Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:56:38.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mississippian Period Status Differentiation through Textile Analysis: A Caddoan Example

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff
Jenna Tedrick Kuttruff*
Affiliation:
School of Human Ecology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Specific attributes were recorded for 119 textiles recovered from burial contexts from Craig Mound at the Spiro site and eight southern Ozark bluff shelters. Textile attributes that varied according to status designations of the burial contexts were identified using the following three avenues of investigation. The textiles were rated using an ordinal index of production complexity, and more complex textiles were found to be associated with burial contexts of presumed higher status. Use of a series of contingency tables identified edge finishes, color, patterning, design motif, fiber, and scale as attributes that are individually associated with status differences. When selected attributes were considered together using a classification and pattern-recognition program, color description, scale, fiber, and number of yarn components were identified as the best predictors of status association.

Resumen

Resumen

Se registraron atributos específicos para 119 textiles recuperados en contextos funerarios de Craig Mound, en el sitio de Spiro, y de ocho abrigos en el Ozark bluff sur. Para identificar aquellos atributos de los textiles que varían de acuerdo al status de los contextos mortuarios se emplearon tres avenidas de investigación. Los textiles fueron clasificados de acuerdo a un índice ordinal de complejidad en su produccción, descubriéndose que textiles más complejos se encuentran asociados con entierros de mayor status. Se utilizaron tablas de contingencia para identificar la terminación de bordes, los colores, los patrones, el diseño de motivos, la fibra y la escala como atributos individualmente asociados con diferencias de status. Al considerar conjuntos de atributos mediante un programa de clasificación y reconocimiento de patrones, se determinó que la descripción del color, la escala, la fibra y el número de hilos son los mejores predictores del status asociado.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 125 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1993

