: as basketry structure, 21Conemaugh Cord-Impressed pottery, 100, 101; distri-

bution of, 101, 106-107, 108Conservation procedures: for Hiscock site specimen,

33-34Contact period: Adams site, 6; arm band, 6; bags, 6,

7; belts, 8; bobbin lace, 6; Boughton Hill site,7; bow, 6; Cameron site, 7; cloth, European,6; composite constructions, 156-160; “copperkettle burials,” 143; Dann site, 7; definitionof, 13; fabrics, 6, 152, 154; foreshafts, arrow,6; Grimsby cemetery site, 7; hafts, knife, 6;handles, sword, 6; matting, 6; moccasins, 6;Pictou site, 6; Portland Point site, 6;Rochester Junction site, 7; Sandy Point site,143-163; scabbards, 6; social interaction inNortheast, 162-163; trade goods, 146; trade

in Northeast, 163; Tram site, 7; Van Ettensite, 6; Walker’s Pond site, 143-150, 155-164

Containers: from RI 1000 site, 171. See also Bags,Basketry

“Copper kettle burials,” 143, 146, 161, 164Copper. See MetalCopper: fabric structure types associated with, 79;

staining of fabric, 72. See also MetalCordage, 21: attributes, 149; from Boucher site, 6;

braided, 155; from Castle Creek site, 5; fromMillbury III site, 5, 160; from New York StateMuseum, 5; from Northern Thorn Moundsite, 26; presence deduced from attachedartifacts, 11; production steps, 81; from SaltsCave site, 26; from Sandy Point site, 155-156,155f, 156, 157; from seventeenth-centurytwined bag, 200; from Sheep Rock Shelter, 5;from Squaw Rockshelter, 24-25, 25f; fromWalker’s Pond site, 155-156; women as pro-ducers in Powhatan chiefdom, 91

Cordage impressions on pottery: in Gulf of Maineregion, 162; methodology for study, 92, 134;on Owasco ceramics, 133t, 137-138; on PointPeninsula ceramics, 133t, 135, 137, 138; instudies of group affiliations, 10, 87-111, 131,135, 137-139; in studies of interaction, 139;from Susquehanna Valley of New York, 135,137-139; from Upper Ohio River Valley ofwestern Pennsylvania, 87-111. See alsoCordage twist direction

Cordage twist direction: in Amazon ethnographicspecimens, 162; in Eastern Woodland area,study of, 90-92; frequencies in samples fromJohnston phase sites, 107; frequencies insamples from Mead Island phase sites, 109;frequencies in samples from Monongahelasites, 93, 96f, 104-105, 118-122; frequencies insamples from Owasco sites, 133t; frequenciesin samples from Pennsylvania, New York,and Ontario, 93, 94f, 95f, 104-105,112-117; fre-quencies in samples from Point Peninsulasites, 133t; in Gulf of Maine region, 162, 209;as indicator of group affiliation: 90-92, 110-111, 162; as indicator of male vs. female pro-duction, 91; as indicator of social interaction,162-163; influences on, 92; in northern NewEngland, 92; in Potomac River basin, 91; atQuicksburg site, 90; reporting conventionsfor impressed examples, 91, 92; from SandyPoint site, 155f, 155-156; from Virginia sites,90-91; from Walker’s Pond site, 155-156. Seealso Cordage impressions on pottery

Index 229

Cord-marked sherds, 134f, 137f, 138fCotton textiles: additions to seventeenth-century

twined bag, 200, 202; from Cross Street BackLot Privy site, 176, 179f, 182; from LongPond site, 172, 182; from Burr’s Hill site, 182;from RI 1000 site, 170, 171f, 182

Cresap (West Virginia): cultural period of perish-ables, 22t; fabric, 27-28; location, 20; twining,28

Cross Street Back Lot Privy (Massachusetts): clothingconstruction at, 176, 178f, 182; dates, 175;fabrics, 175-176, 176f, 177f, 178f, 179f, 182;location, 170f; shoes, 176, 179f, 180f

Crowe/O’Conner (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 104;chronology, 104; location, 88f; pipe types, 104

Currie, Doug, 176Cushing, Frank, 11Daggers: from Pictou site, 7Dann (New York): bag, 7; belt, leather, 8; location, 4fDavis, Christine, 11Décima, Elena, 4Deitrick, Veronica L., 91Dice, fruit stone, 7Diet: in Contact period Maine, 148Dincauze, Dena, 4, 131Doyle, Richard A., 131Drills, wooden: from Sheep Rock Shelter, 4Drooker, Penelope B., 131, 197, 210Dry sites, preservation at, 4-5Duffles (trucking cloth), 194Dustin, Hannah, 199, 212Dutch Hill (Pennsylvania): cordage twist on ceram-

ics from, 105; location, 88fDyes: from Long Pond site, 172; from RI 2000 site,

171-172Early / Middle Archaic period: dates, 12; Russ site,

2; stone artifacts, 2Early Archaic period: Arnold Research Cave site, 24;

dates, 12, 24, 39; Graham Cave site, 24, 39;Hiscock site, 24, 31-40; Ice House Bottomsite, 24, 39; Modoc Rockshelter, 24, 39;Russell Cave site, 24, 40; sandals, 24; twin-ing, 24, 39-40

Early Holocene period: Hiscock site, 10Early Late Prehistoric period: ceramics, 130-131;

dates for Northeast, 129, 130; inSusquehanna Valley of New York, 129-130

Early Late Woodland period: dates for Northeast,129

Early Woodland period: Augustine Mound site, 6,160; basketry, 5, 26, 161; Boucher site, 6, 160,161; cordage, 26, 160; Cresap site, 27-28,dates, 12, 26; fabric, 26-27, 160; fish net, 5;garment, 161; hafted flaking tool, 5; Masonsite, 160; Morrow site, 5; Muskalonge Lakesite, 6; Natrium Mound site, 27; NorthernThorn Mound site, 26-27; plaiting, 26; SaltsCave site, 26; sandals, 26; Sebasticook Lakesite, 161; shell beads, 161; twining, 26-27, 27f

Eastman, Phillip, 198, 212, 213Eastman, Seth: related to Susannah Eastman Wood

Swan, 213Eastman family: captivities of members, 212-213Eastwall (Ohio): date, 100; location, 88fEdinburg (Pennsylvania): components, 97; location,

88fEdinburg phase: chronology, 89f; ceramics, 97; possi-

ble population discontinuity from Mahoningphase groups, 104

Edwin Harness Mound (Ohio), 46, 71Egli (New York): attributes of cordage and fabric


Eighteenth century: bags, St. Lawrence ValleyIroquoian, 205; clothing, 192; Cross StreetBack Lot Privy site, 175; fabrics, 6, 172, 175-176, 181; Long Pond site, 172-175; SenecaRoad burials, 181; Van Etten site, 6

