Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T13:32:29.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interpretation of Textile Production and Use by High and Low Status Caddoan Groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff
Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University, School of Human Ecology, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA
Get access

Abstract

This paper demonstrates the application of technical studies of the fragmented remains of archaeological textiles to the reconstruction of past textile technologies and to the interpretation of the cultural phenomenon of status differentiation. The analyses of archaeological textile remains recovered from Caddoan burial contexts (Mississippian period) in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Missouri provided information for the interpretation of differential production and use of textiles by high and low status groups within that prehistoric society of the southeastern United States. The research is based upon the characterization of specific textile attributes and burial context. The data sets utilized in the textile analyses include fabric structure, fabric scale, edge treatment, patterning, design, coloration, yarn structure, and fibers. Production complexity for each textile is assessed and then ranked using a recently developed textile production complexity index. Those specific textile attributes that appear to be most highly associated with status differences are identified using two different statistical procedures. Technological differences as well as textile utilization patterns between high and low groups are explored.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 185: Symposium G – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology II , 1990 , 777
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

Access options

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

References

1. Emery, I., Primary Structures of Fabrics, (Textile Museum, Washington, DC, 1966).Google Scholar
2. Sibley, L. R. and Jakes, K. A., “Etowah Textile Remains and Cultural Context: A Model for Inference,” Clothing and Textile Research Journal 7 (2), 37–45 (1989).Google Scholar
3. Kuttruff, J. T., Textile Attributes and Production Complexity gqa Indicators of Caddoan Status Differentiation in the Arkansas Valley n1nc Southern Ozark Regions, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988).Google Scholar
4. Brown, J. A. and Hamilton, H. W., Spiro and Missisnippian Antiguitien from the McDannald Collection, (Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, TX, 1965).Google Scholar
5. Brown, J. A., Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practicq, Society of American Archaeology Memoirs 25, (1971); Prehistoric Southeprn Ozark Marginality: A Myth Exposed, Missouri Archaeological Society Special Publications, No. 6 (1984); “Arkansas Valley Caddoan: The Spiro Phase", in Prehistorv of Oklahoma, edited by R. E. Bell (Academic Prees, New York, 1984), pp. 241-263; J. A. Brown, R. E. Bell, D. G. Wyckoff, "Caddoan Settlement Patterns in the Arkansas River Drainage”, in Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by B. D. Smith (Academic Press, New York, 1978), pp. 169-200; G. Sabo, Contributions to Ozark Prohi, Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 27, (1986).Google Scholar
6. Church, F. A., “Textiles as Markers of Ohio Hopewell Social Identities,” Mid Continental Journal of Archaeology 9, 1–25 (1984); V. L. Schreffler, Burial Status Differentiation as Evidenced by Fabrics from Etowah M qund C. Georoia, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988).Google Scholar
7. Kuttruff, J. T., “Textile Production Complexity Index: Development and Applications,” presented at Seventh Annual Conference on Textiles, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1989 (to be published in Arn Textrina).Google Scholar
8. Feinman, G. M., Upham, S., and Lightfoot, K. G., “The Production Step Measure: An Ordinal Index of Labor Input in Ceramic Manufacture,” American Antiquity A6 (4), 871–884 (1981); G. M. Feinman, “Changes in the Organization of Ceramic Production in Prehistoric Oaxaca, Mexico,” in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson (Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 1985).Google Scholar
9. Breinman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olehen, R. A., and Stone, C. J., Classification and Regression Trees, (Wadsworth, Inc., Belmont, CA, 1984).Google Scholar
10. King, M. E. and Gardner, J. S., “The Analysis of Textiles from Spiro Mound, Oklahoma,” in The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by Cantwell, A. E., Griffin, J. B., and Rothschild, N. A., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376, 123–139.Google Scholar