TEXTILES AS INDICATORS
OF HOPEWELLIAN CULTURE
BURIAL PRACTICES
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Amanda J. Thompson, M.S.
The Ohio State University
2003
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Dr. Kathryn A. Jakes, Adviser
Dr. Patricia A. Cunningham
_______________________
Dr. Kristen L. Gremillion
Adviser
Dr. Annette G. Ericksen
The College of Human Ecology
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to explore the usefulness of textiles as
indicators of Hopewellian culture burial practices. Charred textiles, typically
ignored by researchers, form a particular focus of this study. Fragments from
Edwin Harness, Hopewell, Seip, and Tremper Mounds were studied, a labeling
system was developed that will allow future researchers to locate the exact
pieces examined. A Burial Practices Framework was developed that predicts the
survival of textile assemblages in different burial scenarios. The use of textiles
outside the cremation or final burning ceremonies, known to have occurred at
Seip and Harness mounds, is indicated by the presence of uncharred fabrics at
these sites. Compact fabrics made of coarse yarns likely were used to transport
crematory remains to the gravesite. More open, loosely twined fabrics made of
fine yarns probably served aesthetic rather than functional purposes. Because
only charred materials were found at Tremper, a second burning in the communal
cache, comparable to the “final ceremony” conducted at other Hopewellian sites,
is indicated although not proposed in the past. Charred textiles with applied
designs were identified, a feature never before reported in the literature. It is
possible that other charred textiles have applied designs but these are not visible
in the fabric’s present condition.
Textiles are not only indicators of Hopewell burial and cremation practices,
but also of interaction in Hopewell societies. Fabric structure, yarn size, and yarn
spacing vary between each of the four sites studied. Fabrics from Seip Mound
ii
include those made with spiral interlinking, a structure not found in the other
three sites studied. While use of textiles in cremation and burial may have been
prescribed regionally, as would be anticipated in a Hopewell “cult”, the particular
structure of the fabric was locally determined. Local craftspeople manufactured
the fabrics with particular end uses in mind; there is no particular pattern that
typifies them as Hopewellian. Distribution of textiles between sites is not indicated. The research forms the basis for further work in the exploration of social
differentiation of Hopewellian societies based on their textile production and use.
iii
Dedicated to my family and friends and teachers.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my adviser, Dr. Kathryn A. Jakes who has
provided guidence in more than my dissertation. She has provided a role
model for mentorship and a conscious morality of respecting people and their
ideas.
I would like to thank Dr. Annette Ericksen and Dr. Gremillion for their
advice and feed back. I would like to thank Dr. Steven Passoa for his help,
advice and time. I would also like to thank Dr. Otto, Melony Pratt and the staff of
the Ohio Historical Society, who all gave generously of their time and allowed me
access to the collections. I would also like to thank the computer technical
support group for the College of Human Ecology for all of their help.
Thanks to my fellow graduate students in the lab (Erica Tiedemann, Sohie
Shem, Heather Mangine, Angie Curl, Julie Campbell, and Christel Baldia). The
lab environment was great and we have much to look forward to as we spead our
nets a little farther.
I would like to express my appreciation and love for my family: my parents
Pat and R.G. Tanner; my sister and her husband, Lisa and Vincent Davis; my
brother, Mark Tanner; and my husband, Greg Thompson. Families are always
there to listen and give ideas. They believe in us even when we have do not;
with their belief we can overcome our doubts.
v
VITA
April 25, 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . .Born- Fayetteville, Arkansas
1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B.A. Anthropology, Brigham Young University
2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M.S. Consumer and Textiles Sciences, The Ohio
State University
PUBLICATIONS
1. Thompson, Amanda J. and Kathryn A. Jakes (2003). Replication of
Textile dyeing with sumac and bedstraw. Southeastern Archaeology
21(2), 252-256.
2. Thompson, Amanda J. and Kathryn A. Jakes (2002). Comparison of Dyed
Fibers with Infrared Spectroscopy. In the Proceedings of the 48th
Annual Meeting Midwest Archaeological Conference, Columbus, Ohio.
3. Thompson, Amanda J. (Winter, 2000). Experimental Replication of Dyeing:
Toward an Understanding of Dyeing Processes used in prehistoric eastern
North America. Master’s Thesis. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
4. Thompson, Amanda J. (Nov. 2000). Replication of dyeing process use in
prehistoric eastern North American. In the Proceedings of the
International Textile and Apparel Association National Meeting, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
FIELD OF STUDY
Major Field of Study: Human Ecology
Department: Consumer and Textile Sciences
Specialization: Textiles and Clothing, Textile Science, Fiber Science, Microscopy,
Archaeological and Historical Textiles
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgments...................................................................................................v
Vita……………………………………………………………………….........................vi
List of Tables……………………………………………………………........................xi
List of Figures……………………………………………….......................…………....xiii
Chapters:
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………..................1
1.1 Statement of Purpose……………………………………..........................5
1.2 Hypotheses……………………………………………..............................9
1.3 Limitations and Assumptions…………………………...........................11
1.4 Definition of Terms………………………………………........................13
2. Review of Literature, Archaeological Reports, and Ohio
Historical Society Holdings……………………………………….................20
2.1 Hopewellian Cultural Complex…..…………………………..................20
2.2 Period of Mound Use………………………………………....................25
2.3 Site Information…………………………………………….....................25
2.3.1 Edwin Harness Mound…………………………….......................29
2.3.2 Hopewell Mound Site......................……………………………...40
vii
2.3.3 Seip Mound Site………………………………………..................47
2.3.4 Tremper Mound…………………………………….......................62
2.3.5 Overall Comparisons of Sites………………………....................69
2.4 Cremation Practices………………………………………......................71
2.4.1 Harness………………………………………………....................73
2.4.2 Hopewell………………………………………………...... ............74
2.4.3 Seip Mound 2…………………………………………...................75
2.4.4 Seip-Pricer Mound……………………………………...................76
2.4.5 Tremper………………………………………………....................77
2.4.6 Overview of Cremation Practices………………….....................78
2.4.7 Framework for Burial Practices…………………….....................80
2.5 Previous Studies of Hopewellian Textiles…….………….....................87
2.5.1 Willoughby……………………………………………...................88
2.5.2 Church………………………………………………......................89
2.5.3 Hinkle…………………………………………………....................90
2.5.4 White…………………………………………………....................92
2.5.5 Song……………………………………………………..................93
2.5.6 Carr and Maslowski…………………………………....................93
2.5.7 Wimberley……………………………………………....................94
3. Research Design and Methodology….……………………….....................96
3.1 Ohio Historical Society Collections……………………….....................96
3.2 Site Review and Correlations…………………………….......................97
3.3 Considered Textiles Population…………………………......................97
viii
3.4 Assessment of Textiles…………………………………........................99
3.5 Labels in the Ohio Historical Society………………….........................102
3.6 Fabric Types and Coloration…………………………...........................104
3.7 Sampling Decisions……………………………………….......................104
3.8 Digital Imaging and Analysis……………………………........................105
3.9 Coding………………………………………………………..................106
3.10 Statistics…………………………………………………......................106
4. Results and Discussion……………………………………….......................107
4.1 Description of Samples…………………………………........................107
4.2 Analysis of Variance for All Samples…………………........................109
4.3 Tukey Comparisons For All Samples…………………........................113
4.4 Tukey Comparisons for Charred Fabric……………...........................121
4.5 Seip Mound…………………………………………………...................122
4.6 Logistic Regression………………………………………......................125
4.7 Classification and Regression Tree…………………...........................128
5. Summary and Conclusions…..………………………………….................134
5.1 Correlation of Written Records with the Material Found at the
OHS...................................................................................................135
5.2 Review of Associated Grave Goods………………………...................136
5.3 Review of Cremation Information…………………………...................137
5.4 Review of Past Hopewellian Textile Studies……………....................139
5.5 Results of Textile Analysis ……………………………………..............140
5.6 Research Objectives………………………………………...................144
ix
5.7 Recommendations for Future Work………………………..................145
5.8 Conclusion……………………………………………………................147
List of References………………………………………………………...................148
Appendix A Sample Imagery Textile Fragments........…………..........................157
Appendix B Spreadsheet Examples: Edwin Harness Site Specimens…...........162
Appendix C Additional Statistical Information…………………...........………….164
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2.1 Carbon 14 Dates for Harness, Hopewell, Seip, and Tremper sites.............27
2.2 Excavations of the Edwin Harness Mound Previous to Mills
Excavation………………………………………………………………...............31
2.3 Cremated Grave Differentiation, Mills (1907) ……………………................33
2.4 Artifacts from Edwin Harness Mound………………………………..................34
2.5 Textiles Described by Mills (1907) vs. those found in the Ohio
Historical Society…………………………………………………......................35
2.6 Hopewell Mound Burials and Grave Goods…………………………...............44
2.7 Seip Mound 2 Textile Remains……………………………………....................52
2.8 Seip-Pricer Mound Burials and Grave Goods……………….....................….55
2.9 Physical Features of Mound Sites Considered……………………................70
2.10 Cremated Vs. Uncremated Graves for Major Earthwork
groups in Ohio…………………………………………………........................72
3.1 Total Number of Textile Fragments in Visual Categories……….....................98
3.2 Textile Fragments in Visual Categories That Met Selection
Criteria…………………………………………………………….......................100
4.1 Categorical Description of Samples…………………………….....................108
4.2 ANOVA GLM Results for p, Yarn Measurements……………………............110
4.3 Textile Parameters found to be Significantly different between
Sites, Tukey Comparison For All Samples……………………......................114
xi
4.4 Means and Standard Deviation of Textile Parameters at………..................114
4.5 Textile parameters found to be Significantly Different between
Fabric Structure, Tukey Comparisons For All Samples…………................115
4.6 Means and Standard Deviations of Textile Parameters in
each Fabric Structure…………………………………………………..............116
4.7 Means and Standard Deviation of Textile Parameters for
the Two Fabric States All Samples…………………………………................116
4.8 Textile Parameters found to be Significantly Different between
Textiles With and Without Applied Designs…………………….....................117
4.9 Means and Standard Deviation of Textile Parameters in Textiles
With and Without Applied Designs………………………………....................117
4.10 Textile Parameters found to be Significantly Different between
Fabric Structures, Tukey Comparison Using Charred
Fabrics Only…………………………………………………………................123
4.11 ANOVA GLM Results for p, Seip samples only………………….................124
4.12 Textile Parameters Found to be Significantly Different Between
Fabric Structure, Tukey Comparisons in Seip
Textiles Alone………………………………………………………….............126
4.13 Means and Standard Deviations of Significant Parameters for
Fabric Structure, Seip Samples……………………………………...............127
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.1 “Charred Cloth from Mounds in Ohio”………………………....................….…2
1.2 “Drawing of Charred Fabric from Mounds”…………………….........................3
1.3 Hopewell Interaction Sphere………………………………………......................6
1.4 Hopewellian Mound Sites, southern Ohio………………………........................7
1.5 Hopewell Sites in the Scioto River Drainage………………….......................…8
1.6 Two-strand weft-twining………………………………......................................17
1.7 Spaced two-strand alternate-pair weft-twining………....................................17
1.8 Spiral interlinking………………………………………......................................18
1.9 Countered compact two-strand alternate pair weft twining……….................18
1.10 Compact two-strand weft-twining………………………..............................19
2.1 Timeline for eastern North America…............................................................21
2.2 Range of uncalibrated carbon 14 dates for Four Hopewellian Mound Sites..26
2.3 Edwin Harness Site…………………………………………………...................30
2.4 “Coarse Matting”………………………………………………….......................36
2.5 “Fabric with Copper Balls Attached”……………………………......................37
2.6 “Woven Fabrics”………………………………………………….......................38
2.7 Floor plan of Harness Big House…………………………………....................41
xiii
2.8 Hopewell Site…………………………………………………….........................42
2.9 Textile Fragments from Moorehead’s Excavation……………….....................43
2.10 Structure under Hopewell Mound 25……………………………....................45
2.11 Seip Site Mound…………………………………………..……........................48
2.12 Estimated Floor Plan of Seip Mound 2.…………………………................49
2.13 “Simple Weaving” Seip Mound 2…………………………….........................53
2.14 “Reticulate Weaving” Seip Mound 2………………………….........................54
2.15 Diagram of Great Multiple Burial with canopy………………….....................58
2.16 Illustration of Textile types found at Seip-Pricer………………......................59
2.17 Illustration of design found on textiles adhering to copper
plates at Seip-Pricer…………………………………………….......................60
2.18 Seip Big House overlaid on Edwin Harness Big House…….......................61
2.19 Tremper Mound………………………………………………….......................63
2.20 Structure under Tremper Mound………………………………......................65
2.21 Tremper Fabrics…………………………………………………......................67
2.22 Tremper Fabrics………………………………………………..........................68
2.23 Potential Pathways for Treatment of the Corpse…………….......................81
2.24 Burial Practices Framework…………………………………..........................85
3.1 Information Checklist ……………………………..…………….......................101
3.2 Sample Number Specification………………………………….......................103
4.1 Classification and Regression Tree Distinguishing
Characteristics of Site…………………………………………….....................131
4.2 Classification and Regression Tree Distinguishing
Characteristics of Fabric Structure………………………………...................133
xiv
4.3 Classification and Regression Tree Distinguishing
Characteristics of Fabric State…………………………..................…………133
A.1 Charred Textile Sample………………………………………........................158
A.2 Charred with Applied Design Textile Sample…………………….................158
A.3 Uncharred Textile……………………………………………………...............159
A.4 Textile with Applied Design Oval…………………………………..................159
A.5 Textile with Applied Design Clover-like……………………………...............160
A.6 Textile with Applied Design Ellipsoid……………………………...................160
A.7 Net-like Textile……………………………………………………….................161
A.8 Red and Yellow Colored Textiles……………………………………...............161
B.1 Example Spread Sheet for Edwin Harness……………………….................163
C.1 Tukey Comparisons For All Samples………………………………...............163
C.2 ANOVA GLM Charred only fabric structure.................................................173
C.3 Tukey Comparisons Fabric Structure For Seip...........................................173
xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Textile fragments from Hopewellian mounds have been recorded as early as
the 1890’s when W.H. Holmes (1896) prepared Prehistoric Textile Art of the Eastern
United States for the Bureau of Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution. Although
provenience information is limited in his report, textiles were recognized as an
important part of the archaeological record. Surveying artifacts found from Louisiana
to Ohio, he reported whether the textiles were charred or mineralized, the possible
fiber types used, the fabric structures, and possible methods of construction (Figures
1.1 and 1.2).
At the turn of the century large numbers of Hopewellian mounds were
excavated. In Ohio, this was carried out by teams associated with the Ohio Historical
Society (OHS), Columbus. Artifacts, including textiles, from these excavations have
been housed at the Ohio Historical Society facilities for nearly one hundred years.
Textiles have been used to understand many cultural manifestations such
as status (Schreffler 1988; Cassman 2000; Kuttruff 1992), boundaries between
cultural groups (Church 1984; Petersen and Wolford 2000), and sociotechnical
change (Hyland and Adovasio 2000). Sibley and Jakes (1991), Schreffler (1988),
Song (1991), and Hinkle (1984) have studied various Hopewellian textile fragments
1
Figure 1.1: “Charred Cloth from Mounds in Ohio” Holmes 1896: Plate VI
2
Figure 1.2: “Drawing of Charred Fabric from Mounds” Holmes 1896: Plate VII
3
both as entities and as a means to infer aspects of the Hopewellian culture. Because
cremation of human remains occurred in Hopewellian burial practice, many of the
textiles that have been recovered and stored in the OHS are charred.
Stylistic variation of different artifact classes has been used to define cultural
boundaries, climax of a culture, interaction with other cultures, extent of trade, and
social organization. Artifacts used for these studies are most often ceramics and
lithics (Deetz 1965; Whallon 1968; Hill 1970; Longacre 1964; Kay 1975; Braun
1977; Hill and Gunn 1977; Close 1978; Plog 1980; Riley et al. 1994). By their very
nature textiles are artifacts that people would have used daily, but ceremonial textiles
would have had a special purpose, and might reflect the status of the individuals
associated with them (Church 1984; Schreffler 1988). Textiles can be studied in a
manner comparable to lithics and ceramics as a source of stylistic data. Just as
spear points, celts, and panpipes have been used to infer the communication of
style to the linguistically diverse Hopewell population (Seeman 1995; Ruhl and
Seeman1998), textiles may be used to indicate how particular styles and
technologies were communicated. Charred textiles, which are associated with
cremations in Hopewellian burials, may reflect the promulgation of norms for style
of materials used in a ritual ceremony.
In the past, information on Hopewellian burial practices was obtained through
studies of site types, cremation pits, skeletal remains, and stratigraphy. In addition
to these common types of archaeological data charred textiles may be indicators of
specific cremation practices such as a ceremonial burning followed by an abrupt
4
extinguishing as noted by Mills (1907) at Edwin Harness Mound. They can also, if
found to be stylistically and structurally similar, indicate the communication of
ideology, technology, or social values in the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. To examine
whether charred textiles can be used to make inferences concerning Hopewellian
burial and cremation practices, the textiles preserved from Seip (33RO40) , Harness
(33RO22), Hopewell (33RO27), and Tremper (33SC04) were examined. The four
mounds in this study represent a range in time of the Hopewellian Culture and a
restricted geographic area (Figure 1.3, 1.4, 1.5).
1.1 Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this research is to explore the usefulness of textiles as
indicators of Hopewellian Culture burial practices. Charred textiles, typically ignored
by researchers, form a particular focus for this study. The burial practices of the
Hopewell that are proposed by different authors (Mills 1907, 1909, 1916; Shetrone
1926; Shetrone and Greenman 1931; Baby 1954; Konigsberg 1985) are based on
skeletal remains and non-perishable grave goods. Although textiles were noted at
the mound sites in some cases, these materials were not used in inferring the
cremation practices used in the past. Many studies have focused on nonperishable
artifacts as media of important information about the use of the mounds. There
have also been studies in which textile fragments from the mounds were examined
for information on fiber morphology and fabric structure, thus yielding information
on technology and exchange of information. However, many fragments had to be
5
Figure 1.3: Hopewell Interaction Sphere: Prufer 1964b: 93
6
Figure 1.4: Hopewellian Mound Sites, southern Ohio: Prufer 1964b: 93
7
Figure 1.5: Hopewell Sites in the Scioto River Drainage, Ruhl and Seeman 1998:
654.
8
excluded in these textile studies because of the poor preservation of the textile. In
particular, charred or blackened fragments were eliminated from consideration due
to their fractile state and the apparently limited information that they would provide
in comparison to the other more well-preserved textiles. This study focuses on the
information the ignored fragments can provide, with particular focus on Hopewellian
burial practices.
1.2 Hypotheses
The research is guided by the following hypotheses. Examples of questions
that fall within each hypotheses are presented as well.
1. Textile characteristics reflect different Hopewellian cultural practices,
particularly those related to burial.
a. Are textiles useful for inferring burial and cremation practices within
each of the four sites selected for this work?
2. Textile characteristics are sufficient to reflect different Hopewellian cultural
practices.
a. Can style alone serve as a subjective measure to categorize
Hopewellian textiles?
9
b. Is it possible to use particular textile characteristics as indicators
of Hopewellian site interactions within a small geographic area?
In order to test these hypothses the following tasks were undertaken. Briefly,
these include:
1. An extensive review of OHS holdings and Hopewellian mound site reports
to assess whether textiles housed there are representative of those found
by archaeologists.
2. An extensive review of Hopewellian mound site reports to determine which
artifacts were associated with textile remains
3. An extensive review of cremation and burial information of Hopewellian
sites to develop a framework of the consequences of each possible
cremation or burial practice on textiles.
4. An extensive review of literature of past studies on Hopewellian textile
remains to determine what is known.
5. Physical examination and evaluation of textile fragments housed at the
OHS to find correlations with site report information, cremation information,
and past studies of Hopewellian textiles.
6. Photography of the textile fragments and analysis of the digital images
for key characteristics and measurements.
7. Statistical analysis of data gathered from OHS textile fragment evaluation.
10
8. A synthesis of information collected from the above tasks to determine
textile characteristics that reflect Hopewellian Culture burial practices and
social organization.
1.3 Limitations and Assumptions
This research is limited to the Hopewellian culture textile fragments found at
Ohio mound sites that are available at the Ohio Historical Society (OHS). While
other researchers have documented textile fragments from Ohio Hopewellian mound
sites at the Chicago Field Museum, the Peabody Museum, and the Smithsonian,
as well as in England (personal communication Greber 2002; personal
communication Otto 2002; White 1987; Hinkle 1984), the OHS collection is the
largest.
Due to the nature of the activities that occurred at the Ohio mound sites,
such as cremation or post cremation artifact burning, the specimens are limited in
number. The perishable nature of organic objects also limits the number of textile
fragments that survive. While limited in number, the specimens used were assumed
to be representative of the fabrics deposited at the mound sites.
Another limitation is the lack of provenience for most of the fragments. As
Hinkle (1984) noted, very few have any reference other than the mound group they
are from, and in some cases the fragments lack the identification of even that bit of
information. When provenience is missing, it is even more important that as much
11
information as possible be learned about the fragments to discern their past history
and significance.
The West Virginia Archeologist (1995) reports various dates for the mound
sites considered in this study that can perhaps be associated with artifacts found in
the mound. Greber (personal communication 2002) has suggested that the mound
sites are accretional, having been used and expanded over differing periods of
time. She notes (1983) “. . . that these earthworks are indeed complexes of sites.
No single set of chronological data can be used to represent `Seip’ or `Harness’ . .
. (92).” In some instances researchers have suggested time spans over which a
particular mound was used (Konigsberg 1985; Greber 1997). Radiometric assays
vary throughout the strata of each of the mounds, and with the lack of exact
provenience information for the textile fragments, it is difficult to establish dates for
the specimens even when the age of the mound from which they came is known.
Therefore, in this research changes in technology of textile manufacture over periods
of time could not be considered.
The textile fragments are extremely fragile and many have been stored
between glass plates to stabilize them as well as to allow researchers to view both
sides without having to handle the specimen. This manner of conservation has
made it difficult to label individual fragments held within the plates. These individual
fragments do not have their own accession numbers. Without labeling, data derived
from past studies cannot be linked directly to the particular textile fragments
examined. To provide support for future research, overview images of the fragments
12
in addition to close-ups used for analysis were digitally captured. This will allow for
future identification of the specific fragments examined in this study and correlation
of those pieces with the data presented in this dissertation.
Another limitation is that there is no assurance that fragments housed together
in the same glass plate are from the same fabric in a mound. There are no records
to indicate how fragments were chosen to be stored together, therefore in this
research relationships were investigated only in the case that fabrics had surface
design or other highly defining characteristics that could indicate that the fragments
are pieces of a single fabric.
Only fragments that are 3cm x 3cm or larger were examined in this study
because samples need to be at least that size in order to discern fabric structure
(Song 1991:18). Fragments with surface degradation that occluded the surface,
thus inhibiting identification of the fabric and yarn structure, were also excluded
from this study.