Access options

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

References

References Cited

Anawalt, P. R. 1981 Indian Clothing Before Cortes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Anawalt, P. R. 1990 The Emperors’ Cloak : Aztec Pomp, Toltec Circumstances. American Antiquity 55 : 291–307.Google Scholar
Andrews, R. L., Adovasio, J. M., and Harding, D. G. 1988 Textile and Related Perishable Remains from the Windover Site (8BR246). Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix.Google Scholar
Breinman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., and Stone, C. J. 1984 Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. 1966a Spiro Studies, Volume 1 : Description of the Mound Group. University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. 1966b Spiro Studies, Volume 2 : The Graves and their Contents. University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. 1971a Introduction. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practice, edited by Brown, J. A., pp. 1–5. SAA Memoirs No. 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. 1971b The Dimensions of Status in the Burials at Spiro. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practice, edited by Brown, J. A., pp. 92–112. SAA Memoirs No. 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. 1975 Spiro Art and Its Mortuary Contexts. In Death and the Afterlife in Pre-Columbian America, edited by Benson, E. P., pp. 1–32. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. 1976 Spiro Studies, Vol. 4 : The Artifacts. University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. 1984a Prehistoric Southern Ozark Marginality : A Myth Exposed. Special Publication No. 6. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. 1984b Arkansas Valley Caddoan : The Spiro Phase. In Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited by Bell, R. E., pp. 241–263. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A., Bell, R. E., and Wyckoff, D. G. 1978 Caddoan Settlement Patterns in the Arkansas River Drainage. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Smith, B. D., pp. 169–200. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brunello, F. 1973 The Art of Dyeing in the History of Mankind. Translated by B. Hickey. Neri Pozza Editore, Vicenza, Italy.Google Scholar
Burnett, E. K. 1945 The Spiro Mound Collection in the Museum. Contributions of the Museum of the American Indian 14 : 48–68. Heye Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
Carr, C, and Maslowski, R. F. 1990 Cordage and Fabrics : The Relationships Between Form, Technology, and Social Processes. Ms. in possession of author.Google Scholar
Church, F. A. 1984 Textiles as Markers of Ohio Hopewell Social Identities. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 9 : 1–25.Google Scholar
Crane, H. R., and Griffin, J. B. 1968 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates XII. Radiocarbon 10 : 61–114.Google Scholar
Dellinger, S. C. 1932 Original unpublished field notes from the Ozark bluff shelters. Ms. on file, University of Arkansas Museum, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Dellinger, S. C. 1936 Baby Cradles of the Ozark Bluff Dwellers. American Antiquity 1 : 197–214.Google Scholar
Drooker, P. B. 1989 Textile Impressions on Mississippian Pottery at the Wickliffe Mounds Site (15BA4), Ballard County, Kentucky. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Drooker, P. B. 1990 Textile Production and Use at Wickliffe Mounds (15BA4), Kentucky. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 15 : 163–220.Google Scholar
Emery, I. 1966 The Primary Structures of Fabric. Textile Museum, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Feinman, G. M. 1980 The Relationship Between Administrative Organization and Ceramic Production in the Valley of Oaxaca. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, City University of New York, New York.Google Scholar
Feinman, G. M. 1985 Changes in the Organization of Ceramic Production in Prehistoric Oaxaca, Mexico. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B. A., pp. 195–223. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Feinman, G. M., Upham, S., and Lightfoot, K. G. 1981 The Production Step Measure : An Ordinal Index of Labor Input in Ceramic Manufacture. American Antiquity 46 : 871–884.Google Scholar
Fritz, G. J. 1986a Mounds in Northwest Arkansas : A More Positive Approach to the Late Prehistory in the Ozarks. In Contributions to Ozark Prehistory, edited by III, G. Sabo, pp. 49–54. Research Series No. 27. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Fritz, G. J. 1986b Prehistoric Ozark Agriculture : The University of Arkansas Rockshelter Collections. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. S. 1979 Pre-Columbian Textiles from Ecuador : Conservation Procedures and Preliminary Study. Technology and Conservation 4(1) : 24–30.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. S. 1980 Conservation of Fragile Specimens from the Spiro Mound, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Contributions No. 5. The Stovall Museum, University of Oklahoma, Norman.Google Scholar
Gayton, A. H. 1961 The Cultural Significance of Peruvian Textiles : Production, Function, Aesthetics. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 25. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. R. 1924 The Ozark Bluff-Dwellers. American Anthropologist 26 : 1–21.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. R. 1960 The Ozark Bluff-Dwellers. Indian Notes and Monographs Vol. XII. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
Hinkle, K. A. 1984 Ohio Hopewell Textiles : A Medium for the Exchange of Social and Stylistic Information. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. J. 1978 Conservation Systems for the Spiro Textiles. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Home Economics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Kaiser, S. B. 1985 The Social Psychology of Clothing and Personal Adornment. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Kay, M. 1986 Caddoan Mound Construction Chronologies of the Western Ozark Highland, Arkansas. In Contributions to Ozark Prehistory, edited by III, G. Sabo, pp. 77–79. Research Series No. 27. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Kay, M., Sabo, G. III, and Merletti, R. 1989 Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterning : A View from Three Caddoan Civic-Ceremonial Centers in Northwest Arkansas. In Contributions to Spiro Archaeology : Mound Excavations and Regional Perspectives, edited by Rogers, J. D., Wyckoff, D. G., and Peterson, D. A., pp. 129–157. Studies in Oklahoma's Past No. 16, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman.Google Scholar