Eliot, John, 192Emery, Irene, 134Epidemics: in Maine, 146, 163Erickson, Harley, 147Etchemin people, 146Ethnohistorical analogy, 12Experimental archaeology, 12Fabric: animal hair, Hopewellian, 51-52, 55f, 56f, 60,

61, 62, 63; from Ater site, 73, 76, 78t; fromAugustine Mound, 6; braided/plaited, 4, 6;from Boucher site, 6; from Boughton Hillsite, 8; from Cresap Mound site, 27-28; fromFortney site, 73; function, determination of,74-75; from Hartford Cemetery site, 5; fromHopewell site, 52f, 56f, 71, 72t, 73, 76, 78t; onHopewellian copper artifacts: 50t, 51-52, 52f,53f, 54f, 55f, 56f, 57f, 58f, 60, 61, 73, 75-83, 75f,76f, 82f, 83f; with Hopewellian cremationremains, 79; interlaced, 6, 8, 51-52, 55f, 56f,57f, 58f, 76, 77f; from Liberty site, 78t; fromNew York State Museum, 5, 7f; fromNorthern Thorn Mound, 26-27, 27f; painted,

230 Index

60; from Pictou site, 6; plant fiber,Hopewellian, 51, 52f, 54f, 57f, 58f, 60, 61, 62,63, 75f, 77f, 82f, 83f; from Rockhold site, 78t;from Sandy Point site, 150-155, 152f, 153f,154f; from Seip site 46, 51, 53f, 54f, 55f, 56f,57f, 58f, 60, 71, 72t, 75, 75f, 76, 78, 78t; sewn,6; sewn onto backings, 51-52; from SheepRock Shelter, 5; twined, 5, 6, 7f, 52f, 53f,54f,75f, 76, 82f, 83f; from Van Etten site, 6; fromWhite site, 5. See also Bobbin lace, Cloth,Cotton, Interlacing, Silk, Textiles, Twining,Wool, individual sites

Fabric, cast of: from Hiscock site, 33-38, 35f, 36f; fromNorthern Thorn Mound site, 27f

Fabric impressions on fired clay: from Graham Cavesite, 39

Fabric impressions on metal: at Hopewell sites, 71Fabric impressions in mud: from Pictou site, 9Fabric impressions on pottery: from Boucher site, 9;

from Long Island, 9; from northwesternPennsylvania, 10; from Owasco sites, 133t,137, 138; from Point Peninsula sites, 133t,137; from Slack Farm site, with cast of fabric,10f

Fabric stains on stone bayonets: at Overlock site, 10-11

“False embroidery,” 203f, 204; in Algonquian bags,205; in Iroquoian pouches, 205, 210. See alsoTwining

Feathers: attached to fabrics, 53, 53f, 61; onHopewellian copper artifacts: 52-53, 55f, 57f,58f, 61, 62, 63, 66-67, 73, 76; from Sheep RockShelter, 5

Fenner, Dinah, basket identified with: description,205-206, 209t; pattern motif, 206f

Fiber, plant: bags, 5, 6; band, interlaced, 8; bast-like,81; combined with leather in twined fabrics,153-154, 154f; cordage, 5, 155-156; fabrics, 5,6; fish net, 5; “Group 1,” 76, 81; milkweed,81; netting, 5; pack straps, 5; sandals, 5;sheaths, knife, 7; snares, 5; trot line, 5; inwampum bands, 172; yarns, 76, 81. See alsoCordage, Fabric, Twining

Fibers, animal: in clothing from Albany Almshousecemetery site, 8-9; in fabrics from Seip site,72; on metal beads from Sandy Point site,157. See Hair, animal

Fibers, bast (plant stem): in fabrics from Seip site, 72Fibers, knotted, 21Field Museum of Natural History: Hopewellian fab-

rics from, 72, 73, 79, 80t

Figurine, wooden: from Marsh site, 8Fire drills: from Sheep Rock Shelter, 4Fire-starting kits: from Hartford Cemetery site, 5Fish sandwiches: definition of, 21Fishhooks: from Castle Creek site, 5Fitting, James E., 108Flax: from Cross Street Back Lot Privy site, 176Flowers: on Hopewellian copper artifacts, 59Foreshafts, arrow: from Susquehannock sites, 6Fort Ancient (Ohio): copper artifacts, 47t; location,

48f; materials on breastplates, 64t, 65, 66-67Fort William Henry (New York): cloth from gar-

ments, 8; location, 4fFortin II (New York): attributes of cordage and fabric

impressed on Point Peninsula vessels from,133t; cord-marked sherd from, 137f; “for-eign” containers at, 137; location, 132f, 132,134; site type, 131-132

Fortney (Ohio): ceremonial items, construction of,66; copper artifacts, 47t; fabrics, 73; location,48f; materials on breastplates, 64t, 65

Foundation: in coiling, 21Freeze-drying: as treatment for archaeological tex-

tiles, 173-174, 175Fremont adaptive strategy model, 100-101; as appli-

cable to McFate phase people, 100-101French and Indian attacks on New England commu-

nities, 199French and Indian War: burials, 8; cloth from gar-

ments, 8French Creek phase: ceramics, 98, 99; chronology,

89f, 98; components, 98; cordage twist distri-bution and frequency at components, 95f,104; settlement types, 98

Frontenac Island (New York): garment deduced frompattern of affixed ornaments, 11; location, 4f

Fulling, 175Fur / hair: from Hartford Cemetery site, 5; on

Hopewellian copper artifacts, 50t, 51, 53, 56f,59, 62, 63, 66, 67, 73, 76, 78; from Sheep RockShelter, 5; “woven,” 78

GAP tradition, 98, 99, 100; cooperation with UpperAllegheny River Valley groups, 98; cordagetwist differing from Monongahela, 106; eco-nomic strategies, 100, 108; possible terminaloccupation of, 104. See Allegheny Plateau,glaciated

Garment fragments: from Albany Almshouse ceme-tery site, 8-9; from Boucher site, 6; fromPortland Point site, 6; from Seneca Road site,

Index 231

189f, 191; from Walker’s Pond site, 158-160,159f

Garments: nineteenth century styles, 193f, 194-195,195f; presence deduced from patterns ofaffixed ornaments, 11

George, Richard, 87, 107Gibbons, Michael, 147, 148, 186, 194Glass beads, 162Gookin, Daniel, 209Gordon, Joleen, 12Graham Cave (Missouri): cultural period of perish-

ables, 22t, 39; dates, 39; location, 32f; twin-ing, 22t, 24, 39

Greenman, Emerson, 72Grimsby (Ontario): location, 4f; preservation of arti-

facts at, 7Guthe, Alfred, 98Haft, wooden: from Adams site, 6; from Muskalonge

Lake site, 6; from Pictou site, 6; fromWinthrop, Massachusetts, 6

Hair, animal: as decorative wrapping, 6; fabrics, onHopewellian copper artifacts, 51-52, 55f, 56f,60, 66; in “false embroidery,” 204; yarns, 6.See also Fur / hair

Hamell, George R., 1, 197, 210Hamilton, Nathan D., 131Handle, sword, wooden: from Pictou site, 6Harness (Ohio): ceremonial items, construction of,

66; copper artifacts, 62; location, 70f; materi-als on breastplates, 63, 64t, 65. See alsoLiberty / Harness

“Harness,” leather garment: from Boughton Hill site,8; worn by nineteenth century entertainers, 8

Hartford Cemetery (Maine): fabrics, 5, 160; fire-start-ing kits, 5; fur, 5; location, 4f

Hastorf, Christine, 11Hats, felt: from Albany Almshouse Cemetery site, 8Hawley, Gideon, 192Headbands: wampum, from Long Pond site, 172Headdress. See HeadplateHeadplates, copper, Hopewellian, 47, 54f; complexity

of associated materials, 67; materials identi-fied on, 51t, 61, 62, 67, 75

Heckenberger, Michael, 6Heinz Farm (Pennsylvania): location, 88fHerbstritt, James T., 105, 110Hide. See Leather / hideHilltop (New York): attributes of cordage and fabric

impressed on Owasco vessels from, 133t;

location, 132f, 132, 134; site type, 132Hinkle, Kathleen, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76Hiscock (New York): cast of fabric, 10, 23-24, 33-38,

35f, 36f; conservation procedures for speci-men from, 33-34; cultural period of perish-ables, 22t; dates, 31, 33, 38, 40-41; lithics, 33;location, 4f, 20f, 31, 32f; twining, 22t, 23-24,24f, 34-36 35f, 36f, 40

Hoffman, Kathryn Browning, 11Holland, C. G., 90, 91Hopewell (Ohio): ceremonial items, construction of,

66; copper artifacts, 47t, 52f, 54f, 56f, 61, 62;fabrics, 52f, 56f, 71, 72t, 73, 76, 78, 79, 80t;feathers, 73; flowers, 59; fur, 73; hair, 62; leafsegments, 60; leather, 61; location, 48f, 70f;materials on breastplates, 63, 64t, 65, 73, 75-76, 78; materials on celts, 73, 76; mounds, 70;warp twining, 75; yarn anomalies, 81; yarndiameters, 79t

Hopewell tradition, 45-46, 69-71; dates, 69; earth-works, 70-71; fabrics, 6; grave goods, exotic,71; human effigy pipe, 12; matting, 73;McKees Rocks Mound site, 6; mounds, 70-71; Newark site, 12; settlement pattern, 70;textiles, 51-58, 71-83; yarns, 81, 83. See alsoAter, Fort Ancient, Fortney, Harness,Hopewell, Liberty, Mound City, Rockhold,Seip, Tremper

Huffman Farm (Pennsylvania): location, 88fHurley, William M., 134Huron Incised ceramics, 99I-79 (Pennsylvania): location, 88fIcehouse Bottom (Tennessee): cultural period of per-

ishables, 22t, 39; knotted netting, 22t, 23;location, 32f; twining, 22t, 24, 39

Images: as evidence for perishable objects, 11-12Impression, positive. See CastImpressions: on fired clay, 39; on pottery, 9-10. See

also Cordage impressions on pottery, Fabricimpressions

Indian Camp Run (Pennsylvania), 87; cordage twiston ceramics from, 104, 109; location, 88f

Indian hemp, 172, 173, 182Indigo: from Sandy’s Point site, 185; from Seneca

Road site, 191Indigotin: from RI 1000 site, 172Interlacing, oblique: from Ater site, 76; from

Hopewell site, 73, 76, 79, 80t; fromHopewellian sites, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78t, 79, 80t;“novelty” yarns in, 78; from Seip site, 66,72t, 76

232 Index

Interlacing: from Ater site, 76, 78t; from Hopewellsite, 76, 78t, 80t; on Hopewellian copper arti-facts, 51-52, 55f, 56f, 57f, 58f, 76, 77f, 80t; fromHopewellian sites, 71, 72, 73, 76, 79, 80t;from RI 2000 site, 170-171; from Seip site, 76,78. See also Plain weave, Plaiting, Twillweave

Interlinking: from Hopewell sites, 72, 73; impressedon Owasco pottery, 133t, 138; impressed onPoint Peninsula pottery, 133t, 137

Intrustive Mound complex: ceramics, 97, 98; cordagetwist distribution and frequency in, 94f, 104

Iroquoian bags: designs on, 205; twining twist direc-tion, 210

Iroquoian ceramics: at Silverheels site, 99; at Smithsite, 100; at Westfield-Mac site, 99

J. Falcone (New York): ceramics, 102; location, 88fJ. H. Boyce & Son, 198, 210; hatbox of, 198, 210Jack’s Reef Corded Collar ceramics, 97Jackets: from Albany Almshouse Cemetery site, 8;

from Sandy Point site, 147Jakes, Kathryn, 72, 74, 81Jamba (New York): attributes of cordage and fabric

impressed on Owasco vessels from, 133t;location, 132f, 132, 134; site type,132

John Milner Associates, Inc., 175Johnson, Simon (Wampanoag), 193fJohnson, William C., 91, 980Johnson-Dibb, Rebecca 172Johnston (Pennsylvania): cordage impression sam-

ples, from, 93; cordage twist data, 107; loca-tion, 88f

Johnston phase: ceramics, 101, 106; chronology, 89f;cordage twist distribution and frequency atcomponents, 97f; geographical area, 88f;population as mixture of McFate andMonongahela, 107

Kalgren (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 106; date, 101-102;location, 88f

Kalgren/Bell phase: cordage twist distribution andfrequency at components, 95f; geographicalarea, 88f

Kane (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 107; cordage twist onceramics from, 105, 107; location, 88f

Kent State University: Hopewellian fabrics from, 72Kent, Barry C., 5, 105, 110Kermes: from RI 1000 site, 172King Philip’s War, 199, 205, 212Kipp Island (New York): location, 4fKiskiminetas phase: chronology, 89f

Knitting: from Cross Street Back Lot Privy site, 176;from Long Pond site, 172; in New England,194; from Seneca Road site, 181, 188, 189f

Knotting: from Squaw Rockshelter, 25, 25fKrafic (Pennsylvania): cordage twist data, 107Kroon, E. Leonard, 9Krueger, Harold, 148Lamoka Lake (New York): artifacts from, 2, 11; dio-

rama depicting, 2, 3f; location, 4fLate Archaic period: artifacts, 2, 3f, 25-26; canoes, 11;

cordage, 26; bark containers, 26; dates, 12,25; fabrics, 5, 160; fabric stains on stone bay-onets, 10-11, 160; fire-starting kits, 5; fishweirs, 4; Hartford Cemetery site, 5, 160;Lamoka Lake site, 2, 11; MeadowcroftRockshelter, 25-26; Overlock site, 11, 160;plaiting, 23f, 25-26; River phase sites, 11;Salts Cave site, 26; sandals, 26; shell beads,161

Late Middle Woodland period: dates for Northeast,129

Late Prehistoric period: for Upper Ohio Valley, 89f,90. See also early Late Prehistoric

Late Woodland period: arrows, 4; awls, 4; bags, 5;bark container, 5; basketry, 5; bowls, 5;Castle Creek site, 5; chronology for Middleand Upper Ohio Valley, 90; chronology fornorthwestern Pennsylvania, 89f, 90; cordage,5; cordage twist in southeastern Virginia, 91-92; cultural sequence for northwesternPennsylvania, 93, 97, 98-102, 104; dates, 12;fabrics, 5; feathers, 5; fire drills, 4; fishhooks,5; fur, 5; knotted netting, 5; leather, 4; mat-ting, 5; moccasins, 5; pack straps, 5; sandals,5; Sheep Rock Shelter, 4-5; snares, 5; spoons,5; thongs, 4; trot line, 5. See also Early LateWoodland period

Lawrence (New York): ceramics, 102; location, 88fLeaf: matting made from, 52Leaf segments: on Hopewellian copper artifacts, 60Leather / hide: arm band, 6; bags, 5, 6; belts, 8; with

burials, 147, 148, 150-151, 154; in compositeconstructions, 150, 153-154, 156-160, 156f;garment fragment, 158-160, 161; “harness,”8; on Hopewellian copper artifacts, 50t, 51,53, 54f, 57f, 58f, 61, 62, 63, 78; moccasins, 5, 6;pieces, 4; scabbards, 6; shoes, 8, 176, 179f,180f, 181-182; suspenders, 8; thongs, 4, 6,155, 157, 158; in twined fabric, 153, 154f

Levanna Cord-on-Cord sherds from ApalachianCreek site, 138f

Index 233

Liberty / Harness (Ohio): copper artifacts, 47t, 62;fabrics, 71, 72t, 78t; location, 48f; materialson breastplates, 63, 64t, 65, 76, 78t; mounds,70, 71. See also Harness (Ohio)

Linesville (Pennsylvania): cordage twist on ceramicsfrom, 105; location, 88f

Logan, Judith, 38Long Pond (Connecticut): Bible page fragment, 172,

173f, 174f; dates, 172; dyes, 172; graves, 172;location, 170f, 172; matting, 172; textiles, 172,173f, 174f; wampum band fragments, 172,173f

Loop and twist fabric structure: at Hopewell site, 80tLooping: from Hopewellian sites, 72Loparto, Leonard W., 186Luray complex: ceramics, 91; cordage twist attrib-

utes, 91MacNeish, Richard S., 130Macrobotanical materials: on Hopewellian copper

artifacts, 50t, 51t, 59, 60, 61-62Madder: from RI 1000 site, 172Madsen, David B., 100Mahoning Cord-Marked ceramics, 98; cordage twist

on, 105-106. See also Mahoning wareMahoning phase: ceramics, 98; chronology, 89f, 98;

components, 98; cordage twist direction, 109;possible population discontinuity fromEdinburg phase groups, 104; relationship toMcFate phase, 110

Mahoning ware, 97, 98, 104, 106; cordage twist on,104. See also Mahoning Cord-Markedceramics

Malecite people: cordage twist direction of, 92Maliseet-Passamaquoddy people, 146Marsh (New York): dating, 5; location, 4f; wooden

effigy face from, 5Mashantucket Pequot: burial practices, seventeenth

century, 182; reservation, 172; Tribal Council,172; tribe, 182

Mashpee people: clothing styles, 191, 192, 195; histo-ry, 192; subsistence, 192

Maslowski, Robert, 92, 131Mason (Maine): dates, 161; fabric, 160Massachusetts Bay Colony, 192, 194Massachusetts Historical Commission, 181, 185, 186,

187Matthews, Mercy Nonsuch (Western Niantic): hold-

ing appliqued pouch, 195Matting: from Hopewell sites, 46, 52, 73, 78; from

New York State Museum, 5; from Pictou site,

6; from RI 1000 site, 8, 171; from Sheep RockShelter, 5; as shrouds and grave linings, 172;from Walker’s Pond site, 148

Mawooshen: location, 146McFate (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 98, 99; dates, 100;

excavation of, 93, 97; location, 88f; VillageNo. 1 at, 99-100

McFate (Pennsylvania): location, 4f; cord-wrappedpotter’s paddle, 5

McFate Incised ceramics, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106;cordage twist on, 105-106; derivation fromMiddleport Ontario Iroquoian traditionceramics, 99; distribution of, 101, 106-107,108, 110

McFate phase: ceramics, 99; chronology, 89f, 98, 99,100; components, 99-100; cordage twist dis-tribution and frequency at components, 95f,104; economic/subsistence strategies, 100-101, 108, 110; population movement, 101-102, 103f, 106-110; relationship to Mahoningphase, 110; site types, 100, 102

McFate-Kalgren phase: ceramics, 110; chronology,89f; subsistence advantage of village loca-tions, 109

McJunkin (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 106; cordageimpression samples, from, 93; cordage twistdata, 107; date, 101-102; location, 88f

McKees Rock Mound (Pennsylvania): location, 4f,20f; perishables from, 22t, 27

McKinley (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 107; cordagetwist data, 107; hunting focus at, 108; loca-tion, 88f

McNeil, Cameron L., 171Mead Island phase: chronology, 89f, 107; cordage

twist from components, 104, 109; geographi-cal area, 88f

Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Pennsylvania): bark, cut,23, 26; cultural periods of perishables, 22t;location, 20f, 32f; plaiting, 22t, 23, 23f, 25, 25-26, 38

Metal: axe, 153, 161; beads, 6, 147, 148, 151, 152, 153,156f, 156-157, 172, 173f; breastplates, 47, 52f,55f, 56f, 57f, 58f, 66-67, 77f, 82f; buttons, 8;celts, 47, 53f, 56f; ceremonial objects, 6;“clips,” 7; daggers, 7; earspools, 6; flakingtool, 5; gorget, 6; headband, 152; headplates,47, 54f; kettles, 6, 143, 146, 147, 151f, 162;knives, 6; nuggets, 6; plate, 148; preservationby, 5-8, 46-67, 71, 147, 148, 150, 151, 151-152,159, 170, 172, 173f, 174f, 175f, 176, 179f

Mica effigy forms, at Hopewell sites, 71

234 Index

Micmac (Mi’kmaq) people, 146; trade withEuropeans, 163. See also Souriquois people

Middle Archaic period: cordage, 24-25, 25f; dates, 12,24; Frontenac Island site, 11; knotting, 25,25f; Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 24; plaiting,25; shirt or jacket, 11; Squaw Rockshelter, 24-25. See also Early / Middle Archaic

Middle Woodland period: cordage, 5; cordage twistin southeastern Virginia, 91; culturalsequence for northwestern Pennsylvania, 93,97; dates, 12, 91; shell beads, 161. See alsoHopewell, Hopewell tradition, Late MiddleWoodland period

Middlesex complex: dates, 161; sites, 160Mill Pond (Massachusetts): shoe and boot, 176Millbury III (Massachusetts): cordage from, 5, 160;

dating, 5; location, 4fMills, Peter, 186Mills, William C., 45, 46Minar, C. Jill, 92Mineralization, 9, 83, 182; at Cross Street Back Lot

Privy site, 176, 179f, 182; at Long Pond site,172, 173f, 174f, 175f, 182; at RI 1000 site, 172,182

Miscellaneous fiber constructions: as a compositional“class”, 21

Moccasins, leather: from Pictou site, 6; from SheepRock Shelter, 5

Modoc Rockshelter (Illinois): cultural period of per-ishables, 22t, 39; dates, 39; location, 32f;twining, 22t, 24, 39

Mohegan: bag, 205, 207tMolds, of baskets, 9Monongahela: garments deduced from bead disposi-

tion, 11Monongahela Cord-Marked ceramics: cordage twist

on, 105-106Monongahela culture: chronology, 89f, 90; cordage

twist on ceramics, 106; cordage twist differ-ing from GAP tradition, 106; geographicalarea, 88f

Moorehead phase/tradition: dates, 160; fiber perish-ables, 160

Moorehead, Warren K., 45, 145, 146, 147, 156Morrow (New York): basketry, 5; knotted netting, 5;

location, 4fMound City (Ohio): breastplate, 66; fabrics, 73; loca-

tion, 70f; materials on breastplate, 66;mounds, 70, 71

Mrozowski, Stephen, 185

Munsee. See Van Etten (New York)Muskalonge Lake (New York): hafted copper flaking

tool, 6; location, 4fNailor, Katherine Nanny: family privy 175, 182Narragansett: burial practices, seventeenth century,

182; people, 169, 171; tribe, 182Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation

Act (NAGPRA), 145Natrium Mound (West Virginia), 27; cultural period

of perishables, 22t; location, 20fNet, fish: from Morrow site, 4Netsinkers: from Morrow site, 5Netting: definition of, 21; impressed on pottery, 91;

knotted, 5; looped, 72Neutral. See Grimsby cemetery (Ontario)New York State Museum: Cultural Resource Survey

Program at, 8; exhibits at, 1, 2, 2f, 3f, 12fNewark (Ohio): location, 4; human effigy pipe from,

12Nineteenth century: 27/29 Endicott Street Privy site,

181; clothing styles, 192, 193f, 195f; MillPond site, 176

Ninigret: portrait of, 12Northern Thorn Mound (West Virginia): cordage,

22t, 26; cultural period of perishables, 22t;location, 20f; twining, 22t, 26-27, 27f

Occam, Samson, 192Ocher, red: from Hartford Cemetery site, 6; from

Sandy Point site, 157; from Walker’s Pondsite, 159

Ocket, Molly (aka, Marie Agathe, Mollocket), 205;pocketbook made by, 205, 207t

Ohio Historical Center: Hopewellian fabrics from,71, 72, 73, 75-83

Ohio Historical Society, 46, 72,73, 74, 79, 80t. See alsoOhio Historical Center

Ohio Valley: location, 19; occupational history, 19-20Ojibway: twined bags, 205, 207t, 210Orchard Knoll (New York): attributes of cordage and

fabric impressed on Owasco vessels from,133t; location, 132f, 132, 134; site type, 132

Ordoñez, Margaret T., 172, 181Ottawa bags: twining twist direction, 210“Ottawa biotype” adaptation, 108Ouleout Creek (New York): attributes of cordage and

fabric impressed on Point Peninsula vesselsfrom, 133t; ceramics, 135; location, 132f, 132,134; “foreign” containers at, 137; site type,131-132

Index 235

Overlock (Maine): fabric stains on stone bayonetsfrom, 10-11, 160; location, 4f

Owasco Corded Horizontal sherds from Street site,138f

Owasco Iroquoian groups: evidence for migration of,130

Owasco tradition, 130; artifacts from Castle Creeksite, 5; ceramics, 130-131, 137; cordageimpressed on pottery, 133t, 137-138; dates,130; fabrics impressed on pottery, 133t, 138

Pack straps: from Sheep Rock Shelter, 5Padelford, William F., family privy, 181Painting: on textiles from Seip site, 72Paleoindian period: artifacts, 2, 23-24; dates, 12, 23;

Hiscock site, 23; Meadowcroft Rockshelter,23; plaiting, 23; twining, 23-24. See alsoHiscock (New York), MeadowcroftRockshelter (Pennsylvania)

Panthers Rockshelter (Pennsylvania): cordage twiston ceramics from, 105; location, 88f

Pants fabric: from Fort William Henry, 8Pants, wool: from Albany Almshouse Cemetery site,

8Parker, Caroline G. (Seneca), 194, 195fPassamaquoddy people: cordage twist direction of,

92Pearl beads: from Ater Mound site, 71; from

Hopewell mound group, 71; preserved onHopewellian copper artifacts, 50t, 51t, 57f,60, 62; from Seip site, 71

Pennsylvania Historical Commission, 93, 97Penobscot people, 146Perishables, fiber: methods for analysis of, 47-50,

148-150; types of artifacts, 21Petersen, James B., 4, 92, 131, 145, 148, 209Pictou (Nova Scotia): arm band, 6; bags, 6; bow, 6;

cloth, European, 6; fabrics, 6; hafts, knife, 6;handles, sword, 6; location, 4f; matting, 6;moccasins, 6; replication of basketry from,12; scabbards, 6

Pigment: on fabrics, 60; on Hopewellian copper arti-facts, 60

Pillows, burial, 192-194, 195Pipes: Acorn ring-bowl, 104; Bulbous ring-bowl, 104;

human effigy, 12; protohistoric Seneca, 104Plain weave fabric: from Cross Street Back Lot Privy

site, 176, 178f, 179f, 182; from Long Pondsite, 172, 174f, 182; from RI 1000 site, 170;from Santuit Pond site, 185; from SenecaRoad site, 181, 187, 188f, 190f, 191f

Plaiting: as basketry structure, 21, 149; combinedwith twining, 151-152, 152f, 153f; fromMeadowcroft Rockshelter, 23, 23f, 25, 25-26;from Salts Cave site, 26; from Sandy Pointsite, 151-155, 152f, 153f, 154f; from RI 1000site, 171; from Russell Cave site, alleged, 40.See also Interlacing

Plant materials. See Macrobotanical materialsPocketbook, twined, 205Point Peninsula tradition, 130; ceramics, 130, 131,

135; cordage impressed on pottery, 133t, 135;dates, 130; fabrics impressed on pottery,133t, 137

Portland Point (New Brunswick): cloth, European,woolen, 6; location, 4f; trimming, European,6

Port-Melnick (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 97; cordagetwist on ceramics from, 104; location, 88f

Potawatomi bags: twining twist direction, 210Potomac River basin: ceramics attributes, 91; cordage

twist attributes, 91; population movementsin, 91

Potter’s paddle, cord-wrapped: from McFate site, 5Pouch. See BagPound Blank ceramics, 99Powers Run (Pennsylvania): cordage twist on ceram-

ics from, 105; location, 88fPowhatan chiefdom: cordage production, 91Praying towns, 192Preservation, of perishable materials, 3-9: by car-

bonization, 5; at dry sites, 4-5; by metal, 5-8,46, 50-67; due to short-term burial, 8-9; atwet sites, 3-4

Prezzano, Susan C., 131, 134Prostitute household: artifacts from, 181-182Protohistoric period: cultural sequence for north-

western Pennsylvania, 104; definition of, 13;Marsh site, 5; for Monongahela culture, 89f,90; Sheep Rock Shelter, artifacts from, 4-5;wooden effigy face, 5

Pseudomorphs: at Cross Street Back Lot Privy site,176, 179f, 182; definitions of, 5, 83; of fabrics,5, 9, 75, 75f, 172; at Long Pond site, 172, 182;negative, 182; positive, 182; preservation as,5, 9; at RI 1000 site, 172, 182

Putnam, Frederic W., 45, 46Quicksburg (Virginia): cordage twist direction from,

90-91Quiggle (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 105, 110, 111;

cordage twist on ceramics from, 105, 110;location, 88f; McFate phase refugees at, 111

236 Index

Quiggle Incised ceramics, 110; twist of cordageimpressed on, 110

Quiggle phase: cordage twist distribution and fre-quency at components, 95f

Quill, porcupine: constructions, 150, 156, 158, 158f; in“false embroidery,” 204

Repatriation: of burial assemblages from SandyPoint and Walker’s Pond sites, 145

Residues, carbonized, on sherds, 99-100; dates from,100

Rhode Island Historical Preservation and HeritageCommission (Rhode Island HistoricalPreservation Commission), 169-170, 182

Rhode Island Historical Society, 205RI 1000 Cemetery (Rhode Island), 169-170: analytical

methods for textiles from, 170-171; bags, 8;baskets, 8; burials, 170; containers, 171, 182;dates, 170; deerskin, 170; dyes, 171-172; fab-rics, 8, 170-172, 171f; fiber types, 170; graveliners, 171; mats, 8, 171, 182; mineralizationof fabrics at, 171, 172; location, 4f, 170f

Ribbons, silk: from Cross Street Back Lot Privy site,176, 177f, 178f

Rieth, Christina B., 134Ritchie, William A., 4, 11, 130River-Street (New York): attributes of cordage and

fabric impressed on Owasco vessels from,133t, 137, 138; foreign manufactured pots at,138; location, 132f, 132, 134; site type, 132

Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, 145, 150Rochester Junction (New York): location, 4fRockhold (Ohio): copper artifacts, 47; fabrics, 73, 78t;

location, 48f, 70f; materials on breastplates,64t, 65, 78t; yarn anomalies, 81; yarn diame-ters, 79t

Roundtop (New York): attributes of cordage and fab-ric impressed on Owasco vessels from, 133t;location, 132f, 132, 134; site type,132

Rush: as material in twined bag, 200Russ (New York): exhibit of artifacts from, 2Russell Cave, (Alabama): cultural period of perish-

ables, 22t, 40; location, 32f; plaiting, alleged,40; twining, 22t, 24, 40

Russell City (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 107; cordagetwist on ceramics from, 105, 107; huntingfocus at, 108; location, 88f

Salts Cave (Kentucky): cordage, 22t, 26; cultural peri-od of perishables, 22t; plaiting, 22t, 26; san-dals, 26; twining, 22t, 26

Sandals: from Arnold Research Cave site, 24; from

Salts Cave site, 26; from Sheep Rock Shelter,5

Sandy Point (Maine): analytical procedures for arti-facts from, 148-150; archaeological context,145, 146-147; breastplate, 156-158, 156f, 157;burials, 145, 147, 148, 157; composite con-structions, 150, 156-158, 156f, 157f, 158f, 160;cordage, 151, 155f, 155-156; diet, 148; ethno-historic context, 145-146; fabrics, 150-155,152f, 153f, 154f, 160; health of population,147; hide/leather, 153-154, 156-158, 160; loca-tion, 143, 144f, 145, 146; metal trade goods,147, 151f; quill, 150, 156,158, 158f; shellbeads, 147; twist direction in specimensfrom, 162

Sandy’s Point (Massachusetts): fabric, 185Santuit Pond (Massachusetts): fabric, 185Sashes: wampum, from Long Pond site, 172Sauk/Fox bags: twining twist direction, 210Scabbards, sword: from Pictou site, 6Schock, Jack, 102, 103Schoff, Harry, 93Sculpey III Modeling Compound: problems from

residues left by, 135, 136; casting proceduresutilized, 134, 135

Sebasticook Lake (Maine): basketry, bark, 161; dat-ing, 4, 161; fish weir use at, 4; location, 4f

Secondary evidence, of perishable materials, 9-12; byanalogy, 12; by associated objects, 11; bycasts, 9-10; by experimental archaeology, 12;by images, 11-12; by impressions, 9-10; bymineralization, 9; by pseudomorphs, 9; byskeuomorphs, 11; by stains, 10; by tools forworking organic materials, 11

Seeds: on Hopewellian copper artifacts, 59Seip (Ohio): ceremonial items, construction of, 66;

copper artifacts, 47, 51, 53f, 54f, 55f, 57f, 58f,75f; earthwork construction, 70; fabrics, 46,51, 53f, 54f, 55f, 57f, 58f, 60, 71, 72t, 75, 75f,76, 78, 78t; feather-decorated fabric, 53f;feathers, 55f, 57f, 58f; fiber types in fabricsfrom, 72; leaf segments, 60; location, 48f, 70f;materials on breastplates, 63-67, 75, 76, 78,81; materials on celts, 75; matting, 46;mounds, 70, 71; pearl beads, 57f, 60, 71; pig-ment, 60; shell beads, 60; yarn diameters,79t; yarn twist variation, 81, 83

Selvage: in specimen from Hiscock site, 34, 36f, 38Seneca Road (Massachusetts): analytical methods for

textiles, 186-187; applique pieces, 181, 191,191f, 194; burial pillows, 194, 195; burials,

Index 237

186; clothing construction at, 181, 182, 187,191; dates, 181, 194; fabrics, 181, 182, 187-188, 188f, 189f, 190f, 191f, 191, 192; location,170f; site description, 186; yarns, 187

Seneca. See Adams (New York), Boughton Hill (NewYork), Cameron (New York), Dann (NewYork), Marsh (New York), RochesterJunction (New York), Tram (New York)

Seventeenth century: bags, twined, 8, 197-210; band,interlaced, 8; baskets, 8; Boughton Hill site,7, 8; Burr’s Hill site, 175; Cameron site, 7;clothing construction, 182; Cross Street BackLot Privy site, 175, 182; Dann site, 7; dyes,171-172; fabrics, 8, 170-171, 175-176, 182; fig-urine, 8; foreshafts, arrow, 6; Long Pond site,172-175, 182; Marsh site, 5, 8; mats, 8; NewBrunswick sites, 6; Nova Scotia sites, 6; RI1000 site, 8, 169-172, 182; Rochester Junctionsite, 7; shoes, 176, 179f, 180f; Susquehannocksites, 6, 7; Tram site, 7; wooden effigy face, 5

Shaft, wooden: presence deduced from attached arti-facts, 11

Sheath, knife, twined: from Pictou site, 7Sheep Rock Shelter (Pennsylvania): dating, 5; loca-

tion, 4f; preservation of artifacts at, 4-5, 12;replication of fabrics from, 12

Shell beads: on Hopewellian copper artifacts, 50t,51t, 60, 62; as indicator of long-distancesocial interaction, 163; from Long Pond site,172, 173f; as mortuary goods, 162; fromSandy Point site burials, 147, 150-151, 161;from Walker’s Pond site burials, 148, 156,158-160, 159f, 161

Shenango Dam No. 1 (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 98;location, 88f

Shenks Ferry Incised ceramics, 105Shetrone, Henry, 72Shirt fabric: from Fort William Henry, 8Shirtwaist, silk: from Albany Almshouse Cemetery

site, 8Shoes: from 27/29 Endicott Street Privy site, 181-182;

from Albany Almshouse Cemetery site, 8;from Cross Street Back Lot Privy site, 176,179f, 180f, 182; from Mill Pond site, 176

Shroud, burial: attributes, of, 75; from Hopewellsites, 73; in New England burials, 192

Sibley, Lucy, 74, 78, 81Silk: fabrics from Cross Street Back Lot Privy site,

175-176, 177f, 178f; fabric from Van Ettensite, 6; filaments, 177f; garments fromAlbany Almshouse Cemetery site, 8-9; rib-

bon added to seventeenth-century twinedbag, 202; textiles from Burr’s Hill site, 175,182

Silverheels (New York): ceramics, 99Simms, Steven R., 100Simon, Brona, 186Sinew: in wampum bands, 172, 173fSixteenth century: Adams site, 6; bags, twined, 209-

210; hafted knife, 6; New Brunswick sites, 6;Nova Scotia sites, 6; Sandy Point site, 143-164; trade goods, 162; Walker’s Pond site,143-150, 155-164

Skeuomorphs, 11Smith (New York): ceramics, 100, 108; dates, 100;

location, 88fSmith, John: on cordage production, 91Snares: from Sheep Rock Shelter, 5Snow, Dean R., 130Song, Cheunsoon A., 72, 74Souriquois people, 146. See also Micmac peopleSpeedy, D. Scott, 91Spinning: methods, characteristics of, 81Spoons, wooden: from New York State Museum, 5Squaw Rockshelter (Ohio): cordage, 25, 25f; cultural

period of perishables, 22t; knotted construc-tions, 22t, 24-25, 25f; location, 20f

Squirrel Hill (Pennsylvania): cordage impressionsamples, from, 93; cordage twist data, 107;location, 88f

St. Lawrence Iroquoian: twined pouches, 205, 208tStains: of fabrics on stone, 10Stewart complex: chronology, 89f; cordage twist on

ceramics from, 105Stile, T. E., 27Stitches: in coiling, 21Stocking fragment: from Seneca Road site, 189fStrachey, William: on cordage production, 91Street (New York): attributes of cordage and fabric

impressed on Point Peninsula vessels from,133t; cord-marked sherds from, 138f; loca-tion, 132f, 132, 134; “foreign” containers at,137; site type, 131-132

Sugar Run (Pennsylvania): ceramics, 100; location,88f; possible origin of population, 108

Suspenders: from Albany Almshouse Cemetery site,8

Susquehanna tradition: cordage, 160; dates, 160Susquehannock. See Washington Boro

(Pennsylvania)

238 Index

Swan, John (father and son), 199Swan, Joshua, 199Swan, Susannah Eastman Wood (aka Susan Swan):

bag identified with, construction of, 197f,198f, 200f, 200-203, 201f, 202f, 204f, 206, 209t,210; bag identified with, history of, 198-199,210-212; bag identified with, materials of,200, 202, 209t; bag identified with, patternmotifs, 203, 204f; bag identified with, size,200; history, family, 211-213; history, person-al, 198-199, 211-212

Taffeta, 176Tailcoat, nineteenth century, 195fTapestry, twined: from Hopewell site, 73Tarleton, Kathryn, 172, 186Taylor (Pennsylvania), 87: cordage twist on ceramics

from, 104, 109; location, 88fTextiles: from 27/29 Endicott Street Privy site, 181;

analysis of, 186-187; carbonized, 79, 80t;from Cross Street Back Lot Privy site, 175-176, 176f, 177f, 178f, 179f, 182; on Hopewellcopper artifacts: 50t, 51-52, 52f, 53f, 54f, 55f,56f, 57f, 58f, 61, 73, 75-83; from Long Pondsite, 172, 173f, 174f; from RI 1000 site, 170-172, 171f; from Seneca Road site, 181, 182,187-188, 188f, 189f, 190f, 191f, 191, 192; treat-ment of, 172-174, 175, 181, 186, 187. See alsoCloth, Fabric, Plain weave fabric, Twillweave fabric

Thongs, leather: from Augustine Mound, 6; fromSheep Rock Shelter, 4

Thread, sewing, 176, 179fTies, silk: from Albany Almshouse Cemetery site, 8Timelines, Inc., 175, 181Tocamwap family: bag associated with, 205, 207tTools, for working organic materials, 11Trace element analysis: in identification of non-local

pottery vessels, 137, 138; of SusquehannaValley sherds and clays, 134-135, 136

Trade goods, European: as mortuary goods, 162; atSandy Point site, 146, 147; at Walker’s Pondsite, 145, 148

Trade: between Europeans and Natives, 146Tram (New York): bag, 7; location, 4fTransitional Archaic period: cordage, 5; Millbury III

site, 5Treatment methods: for archaeological textiles, 172-

174, 175, 181, 186, 187Tremper (Ohio): location, 70f; mound, 71Trimming, European: from Portland Point site, 6

Trot line: from Castle Creek site, 5Tunacunnhe (Georgia): materials on breastplate

from, 78Twill weave fabric: as addition to seventeenth-century

twined bag, 200, 201f, 202, 202f; from CrossStreet Back Lot Privy site, 176f; diagram offancy, 188f; from Long Pond site, 172; from RI1000 site, 170; from Sandy’s Point site, 185;from Seneca Road site, 181, 187

Twining twist direction: as indicator of group affilia-tion, 162; as indicator of social interaction,162-163

Twining: antiquity of, 40; in bags from Northeast,197f, 198f, 199-210, 200f, 201f, 202f, 204f; asbasketry structure, 21; combined with “plait-ing” (interlacing), 151-153, 152f, 153f; fromCresap site, 28; “false embroidery,” 203f, 204-205, 207t, 208t; full-turn, 203f, 205-206; fromGraham Cave site, 39; “hexagonal,” 205;from Hiscock site, 23-24, 34-40; fromHopewell site, 76, 78t, 80t; fromHopewellian sites, 52f, 53f, 54f, 71, 72, 73, 75f,76, 79, 80t 83f, 78; from Icehouse Bottom site,39; impressed on Owasco pottery, 133t, 138;impressed on Point Peninsula pottery, 133t,137; from Modoc Rockshelter, 39; fromNorthern Thorn Mound site, 26-27, 27f; pat-tern motifs, 203, 204f, 205-206, 206f, 207t,208t, 209t; from RI 1000 site, 171; fromRockhold site, 76, 78t; from Russell Cavesite, 40; from Salts Cave site, 26; from SandyPoint site, 150-155, 152f, 153f, 154f; from Seipsite, 72t, 76, 78, 78t; from Sheep Rock Shelter,5; structural variations, 203f; two-strand, 83;warp, 75, 149; weft, 149; wrapped, 40, 203,203f, 205-206, 208t

Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher, 205University of Connecticut: Public Archaeology

Survey Team, 172University of Massachusetts Boston, 185, 186; as

repository for objects from Cross Street andEndicott Street privy sites, 183

University of Rhode Island, 169; Historic Textile andCostume Collection, 187; TextileConservation Laboratory, 176; Textiles,Fashion Merchandising and DesignDepartment, as repository for archeologicaltextiles, 183

Van Etten (New York): fabric, silk, 6Verrazano, Giovanni: at Penobscot Bay, 145W. P. A: excavations on glaciated Allegheny Plateau,

93

Index 239

Wabanaki people, 146Walker’s Pond (Maine): analytical procedures for

artifacts from, 148-150; archaeological con-text, 145, 147-148; burials, 145, 147-148, 159;composite constructions, 150, 158-160, 159f;cordage, 155-156; diet, 148; ethnohistoriccontext, 145-146; garment, 158-160;hide/leather, 156, 158-160; location, 143,144f, 145, 147; matting, 148; metal tradegoods, 148; shell beads, 148, 159f; twistdirection in specimens from, 162

Wampanoag: burials at Seneca Road site, 176; ceme-tery at Burr’s Hill site, 175; clothing styles,192; tribe, 192

Wampum: bands, 172, 173f, 182. See also Shell beadsWansak (Pennsylvania): cordage twist on ceramics

from, 104; location, 88fWashington Boro (Pennsylvania): belt, buckskin, 8;

location, 4fWatson Farm (Pennsylvania), 92Watson Farm phase: chronology, 89fWeft wrapping: from Hopewell sites, 71Weir, fish: 4Welters, Linda, 170, 172, 181Wessels (New York): attributes of cordage and fabric


West Athens Hill (New York): diorama depicting, 2,4f; location, 4f

West Ferry (Rhode Island): location, 4fWestfield Cord-Marked ceramics, 104; cordage twist

on, 104Westfield sub-period: chronology, 89fWestfield-Mac (New York): ceramics, 98, 99; cordage

twist on ceramics from, 104-105; location, 88fWet sites, preservation at, 3-4Weyanock (Powhatan tribe): preferred cordage twist

direction, 92Whallon, Robert, 134White (New York): attributes of cordage and fabric

impressed on Point Peninsula vessels from,

133t; ceramics, 135; fabric from, 5; location, 4f,132f, 132, 134; site type, 131-132

White, Ellanor P., 73, 74, 79Willey, Lorraine, 12Willoughby, Charles C., 71, 72, 147, 149, 156, 209Wilson Shute (Pennsylvania): location, 88f; site type, 100Wimberley, Virginia, 49Winnebago bags: twining twist direction, 210Wintergreen Gorge (Pennsylvania): dates, 100; location,

88f; site type, 100Wobst, Martin: information exchange model of, 72Wolford, Jack A., 92, 131, 209Wood: arrows, 4, 6; awls, 4; bow, 6; bowls, 5; charcoal,

59, 60, 61, 62, 63; figurine, 8; fire drills, 4; fish-hooks, 5; fish weirs, 4; hafts, knife, 6; handles,sword, 6; handles, tool, 5-6; potter’s paddle,cord-wrapped, 5; spoons, 5

Wood, Susannah, 199Wood, Thomas, 199Woodland period: dates, 12; fish weir, 4. See also Early

Woodland, Late Woodland, Middle WoodlandWool: air-drying versus freeze-drying of, 173-174; cloth

from Fort William Henry, 8; cloth from PortlandPoint site, 6; fabric from Sandy’s Point site, 185;fabric from Santuit Pond site, 185; fibers,degraded, 171f, 172, 177f; garments from AlbanyAlmshouse Cemetery site, 8-9; textiles from27/29 Endicott Street Privy site, 181; textilesfrom Burr’s Hill site, 182; textiles from CrossStreet Back Lot Privy site, 175, 176, 176f; tex-tiles from Long Pond site, 172, 173f, 174f; tex-tiles from RI 1000 site, 170-172; textiles fromSeneca Road site, 181, 187, 188f, 189f, 190f,191f, 192, 194

Wymer, DeeAnne, 73, 78X-ray fluoresence analysis of sherds, 134-135Yarn: from Hopewell sites, attributes of, 72t, 76, 78, 79t,

81, 82, 83; from Long Pond site, 175f; mixed-fiber, 177; scanning electron photomicrograph of,175f. See Cordage

Yerkes, Richard, 72, 74

240 Index

Documents

PERISHABLE MATERIAL CULTURE IN THE NORTHEAST