Textiles embedded in mineralization on copper artifacts were excluded from
this study because in these cases it is not possible to view and evaluate both sides
of the textile. Both sides need to be observed in order to confirm the identification
of fabric construction .
1.4 Definition of Terms
In order to provide a background for the reader, a glossary of textile terms is
provided below.
13
Two-strand weft-twining-(Figure 1.6) Often called spaced two strand weft twining.
The twining elements are often finer allowing the non-twined larger elements to
touch. Two weft units twine about each other enclosing warp units (Emery 1966:201).
Spaced two-strand alternate-pair weft-twining- (Figure 1.7).In this case warp
units are enclosed in pairs by the twining wefts. The warp pairs are repeatedly split
to form new pairs from the previous row. The zigzagging of the deflected warps
take visual precedence (Emery 1966: 202).
Spiral interlinking- (Figure 1.8) Interlinking occurs when a connection of linking is
used to produce a structure using undifferentiated elements of a single set . The
element actually spirals around itself (Emery 1966: 61).
Countered compact two-strand alternate pair weft twining-(Figure 1.9)
Twining wefts enclose warp units in pairs and is compact (no spacing) and countered
(direction of twining twist is changed in each successive twining group) (Emery
1966:202).
Compact two-strand weft-twining- (Figure 1.10) Twining wefts enclose warp units
in pairs and are compact (no spacing) (Emery 1966: 202).
14
Weft-twining- Wefts (a.k.a. woof or filling) are manipulated in pairs, twining around
each other and enclose successive warp units. Weft usually refers to transverse
elements in a fabric going from selvage to selvage (Emery 1966: 74).
Warp- Parallel elements that run longitudinally in fabric. In the case of twining
these elements may be weighted or held down while the weft is twined (Emery
1966: 74).
Blackened- in reference to textiles in this study referring to the black appearance
of a textile thought to be caused by charring in the cremation process.
Yarn- term for fibers or filaments placed together in a continuous strand used for
fabric construction (Emery 1966:10)
S spun- when the fiber comprising a single yarn have been twisted together in the
clockwise direction. Plied yarns can be twisted together in this way also.
Z spun- when the fiber comprising a single yarn have been twisted together in the
counter-clockwise direction. Plied yarns also can be twisted together in this way.
15
Space Between yarns- In a yarn system the space between two adjacent yarns.
In the case of weft-twining , as the observer looks at the twining elements, it is the
space between one twining element and the next
Yarn Diameter- measurement across a yarn. If the yarn is more than one ply, each
ply is measured separately.
Plied Yarn- formed by twisting together two or more single yarns. (Emery 1966:
10).
Single Yarn- is a term for fibers or filaments placed together in a continuous strand
used for fabric construction; it is single without plying of other yarns (Emery 1966:
10).
Woven- In many of the past publications on the Hopewellian mounds, examiners
referred to fabric as woven. This was often an assumption and unless examined
closely and the fabric structure defined, the term could be referring to any number
of fabric constructions. In textile terminology “woven” refers to fabrics produced on
a loom with a warp and weft, with interlacings at right angles.
16
Figure 1.6: Two-strand weft-twining, Emery 1966:201. In this study not much
space is found between the non-twined elements.
Figure 1.7: Spaced two-strand alternate-pair weft-twining, Emery 1966: 202.
17
Figure 1.8: Spiral interlinking, Emery 1966: 61.
Figure 1.9: Countered compact two-strand alternate pair weft twining, Emery
1966: 202
18
Figure 1.10: Compact two-strand weft-twining, Emery 1966: 202.
19
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS,
AND OHIO HISTORICAL SOCIETY HOLDINGS
This chapter encompasses a review of literature on areas pertinent to the
research. These include 1) the Hopewellian Cultural Complex, 2) archaeological
site reports from the four sites, 3) cremation practices of the Hopewell, and 4) past
studies of Hopewellian textiles. It also incorporates the results of the assessment
of all the OHS Hopewellian textile holdings and the archaeological site reports. A
cross comparison of the data from all these resources concludes the chapter.
2.1 The Hopewell Cultural Complex
Prior to the onset of the Hopewell Cultural Complex, interaction networks
were developing in the North American mid-continent. The Late Archaic (Figure
2.1) (4000-1000 B.C.) exchange networks are characterized as “. . . multidirectional,
reciprocal, down-the-line exchanges of innovations, information, and a variety of
raw materials and artifacts . . . . (Jefferies 1995: 74). The Middle Archaic (60004000 B.C.) in the mid-continent is also characterized by artifacts made of materials
that were not locally available (Jefferies 1995: 75). The Archaic networks were
subject to constant cycles of expansion and dissolution, but increased in scale over
20
Figure 2.1Timeline for eastern North
America, Fagan 1995: 348
21
time (Fagan 1995: 415). The Hopewellian Cultural complex built upon these already
assembled relationships.
The Hopewell Cultural complex dates from 100 B.C. to as late as A.D. 600
(Brose 1978), with the climax proposed anywhere from 200 B.C. to A.D. 400 (Fagan
1995). Opinions vary concerning the exact time frame of the zenith of this culture
(Griffin 1946, 1967; Jennings 1978; Brose 1985). In eastern North America, the
groups that comprise the Hopewellian Culture are the subject of many studies due
to the large amount of physical evidence that remains. Artifacts associated with
this culture have been found from New York (Struever and Howart 1972) to Kansas
City (Johnson 1978) and from Florida (Brose 1978) to Michigan (Fitting 1978;
Flanders 1978). Characteristic objects of the Hopewellian Culture include plain and
effigy platform pipes, mica cutouts, shell ornaments, pearl beads, copper ear spools,
copper gorgets, copper breastplates, grizzly bear teeth, and obsidian spear points
(Prufer 1964a; Struever and Howart 1972; Fitting 1978; Woodward and McDonald
1986). Textile artifacts associated with the burials have also been recovered (Mills
1907, 1909, 1916; Shetrone 1926; Shetrone and Greenman 1931; Willoughby 1938;
Webb and Snow 1974; Moorehead 1979; White 1987; Ericksen and Jakes 1997).
The characteristic objects of Hopewellian Culture are found primarily in mortuary
contexts. However, they do not appear to have been made exclusively as burial
objects. Habitation sites indicate that the objects were used in the community in
this context as well (Struever and Howart 1972: 49).
22
The extent of influence that the groups that constitute “the Hopewell” had on
the communities with whom they traded is the subject of much speculation.
Prufer (1964b) labled the Hopewell as a cult. He explained his position in that there
were many local traditions already established as the Hopewell inflorescence began.
The Hopewell “. . . funeral customs did not, however, take the place of the local
culture; they were grafted onto it. Although the word ‘cult’ has some unfortunate
connotations in common usage, it is more appropriate to speak of a Hopewell cult
than a Hopewell culture (93).”
He describes the “characteristic objects” of the
Hopewellian Culture as the same no matter in which site they were found (1964b:
93). The consumption of these objects and the networks needed to procure them
provide a mechanism for the dispersal of the cult which “. . . entailed an exchange
system of almost continental proportions (Prufer 1964b: 94).”
In contrast to a single, homogeneous unit Struever and Howart (1972)
suggest many different sizes and types of networks. Large, complex sites with
incredible quantities of raw material and finished artifacts, such as the Hopewell
site, may have “. . . functioned as a major receiving, manufacturing and transaction
center. . . (Struever and Howart 1972: 55).” Smaller sites such as Seip, Mound
City, and Harness “. . . might be seen as centers for receipt and distribution of trade
goods (1972: 56).” Few of the characteristic or diagnostic objects themselves are
shared between the different regional groups of the interaction sphere. Struever
and Houart (1972) point out that the styles vary greatly between regions, as might
be expected with a series of diverse systems interacting. In contrast, a study of
23
copper ear spool design (Ruhl and Seeman 1998) opposes the concept of a series
of networks where certain items were produced for regional distribution. The ear
spools appear to be produced by local groups of the Scioto-Paint Creek area and
not supplied from larger sites. Whether this concept of local production can be
extended to other artifact types still needs to be tested.
Seeman (1995) also construes the Hopewellian interaction as a composition
of several relationships, specifically a conjunction of “. . . two types of cultural
systems- one, social structural and the other, symbolic (Seeman 1995: 123).” As
sedentism, commitment to agriculture, and population density increased in the Middle
Woodland period, the competition for leadership and the scope of leadership roles
increased. As a result of these changes, particularly sedentism, new dialects and
languages developed that limited interregional communication. For this reason
characteristic objects became important in communicating ideas (Seeman 1995:
138). Thus artifacts were used to indicate leadership roles and to communicate
ideological messages. Whether this interaction between groups suggested
uniformity to mark participation in the networks (Braun 1985: 122) or expectation of
regional style is still questioned.
In addition to specific diagnostic artifacts associated with burning or cremation,
the Ohio Hopewellian Culture is defined by burial practices, particularly of cremation.
Shetrone (1926) found that of the six major Hopewell earthworks excavated in Ohio
by 1926, 74% of all the burials were cremated. The use of mounds for burial sites,
24
and the use of log crypts and clay platforms within the mounds has also been
attributed to the Hopewellian Cultural practice.
2.2 Period of use of the Mounds
Greber (1997:210-211) suggests that the Seip site was in use some three to
four hundred years during the Middle Woodland period as she believes were many
of the mound sites (personal communication 2003). Greber estimates that the
structure under the Seip-Pricer mound itself was in use for three to four generations
(personal communication 2003). Radiocarbon dates for this site range from A.D.
55-280. Konigsberg (1985:130-131) suggests that the Seip-Pricer Mound was only
used for two generations at most based on the number of burials located within the
structure.
Period of use claimed for any site is dependent on the extent of that site’s
examination. Each mound site has a range of radiocarbon dates (Figure 2.2). This
information in most cases comes from different areas around the sites. Where
available the material and area of the radiocarbon dates are noted in Table 2.1.
While this is far from all material that could be dated from the sites it does provide
a beginning for examining temporal relationships between mounds.
2.3 Site information
This section summarizes the site reports for the four sites considered in this
study, Edwin Harness, Hopewell, Seip, and Tremper. The following should be noted.
25
100 B.C.
A.D. 280
A.D. 280
A.D. 55
A.D. 235
A. D. 230
A.D. 320
1 B.C.
A.D. 250
94 B.C.
335 B.C.
A.D. 130
A.D. 50
30 B.C.
200 B.C.
A.D. 0
500 B.C.
300 B.C.
400 B.C.
100 B.C.
A.D. 500
A.D. 100
200 B.C.
A.D. 300
A.D. 200
Harness
Seip
Hopewell
Tremper
A.D. 400
Figure 2.2: Range of uncalibrated carbon 14 dates for Four Hopewellian Mound
Sites, adapted from West Virginia Archaeologist 1995 Vol. 47(1&2). Data
provided in Table2.1.
Note: O indicates the date, ------ indicates the standard deviation.
26
Site
C14
Age
1700
Sigma
Date
80
2075
Edwin
Harness Md
Edwin
Harness Md
Edwin
Harness Md
Edwin
Harness Md
Edwin
Harness Md
Hopewell
Harness 28:
refuse
trough
Harness 28
AD 250
Calibra
. Age
AD 382
Calibra. B.P.
Age
1568
Reference
Material dated
Carr 1996 Personal
communication
NA
90
125 BC
54 BC
2003
NA
1527
Carr 1988 Personal
communication
Greber 1983: 34-37
1630
70
AD 320
AD 423
Wood charcoal, feature 31
1820
70
AD 130
AD 230
1720
Greber 1983: 34-37
Wood charcoal, PM 32
1900
460
AD 50
AD 120
1830
Greber 1983: 34-37
Wood charcoal, PM 36
1980
155
30 BC
Wood charcoal, under feature 3
155
200 BC
192, 419,
081, 897
2130
Greber 1983: 34-37
2150
AD 26,
42, 53
181 BC
Greber 1983: 34-37
Wood charcoal, under feature 3
2285
210
335 BC
379 BC
2328
Libby 1955
Hopewell
Md 25
Hopewell
Md 25
Seip site
2044
250
94 BC
38 BC
1987
Libby 1955
Conch shells, with skeletons 260 and 261,
section 3, almost certain Md 25
Bark with skeleton 248, section 2 M d 25
1951
200
1 BC
AD 71
1879
Libby 1955
Charcoal from altar 1, section 3, Md 25
1720
80
AD 230
AD 341
1609
From possible workroom area
Seip
1715
50
AD 235
Seip
1670
10
AD 280
AD344,
370
AD 405
1545
Seip site
1670
55
AD 280
AD 405
1545
Seip-Pricer
Tremper
1895
2050
100
100
AD 55
100 BC
AD 122
40 BC
1828
1989
Baby and Langlois 1979:
17
Baby and Langlois 1977:
2
Baby and Langlois
1977:2
Baby and Langlois
1979:17
Prufer: 1968
Prufer 1968
1606, 1580
?
?
From possible workroom area
charcoal
charcoal
Table 2.1: Carbon 14 Dates for Harness, Hopewell, Seip, and Tremper sites,
West Virginia Archaeologist Vol. 47(1&2)
27
First, when the sites were heavily excavated at the turn of the century, different
frameworks for recording and gathering information were employed. This means
that the labeling of artifacts can be ambiguous. One example is the textiles recovered
from Edwin Harness Mound; the labeling of the textile fragments was consistent in
that they were all labeled “Edwin Harness Mound” thereby distinguishing them from
the other 13 mounds at this site. The excavation date was also specified, e. g.
1903-1905. In contrast, the Seip site labeling was less clear. Sometimes Seip
Mound 1 and 2 were distinguished and other times only the title “Seip Group” was
indicated. In this ambiguous case the researcher had to include the Seip Mounds
as one entity. The textile fragments from the Hopewell site also were not
distinguished by mound. Matches between the textile information in the reports
and the OHS fragments were made when possible.
Second, because different frameworks were used to gather information, the
published site reports are not directly comparable. For example, Mills (1907 Edwin
Harness site) did not record which graves the artifacts were taken from and did not
give a comprehensive list of textiles found. Shetrone (1926 Hopewell site) did cite
which graves contained textiles and identified the artifacts with which textiles were
associated. In such instances, summaries are given that best reflect the information
from the archaeologist. In all cases, in the current, the focus is on the textile
fragments.
Third, the actual field notes are missing for several of the sites. Specific field
notes which are missing include Mills’ report for Seip Mound 2, 1907 and Mills’
28
report on Edwin Harness Mound 1903 and 1905. In these cases the official field
notes, as published in Ohio History, were referred to for site information. When
available, supplemental information from more recent research was examined.
2.3.1 Edwin Harness
Edwin Harness Mound (Figure 2.3) is the largest of fourteen mounds making
up Liberty Earthworks, Liberty Township, Ross County near the Scioto River east of
Chillicothe, Ohio (Greber 1983).
Mills (1907) refers to the mound group as the
Harness group “. . . consisting of burial mounds and a combination of circles and a
square . . . (113).” Named for the family that owned the farm on which the site is
located, this group is on level ground and encompasses 100 acres. The earthwork
walls are less than four feet in height. The Edward Harness Mound was 160 feet
long and 20 feet high when surveyed by Squier and Davis in 1846. The earth used
to create the Edward Harness Mound came from the surface near the earthworks
(Mills 1907: 113). The mound is outlined with a gravel wall and placed over a large
building structure with a prepared clay floor (Greber 1983).
Before Mills’ 1903 and 1905 excavations, items were removed from the site
by several groups (Table 2.2). Taking this into consideration, the artifacts reported
by Mills cannot account for all artifacts that were placed in the mound.
The Hopewell people prepared the base of the mound by burning the ground
and covering it with clay, with a depth from a few to fifteen inches. The clay was
covered over with one-half to three-fourths inch of sand. A structure with three
29
Figure 2.3: Edwin Harness Site, Greber 1983: 13.
30
Excavation
Time Period
1846
Who
Squire and
Davis
Where Collections
Sent
Blackmore
Museum, Salisbury,
England
1850’s to
1885?
Local School
Boys
Privately owned
1885
F.W. Putnam
Peabody Museum,
Harvard University
1896
W. K.
M oorehead
Ohio Historical
Society
Found
Burned skeleton enclosed
in matting; copper plate;
pipe; carbonaceous deposit
(textile?) on altar; bone
skewers
Copper plates; copper
celts; copper ear
ornaments
12 burial chambers; 10
cremated bodies with
charred cloth, mats; copper
plates; earrings; shell
beads; flint knives;
pseudomorph with copper
plate; 2 skeletons
25 cremated burials; 2
uncremated burials; copper
beads; fragments of cloth
Table 2.2: Excavations of the Edwin Harness Mound Previous to Mills
Excavation, Mills (1907).
31
sections was built upon this base and later burned. The mound was built on top.
The cremated graves that Mills excavated were of four types (Table 2.3). The
uncremated graves were found in the same burial types as the prepared burials
listed in Table 2.3. All of the graves were individually covered over with clay.
Mills (1907) indicates that around 12,000 specimens were excavated. In the
official site report he described the artifacts but he did not indicate which artifacts
were found in which burials (Table 2.4). The lack of provenience for the textiles
recovered from the Edwin Harness Mound frustrated efforts to directly connect
them with other grave goods.
The burials in which the textiles were found were not identified. An effort was
made to correlate the textiles housed at the OHS with those described in Mills’
report (Table 2.5). Photographs from Mills’ report (Figures 2.4, 2.5, 2.6) were
examined along with the text. Although Mills (1907) said “The great variety of
weaving and the quantity of woven material found in the gravs indicate that the art
was assiduously practiced (193).” Very few of these textiles are housed in the OHS
collection.
Greber (1983: 27) analyzed the building structure under Edwin Harness
Mound which she calls the Big House, consistent with Native American languages
which indicate this as an area of special activity. It is made up of three main sections;
a North Section which is a rounded rectangle; a Middle Section which is a rounded
rectangle; and a South Section which is circular. The North and Middle Sections
are joined by a rectangular hall. Toward the east is a small structure joined to the
32
Grave Type
Platform
Basin
Elliptical
Parallelogram
Characteristics
Elevated platform 3-6
inches above floor; logs
outline grave; logs
plastered over
Platform was prepared
and basin cut out of
center 2-4 inches; logs
outlines
Platform 4-8 inches; logs
outline elliptical shape;
logs plastered over
Inside grave scooped out
4-12 inches; logs outlined
and plastered over
Size
4 x 2.5 feet
Shape
Rectangle
4 x 2.5 feet
Rectangle
4 x 2.5 feet
Elliptical
4 x 2.5 feet
Parallelogram
Table 2.3: Cremated Grave Differentiation, Mills (1907) .
33
Artifact
20 large copper plates
Curved copper plate
50+ Ear spools
Clay covered balls
Shell and pearl set in
copper
Other copper
ornaments
4 copper axes
1 copper needle
Trophy skull
Bone Awls
Bone Needles
5+ Human Jaw
Perforated Shark teeth
Bear teeth
Grey wolf claws
Necklaces of raccoon
and opossum
Carved, polished
bones
Mica blocks
Mica objects
5 platform pipes
Flint knives
Obsidian knife
Arrow heads
Stone gorgets
Galenite
Graphite
Shells cups
Pearls
Burial
Cremated; Uncremated?
Cremated
Cremated except 1
?
?
Other Information
Some contact with fabric
Headdress component?
Contact with woven fabric
Found attached (?) to charred woven fabric
?
Decorative?
Uncremated; Cremated
?
Cremated
?
?
?
In many burials
In many burials
?
Charred state
Remains of woven fabric on face
?
Only 2 found
Clay beads imitate
pearls
Shell beads
Charred textiles
?
?
?
Cremated
?
?
?
?
?
?
cremated
?
Found in lots of 3-7
Polished
1 or 2 per burial
Attached to apparel?
Frequently found
Frequently found
Some decoration for apparel?
Different shapes
One
Flint, few
Different material and size
One piece shaped into seven pound ball
In granular form, in small woven bag
Most abundant artifact, one string had 2100
pearls
More than 3000 in one burial
Found as part of “final ceremony” in almost
every burial; fabrics embellished with copper
ornaments and cut designs of mica; one
charred mass contained 14 layers of fabric
?
Table 2.4: Artifacts from Edwin Harness Mound, Mills (1907).
34
Textile Description Mills
1907
10 Cu plates contact with
woven fabric
Found with Cremated
Burial
No
OHS Match
Maybe
wood and Cu balls attached to
charred woven fabric
Cu axes with fabric adhering
yes
Listed, Not found
No
?
almost every burial where the
yes
final ceremony, consisted of
setting fire to the covering of
the straw and twigs, which
were placed over the cremated
remains, we find the charred
remains of cloth or coarse
matting
Maybe, 5 boxes of
charred cloth
Charred matting Fig. 2
?
Charred Mass of textiles Fig. 3
with metal
Charred textiles Fig. 4
?
Maybe, 5 boxes of
charred cloth
Not found
?
Maybe, 5 boxes of
charred cloth
Table 2.5: Textiles Described by Mills (1907) vs. those found in the Ohio
Historical Society.
35
Figure 2.4: “Coarse Matting” Mills 1907:18
36
Figure 2.5: “Fabric with Copper Balls Attached” Mills 1907:188
37
Figure 2.6: “Woven Fabrics” Mills 1907:189
38
others by a corridor (Figure 2.7). The sections of the Big House appear to have
been distinguished by scale, design, and activity.
Greber (1983) believes that
there was a difference in style and possibly activity within the three sections and “.
. . that each section of the Big House was the social space of a sub-group within the
total society which supported the Big House (87).” If the textile fragments gathered
by Mills could be linked back to the area of the structure in which they were found,
the possible differences between their use could add support to this conclusion.
2.3.2 Hopewell Mound Site
The Hopewell Mound group (Figure 2.8) is located in Union township, Ross
County, on the North fork of the Paint creek, northwest of Chillicothe, Ohio. Later
the site of the farm of Captain M.C. Hopewell, his name was used to label both the
cultural group and type site (Woodward and McDonald 1986: 17). Squire and Davis
(1848) recorded that it consisted of a wall 6 feet high in the shape of a parallelogram
and enclosed 111 acres with a smaller square outside of the wall. Within the
parallelogram are also a circle and semi-circle which encloses seven mounds. A
total of 20 mounds were noted by Squire and Davis. Moorehead (1922) added an
additional five mounds. A highway and railroad that run through the site destroyed
several of the mounds (Shetrone 1926: 14).
Moorehead (1922) excavated in the Hopewell Mound Group from 1891-1892.
In Mound 23, uncremated skeleton No. 213 was exhumed with beads, bear’s teeth,
a copper plate, four copper earspools, and a human jaw bone. The earspools had
39
Figure 2.7: Floor plan of Harness Big House, Greber 1983: 28.
40
Figure 2.8: Hopewell Site, Shetrone 1926:
41
preserved a piece of “. . . finely woven textile . . . the cloth adhering to one side of
the ornaments, being coarser than that on the opposite side (Moorehead 1922:
99).” In Mound 25 a basin was found holding charred and burned
. . . mica ornaments, spool-shaped copper ornaments, copper balls, many
other copper objects, large beads, bear’s and panther’s teeth, carved bones,
several effigies carved out of stone, stone tablets, slate ornaments, beautiful
stone and terra-cotta rings, quartz crystals worked in various forms, flint
knives, and cloth (Moorehead 1922: 113).
Also, in Mound 25, with the uncharred skeleton of burial number 248, Moorehead
(1922: 107) found copper plates with preserved cloth, bears’ teeth, spool-shaped
ornaments, button of copper, beads of shell and pearl thought to have been attached
to a garment, a platform pipe, an agate spear-head, and a copper and wood
headdress. Although Moorehead (1922) only mentioned textiles in a few instances,
in his discussion of objects found at the Hopewell site he stated “Both in the altars
and with burials, there were numerous traces of textiles which had been preserved
either by charring or by contact with copper or meteoric iron (168).” Figure 2.9 is
Moorehead’s (1922: 172) illustration of textile fragments he recovered from the
mound. More than 150 burials were uncovered, but in many cases records do not
indicate whether they were cremated or uncremated. For the burials he did
distinguish, uncremated burials appear to dominate.
Shetrone listed a total of 38 mounds in his site report (1926). Fortunately, he
included information on which grave goods were found including textiles (Table2.6).
The majority of burials found by Shetrone (1926: 226) at the Hopewell site were
uncremated (32 cremated, 53 uncremated). The textile remains at the OHS reflect
42
Figure 2.9: Textile Fragments from Moorehead’s Excavation (1922: 72).
43
Mound
Artifacts
2
Burial ID Number
and State
2, Uncremated
2
5, Uncremated
3,4,56,7,8,9
9
Crematory
10,6,11,12
25
11, uncremated
4,13,14,12,7,15
25
24, uncremated
7,12,4,14,16,3
25
6, uncremated
12,33,4,14,7,3
4
25
7,17,18,14,19,5
,12,11
25
41, skeleton 1,
uncremated
Near 11
26
6, uncremated
15,12,5,14,7,3,
9,20
26
26
Basin (receptacle)
Crematory
5,22,4,7,12
2,8,5,23
1,2
Textile Description
Shetrone 1926
Woven fabric, bark,
uncharred
Copper plate, finely woven
textile adhering
Woven fabric, charred
Head dress, bonnet-like
appendage of woven fabric,
uncharred
on copper plate fine imprint
on its upper face of an
elaborate garment or robe,
the lower portion being of
woven fabric an the upper
part of fur
large copper plates, more
than one foot in length,
upon which were preserved
cloth and fabric
Copper plate on which is
preserved a woven fabric
carrying bag for soil for
mound, basket like
addition to copper helmet
there were portions of
woven fabric; plate had
fastened to a coarsely
woven fabric or loin cloth
was further decorated by
numerous pearl beads
fragments of woven fabric
charred matter-grass, twigs,
and leaves, with a
considerable amount of
charred woven fabric; shell
thread spools,
OHS Match
Yes
Yes
Possible
listing,
nothing in
crematory
In records
Maybe
?
Yes
Not found
Yes
Yes
Crematory
Listed,
matter not
found
Table 2.6: Hopewell Mound Burials and Grave Goods, Shetrone (1926).
Note: Deposits are only listed in the table if they contain textiles.
Dissertation Artifact Key: copper beads 1; copper adze 2; shell container 3;
copper ear spool 4; shell beads 5; mica 6; copper plate 7; shell 8; trophy skull 9;
obsidian blades 10; pearl beads 12; bone awl 13; bear canine 14; head dress 15;
mountain lion jaw 16; limestone cone 17; bone imitation of bear canine 18;
barracuda 19; platform pipe 20; shell disk 21; flint knives 22; bone beads 23;
beads 24; gorgets 25; copper boat shape 26; galenite 27; galena cones 28;
cones of quartz 29; milling stone 30; stone disk 31; stone ear spool 32; buttons
33; copper skewers 34.
44
this ratio. The predominant number of textiles are those attached to copper artifacts;
these were associated with uncremated burials. A smaller number of charred textiles
are located at OHS but these did not have provenience.
Greber and Ruhl (1989:49-52) classified the burials of Hopewell Mound 25
into five groups based on location within the mound (Figure 2.10). They reviewed
the nonperishable grave items for groups C, D, and E which are primary extended
and redeposited cremations. Less floor space was given for burials in group C than
in groups D and E (1989:54). No statistically significant difference was found between
the three groups for artifact type. There were high ranked individuals among all
three groups. As seen at Harness, there appear to be three main groups represented
within Hopewell Mound 25 (1989: 56). One interpretation of the analysis is that “. .
. various social statuses represented by the individuals within the three social
components were similarly recognized among and across these social components
(Greber et al. 1989:57).” Most of the OHS textiles from the Hopewell site do not
have a mound number but are labeled with the date 1922. This would indicate that
they were gathered in Shetrone’s excavation (Moorehead’s was in the 1890’s).
The textile items listed by Shetrone in Table 2.6 for Hopewell Mound 25 are all from
groups C, D, and E. They are attached to copper artifacts which were limited in
distribution among the burials. It is possible the OHS charred pieces could be from
Mound 25 as there were cremated burials in this mound. As Greber et al. (1989)
discussed, individuals with different statuses were interred in close proximity. The
45
Figure 2.10: Structure under Hopewell Mound 25, Greber et al. 1989: 50.
46
charred textiles at the OHS could have been from burials of individuals of any level
of status.
2.3.3 Seip Mound Site
The Seip Mound site is located near Paint Creek in Paxton Township, Ross
County, 17 miles southwest of Chillicothe, Ohio (Greber 1979). It was owned as
part of the Seip family farm, from which it takes its name. Seip is an earthwork
complex which consists of a square and circle joined by a larger circle enclosing
121 acres with several small mounds, three large conjoined mounds, and a large
oblong mound inside (Figure 2.11). The large oblong mound was excavated by
Shetrone and Greenman in 1925-28 under the Ohio State Archaeological and Historic
Society (Woodward and McDonald 1986: 93). They named the large mound Seip
Mound 1, causing the smaller mound excavated by Mills in 1909, to be renamed
Seip Mound 2. This has often caused confusion in the records (Greber 2002:
personal communication). Greber (1997; personal communication 2002) has given
the later excavated and larger Seip Mound 1 the name of Seip-Pricer, which will be
used in this text when referring to this mound specifically. Seip Mound 2 will be
used for the smaller mound excavated by Mills (1909).
Mills (1909) excavated the smaller Seip Mound (2) at the turn of the century.
He found three separate circular structures at the base of the mound outlined in
post holes, over which the mound was constructed (Figure 2.12). Each structure
was covered separately forming a conjoined mound. The first section contained 24
47
Figure 2.11: Seip Mound Site, Squier and Davis 1896: 14
48
Figure 2.12: Estimated Floor Plan of Seip Mound 2: Greber 1979: 66.
49
burials. The second structure contained 19 burials, and the last section contained
one uncremated burial (Mills 1909: 319-321). All of the cremated graves were on
the floor level of the structures. Mills (1909) did not record the textile information for
the individual graves nor from which burial the grave goods came.
The first section had burial crypts in the center, in which multiple burials
were placed. The platform was made of clay, outlined with logs, covered with log
pieces and then with clay. Two to four burials were included in each crypt. Near
each crypt was a cluster of post molds around which were found burned objects
including cloth. Mills (1909: 286) hypothesized that the posthole areas were shrines
for the dead. Toward the outside of the building structure were smaller burials that
resembled burials at Harness (Mills 1909: 286). Both types of graves in this section
were on parallelogram-shaped platforms like those at Harness Mound.
In the second section, platform graves were constructed with varying sizes.
These graves were dispersed around the side walls with no graves in the center.
Nine of the nineteen graves in this section were associated with the conduct of a
“final ceremony” and one burial was cremated on site where the remains were
found (Mill 1909: 289-290). The third section had no cremated burials. Over 2,000
objects were gathered from the forty-eight burials in Seip Mound 2. These were not
designated by burial or mound section. The grave goods included: 16 large copper
plates, some with layers of cloth (state of preservation not specified); copper ear
spools; copper crescent; six large copper balls; four copper awls; nine copper axes;
bone needles; bone awls; black bear canine pendants; bone and stone gorgets;
50
bone effigy eagle claws; cut and polished human jaws; alligator teeth; shell pendants;
shell beads; pearl beads; flint knives; flint spears; shell vessels; tanned skins; and
geometric designs and figures in mica (Table 2.7). Charred textiles were described
as “simple weaving” and “reticulate weaving” (Figures 2.13 and 2.14). Either one
of these could have been any number of charred textiles at the OHS.
Shetrone and Greenman reported 122 burials including both cremations and
extended burials (Woodward and McDonald 1986: 94) in Seip-Pricer Mound. This
mound appears to have been constructed by building a primary mound covered
with gravel as a retaining material. Covering this was another level of soil which
was alsoretained by a thick layer of gravel (Shetrone and Greenman 1931: 356359). Burials were located in the primary mound level. The mound was made of
three lobes with each section of the primary level covered over with clay, much like
Seip Mound 2. The floor of all three lobes was leveled, covered with clay, and fire
hardened in some areas. Sand was placed over the clay floor (Shetrone and
Greenman 1931: 364). The mound was outlined with gravel and large stones.
Crematory basin features, post holes, and pits were found in the floor level. Five
crematory basins were found and those with contents are listed in Table 2.8. Other
features that were documented with textile remains are listed in Table 2.8. The
burial platforms were clay, outlined with logs, and roofed with logs or bark. The log
crypts were covered over with mounds of sand or gravel two to three feet high
(369).
51
Location
Section 1,
post hole
“shrines”
Section 1,
post hole
“shrines”
? graves
? graves
? graves
? graves
Artifacts
textile found
with, when
listed
Ornaments,
implements,
mica
Effigy eagle
claws of bone
Textile Description
OHS
Match
Quantities of charred cloth
?
3 ply, coarse bast fiber rope,
charred, 4 feet in length
Not found
Copper plates
Plate and
crescent
Axe
Shell drinking
vessel
Wrapped in layers of cloth
Covered with imprint of thin,
loosely woven fabric
Imprint of woven fabric
Vessel was evidently covered with
a delicately woven fabric, as
portions of the fabric still adhere to
the shell
?
?
Table 2.7: Seip Mound 2 Textile Remains, Mills 1909
52
?
?
Figure 2.13: “Simple Weaving” Seip Mound 2, Mills 1909: 315
53
Figure 2.14: “Reticulate Weaving” Seip Mound 2, Mills 1909: 316
54
Table 2.8: Seip-Pricer Mound Burials and Grave Goods, Shetrone and Greenman
(1931).
Note: Deposits are only listed in the table if textiles are associated with them.
Dissertation Artifact Key: copper beads 1; copper adze 2; shell container 3;
copper ear spool 4; shell beads 5; mica 6; copper plate 7; shell 8; trophy skull 9;
obsidian blades 10; pearl beads 12; bone awl 13; bear canine 14; head dress
15; mountain lion jaw 16; limestone cone 17; bone imitation of bear canine 18;
barracuda 19; platform pipe 20; shell disk 21; flint knives 22; bone beads 23;
beads 24; gorgets 25; copper boat shape 26; galenite 27; galena cones 28;
cones of quartz 29; milling stone 30; stone disk 31; stone ear spool 32; buttons
33; copper skewers 34; teeth and bones of animals 35; alligator teeth 36;
wooden disk 37; bear claw imitation in bone 38; pottery vessel 39; arrowhead 40
55
Burial ID Number
and State
Crematory Basin
#2
22
Textile Description Shetrone, Greenman
1931
charred grass and twigs covering a square
yard, in which were found fragments of
woven fabric (removed to museum)
20,12,33,34,35,
36,37,38, 7
canopy; copper breastplate portion of
woven fabric bearing colored design
OHS
Match
Yes, but
textiles not
found with
it in
museum
Possibly
canopy
Charred woven fabric
?
Ceremonial cache
39,24,4,6,40,12
,22, 35, 5, 36,1
7,3,12,14, 2
?
9, cremated
7
11, cremated
7, 3,
12, cremated
2
19, partially
cremated
7
28, cremated
36, 37, 38, 7,
16
32, cremated
36, cremated
37, cremated
14,22,5,7,4, 39,
40
7, 4, 33
7, 12, 2
reed mat under copper; beneath
breastplates and between them where they
overlapped were layers of woven fabric, as
many as 13 in one instance, preserved like
the portion of the reed mat by copper;
copper celt fabric adhering like Figure 2.16
D
Fabric fragments bearing colored designs,
beneath copper breastplate
Fabric fragments bearing colored designs,
beneath copper breastplate
Smaller of copper celts bore the imprint of
woven fabric; area of grave was covered
with the imprint of woven fabric of the flat
splint type
breast plate with coarsely woven piece of
reticulate fabric adhering to the under
surface
adjacent to the west log-molds was the
imprint of fabric which had originally
covered part of the platform; Fabric
fragments bearing colored designs,
beneath copper breastplate
finely woven fabric beneath breast plate
43, cremated
7, 1
49, cremated
22,4,7,37,16,2
65, cremated
35
86, uncremated
7, 4
Great multiple
burial, #2-7,
uncremated
Burnt offering
5, uncremated
Artifacts
Woven material, like Figure 2.16C
Beneath breastplate the remains of cloth
and leather
Copper breastplate beneath which was
preserved some woven fabric and leather
Midway between the 2 piles of cremated
bones was a mass of burnt leather and
fabric, like Figure 2.16 C
Covering remains a quantity of charred
fabric
copper breast plate beneath which had
been preserved the fragments of a pattern
in yellow and red on woven fabric
fabric adhering to copper breast plate
56
Maybe
Maybe
Yes
Maybe
Over the “Great Multiple Burials” a cloth canopy was placed. Shetrone and
Greenman (1931) describe it as
The canopy, perhaps intended as a ceremonial shroud, was secured in place
by a hundred or more bone skewers, embedded peg-like through the fabric
to their heads. One of them had been broken in penetrating the earth (372).
. . . The fabric canopy covering the primary mound over the multiple burial
was of a simple open weave corresponding closely to a thin quality of modern
burlap (452) (Figure 2.15).
No description is given if there was decoration on the textile that would help identify
the canopy fragments in the OHS collection. There are three specimen types that
are thought to be part of this canopy (Otto and Greber personal communication
2002), one type with oval applied designs, another with lobed applied designs, and
the last with ellipsoid applied designs.
The textile fragments preserved by copper were constructed as shown in
Figure 2.16 A, and were colored in maroon, black, red, brown, and yellow. The
patterns did not appear to have been woven in, but were applied at the surface
(Shetrone and Greenman 1931: 451-454) (Figure 2.17).
Greber (1983) overlaid the floor plans to show similarities between the
structures under the Seip-Pricer Mound and the Edwin Harness Mound (Figure
2.18). As with Harness, Greber suggests different uses and group associations for
different areas of the structure (1983: 87-89). She also found the square enclosures
at Seip and Harness to be “. . . almost identical in size, construction material,
iconographic detail and their nonrandom orientations on the landscape (1997:219).”
This suggests a link in time and site use.
57
Figure 2.15: Diagram of Great Multiple Burial with canopy, Shetrone and
Greenman 1931: 371.
58
Figure 2.16: Illustration of Textile types found at Seip-Pricer, Shetrone and
Greenman 1931: 454.
59
Figure 2.17: Illustration of design found on textiles adhering to copper plates at
Seip-Pricer, Shetrone and Greenman 1931: 453.
60
Figure 2.18: Seip Big House overlaid on Edwin Harness Big House, Greber
1983: 88.
61
Greber (1979) also analyzed nonperishable grave goods at the Seip-Pricer
Mound. The placement of the graves in Seip-Pricer and Hopewell Mound 25
distinguished three groups by the three lobes (1989). High status individuals were
buried with a greater number and diversity of grave goods, but high status burials
were found in each of the three lobes. At Seip-Pricer, the number and type of
artifacts also were found to statistically differentiate the three groups. Both cremated
and uncremated graves contain high and low status burials (Gerber 1979: 44).
Because many textiles were recovered from this site, it can be assumed that
they were recovered from many different buirals in the four mounds. Extending
Greber’s (1979) hypothesis concerning status, it can be assumed that the textiles
also reflect a range of status, and may not necessarily be related to high status
individuals alone.
2.3.4 Tremper Mound
The Tremper Mound is located on a high terrace on the western edge of the
lower Scioto Valley, Scioto County, Ohio. It is named after Senator William D.
Tremper who owned the estate on which it is located. The mound’s irregular shape
is due to the underlying structure on which it is built. Tremper mound has communal
depositories, whereas the other burial mounds typically contain individual burials .
It is estimated that 375 cremations were housed in the four communal graves
(Woodward and McDonald 1986: 109). Until the OHS excavation in 1915, the
Tremper Mound had not been thoroughly examined (Mills 1916: 265).
62
Figure 2.19: Tremper Mound, Mills 1916: 269
63
Tremper Mound is enclosed by a round-cornered rectangle with an opening
to the southeast (Figure 2.19). The mound is 250 ft long, 150 ft wide and 8.5 feet
high. The floor of the mound was leveled and covered with sand. The mound was
built from soil of the surrounding area. Post holes outline the structure and rooms
within the structure. The cremations appear to have taken place at a location away
from the communal depositories (Mills 1916: 270-274).
The structure over which the mound was built was oval with sections added.
Referring to the floor plan of the mound (Figure 2.20) Mills (1916) divides the structure
into sections. The central and western part of the mound had a large number of
crematories, especially along the south wall. The southeastern section had three
large crematories and the floor was covered over with one inch of charred organic
material. The central circular east addition side held the great cache of artifacts,
along with a basin, a cremated burial of an individual, and a fireplace. There were
no interior posts in this area. The section north of this held the main depository for
the cremations and a fireplace. The floors of the small sections along the north of
the main oval structure were covered in charred leaves, cloth and other charred
matter. The small section labeled 25 by Mills had broken animal bones, broken
pottery, pieces of Ohio black shale, and mica flakes, perhaps indicating it as a work
room (Mills 1916:275-276).
The objects found in the ceremonial cache were broken. Mills (1916: 284)
believed that the cache and cremations accumulated over time. There was also a
smaller cache in the center of the mound in which the objects were unharmed.
64
Figure 2.20: Structure under Tremper Mound, Mills 1916: 271
65
Mills (1916: 285) describes this as a later addition placed when the mound was
erected over the structure. The following is a list of objects found in the large and
small caches:
The feature of the large cache was one hundred and thirty-six tobacco pipes.
. . . platform in type, a number of them carved in the effigy of birds and
animals, and the remainder plain. . . . beads, gorgets, and boat shaped
objects of copper; crystals of mica and galenite; ear ornaments of stone;
cones cut from quartz crystals and galena; ornaments made from jaws of
animals and of man; flint cutting implements; mealing stones; woven fabrics;
and the large stone disk . . . many objects made of wood and bone, mostly
decomposed or burned. A total of five hundred specimens. . . The smaller of
the two caches contained nine tobacco pipes, representing the platform type,
the tubular and the modified tubular types. . . . a pair of rare type of ear
ornaments, and a pierced slate tablet (Mills 1916:285).
Mills recorded several textiles located in the charred material found on the
floors (Figures 2.21 and 2.22). It is not indicated whether he took any textile samples
from the crematory basins. The quantity of the textiles is not mentioned. As expected
from the site descriptions, all Tremper OHS textile fragments were charred. Many
of the textile containers were labeled with “1915” indicating they were collected by
Mills. There was no information indicating where in the mound textiles were located.
The charred textiles from Tremper that were examined in this research are
more than likely from later deposits in the communal cache. Charred textile
fragments that were deposited earlier would have been destroyed by the weight of
later additions.
66
Figure 2.21: Tremper Fabrics, Mills 1916: 394.
67
Figure 2.22: Tremper Fabrics, Mills 1916: 395
68
2.3.5 Overall Comparisons of Sites
Shetrone (1926: 219-227) compared the four sites. All four sites were found
to “. . . occupy commanding positions adjacent to their respective rivers and streams
(1926: 219).” All have floors that had been leveled and covered with coarse sand
or gravel. Low “walls” were found to outline the mounds at Hopewell, Harness,
Seip, and Tremper. Tremper, Harness, and Seip all had post holes on the floor of
the mounds. Hopewell did not have post holes in the floor. Cremation burials were
dominant at Tremper, Harness, and Seip, but not at Hopewell. Log burial “crypts”
were prevalent at Hopewell, found less frequently at Harness and Seip, and were
not found at Tremper (Shetrone 1926: 221).
Table 2.9 lists physical features of
these mound sites.
Seip and Edwin Harness were enclosed by near identical square earthworks
(Greber 1997). Seip Mound 2, Seip-Pricer Mound, Hopewell Mound 25 and the
Edwin Harness Mound were all built over structures comprised of three sections
and appeared to have three different social groups. Tremper also had a multi-section
structure beneath the mound. The similarity in Seip-Pricer and Edwin Harness
building structures suggests great similarities in use (Greber 1983). While the Edwin
Harness Mound and the Seip Mounds had much in common to suggest near
duplication, the similarities with Hopewell Mound 25 are more likely “. . . a variation
on a theme within the Scioto Hopewell, more likely represent similar cultural views
about the appropriate use of space and time . . . (Greber et al. 1989: 64).” For the
Seip-Pricer Mound (Table 2.8) and Hopewell site (Table 2.6) crematory basins were
69
Physical Feature
Hopewell
Gravel Strata
covering primary
(interior) mounds
Low Wall or ridge of
gravel, stones and
earth delineating
outer margins of
mounds
Coverings of stones
and gravel over tops
of mounds
Delineation of outer
margin of mounds or
compartments
thereof, by vertical
timbers or posts
Posts delineating
margins of interior
primary mounds only
Crematory Basins
large
Crematory Basins
small
Pretentious
Structures of logs
erected over burials
Log Structures over
graves unimportant or
lacking
Mounds in which
cremation of the dead
predominated
Mounds in which noncremation
predominated
X
Tremper
X
Harness
Seip Md 2
SeipPricer
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 2.9: Physical Features of Mound Sites Considered, Adapted from Shetrone
1926 p. 222
70
collected for display at the museum. The crematory basins were located at OHS by
the researcher in the hope that material might still be left in context for identification
and possible radiocarbon dating to provide more evidence of similarities between
the sites for this study. The basins were empty, probably having been cleaned out
for display, and radiocarbon dating could not be carried out.
Reports on many of the burials did not include complete information on textiles
or other burial goods. Thus, it was not possible to determine how the other burial
goods relate to the inclusion of textiles within a burial or whether other burial goods
could be used as a predictor when textiles themselves are not recorded. Knowing
whether a burial is cremated or not might prompt future researchers to look for
textiles even if none are recorded in the site reports. The textiles themselves embody
evidence of their past. Blackened textiles obviously were associated with some
heat treatment, just as malachite impregnated and encrusted textiles were associated
with copper.
2.4 Cremation Practices
In this section, the use of cremation in the four sites is discussed and a
framework of scenarios for burial practices is developed. Table 2.10 summarizes
the number of cremated and uncremated burials at the Edwin Harness Mound, the
Hopewell site, the Tremper Mound, Seip Mound 2, and Seip-Pricer.
71
Mound
Groups
Hopewell
Total
Burials
85
Cremated
Burials
32
Uncremated %
Burials
Cremated
53
37
%
Uncremated
62
Tremper
Harness
Seip, Mound
2
Seip, Mound
1 (SeipPricer)
Totals
375
172
48
375
163
43
0
9
5
100
95
90
0
5
10
122
111
11
90
10
802
724
78
90%
10%
Table 2.10: Cremated Vs. Uncremated Graves for Major Earthwork groups in
Ohio, Adapted from Shetrone 1926: 227 and Shetrone and Greenman 1931
72
2.4.1 Harness
Putnam (1885) reported finding twelve log burial chambers in the Edwin Harness
Mound. The burial chambers consisted of logs placed on the clay surface formed
below the mound. The chambers were approximately six feet in length by two feet
in width by one foot in height. He concluded that the bodies had been burned in the
burial chambers. As evidence of this he relates that
“. . . the bodies had been burned on the spot, as conclusively shown by the
relative position of the bones, and the fact that, in two instances, portions of
the body had fallen outside of the fire and escaped burning. It became
evident, as our explorations progressed, that these chambers were covered
by little mounds of gravel and clay, and that, in those where the burning had
taken place, the covering of earth were placed in position before the bodies
were consumed, shown by the small amount of ashes and the reduction of
the logs to charcoal in their position on the clay floor of the chamber, which
was burned to a thickness varying with the amount of heat (Mills1907:125).”
He located ten cremated and two uncremated burials.
Moorehead (1896) continued the excavation of the Edwin Harness Mound
and located another twenty five cremated burials and two uncremated burials. Fabric
is not identified so a comparison of textile contents between cremated and
uncremated burials cannot be made. He reported “. . . even some of the beads and
copper showed marks of fire. . . . Such relics as accompanied the remains were
placed in no special order and many of them were partly burnt” (Moorehead 1896:
225).
Mills (1907:133) reports that most of the cremations took place somewhere
other than the grave site. After the cremation, the ashes and charred bones were
gathered and placed in the prepared grave. A few bodies were cremated at the
73
grave sites as indicated by portions of unburned skeleton. He also reports that “A
final ceremony was performed when the cremated dead were placed in the grave
(133).” Mills (1907) located one hundred and thirty-three burials, five of which were
uncremated. The Edwin Harness Mound yielded ten uncremated and 164 cremated
burials. Eight fire places or crematory basins were located (Mills 1907: 141)
Mills (1907:141) found burials in which grave goods were almost completely
destroyed by fire, but some of the bone remained intact (femur). He believed in
these cases bodies were cremated at the burial site. If the body was cremated
elsewhere, the burial had intact grave goods while the bones were more completely
incinerated. Fragments of textiles and matting also were found and were considered
part of the final ceremony which he describes:
After these remains were deposited in the grave they were frequently covered
over with matting or some woven fabric, and then a covering of grass and
twigs, and as a last ceremony this covering was set on fire and while burning
clay was carried and covered over the fire, thus preserving the cloth, the
grass and twigs in a charred state (1907: 141-142).
Afterward the graves were sealed with a clay layer ranging in thickness from a few
to fourteen inches.
2.4.2 Hopewell
In Mound 25 at the Hopewell site Moorehead (1922) found a basin:
It was evident that a quantity of wood had first been placed in the basin of
the altar, and that the earth had been heaped over it and the objects, while it
was burning. Thus, although the contents of the altar were badly charred
and burned, not all the objects had been destroyed. The objects had been
heaped in the cavity of the altar without any regularity of position and included
74
mica ornaments, spool-shaped copper ornaments, copper balls, many other
copper objects, large beads, bear’s and panther’s teeth, carved bones,
several effigies carved out of stone, stone tablets, slate ornaments, beautiful
stone and terra-cotta rings, quartz crystals worked in various forms, flint
knives, and cloth (113).
This description matches Mills’ (1907) for a “last ceremony.” However, Moorehead
holds that the cremation as well as the last ceremony took place at the same site,
but does not mention the remains of log burial chambers as found in the Harness
site.
Shetrone (1926) found features he labels as crematory basins in Hopewell
site Mounds 2, 9, and 26 (Table 5 site information). In Hopewell Mound 17 two
basins that were found were thought to be linked to the ritual deposit of objects
(1922:47). A crematory basin was also found in Mound 20 containing only small
fragments of mica only (1926:52). Mound 23, 24, and 25 (1922: 55, 56, 97) had
basins with no contents. Cremated burials were found in Hopewell site Mounds 4,
11, 20, 23, 24, 25, and 26. Those with textile remains are listed in Table 2.6 of the
site information.
2.4.3 Seip Mound 2
Mills (1909) found Seip Mound 2 to have different evidence for a burial
procedure.
In section 1 of this mound a “final burial ceremony” similar to that
performed at Edwin Harness, apparently was not performed. In this case the
cremated remains were placed in the crypt and then the crypt sealed without the
75
final burning of grave goods. A crematory basin, measuring 6ft x 8ft, was found
without any contents (Mills 1909: 286). In section 2, cremations were found at
which the final ceremony had been performed and others for which it had not. One
burial was found in which the cremation occurred at the site of the burial. No
crematory basin was found in section 2 (Mills 1909: 289-290). Section 3 held no
cremated burials.
2.4.4 Seip-Pricer Mound
Shetrone and Greenman (1931: 365) found the Seip-Pricer Mound to house
five crematory basins at Seip-Pricer Mound. The first contained charcoal with beads.
The second crematory basin was empty, but a pile of charred material including
textiles lay next to it. The other three basins were empty (1931: 366). Burials at
Seip-Pricer were quadrilateral in shape and were composed of clay, sand, charcoal,
and gravel. All were surrounded by log crypts and roofed with bark or logs. Some
crypts were surrounded by stones and had individual sand or gravel mounds placed
over them. In analyzing the burial practices they wrote
The great majority of burials in Mound Number 1 were cremated and lay
upon specially prepared earthen platforms built up a few inches above the
floor. All platforms were quadrilateral excepting that of Burial 91, which was
triangular. . . . Most of them were made of clay, gravel or sand with covering
of charcoal. This fact, together with the abundant evidence of fire on the
floor of the mound, strongly suggests that cremation was accomplished not
far from the burial site. There is nothing to show, however, that the fire was
built over the platforms although in a number of instances bodies may have
been cremated on the actual site before erection of the platform. For example,
the charcoal of the platforms of Burials 36 and 39 extended out onto the floor
beyond the log-molds. However the charcoal did not in every case result
76
from the fires of cremation; there was charcoal on the platform of Burial 52,
but the remains were uncremated (Shetrone and Greenman 1931: 480).
There is no mention of evidence for the “last ceremony” as described for the Edwin
Harness Mound and Seip Mound 2.
2.4.5 Tremper
Mills (1916) found differences between Tremper and the other sites previously
discussed. Chief among these differences are the “. . . depositing of ashes from
the crematories in communal depositories, the burial of cremated remains beneath
the base line of the mound, and the placing of artifacts of the dead in common
caches (273).” All burials found at Tremper were cremated. The crematories were
almost identical to those at Seip Mound 2 and Harness. There were 12 crematories
in the structure, many with human remains still present, a feature not found at the
crematories of the other sites (Mills 1916:277). The cremations were placed in
prepared clay parallelogram shaped burial pits similar to Harness and Seip, however
remains of many human cremations were placed in one depository instead of one
or a few. Mills reports 25 cubic feet of ash and charred bone collected from Tremper.
From this he estimated 375 individuals were represented (1916: 280). Mills did not
mention a final ceremony with textiles and extinguishing clay. With the large amount
of cremations deposited in communal areas this would have been hard to conclude.
77
2.4.6 Overview of Cremation Practices
One of the earliest articles dedicated exclusively to Hopewellian cremation
practices is by Baby (1954). Baby examined 128 cremations from the Raymond
Ater Mound, Edwin Harness Mound, Seip Mounds, and Mound City group. He
sorted the remains by anatomical groups noting the degree of incineration. Forty of
the cremated burials were incomplete. A total of 75 males and 34 females were
identified with others of uncertain gender (Baby 1954: 2).
Baby (1954) reported three degrees of destruction by fire: completely
incinerated (bone features: color varies, deep checking, diagonal transverse
fracturing, warping); incompletely incinerated (bone features: blackened, incomplete
combustion of organic material in bones, charred periosteum found adhering to
bones); and non-incinerated (bone features: not affected by heat, smoking along
edges). From the bone remains he concluded that the cremations were performed
in the flesh, shown by the fact that heavier bones and those in the thorax were not
calcined by fire, having been protected by the fleshy parts of the body (1954: 3).
He also found that the “. . . Hopewell people dismembered the remains just prior to
the cremation, removing the head, lower legs, and perhaps the entire upper extremity
(1954: 4)” as supported by the pattern of bone survival or lack thereof he found
from these areas. Because the crematory basins are small, i.e. not large enough
for a fully articulated body, human remains must have been dismembered before
cremation.
78
Konigsberg (1985) reviewed the remains of 87 cremated individuals from
the Seip-Pricer Mound. He found the sex ratio to be 1:1 for females and males
interred at the mound. All age classes were also represented in appropriate
proportions for a complete cemetery (Konigsberg 1985: 130) suggesting ascribed
status for placement in the mortuary structure. If the burials were based on acheived
status, only certain age groups or a preference for one sex would have been
expected. Konigsberg (1985: 132) also found “clinkers” (carbonized soft tissue)
that support Baby’s (1954) conclusion that the bodies were cremated in the flesh
before extensive decomposition had occurred. Small bones, such as the sesamoid
bones of the hands and feet, were found in the cremations Konigsberg studied
(1985: 133). This would indicate that careful removal of all parts of the individual
was carried out, explaining the very clean crematory basins found at the sites.
Konigsberg (1985: 133) agrees with Baby that the crematory basins at Seip would
fit the disarticulated bodies (at knees and neck) for cremation, but that the basins at
Hopewell would still be too small to accommodate even disarticulated bodies.
Konigsberg (1985: 134) reinterprets the smaller basins as gathering places for bodies
that were burned on flanges (burned portions of floor around the small basins,
noted but unexplained by excavators) next to the smaller basins. The larger
crematory basins (including the flange) would have fit the articulated body. The
basin data does not support disarticulation prior to cremation. Konigsberg (1985:
134) gave another scenario for why the bones show discontinuous burning patterns-
79
perhaps the bones shattered during cremation and then burned to varying degrees,
instead of being disarticulated prior to cremation. There were also no cut marks as
would be expected with purposeful disarticulation. Neither Baby nor Konigsberg
reviewed the level of destruction of burial artifacts due to cremation conditions.
Brown (1979) found that the cremation rituals’“. . . involved extensive body
preparation and body reduction before final interment in specially prepared facilities
. . . . the charnel house burials were interred in such a manner as to openly declare
the social standing of the deceased to those entering the charnel house (212).”
2.4.7 Framework for Burial Practices
Figure 2.23 is a flow chart constructed from site report details of the burials
(Mills 1907; Mills 1909; Mills 1916; Shetrone 1926; Shetrone and Greenman 1931)
and interpretations of cremated bone studies from Baby (1954) and Konigsberg
(1985). This framework follows the possible paths that a corpse would take in the
differing cremation and burial situations presented in the literature. The
reconstructions made by the archaeologist may be somewhat biased but this
provides a starting point to which the textile remains may be compared. Textiles
may corroborate or refute the theories of cremation practice proposed by others.
In simplest terms the bodies were either cremated or not. Cremation
processes take different possible forms, i.e. possible dismemberment of the body,
burning at the site of the burial, or burning in a basin with remains transported to a
prepared grave.
80
Body
Buried
Dismembered?
Cremated
In grave site
In basin
Individual
burial
Communal
Grave
No Last
Ceremony
Last
nd
Ceremony, 2
Burning and
extinguishing
Figure 2.23: Potential Pathways for Treatment of the Corpse
81
The Burial Practices Framework (Figure 2.24) is constructed from cremation
information, reported for the four sites. Based on the processes the textiles would
undergo at each phase of the cremation and burial rituals, the presence of preserved
or actual textiles is indicated. The Burial Practise Framework is also based on
knowledge of the response of cellulosic textiles to differing burial contexts.
The framework was based on cellulosic materials not only because early
ethnographers noted the use of bast fibers by Native Americans (Hariot 1590; Kalm
1770; Arber 1910), but also because Song (1991) concluded that a majority of the
Seip textiles she examined were bast.
Only in unusual circumstances do cellulosic materials is survive long term
burials. Particular conditions in the burial context combine to encourage fiber
preservation. In very dry environments, preservation by desiccation is known. In
moist soil burials, cellulose would readily biodegrade, but absence of oxygen, pH of
the soil, and temperature each contribute to the environment for survival.
Impregnation of the textiles with copper or iron ions from nearby corroding metals
yields mineralized fibers (Jakes and Howard 1986; Chen, Jakes, and Foreman
1998), which maintain the physical shape of the fiber. Alternatively, cellulosics (as
well as other organics) that have been charred, albeit not completely reduced to
carbon, also survive a range of burial contexts (Srinivasan and Jakes 1997). Thus
one might anticipate the presence of cellulosic materials in burials when conditions
are known to have been conducive to their survival (Jakes and Sibley 1983).
82
Corpse
Body moved to
preparation area;
dismembered ?
Not cremated Interment in
prepared grave, texti les
with grave goods
Textiles
exposed to
copper
EXPECTED:
Preserved/
mineralized
textiles
(1,2,3,4)
Body cremated with goods in
log cryp t; grave goods mostly
destroyed; if some parts of
body remain intact so me
grave goods survived as well
Body
cremated in
crematory
basin with
textiles
EXPECTED: Charred textiles;
Amount of textile preservation
questionable (1, 2?, 3-2)
Charred
textile
sur vival
questionable
Charred
textile
survival
questionable
FOUND: Charred Textiles
(1, 2?, 3-2)
FOUND:
Preserved/
mineralized
textiles
(1,2,3,4)
Textiles used
in Transport?
Textiles used
in Transport?
Cremated remains
placed in prepared
log crypt
Grave goods placed on top
of cremated remains
Remai ns placed on
top of grave goods;
matting/textiles
added; covered
over with logs
“Last Ceremony” p erformed;
fibrous material/textiles placed
over all; 2nd burni ng; clay used
to extinguish textiles
EXPECTED: Charred
textiles (1, 2?, 3-2)
FOUND: Charred and
uncharred textiles
( 1, 2?, 3-2)
Body
cremated in
communal
crematory
basin, with
no textiles?
EXPECTED: Charred
and Uncharred
textiles (3-2, 3-1, 4)
FOUND: Charred and
Uncharred textiles (32, 3-1, 4)
Rem ains placed
i n large prepared
communal grave;
grave goods
added to
communal
cach e, including
textiles
EXPECTED:
Charred and
Uncharred Textiles
(5)
FOUND: Charred
textiles (5)
Figure 2.24: Burial Practices Framework indicating potential preservation of
textiles.
Key: 1= Harness: 2= Hopewell: 3 (with sections 1, 2, 3) = Seip Md 2;
4 = Seip-Pricer: 5= Tremper. ---- indicates those textile states reported based on
the sequence of events.
indicate those states of textiles actually found.
83
When not burned or charred, the survival of textiles in the mound sites was
most dependent upon being placed next to or in the vicinity of copper artifacts or
perhaps having applied designs that incorporated copper based paints. The canopy
for the Great Multiple Burial in Seip-Pricer may have survived because of a copper
paint application, as only bone awls were listed in direct contact with the canopy.
There are several instances of uncharred textiles from Seip. At this mound survival
could be accounted for by placement of the textiles near copper and by fabrics
such as the canopy or by fabrics used in transporting cremated remains.
The recovery of charred cellulosic textiles from the sites indicates that they
were exposed to heat of 250°C or less (Srinivasan and Jakes 1997). Upon exposure
to heat, cellulose decomposes by different pathways depending on the temperature
and length of exposure. At high temperatures (greater than 300°C), the products
formed will be gases and low molecular weight volatile products. The cellulose is
rapidly decomposed. At somewhat lower temperatures (less than 250°C), cellulose
depolymerizes and small molecules vaporize but a residual char is formed (O’Connor
1972: 277). The structure of the fiber or fabric may be retained even as the chemistry
is somewhat altered (Srinivasan and Jakes 1997:521-522).
If textiles were exposed to the high heat of cremation there would be no
recognizable structure left. In cases where highly deteriorated bones were
recovered, if any textile had been present, it would have been completely destroyed.
Therefore the Burial Practices Framework indicates that survival of textiles is after
cremation is questionable.
84
If textiles were associated with a body in cremation and blackened fragments
survived perhaps they did so because they were associated with thicker areas of
the body and thus were insulated from the high heat. They were not extensively
burned. The temperatures that would allow charring of textiles would be comparable
to those that yielded lower levels of bone destruction according to Baby (1954).
Protection of the textiles from heat exposure could also have been provided by
distance in situations in which the peripheries of the body rested outside of the
crematory basin and incomplete combustion of the human remains occurred.
If textiles were used when the body was cremated and also in the last
ceremony when the body was placed in the prepared grave, some charred materials
might remain. The first set of fabrics are likely to be destroyed in the cremation of
the body because of high heat, but the second set of textiles might have survived
because they would have been exposed to lower temperatures, and the materials
would have incompletely burned prior to extinguishing the fire with clay. Since
combustion was stifled, i.e. oxygen was removed, more textiles may be preserved
from this type of burning situation in comparison to those in the cremations
themselves.
When a large communal burial was constructed with an accompanying cache
of artifacts, both charred and uncharred textiles are expected to be found. While
charred textiles may survive incomplete combustion in the crematory, uncharred
textiles could come from textiles used to transport burned remains and from textiles
added to the cache. The fact that Tremper included only charred textiles indicates
85
that they had to have been exposed to low heat. This would imply that any textiles
such as those used to transport cremated remains or those added to the gravesite
would have to have been charred in a second burning or last ceremony. Neither of
these possibilities are noted in the literature.
The use of textiles to move cremated remains from the basins to prepared
burial locations should be considered. Bags, like the one reported to have been
found at Hopewell Mound 25 (Shetrone 1926), are a possible means of transport
as are large flat textiles, comparable to the coarse matting described in several of
the sites. Textiles used for transportation would need to be closely constructed in
order to hold ash and residue. Transport textiles would be expected to be charred
if a fabric was used to move the human remains, and a second burning ceremony
was subsequently performed. From the literature, such a scenario is expected at
Seip and Harness.
Mills (1907) also mentioned charred textiles at “shrines” (reflected in closely
spaced post-holes) in Seip Mound 2. Whether charred textiles were associated
with a specific burial or came from the shrines, they were associated with some sort
of burning and therefore were particularly related to burial ceremonies in some
manner.
Uncharred textiles can be accounted for in several different ways. Textiles
could be used to transport cremated remains. Textiles were also placed on top of
the cremated body and grave goods after these were moved to log crypts. The
grave was covered over with logs. There is no mention of a last ceremony in which
86
these textiles would have been charred. In addition, some uncharred fabrics are
thought to belong to the canopy of the Great Multiple Burial at Seip-Pricer.
The textile fragments actually found at these sites do not reflect the expected
outcomes shown in the flowchart in all cases. In the case when a last ceremony is
known to have been performed, only charred textiles would be expected but both
charred and uncharred textiles were found. Sites at which the last ceremony is
known to have been practiced (Harness, Hopewell, Seip Mound 2) also had burials
where uncharred textiles were found. This would indicate that some textiles were
added after the burning of the human remains occurred. In contrast, at Tremper, no
final ceremony is described yet all recovered textiles were charred. Thus a final
burning in situ at the grave/communal cache is indicated.
2.5 Previous Studies of Ohio Hopewellian Textiles
Over the past one hundred years Ohio Hopewellian textiles have been studied
by many different investigators for diverse reasons. The excavation reports provide
some information on the textile fragments. Earlier in this discussion Mills (1907,
1909, 1916); Shetrone (1926); and Shetrone and Greenman (1931), were
summarized with comments on correlations between the reports and specimens
housed at the OHS. Later research studies that focused on the textiles themselves
are reviewed here, with similar comments on ability to trace information in these
reports to particular textile fragments at the OHS.
87
2.5.1 Willoughby
Willoughby (1938) found no evidence for use of the loom in the production of
Ohio mound fabrics. He attributed their survival to “. . . carbonization and (they are)
of a jet black in color (p. 273).” Most of the other textiles that survived were exposed
to copper which, according to Willoughby, preserved their “original colors and texture
so perfectly that the identification of the species of plant furnishing the fiber is possible
(p. 274).” This claim of plant identification is curious. Currently the plant species of
textile fragments in collections today have not been able to be identified, making
the plant identifications of Willoughby and others in the early twentieth century
questionable.
Willoughby (1938) classified the fabrics into three types according to the
“warp” or vertical cords used in construction; a group of strands not twisted together
but held together by the “woof” or horizontal cords; one or more strands twisted
counter clockwise; and two cords plied together in a clockwise direction. He labeled
the construction of the cloth as weaving but in fact, more recent investigators have
shown that the textiles were more likely produced by twining (Sibley, Swinker, and
Jakes 1991). He divided the construction of the textiles into six types; 1) braided or
checked; 2) simple in and out weaving; 3) twilled weaving; 4) simple twined weaving
both opened and closed; 5) twilled-twined weaving both opened and closed; and,
6) coiled netting. Braided/checked textiles were found both charred and preserved
by copper at Seip. Willoughby (1938) was able to identify rabbit hair twined into the
vegetal yarns of braided textiles. Fabrics with simple in and out weaving were found
88
at Hopewell, while fabrics with twilled weaving formed from vegetal fibers and
“carbonized” by heat and smoke were found at Tremper. Without the presence of
selvages on the fragments the classification of these fabrics as woven is called into
question. Simple twined weaving was found in various degrees of fineness with
various cord types at Tremper, Seip (plant fiber identified as swamp milkweed,
Asclepias incarnata), and Harness. Twill-twined fabrics, made of swamp milkweed,
were identified at Seip as well. Fragments of coiled netting, thought to be parts of
bags, were found in the Hopewell mound group (Willoughby 1938).
Willoughby did not label the specimens he studied, making it difficult to locate
the materials at the OHS that he described. His survey of different types of textile
fragments is only a beginning for present-day investigators. Without identification
of the fragments, the usefulness of the information he relates is limited.
2.5.2 Church
Forty years after Willoughby’s efforts, Church (1984) looked at Ohio
Hopewellian textiles as markers of social identities. She reviewed textiles from
Harness, Hopewell, and Seip. Church based her theoretical framework on Binford
(1972), Wobst (1977) and Strathern and Strathern (1971) suggesting “. . . that
some of the textiles in the present study represent clothing that functioned to make
statements concerning the social well-being of an individual.. . . not because of
individual wealth, but because of their specific social roles.” (Church 1984:3-4).
Church analyzed 62 specimens that were > 1cm x 1cm area. Some had provenience,
89
and the fragments were charred or preserved by copper. She established that the
fragments were from burial mounds, but could not determine which specific mound
or grave. She could not determine whether fragments that were housed together
were from one textile or just stored together. Although Church assigned numbers
to the fragments she studied, they are not labeled as such, thus limiting the
usefulness of her research for future investigations.
Church (1984) identified 13 construction patterns as opposed to the six
categorized by Willoughby (1938), with alternate-pair weft twining the most common
construction. Oblique interlacing and open-pairs crossed by pairs were the only
two other construction patterns represented by more than two examples. Since
specimens could not be matched with a specific provenience in most cases, Church
did not draw any conclusions about individual graves.
2.5.3 Hinkle
In Hinkle’s (1984) master’s thesis on the use of Hopewellian textiles as a
medium for the exchange of social and stylistic information, she reports a study of
154 textile fragments from ten Ohio Hopewellian mounds (Fortney, Rutledge, Mound
City, Harness, Rockhold, Seip, Hopewell, Ater, Tremper, Russell Brown 3) housed
at the OHS and other facilities.
Hinkle used Wobst’s (1977) information exchange model as her theoretical
basis. Wobst’s (1977) model stated that stylistic behavior is a strategy for the
exchange of information within and between groups.
90
In his model, artifacts are
divided into three groups by the distance at which they can be seen. Category 1
includes items of clothing that are seen from a farther distance and can convey
information, such as headdresses and coats. Included in category 2 are items that
can convey information when seen at a closer distance, such as jackets, pants,
and skirts. Category 3 includes items recognized only at short distances, such has
shoes and decorative items. Category 1 and 2 items have a wide distribution of
use and identify the social group to which a person belongs. Category 3 items
define a person’s rank (wealth, status, age).
The five questions Hinkle pursued in her work are 1) What is the context of
textile use? 2) Does a hierarchy of style exist in Wobst’s terms? 3) What variables/
attributes are regionally significant? 4) What are the spatial units of textile attribute
patterning? 5) What is the diversity of attributes present at each site in the sample?
Hinkle also did not leave records labeling the particular “carbonized” and
mineralized specimens she used. She had an identification system but there are no
markings in the records of OHS to indicate the chosen specimens. She did find
twenty-five specimens on copper that had intrasite provenience data. She recorded
fabric structure, fabric components, and a description for each specimen. Hinkle
found that the more visible attributes of the textile fragments were variable across
all contexts and that the style reflects functional differences. She also found tentative
evidence for a hierarchy of style. The yarn count and diameter of the “weft” yarns
were found to distinguish regions, as were seven weaving variations, which are
91
restricted to particular sites. Geographical groupings were different for each attribute
reviewed for the textile fragments.
2.5.4 White
White (1987) examined thirty-five charred fragments and 1101 copper pieces
from the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Seventy percent of the copper
pieces have “gauze like” (oblique interlacing) textile impressions or adhering
preserved textiles. She believes the gauze was used in processing the copper to
give it a shiny surface or that the white cloth might have also had a ritual purpose
providing protection for the piece. She identified compact weft twined tapestry, a
compact weft twined bag from charred fragments, and compact plain weave in the
fragments. She proposed that bags were used for burial of copper artifacts. No
other researcher identified compact plain weave in Hopewellian textiles. Oblique
interlacing was the most common of heavier fabrics (not gauze) associated with
copper celts and earspools. Breastplates, sheet covered lumps, and cutouts were
most associated with alternate pair twining. She believed that textiles on breastplates
and earspools were decoration for the artifacts rather than that they were present
due to association with the burials. Fur, feathers, and down were also found. Yarns
in the charred textiles were S twist with an average diameter of 1.2 mm. The yarns
with Z twist had an average diameter of 6.4mm. Yarn ply was not mentioned. Most
charred textiles are weft close twining and most copper preserved textiles are oblique
interlacing.
92
2.5.5 Song
Song (1991) thoroughly reviewed the Seip textiles at the OHS for textile
production and utilization behaviors they exhibit. Song marked the textiles she
took samples from but they do not correspond directly with the identification numbers
found in her dissertation. In particular she looked at the fiber morphology of the
textile fragments. Although most fibers were bast, she also found evidence for
animal fibers, specifically rabbit or hare in uncharred fragments of oblique structures
that exhibit evidence of painting. Fragments containing bast fibers alone were
constructed by alternate, oblique, and two strand twining. They were stained
randomly, with ovals, or unstained. The blackened textiles were made of fractile
brittle fibers which could not be distinguished as animal or bast by light microscopy,
or scanning electon microscopy. By examining and comparing the different fibers
from the textiles she postulated that fibers with larger widths are likely to be part of
the randomly stained textile fragments. Since different fiber types were often
associated with different visual and construction types, Song concluded that there
were different functions assigned to the different types of textiles.
2.5.6 Carr and Maslowski
Carr and Maslowski (1995) reviewed data from Hinkle (1984) discussing the
form of the fabrics, technology of their manufacture and the social processes of
their manufacture, e.g. craft specialization or trade. They disagree with Hinkle’s
(1984) use of Emery’s structural classification system for fabrics, using instead a
93
framework that considers behavioral and manufacturing processes by analyzing
style and manufacturing decisions. They claim that the more visible traits, such as
spacing of yarns, were viable measurements to distinguish textiles made at different
geographical sites. The less visible traits, such as twist and yarn size, were found
to be the same across all of the geographical areas included in their research.
They claim that the yarn spacing found in textiles also can be used to distinguish
the status of the individual buried with the textile.
2.5.7 Wimberley
Wimberley (2002) reviewed Hopewellian textiles preserved on copper
artifacts, looking for evidence that copper artifacts were bagged or wrapped before
being deposited. Seip and Hopewell had the most examples of textiles adhering to
copper as compared to Rockhold, Liberty, Ater, and Fort Ancient mounds.
Headplates were found to have no textile evidence, celts displayed some and
breastplates displayed the most. Usually only one textile was identifiable on a
single copper artifact. Few textile remnants on the breastplates were found with fur
or feather components. The twining structures recognized were oblique interlacing,
spaced two-strand weft twining, compact alternate pair twining, and spaced alternatepair twining. Wimberley found that between-site and between artifact type
occurrence conclusions could not be drawn because of the sample skew toward
Seip and Hopewell. There was not a dramatic difference in yarn diameter between
sites. The fabric frequencies Wimberley found echo those of Church (1984). While
94
Wimberley proposed that textiles may have served as bags or wrappings, the data
were not conclusive.
95
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
In order to explore the usefulness of textiles in inferring Hopewellian burial
practices, the textiles housed at OHS were employed. Selected fragments from
Hopewellian sites were examined and particular characteristics were evaluated.
3.1 Ohio Historical Society Collections
The Ohio Historical Society (OHS) houses the largest Hopewell textile
collection specifically drawn from Ohio mound sites. The textile fragments range
from charred textiles with no visual evidence of surface decoration to non-charred
textiles with definite applied designs. Textile fragments are housed from Toephner
(Adena), Niles-Wolford (Adena), Westenhaver (Adena), Tremper (Hopewell),
Rutledge (Hopewell), Harness (Hopewell), Hopewell (Hopewell), Seip (Hopewell),
South Park (late prehistoric), Canter’s Cave (period unknown), and Spiro
(Mississippian) sites. As discussed in the Assumption and Limitation section only
Hopewell textile fragments were used in this study. This comprised artifacts from
Harness, Hopewell, Tremper, and Seip. The only textile fragments from Rutledge
were preserved on copper objects and therefore were not included in the study.
The glass plates or containers housing the textile fragments are labeled with site
name, site number, and sometimes a date. Usually the specific mound at a site is
96
not given nor a specific grave or area. For this reason most of the Mills, Shetrone,
and Greenman reports can be associated with the fragments only in general terms.
3.2 Site Report Review and Correlations
Site reports were reviewed for pertinent information of burial context and
grave goods. These data were correlated with textile fragments housed at the
OHS from the mound sites. Tables and summaries were presented in the section
of this dissertation reviewing archaeological reports, and the OHS holdings. A Burial
Practice Framework was also developed from burial context information provided
in the site reports. These components of this dissertation provide the context for
analysis of the textile fragment population at the OHS.
3.3 Considered Textile Population
Over two hundred specimens from Harness, Hopewell, Tremper, and Seip
were examined. The fragments were categorized into eight groups based on visual
evidence (Table 3.1). Sample overview images of the fragments can be found in
Appendix A.
From the pool of all available textiles at the OHS, those < 3cm x 3cm were
eliminated. Others were eliminated from the pool because they were so degraded
in fabric structure or yarn structure that information could not be determined.
Because a large number of Seip textiles with surface design (oval, lobed, ellipse)
are housed at the OHS that are presently attributed to a single textile (the canopy),
97
Visual
Category
1) Charred no
surface
design
2) Charred
surface
design
3) noncharred no
surface
design
4) noncharred green
oval surface
design
5) noncharred green
clover-like
surface
design
6) noncharred green
ellipse surface
design
7) noncharred netlike
appearance
8) noncharred
red/yellow
coloration
Total
Site
Seip
106+
Harness
20+
Hopewell
5
0
0
28
0
3
2
2
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
26
0
23+
7
199
24+
Table 3.1: Total Number of Textile Fragments in Visual Categories
98
Tremper
24+
representative fragments of this type were selected. This was done by assigning
each fragment a number and randomly selecting fragments by a computer generated
list until a total of ten were selected. This allowed the statistics not to be overwhelmed
by the volume of these types of textiles that met the size criterion. Thus the final
pool for this study included sixty-three specimens that met the size criterion, had
fabric structure and yarn structure intact, and were not attached to copper objects.
These specimens were used for further study (Table 3. 2).
3.4 Assessment of Site Textiles
Using the digital images, the fabric structure of the textiles was examined.
A checklist incorporating parts of Kuttruff’s (1993) Textile Production Complexity
Index was developed (Figure 3.1). Data were collected in a three step process.
First, each textile was photographed in an overview shot and identification information
recorded. Measurements of the specimen area were also taken to eliminate textiles
smaller than 3 cm x 3 cm. If fragments were grouped together in glass frames they
were photographed as one unit for the overall shot. This allowed the researcher to
identify individual fragments as needed, a consideration not taken in past studies.
In the future information collected can be referenced to individual fragments and
those fragments can be located. Second, close-up photographs were taken of
99
Visual
Category
Charred no
surface
design
Charred
surface
design
non-charred
no surface
design
non-charred
green oval
surface
design
non-charred
green cloverlike surface
design
non-charred
green ellipse
surface
design
non-charred
net-like
appearance
non-charred
red/yellow
coloration
Total
Site
Seip
12
Harness
2
Hopewell
3
Tremper
13
0
0
10
0
4
1
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
6
4
40
13
Table 3.2: Textile Fragments in Visual Categories That Met Selection Criteria
100
Site Name:__________________
Site Number:________________
County:__________________
Accession No:____________
Provenience:______________________________________________________
Reference information of past Researcher:
_________________________________________
Collector:______________________
Location:__________________
References:_______________________________________________________
Radiocarbon Date (if available):____________________________________
Fabric Dimension l__________w_________cm
Fabric Structure:_________________________________________
Ave Yarn Diameter: l_________w__________cm (1cm length and 1cm width for
every 3cm x 3cm)
l_________w__________cm
l_________w__________cm
l_________w__________cm
l_________w__________cm
l_________w__________cm
l_________w__________cm
Yarn Twist Direction: yarn____________ply___________single______________
Yarn/cm: l____________w______________
Apparent Style:
Open
Compact
Colors apparent_______________________
Any Design noticeable__________________
Other________________________________
Description/Comments:
Figure 3.1: Information Checklist adapted from Kuttruff 1993
101
each fragment at 7x magnification. These photographs were used for further yarn
and fabric analysis. Finally the fragments included in the study were rechecked to
make sure they were correctly placed into one of the eight visual categories as
listed in Table 3.2.
3.5 Labels in the Ohio Historical Society
Textile fragments in the OHS are not individually accessioned. When the
fragments were collected they were often stored together in boxes with little
information other than the mound from which they were gathered. It is unknown, in
many cases, whether they were part of the same textile or only stored together for
convenience. Later, many of the textiles were placed in glass frames for protection.
Those inhabiting the same frame have similarities, but the criteria for placing them
together are unknown. Also, the large number of small fragments and their fragile
nature make attaching labels directly to them impossible. For this reason two
identifying types of information were recorded for each fragment. First, any labeling
placed on the glass plates and boxes by researchers and curators in the past were
recorded, allowing future location of the fragments. Second, each fragment used
was assigned a sample number specification in a manner similar to that used by
Song (1991). While the same system was used (Figure 3.2) there was no way to
correlate Song’s samples to Song’s numbers, therefore numbers were assigned as
the fragments were encountered. Modifications to Song’s numbering system were
made. First, since only fragments in glass plates and boxes were reviewed, there
102
ABCDE–FGHI
A B: number of glass plate or box (01-55)
C D: number of individual fabric fragment within each glass plate or copper
breastplate (numbers run from anywhere between 00 to 20; the number of 00 is
given if only one piece of fabric fragment is in the glass plate or box)
E: number of yarn sample taken from each textile sample selected for study (1 to
3)
F: construction type 1: 2 strand weft twining; 2: spaced 2 strand alternate-pair
weft twining; 3 spiral interlinking; 4 compact 2 strand alternate pair weft twining;
5 compact 2 strand weft twining
G: blackened vs. unblackened (1 if blackened, 2 if unblackened)
H: applied design: 1 decorated, not blackened; 0 undecorated, not blackened; 2
decorated, blackened; 3 not visibly decorated blackened
I: painted vs. unpainted, 0 if unpainted including all the blackened, 1 if painted
Figure 3.2: Sample Number Specification adapted from Song 1991
103
was no need to number breastplates as Song (1991) had done. Second, construction
type was coded by each type not just alternate pair twining or pooled as Song had
done. Third, the category “type of staining” was replaced by applied design and
defined as four types instead of two.
3.6 Fabric Types and Coloration
Fabric structure of the fragments was identified according to Emery’s (1966)
classification system. Coloration and applied design were also noted.
3.7 Sampling Decisions
For each fragment, yarn measures were randomly chosen. This was
accomplished by dividing each sample into 3cm x 3cm squares. Measurements
were made in a 1 cm region in the twining direction and the filling direction in each
3cm x 3cm square.
Since few selvages were preserved, yarn systems were established. Yarn
system A is defined as yarns held in place in the fragments. A corollary term is
“filling” yarn. Yarn system B is defined as the yarns that are twined or function as
yarn that bind system A. In the case of spiral interlinking, where only one set of
elements are used, only fragments with selvages were selected for the final study.
Spiral interlinking fragments were measured with the selvage placed at the bottom
of the photograph and yarns moving to the right taken as yarn system A and yarns
moving to the left as yarn system B. Even though spiral interlinking is made of only
104
one element that interlinks, yarn systems A and B were imposed upon this fabric
structure for comparison.
Metric data for each sample were averaged, nonmetric data (color, ply, twist,
spin, applied design) were noted and the most frequent descriptor assumed as
representative of the specimen. All measurement information was recorded in
Microsoft Excel spreadsheets (for an example see Appendix B).
3.8 Digital Imaging and Analysis
Digital images were collected with a Nikon CoolPix 990 camera. For sample
overview shots a copy stand and room lighting were used. For individual samples
a Bausch and Lomb StereoZoom 4 macroscope and Dolan-Jenner fiber-lite was
used. Images collected were analyzed with a Zeiss Axiovision image analysis
system. The software was calibrated for the magnification of the digital images.
Measurements include number of yarns, space between yarns, and diameter of
yarns in the chosen 1 cm sections for both yarn systems. Information was also
collected on the specimens to identify number of plies and the direction of plying,
whether the yarn was spun, and the direction of spinning for yarn systems A and B.
105
3.9 Coding
While a sample number specification was given to each fragment in the
study for identification, other coding and information was also included for statistical
processing. For a sample spread sheet see Appendix B.
3.10 Statistics
Minitab 13 was used for ANOVA General Linear Model (GLM) analysis,
Logistic Regression, and basic statistical charts. For each photograph the metric
data was averaged, then measurements made on all photos of each textile were
averaged. This provided an average for each measurement type for yarn systems
A and B for each fragment. The Tukey Multiple Comparisons Method was included
to compare the dependent variables by the different means for levels of independent
variables (4 sites, 5 fabrics types, etc.). Categorical variables were analyzed with
binary logistic regression. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis
performed with S Plus was used to prepare models for categorizing the data. The
CART procedure was chosen because it does not assume normality of the data.
106
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results and statistical analysis will be discussed in this chapter. Interpretation
of these results as well as interpretations from information gathered in the review of
literature and site reports will also be included.
4.1 Description of Samples
Table 4.1 provides a categorical description of the sixty-three samples from
the four sites examined in this study. The larger portion of the textile fragments are
from Seip. One single fabric structure type was identified for the Harness and
Hopewell sites. Seip and Tremper each had four identifiable fabric structures. Fabric
structures observed at Seip, Tremper, and Harness are the same as those observed
by Willoughby (1938). The structures of the fabrics observed at the Hopewell site
are different from those reported by Willoughby (1938). Contrary to Church’s (1984)
assessment of textiles, fabrics of spaced two strand alternate-pair weft twining did
not predominate the structures observed.
Only two fabric constructions (spiral
interlinking and compact two strand weft twining) were found in a single site (Seip
and Tremper respectively) unlike Hinkle (1984) who found seven fabric structures
that were unique to particular sites.
107
Site
# Specimens
# Specimens
in Site that
are Charred
# Specimens
in Site of
each Fabric
Structure
Fabric State
# Specimens
Applied
Design
# Specimens
Style
# Specimens
Yarn twist A
# Specimens
Spin
direction of
plies A
# Specimens
Number of
Plies A
# Specimens
Yarn twist B
# Specimens
Spin
direction of
plies B
# Specimens
Number of
Plies B
# Specimens
Harness
6
4
Category Level Description
Hopewell
Seip
4
40
3
22
1-20
1-0
2-13
2-4
3-4
3-0
4-2
4-0
5-0
5-0
Category Level Description
Uncharred
Charred
21
42
Decorated
Undecorated
Decorated
uncharred
uncharred
charred
13
8
10
Category Level Description
Open
Compact
4
59
Category Level Description
S
Z
52
6
S
Z
1-6
2-0
3-0
4-0
5-0
5
0
3
S
50
S
13
1
Totals
Tremper
13
13
63
42
1-3
2-2
3-0
4-3
5-5
29
19
4
5
5
63
Undecorated
charred
32
63
62
58
18
2
0
59
Category Level Description
Z
4
Z
7
0
9
1
2
7
1
55
62
54
16
63
Table 4.1: Categorical Description of Samples
Note: Fabric Structure Key: 1= 2 strand weft twining; 2= spaced 2 strand
alternate-pair weft twining; 3= spiral interlinking; 4= compact 2 strand alternatepair weft twining; 5= compact 2 strand weft twining.
108
Harness, Hopewell, and Seip each had a portion of samples that were not
charred, while all of the samples from Tremper were charred. A majority of the
samples for all four sites were charred reflecting the practice of cremation or some
burning cermony in Ohio mound sites. Of the charred samples, ten exhibit visible
designs. Of the uncharred samples, thirteen exhibit applied designs. A majority of
the specimens were visually judged to be compact in style. Most yarns were found
to be two ply, predominately plied in the S direction. The spinning direction for the
yarn singles was predominantly in the Z direction. The consistency of spin direction
degrees with Carr and Maslowski’s (1995) proposal that twist is pan-regional.
4.2 Analysis of Variance For All Samples
In order to explore whether specific textile characteristics can be used to
distinguish different fabric structures, fabric states, sites, and styles, thereby allow
inferences to be made about different Hopewellian cultural practices, Analysis of
Variance techniques of the data were performed. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
techniques based on a General Linear Model were completed for the six
measurements: yarns per cm yarn system A, yarns per cm yarn system B, the
space between yarns in yarn system A, the space between yarns in yarn system B,
yarn diameter in yarn system A, and yarn diameter in yarn system B. The independent
factors included were site, fabric structure, style, fabric state, and applied design
(Table 4.2). Coloration was originally presumed to be an attribute to consider,
109
Independent
Factors
Site
Fabric
Structure
Style
Fabric State
Applied
Design
Yarns /
cm A
.074
.006
Yarns /
cm B
.000
.560
Space A
Space B
.001
.103
Diameter
A
.045
.003
Diameter
B
.358
.000
.957
.004
.247
.186
.252
.336
.129
.106
.812
.749
.771
.149
.044
.058
.572
.217
.928
.167
.018
.191
Table 4.2: ANOVA GLM Results for p, Yarn Measurements, α = 0.05
110
however there were too many empty cells for this to be successfully incorporated
in the model.
There is a statistically significant difference between sites with respect to the
parameter of yarns per cm in system B, space between yarns in system B, and
yarn diameter in system A. The yarns per cm in system A parameter is moderately
significant being close to α = 0.05 level. The yarns per cm in systems A and B refer
to the “expense” of the fabric; the larger the number of yarns in a cm of fabric the
more effort was required to produce the fabric (Jakes and Ericksen 1997, Tiedemann
2001). The space between yarns for yarn system B, which is the binding yarn,
refers to how often the fabric is interlaced. This could be a desired trait for the
appearance of the fabric, or required in order to yield greater pliability of the fabric.
With fewer binding yarns (yarn system B) more filling yarns (yarn system A) or open
space is seen. A fabric with fewer interlacings is more drapeable.
The diameter of the yarns refers to the fineness of the yarns. Finer yarns
allow closer interlacings. When comparing fabrics with the same number of system
A and B yarns, finer yarns result in more room, i.e. more space, between yarns.
When differences in fineness of yarns are found site to site and fabric to fabric, it
can be inferred that textiles were produced by local groups each with their own
levels of craftsmanship.
There is a statistically significant difference between different fabric structures
for the parameters yarns per cm system A, space between yarns system A, and
diameter of yarn in systems A and B. Some differences were expected between
111
different fabric structures and these are likely to be linked to the intentional use of
the fabric as well as to aesthetics. The yarns per cm system A (the number of yarns
in the filling) and the space between these yarns are indicators of the covering
power. Covering power refers to the textile’s ability to hide what is placed beneath
it. Comparing fabrics with the same number of yarns, filling yarns of large diameter
produce fabrics with more covering power at less cost in time and effort. A fabric
with fine yarns and the same covering power would need many more yarns requiring
more time and effort to produce. Differences in these measurements between
different fabric structures can explain if yarn diameters were alike across fabrics or
different indicating whether certain yarn sizes were exclusive to one type of fabric.
Differences in covering power and yarn strength between fabric structures may
reflect different fabric uses. Compact fabrics with high covering power and strength
can be used to hold small things, while a more open fabric structure with high
strength can be used to hold larger items, for example an open structure could
serve as netting. An open structure made of fine yarns with less strength might be
more decorative than utilitarian.
There is no statistical significance of style for any of the dependent variables.