Kent, K. P. 1983 Prehistoric Textiles of the Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
King, M. E. 1975 Archaeological Textiles. In Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles 1974 Proceedings, Archaeological Textiles, edited by Fiske, P. L., pp. 9–16. Textile Museum, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
King, M. E., and Gardner, J. S. 1981 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
Kuper, H. 1973 Costume and Identity. Comparative Studies in Society and History 15 : 348–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuttruff, J. T. 1988 Textile Attributes and Production Complexity as Indicators of Caddoan Status Differentiation in the Arkansas Valley and Southern Ozark Regions. Ph. D. dissertation, Ohio State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Kuttruff, J. T. 1989 Textile Production Complexity Index : Development and Applications. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Conference on Textiles, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Kuttruff, J. T. 1990 Mississippian Textile Production Complexity as Represented in Pottery Impressions. Paper presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
McCracken, G. 1987 Clothing as Language : An Object Lesson in the Study of the Expressive Properties of Material Culture. In Material Anthropology, edited by Reynolds, B. and Stott, M. A., pp. 103–128. University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Malec, D. 1986 A New Classification Procedure. The OSU Statistician l(2) : 5–6. Statistical Consulting Service, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
Maurer, E. M. 1979 Symbol and Identification in North American Indian Clothing. In The Fabrics of Culture, edited by Cordwell, J. M. and Schwarz, R. A., pp. 119–143. Mouton, New York.Google Scholar
Murra, J. V. 1962 Cloth and Its Function in the Inca State. American Anthropologist 64 : 710–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murra, J. V. 1989 Cloth and Its Function in the Inka State. In Cloth and Human Experience, edited by Weiner, A. B. and Schneider, J., pp. 275–302. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Norusis, M. J. 1983 Introductory Statistics Guide SPSS”. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Purdy, B. A. 1991 The Art and Archaeology of Florida's Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
Rachlin, C. K. 1958 Historical Reconstruction from Fossil Fabrics at Angel Mounds Site. Indiana History Bulletin 35(6) : 69–79.Google Scholar
Rachlin, C. K. 1960 The Historic Position of the Proto-Cree Textiles in the Eastern Fabric Complex, an Ethnological-Archaeological Correlation. Contributions to Anthropology, 1958, pp. 80–89. Bulletin No. 167. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Roach, M. E., and Eicher, J. B. 1979 The Language of Personal Adornment. In The Fabrics of Culture, edited by Cordwell, J. M. and Schwarz, R. A., pp. 7–23. Mouton, New York.Google Scholar
Roach, M. E., and Musa, K. E. 1980 New Perspectives on The History of Western Dress. Nutri Guides, New York.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. D. 1989 Context of a Regional Perspectives. In Contributions to Spiro Archeology : Mound Excavations and Regional Perspectives, edited by Rogers, J. D., Wyckoff, D. G., and Peterson, D. A., pp. 113–115. Studies in Oklahoma's Past No. 16. Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. D. 1991 Regional Prehistory and the Spiro Site. Southeastern Archaeology 10 : 63–68.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. D., Wyckoff, D. G., and Peterson, D. A. (editors) 1989 Contributions to Spiro Archeology : Mound Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Studies in Oklahoma's Past No. 16. Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman.Google Scholar
Sabo, G. Ill 1986 Preliminary Excavations at the Huntsville Site : A Caddoan Civic-ceremonial Center in Northwest Arkansas. In Contributions to Ozark Prehistory, edited by III, G. Sabo, pp. 55–76. Research Series No. 27. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Schambach, F. 1990 The Place of Spiro in Southeastern Prehistory : Is it Caddoan or Mississippian? Southeastern Archaeology 9 : 67–75.Google Scholar
Schevill, M. B. 1986 Costume as Communication. University of Washington Press, Seattle.Google Scholar
Schneider, J., and Weiner, A. B. 1986 Cloth and the Organization of Human Experience. Current Anthropology 27 : 178–184.Google Scholar
Scholtz, S. C. 1975 Prehistoric Plies : A Structural and Comparative Analysis of Cordage, Netting, Basketry, and Fabric from Ozark Bluff Shelters. Research Series No. 9. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Schreffler, V. L. 1988 Burial Status Differentiation as Evidenced by Fabrics from Etowah Mound C, Georgia. Ph. D. dissertation, Ohio State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Sibley, L. R., and Jakes, K. A. 1989 Etowah Textile Remains and Cultural Context : A Model for Inference. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 7(2) : 37–45.Google Scholar
Sibley, L. R., Jakes, K. A., and Larson, L. H. 1986 An Etowah Fabric Incorporating Feather : Inferring Behavior and Function from Direct Fabric Evidence. Ms. in possession of author.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. A. 1969 Breckenridge : A Stratified Shelter in Northwest Arkansas. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Trowbridge, H. M. 1938 Analysis of Spiro Mound Textiles. American Antiquity 4 : 51–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upham, S., Lightfoot, K. G., and Feinman, G. M. 1981 Explaining Socially Determined Ceramic Distributions in the Prehistoric Plateau Southwest. American Antiquity 46 : 822–833.Google Scholar
Vreeland, J. 1977 Ancient Andean Textiles, Clothes for the Dead. Archaeology 30(3) : 166–178.Google Scholar
Weiner, A. B., and Schneider, J. (editors) 1989 Cloth and Human Experience. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Whitford, A. C. 1941 Textile Fibers Used in Eastern Aboriginal North America. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 38(1) : 5. New York.Google Scholar
Willoughby, C. C. 1952 Textile Fabrics from the Spiro Mound. In The Spiro Mound, by H. W. Hamilton. The Missouri Archaeologist 14 : 107–125.Google Scholar
Wobst, H. M. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director : Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Cleland, C. E., pp. 317–342. Anthropological Papers No. 16. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar