Dress and Adornment from the Pre-historical Period. Since the main emphasis of the book revolves around the dress and adornment of the Indians of the Southeast as observed and documented on a first hand basis, archaeological finds will be discussed very generally. In addition, the authors found that the dating of many of the artifacts covered a wide span of time from, for example, 700 AD - 1500 AD.
The Evidence of dress and adornment can be of two types: those articles of dress and adornment worn by peoples native to a specific locale or those articles manufactured elsewhere and brought to a specific locale through trade. Articles such as beads, ear bobs, shell gorgets, etc. will be discussed as they pertain to the Southeast Ceremonial Complex as a whole. Using a broad definition, the area known as The Southern Ceremonial Complex stretched from the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts to Eastern Oklahoma and the Lower Ohio Valley.4 The archaeological data that pertains to pre-history is derived from information that is based on, of necessity, supposition. The styles of dress, ornamentation, and hair styles are based on pottery, effigy figures, and shell decoration. Only the beads, gorgets (pendants), and ear bobs remain as concrete evidence of ornamentation worn before the intrusion of the European. However, due to climatic conditions in the Southeast, almost no remnants of dress, be they made from animal skins, natural fibers, or feathers, remain. The few pieces of fibrous textiles that remain are too small to generate conclusive evidence of either how they were formed, how they were used, or when they existed. There is a controversy among archaeologists and anthropologists about the apparent similarity of inscribed drawings on shells with similar drawings from the more southern cultures in Mexico and locations further south. This controversy will not be addressed in this book other than to state that it exists and to quote a few sentences from a paper delivered by W. H. Holmes. In describing a gorget that he felt portrayed a sacrificial scene, he stated: "Any one at all familiar with the curious pictographic manuscripts of the ancient Mexicans will see at a glance that we have here a sacrificial scene, in which an officiating priest is engaged in the immolation of a human being. In the extraordinary manuscripts of the ancient Aztecs we have many parallels to this design. So closely does it approach the Aztec type that, although no duplicate can be found in any of the codices, there is not a single idea, a single member or ornament, that has not its analogue in the Mexican manuscripts."5 Most of the information collected in this section is derived from actual specimens or descriptions of the artifacts found in the mounds of the Ceremonial Complex. Some of it is identical to ornamentation described by the first European explorers. The only ornamentation and styles of dress (or undress) that will be addressed are those items that can also be found in use after the presence of the Europeans or those items that seem to be precursors of items observed by the first Europeans who explored the Southeast. Different archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians define the region that encompassed the Mississippi Ceremonial Complex and its time frame differently. Jon Muller in his article "The Southern Cult," ascribed the various viewpoints to those people who lumped all the late prehistoric period together and labeled it as Mississippian and those who split the period ecologically, regionally, etc.6 Muller, also, stated that the amount of goods traded and their distance or origin varied by period. James A. Brown wrote: "Look a like art work confirms beyond any doubt that long-distance exchange is involved in the distribution of these art forms."7 In order to do a complete analysis of the dress and adornment in the prehistoric period, individual sites would have to be investigated, the trade items separated from those indigenous to the region (if possible), and a narrow time frame in relation to the artifacts identified. For these reasons, only gross elements will be discussed in this section for the authors believe that an in depth study would be out of place within the context of this book. Jon Muller stated in his article entitled "The Southern Cult" that it was easier to state what the Southern Cult wasn't than what it was.8 "First, it was not a single art style or artistic horizon as it has commonly been defined9.... If `Southern Cult' is simply used as a synonym for `late prehistoric art,' then it falsely implies a unity of cultural tradition that does not exist.10 ..... Rather, the themes in question seem to have been the property of all eastern societies and were utilized and redeveloped with the rise of new traditions and beliefs..."11 One can break down the items that adorned the early