This is a subjective measurement in which a fabric was judged to be open or compact
by visual inspection. A continuum based on precise measurements to label a textile
fragment as open or compact would be a more accurate indicator of compactness.
The yarns per cm and yarn diameter measurements made in this work would be
suitable for such a gauge to be developed.
112
There is a statistically significant difference in charred and uncharred fabrics
in the factors of space between yarns and in the diameter of system B yarns. Rather
than assume that the differences are due to difference in the fabric structures as
they were manufactured, it its likely that these differences between charred and
uncharred fabrics are a consequence of the exposure to heat that the charred
materials have undergone.
There is a moderate statistical significance in applied design for the parameter
of space between yarns in the system B direction. The larger the spaces between
yarns are in the B direction the looser the binding structure; the smaller the space
the tighter the binding structure.
4.3 Tukey Comparisons For All Samples
The Analysis of Variance technique indicates significance for measurements
in site, fabric structure, fabric state and applied design, however, it does not
discriminate which levels of the independent factors were significant.
Tukey’s Comparison Method was used to discover which levels of the
independent factors could be distinguished from each other in pairwise comparisons
of the metric measurements. The results for Site, Fabric Structure, and Applied
Design are in Tables 4.3, 4.5, and 4.8. Because Fabric State has only two levels
there was no need to run a Tukey’s Comparison on the data. Basic statistics and p
values can be found in Appendix C. Only those comparisons with p < .05 are
reported here.
113
Site
Harness
Harness
--
Hopewell
Seip
Yarns / cm A,
Diameter A
Diameter A
Tremper
Space B
Hopewell
Yarn / cm A,
Diameter A
--
Seip
Diameter A
Tremper
Space B
Yarns / cm B
0
Yarns / cm B
--
0
Yarns / cm B,
Space B
Yarns / cm B,
Space B
--
Table 4.3: Textile Parameters found to be Significantly Different between Sites,
Tukey Comparison For All Samples
Variable
A yarn/cm
Harness
5.53+2.61
Hopewell
12.13+7.40
Seip
9.89+5.73
Tremper
5.21+4.10
B yarn/cm
A space
/ cm
B space
/ cm
A Diameter in
cm
B Diameter in
cm
1.78+1.64
.05+.06
.66+1.23
.02+.02
5.61+1.81
.04+.06
2.31+1.36
.14+.22
.21+.32
.10+.20
.11+.08
.37+.26
.17+.05
.08+.06
.08+.04
.11+.06
.10+.05
.04+.05
.07+.04
.12+.05
Table 4.4: Means and Standard Deviation of Textile Parameters at each Site
114
Fabric
Structure
2 strand
weft
spaced 2
strand
alternatepair weft
Diameter B
spiral
interlinking
compact 2
strand
alternatepair weft
Diameter B 0
compact 2
strand weft
2 strand
weft
spaced 2
strand
alternatepair weft
-Diameter
B
--
0
Yarns / cm A,
Space A,
Diameter A,
Diameter B
spiral
Diameter
interlinking B
compact 2 0
strand
alternatepair weft
0
Yarns / cm
A,
Diameter
A,
Diameter B
Yarns / cm
A, Space
A,
Diameter
A,
Diameter B
compact 2
strand
weft
Space A
Space A
--
Yarns / cm
A,
Diameter
A,
Diameter B
Diameter B
Diameter B
Diameter B
--
Space A
Diameter B
Space A
--
Table 4.5: Textile parameters found to be Significantly Different between Fabric
Structure, Tukey Comparisons For All Samples
115
Variable
2 strand
weft
6.72+2.90
spaced 2
strand
alternatepair weft
15.27+5.15
A yarn/cm
B yarn/cm
4.05+2.09
A space
/ cm
B space
/ cm
A Diameter
in cm
B Diameter
in cm
spiral
interlinking
4.85+1.28
compact 2
strand
alternatepair weft
4.07+2.62
compact 2
strand weft
3.92+.86
5.35+2.96
5.75+.57
3.45+1.35
2.46+.58
.04+.07
.02+.04
0.06+.02
.04+.08
.30+.14
.19+.23
.15+.17
.05+.03
.21+.11
.30+.08
.11+.04
.05+.02
.04+.01
.13+.08
.14+.04
.10+.04
.03+.02
.04+.01
.12+.02
.15+.02
Table 4.6: Means and Standard Deviations of Textile Parameters in each Fabric
Structure
Variable
B space/ cm
Uncharred
5.9+2.0
Charred
3.5+2.32
B Diameter in cm
.05+.03
.10+.05
Table 4.7: Means and Standard Deviation of Textile Parameters for the Two
Fabric States All Samples.
116
Applied
Design
Decorated
uncharred
Undecorated
uncharred
Decorated
charred
Undecorated
charred
Decorated
uncharred
--
Undecorated
uncharred
0
Decorated
charred
Space B
Undecorated
charred
0
0
--
0
0
Space B
0
--
0
0
0
0
--
Table 4.8: Textile Parameters found to be Significantly Different between Textiles
With and Without Applied Designs
Variable
B space
Decorated Uncharred
.15+.21
Decorated Charred
.09+ .09
Table 4.9: Means and Standard Deviation of Textile Parameters in Textiles With
and Without Applied Designs
117
Those factors that are significantly different between site pairs are
summarized in Table 4.3. No particular single feature stands out as a key indicator
in all cases. Rather, different measurements distinguish different site pairs. System
A yarns at Harness are twice the size of the yarns of Hopewell or Seip. Harness
textiles have half the yarns per cm in the system A direction than do Hopewell
textiles. Holding yarns per cm constant a fabric made with thicker yarns would
provide more covering power but have less drapeability.
Fabrics from Harness have less space between yarns in the system B
direction than fabrics from Tremper. When comparing the two strand weft twined
fabrics of Harness and Tremper, Harness textile fragments had more interlacings
(all other things held constant) and therefore would be less drapeable and more
compact.
Seip textiles have more yarns per cm in the system B direction than do
Hopewell textiles; they are much more compact. In comparing the three fabric
structures that Seip and Tremper have in common (two strand weft twining; spaced
two strand alternate-pair weft twining; compact two strand alternate-pair weft twining),
Seip textiles have on average less space between yarns in the system B direction,
meaning that they interlace more frequently , are more compact , and would be less
drapeable.
Measures that are significantly different between each of the fabric structure
pairs are summarized in Table 4.5. No particular single feature stands out as a key
indicator in all cases. Rather, different measurements distinguish different fabric
118
structure pairs. The most prevalent distinguishing measurement is the diameter of
systems A and B yarns, which indicate that a smaller yarn was used for spaced two
strand alternate-pair weft twining and spiral interlinking than in the other three fabric
structures. Since any of the fabric structures could have been produced with any
size yarn, the use of a finer yarn in certain fabrics would indicate specific intent in
the fabric’s manufacture. Perhaps certain yarn sizes were desired for aesthetic
reasons rather than functional ones. Both spaced two strand alternate-pair weft
twining and spiral interlinking are open, lace-like or net-like structures. Using smaller
yarns would produce a more delicate and more flexible or drapeable fabric.
Fabrics made by spiral interlinking were found only at Seip and none were
charred. The open structure of this fabric is decorative and not suited to holding or
moving small items. Following the Burial Practices Framework (Figure 2.24), it can
be seen that spiral interlinking recovered from Seip had to have come from a noncremated burial or was added as grave goods after cremation in one of the log
crypts. Because only charred spaced two stand alternate weft twining was found at
Tremper and Hopewell, this textile structure was specifically associated with burning
at these sites. Because both charred and uncharred examples were found at Seip,
the fabric structure can be seen to be one that is used in all burials. In fact it may be
a fabric with specific significance since the alleged canopy fragments are made of
the same construction. No fabrics of this type were found at Harness. Perhaps the
local craftsman did not make this type of fabric. If burial practice rituals had been
119
prescribed and communicated across these Hopewellian sites, structure of fabric
was not included in the requirements.
Fabrics made with two strand weft twining were found at all sites except
Hopewell. In Harness and Tremper these fabrics were charred, while at Seip both
charred and uncharred examples were found. As with spaced two strand alternatepair weft twining, perhaps this textile had special purposes or roles in burial practice.
It is curious that Hopewell, the largest site and proposed location of major
manufacturing, did not have examples of all types of fabrics.
Charred examples of compact two strand alternate-pair weft twining were
found at Tremper. Uncharred examples were found at Seip. Only Tremper held
fabrics of charred compact two strand weft twining. Both fabric structures are fairly
compact and at these sites they were made with large diameter yarns. This would
make them ideal in serving a purpose as a bag. Perhaps they were used to move
cremated remains from the crematory basins to the grave sites. At Seip, where the
corpses were burned and transported to a prepared burial and a last ceremony
performed, the textiles added at the gravesites would also have been exposed to
fire and thereby would have been charred. At Tremper Mound, where a large
communal cremation was performed and remains were placed in a large communal
grave, no uncharred textiles were recovered. Therefore, it can be inferred that
textiles used to transport cremated remains or added to the communal cache were
subsequently burned in some manner. A final burning in situ at the cache is indicated
since no unburned textiles were found at this site.
120
Only two fabric states are evident, charred (blackened) or uncharred. ANOVA
(Table 4.2) shows that charred and uncharred fabrics differ significantly in the
measurements of space between yarns in system B and diameter of yarns in system
B (Table 4.7). Charred textile fragments on average had smaller spaces between
yarns in the system B direction and were made of yarns with larger diameters.
Although this would indicate more interlacings in charred fabrics and larger yarns in
the B direction the differences are probably linked to the burning process the charred
fabrics have undergone. Heat exposure has been documented to cause yarns to
shrink lengthwise and swell widthwise (Srinivasan and Jakes 1997). Thus the
distinctions between the charred and uncharred fabrics are not structural but more
likely a consequence of the thermal conditions they experienced.
Uncharred textile fragments with an applied design were distinguishable from
charred textiles with a design by the space between the yarns in the system B
direction (Table 4.8). The space between system B yarns was larger for decorated
uncharred fabrics (Table 4.9). Again, these differences are likely to be due to thermal
exposure rather than be differences in the original fabric structures (Srinivasan and
Jakes 1997).
4.4 Tukey Comparisons for Charred Fabric
The charred fabrics are distinguished (Table 4.2) from non-charred fabric by
the parameters of space between yarns and yarn diameter in the system B direction.
Distinctions between the fabric structure of the charred textile fragments (Table
121
4.10) are almost the same dependent variables as those that distinguish fabric
structure for all samples, except in two cases. Diameter of yarns in system A is no
longer a distinguishing factor between spaced two strand alternate-pair weft and
two strand weft or compact two strand alternate-pair weft. Yarns per cm in system
A is a distinguishing factor between spaced two strand alternate-pair weft where it
was not before. Thus by obtaining a few measurements on a small fragment it
might be possible to distinguish fabric structure types on charred material. This
would be particularly useful in examination of the many small fragments of charred
material at the OHS.
Perhaps the distinguishing measurements for charred and uncharred
fragments were similar because the same textiles were used for both types of burials.
No distinction was made between burials that were burned in some manner and
those that were not, but fabric is used in both. The only fabric that was found that
was not charred was spiral interlinking and this fabric structure was only found at
Seip. According to the Burial Practices Framework, this fabric has to come from a
grave with non-cremated remains. In addition, the fabric’s uniqueness reflects
particular craftsmanship and perhaps a special purpose.
4.5 Seip Mound
An ANOVA was performed for samples from Seip to look at a single site’s
textile characteristics (Table 4.11). Fabric Structure was the only factor with
distinguishable differences and it was distinguished by diameter in systems A and
122
Fabric
Structure
2 strand
weft
2 strand weft
--
spaced 2
strand
alternate-pair
weft
compact 2
strand
alternate-pair
weft
compact 2
strand
alternate-pair
weft
Yarns / cm
A
Diameter B
spaced 2
strand
alternate-pair
weft
Yarns / cm A,
Diameter B
--
compact 2 strand
alternate-pair
weft
0
Yarns / cm A,
Diameter B
compact 2
strand
alternatepair weft
Space A
0
Yarns / cm A,
Diameter B
--
Yarns / cm
A, Space A,
Diameter A,
Diameter B
Space A
Space A
Yarns / cm A,
Space A,
Diameter A,
Diameter B
Space A
--
Table 4.10: Textile Parameters found to be Significantly Different between Fabric
Structures, Tukey Comparison Using Charred Fabrics Only
123
Independent
Factors
Fabric
Structure
Style
Fabric State
Yarns /
cm A
.939
Yarns /
cm B
.900
Space A
Space B
.386
.641
Diameter Diameter
A
B
.000
.000
1.000
.812
1.00
.775
.732
.967
.759
.621
.642
.414
Table 4.11: ANOVA GLM Results for p, Seip samples only, α = 0.05
124
.740
.333
B. Based on the non-perishable artifacts Greber (1979, 1983, 1989) states that
individuals with different statuses were found throughout the Seip Mounds. If we
assume the Seip textiles at the OHS were recovered from the graves of a number
of different individuals then many different statuses were represented in the fabrics
as well.
Post hoc Tukey’s Comparison of yarn diameter in systems A and B revealed
that these measurements distinguished some of the fabric structures within Seip
(Table 4.12). The p values for these comparisons and basic statistics can be found
in Appendix C.
The means for yarn diameter in systems A and B show differences in size
that distinguish the fabric structures found in Seip (Table 4.13) Diameter of yarns in
system A and B are much smaller in spaced two strand alternate-pair weft twining
than in two strand weft twining and compact two strand alternate-pair weft twining.
The diameter of yarns in system A in spiral interlinking is also much finer than those
used in compact two strand alternate-pair weft twining. The two structures with
more open spaces are made with yarns of finer diameters, thus giving a more lacelike open appearance.
4.6 Logistic Regression Results
Logistic regression was attempted in order to synthesize the various
categorical factors (spin, twist, and number of plies for systems A and B). In all
cases the model did not converge, reducing its reliability. Since this is not a controlled
125
Fabric
Structure
2 strand
weft
2 strand
weft
spaced 2
strand
alternatepair weft
spiral
interlinking
compact 2
strand
alternatepair weft
--
spaced 2 strand
alternate-pair
weft
A Diameter, B
Diameter
--
spiral
interlinking
0
compact 2
strand alternatepair weft
0
A
Diameter,
B
Diameter
0
0
0
A Diameter, B
Diameter
--
A Diameter
0
A Diameter
--
A Diameter, B
Diameter
Table 4.12: Textile Parameters Found to be Significantly Different Between Fabric
Structure, Tukey Comparisons in Seip Textiles Alone
Note: There were no samples of compact two strand weft twining found at Seip.
126
Variable
2 strand weft
A
.10+.03
Diameter
in cm
B
.10+.04
Diameter
in cm
spaced 2
strand
alternate-pair
weft
.04+.01
.04+.01
compact 2
strand
alternatepair weft
.14+.04
.03+.01
.04+.01
.12+.02
spiral
interlinking
Table 4.13: Means and Standard Deviations of Significant Parameters for Fabric
Structure, Seip Samples
127
experiment, and every factorial cell was not filled, empty cells are likely the cause
of the lack of convergence for the model. These categorical features are summarized
in Table 4.1.
4.7 Classification and Regression Tree
Three different CARTs were carried out: 1) site, 2) fabric structure, and 3)
fabric state. These three independent factors were shown by the analysis of variance
techniques to be influential determinants of distinctions between dependent factors.
All six dependent measures were entered into each CART. In the three CART
analyses, the program did not chose to use all six dependent measures in the tree
construction. Therefore only a limited number of measures were necessary to
classify the groups.
In the Site classification tree (Figure 4.1), the tree was constructed with yarns
per cm in system A and B, diameter in system A, and space between yarns in
system B, thereby confirming those dependent variables found distinctive in the
ANOVA analysis (Table 4.2). The tree was found to have a correct classification
rate of 83%. The first node used yarns per cm B to divide the data set. As can be
seen from the mean number of yarns per cm B (Table 4.4), Seip is separated from
the other three sites. Subsequent measures allow distinction between Harness,
Hopewell, and Tremper textiles. From the CART it can be seen that it would be
possible to measure only a selected set of features on a textile with no provenience
and discern whether the fabric came from one of the four sites. Another use for this
128
yarncmB<3.16667
|
yarncmB<1.5
spaceB<0.153334
yarncmB<5.16667
3
yarncmB<0.32021
2
yarncmA<5.5
3
3
diaA<0.09475
3
1
3
4
Figure 4.1: Classification and Regression Tree Distinguishing Characteristics of
Site.
Key 1= Harness, 2=Hopewell, 3=Seip, 4=T
remper
129
classification tree would be to take a textile from a different Hopewellian site, one
not included in the four, and see which site it is similar to by the textile characteristics.
Classification of a fabric from another mound site as similar to Hopewell, Seip,
Tremper, or Harness might allow inferences to be made about burial practices across
broader Hopewellian groups in addition to the four study sites.
In the classification and regression tree based on fabric structure (Figure
4.2), the outcome of the CART procedure was constructed with the parameters of
yarns per cm in systems A and B, space between yarns in system A and B, and
diameter in system B. These factors are not exactly the same as those dependent
variables found distinctive in the ANOVA (Table 4.2). Since the ANOVA was
constructed with each dependent variable being considered alone while CART
assesses the model using the dependent variables simultaneously, there could be
a difference in the dependent variables shown to be significant by the two analyses.
The tree was found to have a correct classification rate of 84%. The first node used
yarn diameter of system B yarns to divide the data set. Each additional node further
divides the data by measurements into the Fabric Structures of two strand weft
twining; spaced two strand alternate-pair weft twining; spiral interlinking; and compact
two strand alternate-pair weft twining. Compact two strand weft twining was not
distinguished into a separate class by this CART. Compact two strand alternatepair weft twining (fabric structure 4) is so similar to compact two strand weft twining
(fabric structure 5) that the CART cannot separate them. Additional characteristics
are needed to distinguish this fabric structure from the others. With this exception,
130
diaB<0.0474165
|
yarncmA<9.5
3
2
diaB<0.0970835
spaceA<0.0025
1
spaceB<0.051458
1
yarncmB<2.625
1
1
Figure 4.2: Classification and Regression Tree Distinguishing Characteristics of
Fabric Structure
Key:1=2 strand weft twining, 2=spaced 2 strand alternate-pair weft twining,
3=spiral interlinking, 4=compact 2 strand alternate-pair weft twining, 5=compact 2
strand weft twining
131
4
it is possible to measure a limited number of features in fabric fragments and thereby
classify them into fabric structure types. This would be useful for the problematic
fragments housed at the Ohio Historical Society that were deemed to be too small
to use in this study.
The classification and regression tree based on fabric state (Figure 4.3) was
constructed with yarns per cm in system B, space between yarns in system A, and
diameter of yarns in system A and B. These parameters do not match those
dependent variables found distinctive in the ANOVA (Table 4.2). The tree was
found to have a correct classification rate of 89%. The first node used yarn diameter
of system B yarns to divide the data set. Each additional node further divides the
data by measurements into charred or uncharred fabric state. As discussed earlier,
the CART separates charred and uncharred textiles based on parameters that could
be influenced by exposure to heat, rather than by features that are inherently different
in the fabrics prior to burning.
132
diaB<0.0548065
|
diaA<0.0434145
diaA<0.112213
spaceA<0.010857
1
2
2
diaA<0.165834
1
yarncmB<3.15
1
1
2
Figure 4.3: Classification and Regression Tree Distinguishing Characteristics of
Fabric State.
Key 1=charred
2=uncharred
133
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this research is to explore the usefulness of textiles as
indicators of Hopewellian Culture burial practices. The research began with an
analysis of published literature, site reports, recent studies on the sites, cremation
practice information from the site reports and skeletal analyses, and past studies
on Hopewellian textile remains, and was followed by a correlation of those materials
with the textile fragments themselves housed at the Ohio Historical Society.
Evaluation of the textile fragments included photography and analysis of the digital
images to identify visual characteristics, yarn structure, fabric structure, fabric state,
and precise measurements of the fabric components. As a result of gathering
these data a labeling system and photographic catalog was created for the textiles.
This labeling system will enable future researchers to identify the exact textile
fragments studied in this research. Basic statistics, Analysis of Variance, Tukey’s
Comparison Method, Logistic Regression, and Classification and Regression Tree
procedures were performed on data gathered from the textile examination.
Synthesizing these data, characteristics that reflect Hopewellian Culture burial
practices were inferred. The following chapter summarizes the work and discusses
implications.
134
5.1 Correlation of Written Record with the Material Found at the OHS
Examination of textile fragments held at OHS revealed that they represented
the textiles reported by archaeologists only in a general way. When identifiable,
many of the textile structure types photographed in the site reports were found in
OHS collections; however no exact matches could be found for particular
photographed textiles. Moorehead (1922: 168-172) depicts three fabric structures
that were not identified in the textiles housed at the OHS (Figure 2.9 d, e, i). It is
possible that these particular fabrics are held at some other institution. The number
of fragments of each fabric structure recovered could not be established from the
information within the site reports. Exact matches could not be established between
descriptions of textile fragments within the site reports and the records and labels
of the OHS.
A specific example of this problem is the canopy from the Great Multiple
Grave at Seip-Pricer (Shetrone and Greenman 1931). The textile fragments referred
to in this study as non-charred with green oval, elliptical, and clover-like applied
designs have been described by Greber and Otto (personal communication 2002)
as part of the canopy. Shetrone and Greenman (1931) describe the fabric type of
the canopy as “. . . simple open weave corresponding closely to a thin quality of
modern burlap (452).” When they described the structure of fabrics adhering to
copper plates, they used great detail and included an illustration and words, defining
these fabrics as alternate pair weft twining. The fabric structure of the oval, elliptical,
and clover-like applied design textiles is alternate pair weft twining. If the canopy
135
was made of this type of fabric structure, why wasn’t it described as such by Shetrone
and Greenman when so much effort was taken to describe textiles found on copper
plates? Without this confirmation by description, when in contrast Shetrone and
Greenman described 5 other types of weaves found at the site, a question is raised
whether fragments are actually from the canopy. Shetrone and Greenman also did
not mention applied designs on the canopy, and the designs on the fabrics
themselves are quite distinctive. In contrast, the archaeologists did describe designs
on fragments adhering to copper. This lack of description could also be a product
of the lack of regard for perishable goods at the time the excavations occurred,
especially when these textiles were not associated with copper.
Another outcome of the review of the holdings of the OHS textile fragments
was the identification of ten fragments with possible applied designs on charred
textiles, a feature not discussed in any previous literature. This indicates that textiles
with designs were being used in cremation practices. It also indicates that some of
the other charred textiles might have designs even though these designs are no
longer visible.
5.2 Review of Associated Grave Goods
Descriptions of grave goods from the sites revealed no pattern of artifacts
with which textiles were exclusively associated. A complication to this evaluation
was the lack of records for provenience for grave goods at some sites. The presence
of copper in the grave is highly correlated with the presence of textiles. This might
136
be an outcome of the preservative properties of copper rather than exclusive
association with textiles. Textiles do not have to be in direct contact with copper to
become permeated with copper. Rather the copper ions can travel some distance
in the burial context (Jakes and Howard 1986). The fact that textiles have many
utilitarian uses and ritual uses may be the reason for their association with so many
different artifacts. If the textile fragments had been given provenience within the
sites, they could have been correlated with Greber’s (1979, 1983) and Greber and
Ruhl’s studies (1989) of artifacts and status within the burials. Her studies support
that there were different groups of burials in the mound containing individuals of
various status. Because of the limitation of the site reports the status of the individuals
associated with the textile fragments cannot be stated.
Greber (1983) overlaid the floor plans to show similarities between the
structures under the Seip-Pricer Mound and the Edwin Harness Mound. She
suggested that the sites are related. Four types of fabric structures were found at
Seip while only one type was found at Harness. The sites were also differentiated
by yarn measurements in these textiles. Although some relationship may have
been established between the peoples of the two sites, textile manufacture and
use in burials apparently is not a technology and practice shared by the two.
5.3 Review of Cremation Information
The Burial Practice Framework was developed from the review of cremation
information from the site reports (Mills 1907; Mills 1909; Mills 1916; Shetrone 1926;
137
Shetrone and Greenman 1931) and the skeletal analyses of Baby (1954) and
Konigsberg (1985). The survival of the textile fragments conveys information about
the temperature of heat to which the textiles were exposed. At which stage in the
burial process were the textiles employed? If the body was exposed to the extreme
temperatures suggested by the damage some of the bones sustained, no textiles,
even charred ones, would remain. If the textiles were on the periphery of the body
so that they were exposed to a lower heat during a cremation, perhaps in which the
body was larger than the basin, or in one in which they were protected by thicker
parts of the body in some way, charred fragments would have survived. The charred
fragments recovered from the mound sites could also be remains from the burning
of textiles at the “last ceremony” that was recorded for Harness, Seip, and Hopewell.
While some burning was conducted in the last ceremony, incineration of flesh from
bones was not intended so the temperatures did not need to be as high. The
combustion was stifled with dirt. At Seip, uncharred textiles could have been
recovered from log crypts in which a final ceremonial burning was not conducted.
In contrast, although a final burning is not noted by archaeologists at Tremper,
something of this sort had to have been performed since all recovered textiles were
charred.
The Burial Practice Framework developed here outlines actions taken in
different rituals and their outcomes for associated textiles. This framework can be
tested with other sites to see if similar patterns can be seen. Evidence to directly
link an existing textile fragment to a particular step within the framework is tentative.
138
Some of the charred textile fragments had dirt/clay adhering to them possibly
indicating the “last ceremony” scenario, but also may have acquired these in the
archaeological context. Obviously those textiles that are charred have been exposed
to a moderate temperature that would blacken the textile but not completely destroy
it. Fabrics that are not charred were obviously part of another burial process besides
cremation or were added to graves after all burning had been completed. The
Burial Practice Framework also suggests the use of textiles as a means of transport
of remains from the crematory basins to the graves. This provides another possible
explanation for uncharred textiles found at the sites, particularly those of compact
fabric structure.
5.4 Review of Past Hopewellian Textile Studies
Past studies of Hopewellian textiles described the same fabric structures
that were identified in this study as well as some others. In cases where additional
structures were noted usually the criteria for selection was different (for example,
1cm x1 cm was used instead of 3cm x 3cm for size criteria), or mounds other than
those reviewed here were considered, or collections at other institutions were
examined. Differences also exist because the studies reviewed were not concerned
with Hopewellian Burial Practices exclusively nor particularly with charred textiles.
139
5.5 Results of Textile Analysis
Harness, Hopewell, and Seip are all in the same river drainage system.
Tremper is located further from the other three. The burial types and structures
under the mounds at Harness and Seip are the most alike with cremations
dominating. Hopewell, while having some cremations and a structure similar to
Harness and Seip, primarily exhibits non-cremated burials. Hopewell also lacked
interior post holes that might be shrine structures that were found at the other mound
sites. Tremper is also very different with all burials being cremated and a large
communal depository rather than individual burials. While a single type of
measurement did not distinguish all sites, statistically significant differences were
found for least one dependent measurement between sites except Hopewell and
Tremper. Perhaps if more samples were available for Hopewell these would become
distinguishable on a single measure as well. Tukey’s Comparison Method yielded a
p value of 0.0940 for yarns per cm in system A between Hopewell and Tremper.
Although this is not below the α level of 0.05 it is minimally significant supporting
the idea that differentiation could be found if more samples were available to
measure.
The information gathered from the ANOVA and Tukey Comparisons yields
findings similar to Ruhl and Seeman’s (1998) study of copper ear spool design in
which the ear spools appear to be produced by local groups of the Scioto-Paint
Creek area and were not supplied from larger sites. Similar fabric structures were
found at many of the sites but the variation in characteristics of the yarns constructing
140
these fabrics could be attributable to the differences in the technological
craftsmanship of local groups. In agreement with Prufer’s (1968) concept of
Hopewellian culture superimposed upon smaller local cultures, textiles are produced
locally and appear not to be traded across networks. In fact, textiles are a part of
burning in burial practices, but particular fabric structure of those textiles are not
prescribed throughout the region of the “cult.”
All fabric structures are distinguished by at least one dependent measurement
except spaced two strand alternate-pair weft twining vs. spiral interlinking and two
strand weft twining vs. compact two strand alternate-pair weft twining. The most
prevalent distinguishing measurement for fabric structure is diameter measurements
in systems A and B, which indicated that a smaller yarn was used for the open lace
or net-like structures (spaced two strand alternate-pair weft twining and spiral
interlinking) than in the other three fabric structures. Because the fabric structures
could have been produced with any size yarn the use of smaller yarns indicates an
intended purpose for these fabrics. The averages of the yarn diameters showed
that spaced two strand alternate-pair weft twining and spiral interlinking were made
from smaller yarns than were used in any of the other fabric structures. This could
be due to aesthetics and to use of the textiles for ceremonial or decorative purposes.
The fabrics made with yarns of larger diameter are compact in structure. One purpose
for these could have been a bag or flat textile for transportation of the remains from
the cremation basin to the prepared burial. The charred textile fragments’ fabric
structures were distinguished from each other by almost the same dependent
141
variables as those reported for the fabric structure of all fabrics. Perhaps the
distinguishing measurements for charred and uncharred fragments were so similar
because the same textiles were used for both types of ceremonies.
The textiles that Wimberley (2002) examined on copper artifacts had fabric
structures similar to those found in this study (oblique interlacing, spaced-2-strand
weft twining, compact alternate pair twining, and spaced alternate-pair twining), yet
she found no difference in yarn diameter between sites. Because she examined
fabrics associated with copper only, these could have functioned in different ways
than the charred materials. It is possible that mineralization of the yarns and fibers
affected the diameters measured. In addition, the edges of fibers embedded in
corrosion products on the surface of copper artifacts would be difficult to discern.
The subjective assessment of style was not a statistically distinguished
parameter. Carr and Maslowski (1995) claim that the more visible a trait, such as
spacing of yarns, the more it could be used to distinguish the geographical areas of
the peoples that produced them. The data gathered in this study did not support
this claim since space was not found to be statistically significant in differentiating
most sites. Carr and Maslowski (1995) found that the less visible traits (twist, yarn
size) did not vary across in the entire geographical area of their research. No
distinction between areas could be made based on these traits. In this work, yarn
diameters were shown to be different between sites.
Carr and Maslowski also claim that yarn spacing is a fabric feature that can
be used to distinguish status within local groups. Since the textiles examined in
142
this study could not be tied to specific individuals, the exact status of the individual
with which they were associated cannot be addressed.
Charred and uncharred textiles were not distinctively different in Applied
Design or lack thereof. It is likely however, that charred textiles with applied designs
may have been incorrectly categorized due to lack of visibility of the applied design.
Analytical tests, including X-ray microanalysis, are needed to test for the presence
of applied designs.
Textile fragment information for Seip textile fragments was also investigated
by ANOVA. Fabric structure could be distinguished by system A and B yarn
diameters. Seip Mound textiles are similar in fabric structure and defining features
to those found at all of the sites. Seip also displayed the open fabric structures
produced from yarns of fine diameter which were not found at the other sites.
Classification and regression trees constructed from the data separated
groups into site, fabric structure, and fabric state. The models had a rate of correct
classification of 83% or higher. The models successfully classified metric data to
differentiate the different levels of the independent variables.
Since the sites were distinguishable from each other by CART this suggests
differences in methods of textile manufacture. At each site, individual craftsmen
produced fabrics that have features particular to that site.
Fabric structure between different sites was also distinguished by CART.
Only compact two strand weft twining was not found to be classifiable by a few
measures. A suggested solution to this problem is reviewing other collections from
143
other institutions to locate more samples to add to the model for comparison. With
more data the differences between fabrics may become more clear.
Fabric State was also distinguishable by CART. The differences between
charred and uncharred textiles supports the difference expected in parameters
related to the consequences of burning, that is, swelling in the lateral direction and
shrinkage in the longitudinal direction of cellulosic fibers when exposed to heat.
5.6 Research Objectives
The first research hypothesis set forth in this work was that textile
characteristics will reflect different Hopewellian cultural practices, particularly those
related to burial. The fragments reviewed did show differences in measurements
that distinguished them as to whether they were part of a cremation or burning
ceremony (charred) or not (uncharred) but these were attibuted to consequences
of exposure to heat. Both ANOVA and CART analysis techniques provided a limited
number of measures that could be made on textiles that would yield distinction
between them. Inferences about burial and cremation practices within each of the
four sites were made. A Burial Practices Framework was produced that traces
burial and cremation practices within the four sites and shows the consequences to
textiles involved at any part in the processes.
The second hypothesis of this research was proposed that textile
characteristics are sufficient to reflect different Hopewellian cultural practices. It
was found that the measurements of the number of yarns per cm, the space between
144
yarns per cm, and the diameter of yarns in both yarn directions could be used to
differentiate between sites, fabric structure, and fabric states. The categorical
parameters of twist, spin, and number of plies for the two yarn directions did not aid
in concluding textile use.
Style alone as a subjective measure was not sufficient to categorize
Hopewellian textiles. No statistical significance was found in the evaluation of style
employed. Measurements that reflect style, however, such as fabric compactness
and covering power, do distinguish between different sites and fabrics. It was
determined that it is possible to use textile characteristics as indicators of Hopewellian
site interactions within a small geographic area. Both CART and ANOVA
distinguished the four sites. Textile manufacture and use is distinctive at each site
and site interactions in terms of textiles are not supported by the textile evidence.
5.7 Recommendations for Future Work
As a result of this research many questions are raised. Future work is
suggested.
1. To evaluate if charred textiles contain applied designs even if they are not
readily apparent, other methods besides visible inspection should be pursued.
An X-ray microanalysis mapping of the elemental distribution on the fabrics
would be suitable.
2. The CART models produced from this research should be tested using
specimen data collected from additional textile fragments from Seip, Harness,
145
Hopewell, and Tremper. This will provide independent assessment of the
models.
3. Problematic textile fragments located at the OHS can be identified using the
CART model for fabric structure. Once the model is assessed using fragments
with known information, as suggested above, small fragments or those with
partially occluded structures could be examined. The characteristics could
be sufficient for identification.
4. Particular OHS textile fragments should be selected for radiocarbon dating.
Based upon this research, the three different types of textile fragments alleged
to be part of the Great Multiple Burial should be tested. This could help
establish whether they are part of the same textile and whether they are part
of the canopy. Radiocarbon dating of textiles from Tremper could help
establish period of use for the mound. However, it should be cautioned that
the charred textiles found were more than likely from later deposits. Charred
textile fragments that were deposited earlier would have been destroyed by
the weight of later deposits. With a critical number of radiocarbon dates
changes in technology over time at each of the mounds may be addressed.
5. A continuum for style should be developed using ordinal measurements of
fabric features rather than the qualitative assessments of the textile.
146
5.8 Conclusion
This research has shown that textiles, even the previously ignored charred
textiles, are not only useful indicators of Hopewell burial and cremation practices,
but also of interaction in Hopewell societies. Cremation of individuals followed by
a “final ceremony” of burning at the gravesite is known to have occurred at Seip
and Harness Mounds. The use of textiles outside of the cremation or final burning
ceremony is indicated by the presence in the mound sites of additional fabrics
that are not charred. Compact fabrics made of coarse yarns likely were used to
transport crematory remains to the gravesite. Thus some textiles served utilitarian purposes. More open, loosely twined fabrics made of fine yarns more likely
served aesthetic purposes. Because only charred materials were found at
Tremper, a second burning in the communal cache, comparable to the “final
ceremony” conducted at other Hopewellian sites, is indicated although not proposed by authors in the past. Charred textiles with applied designs were identified, a feature never before reported in the literature. It is possible that other
charred textiles have applied designs but these are not visible in the fabric’s
present condition. Special techniques will be required for their examination.
Fabric structure, yarn size, and yarn spacing vary between each of the
four sites studied. Fabrics from the Seip Mounds include those made with spiral
interlinking, a structure not found in the other three sites studied. While use of
textiles in cremation and burial may have been prescribed regionally, as would be
anticipated in the Hopewell “cult”, the particular structure of the fabric appears to
be locally determined. Local craftspeople manufacture the fabrics with particular
end uses in mind and there is no particular pattern that typifies them as
Hopewellian. Distribution of textiles between sites is not indicated by the evidence. The research forms the basis for further work in the exploration of social
differentiation of Hopewellian societies based on their textile production and use.
147
LIST OF REFERENCES
Adovasio, J.M., and J.D. Gunn
1986 The Antelope house basketry industry
. In Archaeological
investigations at antelope house, edited by D.P
. Morris, pp. 306-387.
National Park Services,
Washington D.C.
Arber, Edward (editor)
1910 Travels and Works of Captain John Smith, President of Virginia and
Admiral of New England, 1580-1631. John Grant, Edinburgh, UK.
Baby, Raymond S.
1954 Hopewell cremation practices.
The Ohio Historical Society,
Papers in Archaeology 1:1-7.
Baby, Raymond S. and S.M. Langolis
1977 Archaeological Investigations at Seip Mound State Park 1971-1974.
Archaeology Committee Report. Ohio Historical Society
, Columbus, Ohio.
1979 Seip Mound State Memorial: Non Mortuary
Aspects of Hopewell
Archaeology. In The Chillicothe Conference: Midcontinental Journal of
Archaeology, Special Paper, edited by D.S. Brose
And N. Greber
, pp. 16-18.
The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Binford, Lewis
1972 An archaeological perspective. Seminar Press, New
York.
Braun, David P
.
1977 Middle Woodland-early Late Woodland social change in the
prehistoric central Midwestern, U.S. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Michigan, University Microfilms,Ann Arbor.
1986 Midwestern Hopewellian exchange and supralocal interaction.
In Peer Polity and Socio-Political Change, editors Colin Renfrew and
John F. Cherry, pp. 117-172. Cambridge University Press, New
York.
Brose, David S.
1978 An interpretation of the Hopewellian traits in Florida.
In Hopewell Archaeology, editors David S. Brose and N’omi Greber
, pp141149. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
148
Brown, JamesA.
1979 Charnel Houses and the Mortuary Crypts: Disposal of the Dead in the
Middle Woodland Period. InHopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe
Conference, editors David S. Brose and N’omi Greber
, pp. 211-219.
The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Carr, Christopher and Robert. FMaslowski
1995 Cordage and fabrics: Relating form,
Technology and social processes.
In Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and ethnological perspectives,
editors Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 297-343. Plenum Press,
New York.
Cassman,Vicki
2000 PrehistoricAndean ethnicity and status:
The textile evidence.
In Beyond cloth and cordage: Archaeological textile research in the
Americas, Penelope B. Drooker and Laurie Webster
D.
, pp.253-266.
The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City
, Utah.
Chen, H.L., K.A. Jakes, and D.W
. Foreman
1998 Preservation of
ArchaeologicalTextiles through fibre Mineralization.
Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 1015-1021.
Church, Flora
1984 Textiles as markers of Ohio Hopewell social identities.
Midcontinental journal of archaeology Vol.9(1): 1-26.
Close, Angela
1978. The identification of style in lithic artifacts.
World Archaeology 10: 223-237.
Deetz, James
1965 The Dynamics of stylistic change in Arikara ceramics.
Illinois Studies in Anthropology 4, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Emery, Irene
1966 The Primary Structures of Fabrics.
The Textile Museum,Washington, D.C.
Ericksen,Annette G. and KathrynA. Jakes
1997 Identification of wood specimens From the Mt.
Vernon
site (12-PO-885) Posey county
, Indiana. InHopewell in Mt. Vernon,
pp. 101-149. General Electric Company
, USA.
149
Ericksen,Annette G., KathrynA. Jakes andVirginia S. Wimberley
2000 PrehistoricTextiles: Production, function, semiotics. Beyond
In
cloth
and Cordage: Archaeological textile research in the Americas,
editors Penelope Ballard Drooker and Laurie Webster
D.
, pp. 60-84.
The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City
, Utah.
Fagan, Brian M.
1995 Ancient North America. Thames and Hudson Ltd., New
York.
Fitting, James, E.
1978 Middle Woodland cultural development in the Straits of Mackinac
Region: Beyond the Hopewell frontier
. In Hopewell Archaeology, editors David
S. Brose and N’omi Greber
, pp. 109-113. The Kent State University Press,
Kent, Ohio.
Flanders, Richard E.
1978 New evidence for Hopewell in southwestern Michigan.Hopewell
In
Archaeology, David S. Brose and N’omi Greber
, pp.113-114. The Kent State
University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Greber, N’omi
1979 A comparative study of site morphology and Burial patterns at
Edwin Harness Mound and Seip Mounds 1 and 2.Hopewell
In
Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, editors David S. Brose and
N’omi Greber, pp. 27-38.The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Greber, N’omi
1983 Recent Excavations at the Edwin Harness Mound.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper No. 5. The Kent State
University Press, USA.
Greber, N’omi
1997 Two geometric enclosures in the Paint Creek
Valley: An estimate
of Possible Changes in Community Patterns
Through Time. In Ohio Hopewell
Community Organization, editors W. S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco,
pp. 207-229.The Kent Sate University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Greber, N’omi
2002-2003 Personal communication.
Greber, N’omi and Katharine C. Ruhl
1989 Hopewell Site. Westview Press: London.
150
Griffin, James
1967 Eastern North
American Archaeology:A Summary.
Science 156(3772): 175-191.
Griffin, James B.
1946 Cultural Change and Continuity in Eastern United States
Archaeology. In Man in Northeastern North America, editor Frederick Johnson,
pp. 37-95. PhillipsAcademy, Andover, Massachusetts.
Hariot, Thomas
1966 A Briefe andTrue Report of the New Found Land Virginia.
of
In
Thomas Hariot’s Virginia, by Theodore de Bry
, originally printed in 1590.
Redex Microprint, NewYork.
Hill, James N.
1970 Broken K. Pueblo: Prehistoric socialganization
or
in theAmerican
Southwest.Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 18. Tucson.
Hill, James N. and Joel Gunn (editors)
1977 The individual in prehistory. Academic Press, New
York.
Hinkle, KathleenA.
1984 Ohio Hopewell textiles: A medium for the exchange of social and
stylistic information. Master’s Thesis.The University ofArkansas,
Fayetteville,Arkansas.
Holmes, W.H.
1896 Prehistoric textiles arts of eastern United States.
Thirteenth
In
Annual
Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary Of the Smithsonian
Institution, editor J.W. Powell, pp. 9-46. Smithsonian:
Washington D.C.
Hyland, D.C. and J.M.Adovasio
2000 The Mexican connection:
A study of sociotechnical change in
perishable manufacture and food production in prehistoric New Mexico.
In Beyond cloth and cordage: Archaeological textile research in the
Americas, editors Penelope B. Drooker and Laurie Webster
D.
, pp.141-160.
The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City
, Utah.
Jakes, KathrynA. and Annette G. Ericksen
1997 Socioeconomic Implications of Prehistoric
Textile Production in the
EasternWoodlands. InMaterials Issues in Art and Archaeology, Materials
Research Society Symposium Proceedings, editorsV.P. Vandiver, J.F. Merkel,
J. Stewart, 462: 281-286.
Jakes, KathrynA. and J.H. Howard III
1986 Replacement of Protein and Cellulose Fibers by Copper Minerals and
151
the Formation ofTextile Pseudomorphs. In
Conservation and
Characterization of Historical Paper and Textile Materials, Advances in
Chemistry Series, editors H. Zeronian and H. Needles, 212: 277-287,
American Chemical Society
, Washington, D.C.
Jakes, KathrynA. and Sibley
1983 Survival of Cellulosic Fibres in the
Archaeological Conext. cience
S
and Archaeology 25: 31-38.
Jeffries, RichardW. 1995
Late Middle Archaic exchange and interaction in the North
American
Midcontinent: MultiscalarAnalyses and Interpretations in the Eastern
Woodlands. InNative American Interactions, editors Michael S. Nassaney
and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 73-99.
The University ofTennessee Press,
Knoxville.
Johnson,Alred E.
1978 Kansas City Hopewell. In,
Hopewell Archaeology, editors David
S. Brose and N’omi Greber
, pp.86-93.The Kent State University Press,
Kent, Ohio.
Kalm, Peter
1770 The America of 1750: Peter Kalm’s travels in North America, Vol I.
and II. (Adolph B. Benson translator 1937).
Wilsen-Erikson Inc. NewYork.
Kay, Marvin
1975 Social distance among central Missouri Hopewell settlements:
A first approximation.American Antiquity 40:64-71.
Konigsberg, Lyle W.
1985 Demography and Mortuary Practice at Seip Mound One.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 10 (1): 122- 148.
Kuttruff, JennaT.
1993 Mississippian period status ferentiation
dif
through textile analysis:
A Caddoan example.
American Antiquity, 58(1): 125-145.
Kuttruff, JennaT. and Mary Strickland-Olsen
2000 Handling archaeological textile remains in the field and laboratory
.
In, Beyond cloth and cordage: Archaeological textile research in the
Americas, editors Penelope B. Drooker and Laurie Webster
D.
, pp. 25-50.
The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City
.
152
Libby, Willard F.
1955 Radiocarbon Dating, Second Edition. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Longacre,William A.
1964 Social implications of the ceramic analysis.The
In prehistory of
eastern Arizona II, editors Paul S. Martin, J.B. Rinaldo,
W.A. Longacre,
L.G. Freeman, Jr
. J.A. Brown , R.H. Hevly
, and M.E. Cooly
, pp. 155-167.
FieldianaAnthropology 55.
Mills, William C.
1907 Explorations of the Edwin Harness Mound.
Ohio History 16: 113-193.
Mills, William C.
1909 Explorations of the Seip Mound.
Ohio History 18: 269-313.
Mills, William C.
1916 Explorations of the
Tremper Mound.Ohio History 25: 263-398.
Moorehead,Warren K.
1896 Report of FieldWork carried on in the Muskingum and Scioto and Ohio
Vallies during the season of 1896.
Ohio History 5: 165-274.
Moorehead,Warren K.
1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. The Museum Of Natural History
,
Chicago.
O’Conner, Robert T. (editor)
1972 Instrumental Analysis of Cotton cellulose and modified Cotton
Cellulose. Marcel Dekker
, Inc., New York.
Otto, Martha
2002-2003 Personal Communication.
Petersen, James B. and Jack
A. Wolford
2000 Spin and twist as cultural markers:
A New England perspective on
native fiber industries. InBeyond cloth and cordage: Archaeological textile
research in the Americas, editors Penelope B. Drooker and LaurieWebster
D.
,
pp.101-118. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City
, Utah.
Peterson, J.B.
1996 The study of native fiber industries from eastern North
America:
Resume and prospect. A
In most indispensable art, editor J.B. Petersen,
pp. 100-119. The University ofTennessee Press, Knoxville.
153
Plog, Stephen
1980 Stylistic variation in prehistoric ceramics. Cambridge University Press,
England.
Prufer, Olaf F.
1964a The Hopewell complex of Ohio. In
Hopewellian Studies, Illinois State
Museum Scientific Papers
Vol. 12, editors Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert
L. Hall, pp. 37-83. State of Illinois, Springfield, Ill.
1964b The Hopewell cult.Scientific American 211(6): 90-102.
1968 OhioHopewell Ceramics: An Analysis of the Extant Collections:
Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers, 23.
University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.
Putnam, F
. W.
1885 Explorations in Ohio.18th and 19th Annual Reports of the Peabody
Museum, Vol. 3(5,6), Cambridge, Salem, Mass.
Riley, Thomas J., Philip Hopke, Rodger Martin, James Porter
1994 The diffusion of technological knowledge:
A case study in North
American ceramic analysis. In
Ancient Technologies and Archaeological
materials, editors Sarah U.Wisseman andWendell S.Williams, pp.41-58.
Gordon and Breach Science Publishers: USA.
Renfrew, Collin and Paul Bahn
1991 Archaeology: Theories, methods, and practice. Thames and Hudson
Ltd, London.
Ruhl, Katharine C. and Mark. FSeeman
1998 The temporal and social implications of Ohio Hopewell copper
ear spool design.American Antiquity 63(4): 651-662.
Schreffler, V.L. 1988
Burial status differentiation as evidenced by fabrics from Etowah Mound C,
Georgia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbus:
The Ohio State University
.
University Microfilms: Ann Arbor.
Seeman, Mark .F
1995 When words are not enough: Hopewell interregionalism and the use of
material symbols at the GE mound. Native
In
American Interactions:
154
Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, editors
Michael S. Nassaney and Kenneth E. Sassaman, p.122-143.
The
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Shetrone, H.C.
1926 Explorations of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks.
Ohio History 25: 5-227.
Shetrone, H.C. and Emerson. Greenman
F
1931 Explorations of the Seip groups of prehistoric earthworks,
Ohio
History 40: 343-509.
Sibley, L.R., K.A. Jakes, and LH. Larson
1996 Inferring behavior and function from an Etowah fabric incorporating
feathers. InA most indispensable art, editor J. B. Petersen, pp.73-87.
The University Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Sibley, L.R., M.E. Swinker
, and K.A. Jakes
1991 The use of pattern reproduction in reconstructing Etowah textile
remains. Ars Textrina 15: 179-202.
Song, Cheunsoon
Ahn
1991 Variations in fiber morphology of prehistoric textiles from the Seip
group of mounds: A model for explanation. Ph.D. Dissertation.The Ohio
State University
, Columbus.
Squier, E.G. and E.H. Davis
1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippian Valley. Arthur W. McGraw,
USA.
Srinivasan, R. and Kathryn
A. Jakes
1997 Optical and scanning electron microscopic study
The
of effects of
charring on Indian Hemp (Apocynum cannabinum L.) fibres.
Journal of
Archaeological Science 24: 517-527.
Strathern,Andrew and Marilyn Strathern
1971 Self-decoration in Mount Hagen. University ofToronto Press,Toronto.
Struever, Stuart and Gail L. Houart
1972 An analysis of the Hopewell interaction sphere. Anthropological
papers, Museum of anthropology, University of Michigan, 46: 47-79.
Tiedemann, Erica J.
2001 Characterization of prehistoric spinning technology: Toward the
determination of spinning practices employed in Mississippian Textiles.
155
Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbus:The Ohio State University
.
University Microfilms: Ann Arbor.
Webb, William S. and Charles E. Snow
1974 The Adena people. The University ofTennessee Press,
Tennessee.
Weiner, A.B. and J. Schneider
1989 Cloth and human experience. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
West Virginia Archaeologist 1995. 47(1&2).
Whallon, Robert
1968 Investigation of the late prehistoric socialganization
or
in NewYork
State. InNew Perspectives in Archaeology, editors S.R. Binford and L.R.
Binford, pp. 223-244.Aldine, Chicago.
White, Ellanor P
.
1987 Excavating in the field museum; Survey and analysis of textiles From
the 1891 Hopewell mound group excavation, UnpublishedThesis.
Willoughby, Charles C.
1938 Textile fabrics from the burial mounds of the great earthwork builders
Ohio. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, 47: 273-287.
Wobst, H. Martin
1977 Stylistic behavior and information of exchange.Papers
In
for the
Director: Research essays in honor of James B. Griffin: Anthropological
Papers 61, editor Charles E. Cleland, pp. 317-342. University of Michigan,
Museum ofAnthropology, Ann Arbor.
Woodward, Susan L., and Jerry N. McDonald
1986 Indian mounds of the Middle Ohio Valley. The McDonald &Woodward
Publishing Company
, Newark, OH.
156
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE IMAGES OFTEXTILE FRAGMENTS
157
A.1 CharredTextile Sample
A.2 Charred withApplied DesignTextile Sample
158
A.3 UncharredTextile
A.4 Textile with Applied Design Oval
159
A.5 Textile with Applied Design Clover
-like
A.6 Textile with Applied Design Ellipsoid
160
A.7 Net-like Textile
A.8 Red andYellow ColoredTextiles
161
APPENDIX B
SPREAD SHEET EXAMPLE:
EDWIN HARNESS SITE SPECIMENS
162
Camera Shot,
taken at .7x, 10xobj,
F3.0
folder
Site
Thompson ID # Glass/
Box
Description
04000-1100
left side of specimen, oriented
parallel to length
1 DSCN0263
137
137
137
137
137
137
2 DSCN0265
137
ID info
Harness Mound, Ross County,
Ohio, Box C, Acc. No. 7, Date
1 1903-1905
1
1
1
1
1
Harness Mound, Ross County,
Ohio, Box C, Acc. No. 7, Date
1 1903-1905
3 DSCN0266
138
1 Glass frame, Harness JB 7b
01010-'100
4 DSCN0267
138
1 Glass frame, Harness JB 7b
01010-'100
5 DSCN0269
168
6 DSCN0270
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
7 Harness Mound, Ross
1 County, Glass A, JB
7 Harness Mound, Ross
1 County, Glass A, JB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7 DSCN0271
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
7 Harness Mound, Ross
1 County, Glass A, JB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
02010-1220
other side of specimen, same
orientation
top left tip,yarn elements side with no
writing
opposite side with writing, parallel to
long deminsion yarn elements
top left corner of specimen,
orientation parallel to long
dimension, frame side with writing
top, orientation parallel to long
dimension frame side with writing
02010-1220
top, orientation parallel to long
dimension, less light than picture 6,
frame side with writing
04000-1100
02010-1220
B.1 Example Spread Sheet for Edwin Harness
163
fabric dimension
Fabric
Structure
3x6.5cm
3x6.5cm
3x6.5cm
3x6.5cm
3x6.5cm
3x6.5cm
yarn info A
1
1
1
1
1
1
3x6.5cm
1
0
1
2
1
1
3.1x7.2cm
?
3.1x7.2cm
?
3.3x4.9cm
1
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
3.3x4.9cm
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX C
ADDITIONAL STATISTICAL INFORMATION
164
Independent
Factors
Site 1:2
Site 1:3
Site 1:4
Site 2:3
Site 2:4
Site 3:4
Fabric 1:2
Fabric 1:3
Fabric 1:4
Fabric 1:5
Fabric 2:3
Fabric 2:4
Fabric 2:5
Fabric 3:4
Fabric 3:5
Fabric 4:5
Style 1:2
Fabric State
1:2
Applied
Design 0:1
Applied
Design 0:2
Applied
Design 0:3
Applied
Design 1:2
Applied
Design 1:3
Applied
Design 2:3
Yarns /
cm A
.076
.6788
.8238
.0863
.0940
.9999
.2366
.7893
.1823
.5988
.2124
.0041
.0400
.9989
.9998
.9650
.2471
.1865
Yarns /
cm B
.2477
.3541
.9768
.0009
.1742
.0171
.4751
1.0000
.9920
.9489
.8865
.9097
.9841
.9956
.9848
.9983
.3363
.1289
Space A
Space B
.9307
.7417
.0135
.9998
.0541
.0007
.8025
.1925
.2785
.3061
.4916
.8336
.8405
.8689
.9130
1.000
.149
.044
Diameter
A
.0553
.0405
.0579
.6595
.9000
.8993
.3721
.5635
.3225
.2338
.9790
.0181
.0133
.0689
.0857
.9988
.572
.217
Diameter
B
1.000
.5532
.7220
.6656
.6972
1.000
.0035
.0467
.9173
.1441
.8917
.0042
.0001
.0119
.0021
.5750
.167
.018
.9976
.9897
.9578
1.0000
.9910
.9687
1.0000
1.0000
.9999
.0053
1.0000
1.0000
.0082
1.0000
.2180
.0060
.8119
.7487
.1995
.8263
.9918
.9657
.9789
.9458
1.0000
.3192
.9997
.0332
.9407
.1960
.9999
.8216
.9527
.0688
.9699
.1318
.6078
.6973
.9998
.1036
.9913
.4235
.6123
.9936
.9897
.1806
.9984
.3220
.9955
.1467
.7745
.7092
.9848
.9979
C.1 Tukey Comparisons For All Samples, family error of 0.05
165
Basic Statistics Sites For All Samples
1= Harness
Variable Site
Site
1
2
3
4
2 = Hopewell
N
6
4
40
13
yarns/ cm A
1
2
3
4
6
4
40
13
yarns/ cm B
1
2
3
4
6
4
40
13
3 = Seip
4 = Tremper
Mean
1.0000
2.0000
3.0000
4.0000
MedianTrMean
StDev
1.0000
1.0000
0.0000
2.0000
2.0000
0.0000
3.0000
3.0000
0.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.0000
5.53
12.13
9.885
5.21
4.25
12.63
8.000
4.00
1.778
0.658
5.610
2.312
size of space between yarns
A
1
6
0.0450
2
4
0.01763
3
40
0.03767
4
13
0.1373
1.000
0.066
5.667
2.000
5.53
12.13
9.587
4.70
1.778
0.658
5.623
2.278
2.61
7.40
5.728
4.10
1.642
1.230
1.807
1.359
0.0200
0.0450
0.01750 0.01763
0.00833 0.03089
0.0778
0.0890
0.0567
0.01575
0.05893
0.2230
size of space between yarns B
1
6
0.205
10
0.1
0.205
0.320
2
4
0.0981
0.0000
0.0981
0.1963
3
40
0.1
119
0.1101
0.1080
0.0772
4
13
0.3650
0.3000
0.3584
0.2642
average diameter
A
1
6
2
4
3
40
4
13
average diameter B
1
6
2
4
3
40
4
13
0.1671
0.1669
0.1671
0.0504
0.0751
0.0532
0.0751
0.0593
0.07672 0.08013 0.07435 0.03921
0.1
162
0.1239
0.1
189
0.0581
0.1010
0.1024
0.1010
0.0455
0.0398
0.0345
0.0398
0.0467
0.07148 0.06314 0.06718 0.04815
0.1
157
0.1300
0.1
196
0.0515
166
Variable
Site
Site
1
2
3
4
yarns/ cm B
1
2
3
4
yarns/ cmA
1
2
3
4
SE Mean Minimum
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
2.0000
0.0000
3.0000
0.0000
4.0000
1.06
3.70
0.906
1.14
0.670
0.615
0.286
0.377
3.00
3.25
3.000
0.00
Maximum
1.0000
2.0000
3.0000
4.0000
9. 00
20.00
22.000
16.00
0.000
0.000
2.500
0.000
4.000
2.500
8.500
5.000
Q1
1.0000
2.0000
3.0000
4.0000
3.75
4.75
5.167
3.17
0.750
0.000
4.000
1.500
Q3
1.0000
2.0000
3.0000
4.0000
8.75
19.00
15.750
5.79
3.750
1.908
7.000
3.000
size of space between yarns
A
1
0.0232
0.0000
0.1250
0.0000 1000.1
2
0.00787 0.00000 0.03554 0.00250 0.03290
3
0.00932 0.00000 0.21792 0.00000 0.05464
4
0.0619
0.0000
0.8058
0.0000
0.1667
size of space between yarns B
1
0.130
0.000
2
0.0981
0.0000
3
0.0122
0.0000
4
0.0733
0.0000
0.840
0.3925
0.2988
0.8033
0.000
0.0000
0.0643
0.1334
average diameter
A
1
0.0206
2
0.0297
3
0.00620
4
0.0161
0.0883
0.2350
0.1331
0.0318
0.1623
0.0351
0.02897 0.16667 0.03926
0.0000
0.2028
0.0797
average diameter B
1
0.0186
2
0.0233
3
0.00761
4
0.0143
0.0529
0.0000
0.01778
0.0000
0.1800
0.0900
0.20417
0.1892
167
0.0582
0.0000
0.02868
0.0900
0.337
0.2944
0.1494
0.6144
0.2069
0.1370
0.10139
0.1584
0.1262
0.0847
0.10417
0.1537
Basic Statistics Fabric Structure For All Samples
Fabric structure 1 For All Samples: 2 strand weft
Variable
a yarn/cm
b yarn/cm
a space
b space
a diameter
b diameter
Variable
a yarn/cm
b yarn/cm
a space
b space
a diameter
b diameter
Minimum
Maximum Q1
Q3
3.000
16.000
4.063
8.625
1.000
8.500
2.500
5.250
0.0000
0.2179 0.0000
0.0888
0.0000
0.8400 0.0099
0.2150
0.04762
0.23500 0.08387
0.12312
0.05143
0.20417 0.06756
0.12027
N
28
28
28
28
28
28
Mean
Median TrMean
StDev SE Mean
6.717
7.167
6.503
2.895
0.547
4.045
3.667
3.990
2.091
0.395
0.0417
0.0000
0.0365
0.0687
0.0130
0.1908
0.1464
0.1732
0.2299
0.0435
0.1
1285
0.09919
0.1
1066
0.04264
0.00806
0.10291
0.09505
0.10100
0.04255
0.00804
Fabric Structure 2 ForAll Samples: Spaced 2 strand alternate-pair weft
Variable
a yarn/cm
b yarn/cm
a space
b space
a diameter
b diameter
Variable
a yarn/cm
b yarn/cm
a space
b space
a diameter
b diameter
Minimum Maximum
Q1
Q3
2.50
22.00
1.00
1
19.29
0.000
8.500
2.500
7.667
0.00000
0.15667
0.00250
0.03214
0.0000
0.7500
0.0831
0.1477
0.02897
0.10400
0.03255
0.05660
0.00000
0.08333
0.01883
0.03029
N
19
19
19
19
19
19
Mean
MedianTrMean
StDev SE Mean
15.27
16.00
15.63
5.15
1.18
5.360
6.125
5.490
2.960
0.679
0.02398
0.01000 0.01759 0.03770 0.00865
0.1454
133
0.1
0.1
184
0.1688
0.0387
0.04742
0.04282 0.04518 0.01964 0.00451
0.02907
0.02583 0.02759 0.02166 0.00497
168
Fabric Structure 3 For All Samples: Spiral interlinking
Variable
a yarn/cm
b yarn/cm
a space
b space
a diameter
b diameter
Variable
a yarn/cm
b yarn/cm
a space
b space
a diameter
b diameter
Minimum Maximum
3.333
6.000
5.000
6.333
0.04389
0.08230
0.0280
0.0830
0.03083
0.05095
0.02712
0.04340
N
4
4
4
4
4
4
Q1
Q3
3.562
5.958
5.167
6.250
0.04738
0.07742
0.0291
0.0798
0.03267
0.04781
0.02913
0.04225
Mean Median TrMean
StDev
SE Mean
4.854
5.042
4.854
1.284
0.642
5.750
5.833
5.750
0.569
0.285
0.06171 0.06032
0.06171 0.01589 0.00795
0.0534
0.0512
0.0534 0.0274
0.0137
0.03959 0.03829
0.03959 0.00835 0.00418
0.03612 0.03698
0.03612 0.00688 0.00344
Fabric Structure 4 For
All Samples: Compact 2 strand alternate-pair weft
Variable
Minimum Maximum
Q1
Q3
a yarn/cm
0.00
6.33
1.50
6.17
b yarn/cm
2.000
5.500
2.375
4.750
a space
0.0000
0.1767
0.0000
0.0883
b space
0.0633
0.3500
0.0892
0.3142
a diameter
0.0000
0.2028
0.0563
0.1847
b diameter
0.0975
0.1494
0.0988
0.1434
Variable
a yarn/cm
b yarn/cm
a space
b space
a diameter
b diameter
N
5
5
5
5
5
5
Mean
Median TrMean
StDev SE Mean
4.07
5.00
4.07
2.62
1.17
3.450
3.000
3.450
1.351
0.604
0.0353
0.0000
0.0353
0.0790
0.0353
0.2053
0.2200
0.2053 1700.1 0.0523
0.1294
0.1650
0.1294
0.0792
0.0354
0.1
182
0.1067
0.1
182
0.0236
0.0106
Fabric Structure 5 For
All Samples: Compact 2 strand alternate-pair weft
Variable
Minimum Maximum
Q1
Q3
a yarn/cm
3.000
5.250
3.167
4.625
169
b
a
b
a
b
yarn/cm
space
space
diameter
diameter
Variable
N
a yarn/cm 5
b yarn/cm 5
a space
5
b space
5
a diameter 5
b diameter 5
0.509
0.078
0.1000
0.0950
0.1300
Mean
3.917
2.462
0.292
0.3000
0.1412
0.1522
4.000
0.806
0.5088
0.2025
0.1892
1.254
3.500
0.089
0.558
0.1214
0.4785
106
0.1 0.1763
0.1339
0.1736
Median TrMean
StDev SE Mean
4.000
3.917
0.862
0.386
2.800
2.462
1.304
0.583
0.165
0.292
0.301
0.135
0.3000
0.3000
0.1805
0.0807
0.1320
0.1412
0.0396
0.0177
0.1461
0.1522
0.0231
0.0103
Basic Statistics Fabric State For All Samples
Variable
blackened=1
not blackened=2
yarns/ cmA
1
2
yarns/ cm B
1
2
N
42
21
Mean
1.0000
2.0000
MedianTrMean
StDev
1.0000
1.0000
0.0000
2.0000
2.0000
0.0000
42
21
6.865
12.21
5.458
15.00
6.574
12.18
42
21
3.458
5.835
3.000
6.000
3.388
5.995
4.061
6.80
2.323
1.979
size of space between yarns
A
1
42
0.0710
2
21 0.03097
0.0058
0.0491
0.1393
0.01
171 0.02493 0.04306
size of space between yarns B
1
42
0.2062
2
21
0.1041
0.1442
0.1069
0.1846
0.1041
average diameter
A
1
2
0.2293
0.0514
42
21
0.10756
0.0650
0.09702
0.0414
0.10653
0.0616
0.05077
0.0471
average diameter B
1
42
2
21
0.09854
0.04715
0.09667
0.03014
0.09827
0.04394
0.05106
0.03453
Variable
blackened 1
SE Mean
0.0000
Minimum
1.0000
170
Maximum
1.0000
Q1
1.0000
Q3
1.0000
2
0.0000
2.0000
0.627
1.48
0.000
3.00
2.0000
2.0000
2.0000
yarns/ cmA
1
2
yarns/ cm B
1
2
0.358
0.432
0.000
0.132
size of space between yarns
A
1
0.0215
0.0000
2
0.00940 0.00000
20.000
22.00
8.500
8.500
0.8058
0.17667
4.000
5.92
2.000
4.500
0.0000
0.00000
9.000
18.10
5.000
7.333
0.1254
0.05143
size of space between yarns B
1
0.0354
0.0000
0.8400
0.0000
0.2941
2
0.01
12
0.0000
0.2100
0.0688
0.1438
average diameter
A
1
0.00783
2
0.0103
0.00000 0.23500
0.0290
0.1650
0.07882
0.0327
0.13600
0.1004
average diameter B
1
0.00788
2
0.00753
0.00000
0.01778
0.06449
0.02468
0.13325
0.07023
0.20417
0.13750
Seip Basic Statistics For Fabric Structure, Diameter A and B
Variable
1a diameter
1b diameter
2a diameter
2b diameter
3a diameter
3b diameter
4a diameter
4b diameter
Variable
1a diameter
1b diameter
2a diameter
2b diameter
Minimum Maximum
0.06929
0.16667
0.05670
0.20417
0.02897
0.07496
0.01778
0.06043
0.03083
0.05095
0.02712
0.04340
0.1
125
0.1650
0.1067
0.1375
N
20
20
14
14
Mean
0.10251
0.10354
0.04162
0.02857
MedianTrMean
StDev SE Mean
0.09702
0.10079
0.02575
0.00576
0.09141
0.10055
0.04103
0.00917
0.03996
0.03989
0.01241
0.00332
0.02644
0.02681
0.01024
0.00274
171
3a
3b
4a
4b
diameter
diameter
diameter
diameter
4
4
2
2
0.03959
0.03612
0.1388
0.1221
0.03829
0.03698
0.1388
0.1221
172
0.03959
0.03612
0.1388
0.1221
0.00835
0.00688
0.0371
0.0218
0.00418
0.00344
0.0263
0.0154
Fabric
Structure
Fabric
1:2
Fabric
1:4
Fabric
1:5
Fabric
2:4
Fabric
2:5
Fabric
4:5
Yarns /
cm A
.0092
Yarns /
cm B
.5685
Space A
Space B
1.0000
Diameter
A
.0541
Diameter
B
.0005
.9854
.5625
.7011
.9151
.9216
.9795
.9767
.4181
.4700
.0007
.7860
.5838
.0944
.0142
.9972
.9814
.9329
.2270
.0221
.0034
.9874
.0019
.8374
.0245
.0000
.9999
.9999
.0080
.9996
.9515
.5875
C.2 ANOVA GLM Charred only fabric structure. Note: There are no charred
Fabric Structure 3 (Spiral Interlinking)
Fabric
Structure
1:2
1:3
1:4
2:3
2:4
3:4
A Diameter
B Diameter
.0003
.0750
.1108
.9800
.0000
.0014
.0034
.3450
.6172
.9999
.0014
.0794
C.3 Tukey Comparisons Fabric Structure For Seip, family error of 0.05
173