inhabitants of the southeast into two major types - those that simply adorned the body like ear bobs and beads and those that not only adorned but were incised with pictures that represented animals, humans, mythical beings, etc. Thus one can see the types of actual adornment and can also put forth hypotheses as to the possible dress and adornment of these pre-history (as labeled by Europeans) peoples. One can also speculate on motifs through the drawings incised on pottery. Simple ornamentation consisted of the wearing of jewelry, tattoos, and paint. The specific tattoos and bodily painted ornamentation can only be gleaned from early depictions by Europeans, drawings on gorgets and other shells, and possibly from the designs found on various forms of pottery. The authors Emma Lila Fundaburk and Mary Douglass Foreman in their book Sun Circles and Human Hands present a picture of the artifacts found in the Southeast from basically the Archaic period that started in 4,000 B.C. through the Woodland (1000 B.C.), and finally through the Mississippian period which lasted from about 800 to 1600 A.D.12 Table #1 (located in the beginning of this chapter) demonstrates different time period deliniations. Some of the ornamentation found to belong to the Archaic period consisted of "charms, beads, and bar gorgets."13 Some of these contained "carved geometric designs."14 Fundaburk and Foreman further believed that specialization in production of specific artifacts probably began during this time period.15 During the Woodland period which was a precursor of the Mississippian, objects of copper increased as did those made from shells. Copper articles worn for the purpose of adornment included: "bycimbal ear spools, drilled beads, bracelets, rolled sheet beads (tubes), a few copper plated objects (over stone or wood) including ear spools, and gorgets."16 17 From shells, the people created basically beads and gorgets. The beads included pearls. Many articles made from marine shell beads occurred at inland sites, as articles made from copper appeared at coastal sites; thus, reaffirming the existence of wide spread trade routes. During these periods and on into the Mississippian period, the designs on the artifacts were basically of three types: geometric and symmetrical; objects of worship like the sun, moon, and stars; and objects that depicted humans, birds, animals, and mythical or religious combinations of the above. Fundaburk and Foreman listed some of the specific designs as depicting: "the hand, eye, bone, skull, equal-arm cross, sun, star, triskel18, step, arrow, human, bird, serpent, and spider."19 Plate # 2 Jewelry The majority of the artifacts were listed as being from the time span of 700 A.D. to 1500 A.D. The drawings that accompany the text do not necessarily represent one particle piece of ornamentation but are general representations of the type of object presented. For example, ear spools can vary in size, thickness, and in front and rear diameters. In general, they can range from 3.75 inches to less than 2 inches. Most have center holes of varying widths. Surfaces can be plain or decorative. The dimensions of the top left ear spool depicted in Plate # 2 are just an example. Likewise, pendants can be made of copper, shells, bones, and occasionally earthenware, and combinations of various materials. Some of the objects observed at Gilcrease as well as at other mounds include20 circular gorgets (hanging pendants worn around the neck) of shell, circular and oblong gorgets of copper, columella (part of the large conch) shell pendants, mask gorget, copper symbol badges, sheet copper hair emblems, ear spools of many sizes, and oblong, round, and discoidal beads. Few objects worn for adornment were made out of earthenware for, according to W.H. Holmes, the material was not decorative enough to be used for creating ornaments.21 Sometimes, however, earthenware was used as cores for copper ear disks.22 From some of the depictions on the various gorgets, effigy pots, and other artifacts, certain styles of adornment can be identified. These were: 1- Headdress and hair ornaments, such as: "[the]occipital hair knot, tasseled head tablet, ear spools (usually tasseled) [having tassels attached], bi-lobed arrow hair emblems, copper plume hair emblems, antlered headdress, beaded forelock."23 2- Body ornaments and clothing included: "beaded bands on arms and legs, necklace, necklace with columella pendant, beaded choker, beaded belt, knotted, sash, and the fringed apron."24 25 Fundaburk and Foreman broke into various classes the designs created on ornaments as well as other artifacts as previously stated: 1- motifs which included designs such as: "the cross, sun circles, bi-lobed arrow, the forked eye, the barred oval, the hand and eye, and death motifs"26 such as skulls and various bones. 2- God-Animal representations which included "BIRDS (a) the Eagle naturalistic and anthropomorphized; (b) the Pileated (or Ivory Billed) Woodpecker, always naturalistic; (c) the Turkey, always naturalistic27; The RATTLESNAKE, naturalistic, horned, plumed, winged, anthropomorphized, or any combination of these; The CAT, always naturalistic";28 The deer is, also, a possible subject matter since some of the other animals and the reptiles are horned.29 Included in this category is the HUMAN some of which are anthropomorphized beings.30 These also might be representational for "god-impersonations". A. J. Waring and Preston Holder predated Fundaburk and Foreman in categorizing the artifacts according to Motifs, God-Animal Representations, and Ceremonial Objects. The ceremonial objects embodied designs from the motifs and God-Animal beings categories. The ones that involved personal adornment were: (4) Columnella Pendants [made from the columnella and terminal whorl of large conches] d. copper-covered stone"31 Waring and Holder also separated objects that they termed Costume: "Head-dress and Hair Ornaments 3. ear spools (usually tasseled 8. beaded bands on arms and legs 10. necklace with columnella pendant 14. the Fringed Apron"32 While the descriptions of some of the above items seem to be self evident, the authors of this book will describe some as they were described in the Waring-Holden article. "Sheet Copper Hair Emblem consists of sheet copper representations of the Bi-lobed Arrow, the Baton, or large curved plumes. They have a bone pin attached at the base for insertion into the hair knot.33 "The beaded forelock is a spike-like, beaded object that hangs from the forehead of a male.34 "Head-dresses vary from simple occipital knots stuck with the Plume or the Bi-lobed Arrow to elaborately crested types. The beaded forelock was always present."35 Waring and Holder described some aspects of important burials: ".....elements of the ceremonial costume appear with burials, presumably those of important individuals. [Human] burials were found....with bead bands at the wrists, elbows, knees, and ankles, with gorgets and columnella pendants at their necks and with Copper plume and Bi-lobed Arrow Emblems in place behind the skulls."36 W. H. Holmes believed that the patterns found on gorgets were not just a series of "fanciful" designs but conveyed information.37 He believed that the circular shell gorgets that were rimmed with circles probably represented a sun-worship motif.38 He, further stated that all the designs on the gorgets held special significance and were created using no extraneous "lines, dots, and figures not essential to the presentation of the conception."39 "....their [gorget] production was a serious art, which dealt with matters closely interwoven with the history, mythology, and polity of a people gradually developing a civilization of their own."40 It is speculated that these gorgets might have indicated a male person's status or lineage.41 Since it is believed that some of the forms depicted on the gorgets represented mythical character and such, a problem of differentiation occurs. When one examines a gorget that depicts a human-like form and this entity has a feather headdress on his head, the question arises as to whether special classes of men actually wore elaborate feather headdresses. To confuse the issue, many gorgets depicted the human form with bird-like attributes - wings, talons, etc. It could therefore be supposed that the feather headdress was drawn as a bird-like attribute. Thus, one has to be very careful about drawing too many conclusions from the engravings on the gorgets and on other shells as to how these pre-history people dressed. Another example of possible misleading information as to pre-historic dress can be garnered from a description by Holmes of a gorget; in this description, he depicted a figure who wore beneath his broad belt the suggestion of "the scales of a coat of mail."42 Thus, once again, the question arises as to whether this particular design actually represented a coat of mail worn by early Spanish explorers during the pre-historic period, or depicted an item worn as a protector of the male genitalia, etc. Mortuary vases, which could be created in the likeness of the deceased were often inscribed with tattoos and multiple holes in the ears for earrings. A tremendous debt is owed to Phillips and Brown who authored the multiple volume work entitled Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro Oklahoma. In delineating how the human form was portrayed, they have looked at all aspects of the figures.43 The figures described are all sexless.44 This is "because it was taken for granted that none were female."45 All nomenclature as it refers to hair, headdresses, etc. will follow that of Phillips and Brown. Unfortunately, different authors use different names to describe the same style. In addition, some authors state that a particular engraving demonstrated a headdress while others believe the same drawing was that of actual hair. Hair Styles46 Phillips and Brown divide the hair into basic categories: short roach, high roach, and tapered roach.47 The short roach starts at the forehead and extends only to the back of the head with the latter section being longer. The hair by definition is short. The high roach has also been called the top-knot. These top-knots are placed on top of the head either extending beyond the short roach itself or supplanting the short roach altogether. The short tapered roach extends from the head but is tapered at the end. A figure can have multiple short tapered roaches, elongated tapered roaches, top double hair buns, back double hair buns with or without queues. The term "ponytail" covers multiple forms of queue-like hairstyles. These ponytails could be quite varied. All these hair styles can be ornamented by feathers, bi-lobed arrows, antlers, etc. Plate #3 Basic Hair Forms The beads were of three types: round, oval, and trapezoidal. The combination of beads and styles of forelocks are many. Another example, although rare, is the beaded tasselled forelock where a tassel extended from the forelock. Beaded Sidelocks according to Phillips and Brown are of two types. One style involves multiple strings that originate high up on the side of the head and can end as a taper or multiple strings that can end in a short single line. The other style describes these sidelocks as being placed along side the forelock but lower and in front of the ear.50 Headdresses and Hair Ornaments51 The definition given of a headdress is basically hair or other accoutrements that are not integrally part of the wearer's own hair.52 This definition seems to also include hair ornaments like the bilobed arrow (spelled bi-lobed by other authors). These served as hairpins and could be made from copper with bone hair pins. The bilobed plume is similar to the bilobed arrow. Phillips and Brown separate long roaches or high crests that extend to the shoulders from the natural short type of roaches. The former they classify as headdresses. Another type of headdress was that of the rolled headband, called a turban by other authors. Diadems, although few, are another example of a headdress. Other headdresses include the chunky hat, antlers, and raccoon hind quarters. It is very interesting to note a comment made by Phillips and Brown: "In marked contrast to the popular stereotype of the befeathered Indian, our samples provide surprisingly few occurrences of recognizable feathers functioning as head adornments."53 Ear Ornaments54 According to Phillips and Brown, most of the depictions of human heads wore earspool.55 Earspools were usually decorated and some had appendages hanging from them such as feathers, a string of beads, etc. The engravings that did not have earspools usually had "leaf- or-feather-shaped" forms which could have been inserted in one of the holes in the ear lobe.56 Bodily Adornments57 There were multiple depictions of bands worn by the subjects engraved on gorgets and other articles. These consisted of armbands, wristbands, kneebands, and anklebands. Another form of decoration was the necklace. This item took many forms. The simplest form of necklace was a single strand of beads. Another form of necklace, although not usual, was that of a rope. However, usually strings of round or oval beads also incorporated some type of shell pendant. The shell pendants fell into three groups. The first form consists of the columella and part of the spire. It has the perforation at the tip end. The second group is similar to the first but contains more of the outer portion and is symmetrical around its vertical axis. The third group consists of the whole shell or shells. Phillips and Brown added another category to the adornment of the neck and called it a "collar" or "beaded collar". Both collars and necklaces could be worn together. Some of the collars depicted were intricate and all were worn around the neck symmetrically (at least viewed from the front.) Another form of collar was the "triangular collar." This one came to a point in the front. Garments58 The basic garment that appears on many objects was the wrap-around knee length skirt in two versions. There are only two examples of an off-the-shoulder belted tunic.59 Phillips and brown described the basic skirt thusly: "It appears to consist of two parts: a piece of material wide enough to go around the body with an overlap, the latter in most cases pure inference because it usually does not show. The skirt material is attached (another inference) to a belt or a sash which is tied at front, side, or back, with the ends hanging down, either or both in view."60 The two types of skirts described are those that were "a somewhat skimpy divided version and a garment that looks more like a real skirt."61 The wrap around skirts are held up by knotted sashes. Most of the engraved pictures of the skirts also contain engraved decorations. Plate # 4 Garments Phillips and Brown discuss the fact that capes, presumably worn in pre-historic times, are basically absent from the engravings. Almost all of the figures classified by Phillips and Brown wear a form of a belt. Belts are, also, often combined with sashes. The belts and sashes, as did the skirts, contained decorative motifs. Depictions of bellows-shaped aprons are classified as different from skirts. These aprons have been defined differently by various persons. The fringed apron is a special type of apron. The bellows shape, as pointed out by Phillips and Brown, is described as symbolizing the underside of a tail belonging to certain birds. Its function as depicted on the engraved figures has been questioned. Phillips and Brown believe that it represented an apron or loin cloth.63 Some of these contained a rectangular area in the upper front section. This has been deemed a pouch or a flap. Of these "bellow-shaped aprons" there are three types: One is called "the long-haired type" and is decorated with lines thought to resemble hair upon which are strung beads; the second type also incorporated hair but in double strands with differing amounts of beading; the third type of apron differed in its decorations. Not all of the aprons were worn in the front. The back apron is a distinctive style unto itself. From pictures found in Phillip's and Brown's book, it appears that it could be worn without a front counter part. The feet are portrayed in many ways - some with footwear and some without. The most commonly found footwear was the cuffed moccasin64 of which four types are described: "more or less rectangular, triangular, fringed, and decorated."65 Another type of footwear was a form of bootie that extended slightly over the ankle and was cuffless. While all of the descriptions were garnered from the artifacts found at Spiro, they give an overall general picture of how many of the figures depicted on shell gorgets and other artifacts looked. Even admitting a variance due to time frames and localities, nevertheless one cannot underestimate their value in depicting the human form before the advent of the Europeans. Textiles While one could look at an earspool, for example, and then possibly trace how it evolved, one cannot do this with fabric. Obviously with no written information contemporary to the period and with few, and those very fragmentary, remains of fibrous material it is hard to ascertain the fabrics used to construct garments and the methods of construction. The information must be gleaned from early historic accounts by Europeans and the few remnants that remain. In addition, the tools used to construct any sort of fabric have rotted away. What has remained are objects that are similar to loom weights. However, since they could have been used as simple plummets, there is much disagreement between anthropologists and archaeologists as to the exact process used to make the garments depicted on gorgets, and other ornaments. As early as the late nineteenth century, articles have been written about the early textiles found in the Southeast and adjacent areas. The literature abounds in terminology about textiles that seems contradictory. While there are different schools of thought as to how the textile fragments were made, some of these apparent contradictions are not contradictions at all but semantic variations in terminology. As early as 1936, Horace Minor complained about the lack of standardization of terms.66 The use of different terms to describe the same fabric sample has continued. Basically there are two issues. The first term that needs to be addressed is the definition of weaving. The question that must be asked is: What constitutes a woven piece of fabric? The second term that needs to be defined is: What constitutes a loom and how does it effect the definition of weaving? Two terms that are sometimes used interchangeably and sometimes not are twining and weaving. In addition, different professions as well as different scholars in the same profession define these two words differently. In an article in the American Anthropologist, twining (a method of creating fabrics) is stated to be a subset of weaving. It is called Twined Weaving.67 In an article published in 1993, twining is differentiated from weaving and is not considered to be a subset at all.68 The following definitions will be helpful in order to better understand some of the terms used in reference to creating garments from thread, yarn, grasses, etc. Interlacing - A method of interworking elements, "in as much as each element simply passes under or over elements that cross its path."69 Twining - "A fabric structure in which one set of active elements (yarns) spiral or turn about each other, enclosing successive elements of the other passive set in each turn."70 Weaving - "Interlacing with two sets of elements."71 Plaiting [braiding] Finger-Weaving - "Interlacing with one set of elements"72 Linking, looping, wrapping, or knotting are other methods used to create fabrics.73 The controversy as to what is a woven piece of material has many ramifications. The core of the arguments center around the infinitive to weave and its definition. Some authorities define the term weaving in a general sense to cover any garment whose threads are joined by interlacing them at right angles to each other.74 Others define weaving as a process in which the latitudinal thread first passes over and then under the longitudinal thread until the end of the row is reached. This over and under sequence is then reversed for the next row. Still others state that this second definition needs to be further modified to differentiate between mechanical looms and hand looms. Mechanical looms, in their simplest form, are able to raise and or lower the alternate threads as a group. In contemporary genre, part of the definition of a "true" loom seems to necessitate its ability to be mechanized, i.e., create sheds mechanically. These following definitions describe parts of a loom and the placement of yarns. Warp or woof - The longitudinally placed yarn or thread positioned to receive the other thread. Sometimes this thread is stronger than the other thread, the weft thread. Weft - The latitudinal thread that interlaces with the warp. Shed bar - The device that is used to raise or lower all the alternate warp threads simultaneously and, thus, create a shed or space through which the weft can be passed all at once. However, a shed bar only facilitates the passage of the weft all at once on alternate rows. Heddle bar - The heddle bar provides through a set of individual holders or heddles a method of raising the warp threads in the alternate rows that the shed bar was not capable of raising. Shuttle - The tool used to hold a quantity of weft thread. It is very important to note that, according to some authorities, if there are not heddle bars and shed bars on the loom, i.e., if the loom isn't mechanized, then the process of passing the weft threads through the warp threads is called darning. The weft thread is darned through the warp thread.75 Certain purists state that this darning process does not constitute weaving. Others state that this is simply a form of hand weaving, and since the outcome of the garment looks the same, the process is defined as weaving and the garment is a woven garment. Thus even garments created on a loom may not by some definitions be termed woven. Atwater in the book Byways of Hand-weaving, obviously considers hand-weaving by definition and terminology "weaving". There are generally two types of hand-weaving. The first involves a stationary warp thread and a mobile weft thread; while the second involves using the warp thread which is mobile, or not attached to a frame on both ends, as a weft thread as well. Atwater believes that these processes still constitute, by definition, weaving although she refers to them as types of hand-weaving. Irene Emory's definitions found in her book, The Primary Structures of Fabrics, differentiates firstly between weaving and twining, and, then, mechanical and tablet weaving. "One of the radical distinctions between weft-twining and most `heddle-loom weaving' (including tablet-weaving) is to be found in the lack of implementation. Neither heddles nor shuttles can be utilized in weft-twining since the wefts, instead of being passed through the sheds, are manipulated in pairs......."76 However, Penelope Drooker in her article entitled "Textile Production and Use at Wickliffe Mounds" refers to the term weaving in the context of creating twined bags.77 Most of the imprinted pottery shards that have been found show the imprint of fabric that has been twined. However, without additional information, it is the belief of the authors (Sanders and Sanders) that it cannot be stated that the Indians did not create truly loom woven fabrics. In addition, without looms to examine, it is impossible to know if they did weave and whether they had "mechanized the loom" or used the technique of darning. In all probability, it is safe to speculate that they used the technique of darning in the weft. Some samples of prehistoric textiles have been found in caves in Kentucky, mounds in Ohio, Oklahoma, Georgia, bluffs in Arkansas, etc. Unfortunately the climate of the southeast is not kind to fabrics and unless they were accidentally preserved, they have rotted. Fortunately, certain conditions were present in the mounds and caves to protect some fabrics. Some of the fabric samples were protected by ash beds, the niter that accumulated in caves and bluffs, and the copper oxides from copper implements.78 Some of the fibers used to manufacture cloth were vegetable fibers, hemp and nettle, the inner bark of certain trees like the linden and elm, and the hair from animals like the buffalo and rabbit. Often hair and fibers were combined. The study of textiles is not confined to sample pieces of fabric because textiles have been used since the eighth and ninth millennium B.C. as vehicles for imprinting textures onto pottery79 either for decorative purposes or to aid in the manufacture of the pottery. The earliest sample of fabric was discovered in a Florida bog. This sample dates to the sixth millennium B.C.80 The textiles found are not just crudely created fabrics. The opposite is actually true. Some of the textiles found at the Spiro Mounds in Oklahoma were of feathers and fur. These were probably used for mantles.81 Mantles and other pieces of fabric varied in structure, patterning, and coloration through the use of dyes.82 Bands made from yarn were also found at Spiro. These were dyed red, black, yellow, and gold. Patterns were also found in the samples.83 As gorgets, pottery, and other implements were decorated, so were the fabrics. As evidenced from an impressed piece of fabric called "Mississippian Lace" (to be addressed later in this section), designs were painted on or incorporated in the actual structure of the fabric. The type of dying used at Spiro consisted of resist dying. Dr. Jenna Kuttruff listed some of the design motifs used by the Caddoans at Spiro as: "horizontal bands, rectangles, circles, chevrons, squares, bird forms, diamonds, frets, half circles, and human forms.84 Painting, twined openwork, and feather or fur wrapping were common methods of decoration.85 Some of the types of fabric structure found at Spiro were: plain weft twining, twined tapestry, wrapping, oblique interlacing, oblique twining, braiding, and plain weave. The most common type was weft twining; the least common were oblique twining and plain weave.86 Kuttruff's basic premise, in the article already cited, was that even these early people used garments to demarcate their status in their social order. She analyzed the types of fabrics found in the burial mounds of Spiro juxtaposed against the fabrics found in the rock shelters of Arkansas to demonstrate the different social positions of the inhabitants of these different abodes. Flora Church undertook a similar analysis of the people who would have inhabited the Hopewell area in Ohio.87 Prior to Church's article in 1984, other people had classified some of the fabrics found at the Hopewell mounds. In an article by Charles Willoughby entitled, "Textile Fabrics from the Burial Mounds of the Great Earthwork Builders of Ohio," he classified some of the examples of fabric construction. It must be remembered that when the article was written, the term weaving encompassed more forms of fabric construction. The following is a list of types of fabric structures that Willoughby found: Braided or Checker Weaving (the simplest form of mound weaving used to make narrow objects like belts, bands, and sashes). Simple In-and-Out Weaving, Twilled Weaving, and Simple Twined Weaving.88 While fragments of fabric have been analyzed as to content in order to learn more about the fabrics used before the advent of the Europeans, examinations of pottery have also been extremely informative because fabrics were used to impress designs into pliable clay. William H. Holmes stated that: "Textile markings on pottery were of five classes: First, impressions from the surface of rigid forms, such as baskets. Second, impressions of fabrics of a pliable nature, such as cloths and nets. Third, impressions from woven textures used over the hand or over some suitable modeling implement. Fourth, impressions of cords wrapped about modeling paddles or rocking tools. Fifth, impressions of bits of cords or other textile units, singly or in groups, applied for ornament only and so arranged as to give texture-like patterns. In addition, we have a large class of impressions and markings in which textile effects are mechanically imitated."89 One theme that extends through all the articles describing the remainders of the fabrics used in prehistoric times is the variety of weaves, materials used, modes of decorations, and decorative motifs. The complexity of some of these fabrics is shown by an impressed fabric that became know as "Mississippian Lace." The pattern was thought to have been made using the method of twining; the open work of the pattern was complex. This type of work was found at other cites throughout the Southeast including at Spiro.90 What also is apparent is that fabrics, be they impressed or in fragments, found at different Mississippian complexes were varied and, according to Drooker, sophisticated with "a wide range of yarn and fabric types."91 Thus, even though fabric samples are not profuse, between those that were impressed in pottery vessels, described on gorgets, and actually found, their variety and craftsmanship demonstrate that they were created by a people from well developed cultures. 1. Robert Silberg, Mound Builders of Ancient America, p. 227. 2. Lila Fundaburk and Mary Douglass Foreman, Sun Circles and Human Hands, p.9. 3. Gerald F. Schroedt, Clifford Boyd, Jr., R.P. Stephen Davis, " Explaining Mississippian Origins in East Tennessee," Mississippian Emergence, ed. Bruce D. Smith, p. 178. 7. James A. Brown, "On Style Divisions of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: A Revisionist Perspective." The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, p. 187. 10. Ibid., p. 13. 16. The copper is not actually plated over the wood or stone. It is more correctly placed over wood or stone objects. 18. "A symbolic figure consisting of three legs radiating from a common center." Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955, p. 2250. 20. The list is derived from Fundaburk & Foreman. It is used to insure that the majority of types of articles are listed and not inadvertently excluded pp. 40-55. 21. H. Holmes, "Aboriginal Pottery of Eastern United States," BAE 20th Annual Report, pp. 42-43. This article was reprinted in The Archaeology of William Henry Holmes. 22. Ibid., pp. 141-142. 24. Ibid., p. 43. 25. For a good summary of various designs, see Fundaburk and Foreman, Sun Circles and Human hands, pp. 48-97; Bert W. Bierrer, Indians and Artifacts of the Southeast; and Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings. 29. Ibid., p. 40. 30. Ibid., p. 40. 31. Waring and Holder, "A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States," American Anthropologist, vol 47, p. 6. 41. LeeAnne Wilson, "Southern Cult Images of Composite Human and Animal Figures," American Indian Art Magazine, winter, 1985, p. 49. 43. Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings, (Paperback edition),volume 1, p. 77. 44. Ibid., p. 95. 45.Ibid., p. 95. 47. Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings,(Paperback edition),volume 1, pp. 77-89. All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 48. Ibid., p. 83. All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 49.Ibid., p. 83.All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 50. Ibid., p. 85. All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 52. .Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings,(Paperback edition),volume 1, p. 86. All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 55. .Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings,(Paperback edition),volume 1, p.90. All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 56. Ibid., p. 91. All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 59. Philip Phillips and James A. Brown, Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings,(Paperback edition),volume 1, p. 95.All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 60. Ibid., p. 95. All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 61. Ibid., p. 95. All descriptions are excerpted from the text and/or the drawings. 62. Mary Elizabeth King and Joan Gardiner, "The Analysis of Textiles from Spiro Mound, Oklahoma," Annals New York Academy of Sciences, p. 124. 66. Horace Minor, "The Importance of Textiles in the Archaeology of the Eastern United States," American Antiquity, vol.1, no. 3, 1936, p. 181. 68. Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff, "Mississippian Period Status Differentiation Through Textile Analysis: A Caddoan Example," American Antiquity, vol. 58, 1, 1993, p. 130. 70. Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff, "Mississippian Period Status Differentiation Through Textile Analysis: A Caddoan Example," American Antiquity, vol. 58, 1, 1993, p. 130. 77. Penelope Drooker, "Textile production and Use at Wickliffe Mounds," Midcontinental Jounal of Archaeology, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 167. 78. Horace Miner, "The Importance of Textiles in the Archaeology of the Eastern United States," American Antiquity, vol 1, no. 3, January, 1936, p. 181. 79. Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff, "Mississippian Period Status Differentiation Through Textile Analysis: A Caddoan Example," American Antiquity, vol. 58, 1, 1993, p. 125. 85. Mary Elizabeth King and Joan Gardiner, "The Analysis of textiles from Spiro Mound, Oklahoma," Annals New York Academy of Sciences, p. 132. 87. Flora Church, "Textiles as Markers of Ohio Hopewell Social Identities," Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, vol.9, no. 1, 1984. 88. "Textile Fabrics from the Burial Mounds of the Great Earthwork Builders of Ohio," The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, vol. XLVII, no. 4, 1938, pp. 277-280. 89. William H. Holmes, "Use of Textiles in Pottery Making and Embellishment", American Anthropologist, n.s. vol.3, no.3, 1901, p. 398. |