William Henry Holmes - Prehistoric Textile Fabrics Of The United States, Derived From Impressions On Pottery
W >>
William Henry Holmes >> Prehistoric Textile Fabrics Of The United States, Derived From Impressions On Pottery
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION--BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.
PREHISTORIC TEXTILE FABRICS
OF THE
UNITED STATES,
DERIVED FROM IMPRESSIONS ON POTTERY.
by
WILLIAM H. HOLMES.
* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *
CONTENTS.
Page.
Introductory 397
First Group 401
Second Group 404
Third Group 413
Fourth Group 416
Fifth Group 417
Sixth Group 418
Miscellaneous 420
ILLUSTRATIONS.
[Transcriber's Note:
In the original text, the position of illustrations was determined by
available page space. For this e-text, each figure caption has been
placed directly _after_ the paragraph describing the figure. Figure 88,
which shared a caption with Figure 89, has been shifted down to join
Figure 90. The captions are identical except for number.]
Plate XXXIX.--Pottery, with impressions of textile fabrics 397
Fig. 60.--Cord-marked vessel, Great Britain 399
61.--Cord and fabric marked vessel, Pennsylvania 400
62.--Combination of threads in coffee sacking 401
63.--Section of same 401
64.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of New York 402
65.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of District of Columbia 402
66.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Arizona 402
67.--Fabric from the caves of Kentucky 403
68.--Fabric from the Swiss Lake Dwellings 403
69.--Fabric from a mound in Ohio 403
70.--Fabric from a mound in Ohio 403
71.--Section of the same 403
72.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 405
73.--Section of same 405
74.--Diagram showing method of weaving 405
75.--Device for making the twist 406
76.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 406
77.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Georgia 407
78.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 407
79.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 408
80.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 408
81.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Arkansas 408
82.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Illinois 409
83.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Illinois 410
84.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Missouri 410
85.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 410
86.--Fabric from a copper celt, Iowa 411
87.--Fabric from Vancouver's Island 412
88.--Fabric from the Lake Dwellings of Switzerland 412
89.--Fabric from the Lake Dwellings of Switzerland 412
90.--Fabric from the Lake Dwellings of Switzerland 413
91.--Section of third form of fabric 414
92.--Device for weaving same 414
93.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 414
94.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 414
95.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 414
96.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 415
97.--Fabric from the Northwest coast 415
98.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Tennessee 416
99.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Alabama 416
100.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Iowa 417
101.--Plaiting of an ancient sandal 417
102.--Braiding done by the Lake Dwellers 418
103.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of District of Columbia 419
104.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of North Carolina 419
105.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of North Carolina 420
106.--Net from the Lake Dwellings 420
107.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of New Jersey 421
108.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of New Jersey 421
109.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of New Jersey 422
110.--Fabric from the ancient pottery of Pennsylvania 422
111.--Impression on the ancient pottery of Ohio 423
112.--Impression on the ancient pottery of New Jersey 423
113.--Impression on the ancient pottery of Alabama 423
114.--Impression on the ancient pottery of Maryland 424
115.--Impression on the ancient pottery of Alabama 425
[Illustration:
BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY
ANNUAL REPORT 1882 PL. XXXIX
1. POTSHERD. 2. CLAY CAST.
3. POTSHERD. 4. CLAY CAST.
5. POTSHERD. 6. CLAY CAST.
A. Hoen & Co. Litho[*illegible*], Baltimore.
POTTERY WITH IMPRESSIONS OF TEXTILE FABRICS.]
PREHISTORIC TEXTILE FABRICS OF THE UNITED STATES,
DERIVED FROM IMPRESSIONS ON POTTERY.
By W. H. Holmes.
INTRODUCTORY.
It is not my intention in this paper to make an exhaustive study of the
art of weaving as practiced by the ancient peoples of this country. To
do this would necessitate a very extended study of the materials used
and of the methods of preparing them, as well as of the arts of spinning
and weaving practiced by primitive peoples generally. This would be a
very wide field, and one which I have no need of entering. I may state
here, however, that the materials used by savages in weaving their
simple fabrics consist generally of the fibre of bark, flax, hemp,
nettles, and grasses, which is spun into thread of various sizes; or of
splints of wood, twigs, roots, vines, porcupine quills, feathers, and a
variety of animal tissues, either plaited or used in an untwisted state.
The articles produced are mats, baskets, nets, bags, plain cloths, and
entire garments, such as capes, hats, belts, and sandals.
It has been noticed by a few authors that twisted or plaited cords,
as well as a considerable variety of woven fabrics, have been used
by primitive tribes in the manufacture and ornamentation of pottery.
Impressions of these made in the soft clay are frequently preserved on
very ancient ware, the original fabrics having long since crumbled to
dust. It is to these that I propose calling attention, their restoration
having been successfully accomplished in many hundreds of cases by
taking impressions in clay from the ancient pottery.
The perfect manner in which the fabric in all its details of plaiting,
netting, and weaving can be brought out is a matter of astonishment; the
cloth itself could hardly make all the particulars of its construction
more manifest.
The examples presented in the accompanying plate will be very
instructive, as the fragment of pottery is given on the left, with its
rather obscure intaglio impressions, and the clay cast on the right with
the cords of the fabric in high relief. The great body of illustrations
have been made in pen directly from the clay impressions, and, although
details are more distinctly shown than in the specimens themselves,
I believe that nothing is presented that cannot with ease be seen in the
originals. Alongside of these restorations I have placed illustrations
of fabrics from other primitive sources.
There appears to be a pretty general impression that baskets of the
ordinary rigid character have been extensively used by our ancient
peoples in the manufacture of pottery to build the vessel in or upon;
but my investigations tend to show that such is not the case, and
that nets or sacks of pliable materials have been almost exclusively
employed. These have been applied to the surface of the vessel,
sometimes covering the exterior entirely, and at others only the body
or a part of the body. The interior surface is sometimes partially
decorated in the same manner.
The nets or other fabrics used have generally been removed before the
vessel was burned or even dried. Professor Wyman, in speaking casually
of the cord-marked pottery of Tennessee, says:
"It seems incredible that even an Indian would be so prodigal of time
and labor as to make the necessary quantity of well-twisted cord or
thread, and weave it into shape for the mere purpose of serving as a
mold which must be destroyed in making a single copy."
This remark is, however, based upon a false assumption. The fact that
the net or fabric has generally been removed while the clay was still
soft being susceptible of easy proof. I have observed in many cases
that handles and ornaments have been added, and that impressed and
incised designs have been made in the soft clay _after_ the removal
of the woven fabric; besides this there would be no need of the support
of a net after the vessel had been fully finished and slightly hardened.
Furthermore, I have no doubt that these _textilia_ were employed as
much for the purpose of enhancing the appearance of the vessel as for
supporting it during the process of construction. I have observed, in
relation to this point, that in a number of cases, notably the great
salt vessels of Saline River, Illinois, the fabric has been applied
after the vessel was finished. I arrive at this conclusion from having
noticed that the loose threads of the net-like cover sag or festoon
toward the rim as if applied to the inverted vessel, Fig. 82. If the net
had been used to suspend the vessel while building, the threads would
necessarily have hung in the opposite direction.
In support of the idea that ornament was a leading consideration in the
employment of these coarse fabrics, we have the well-known fact that
simple cord-markings, arranged to form patterns, have been employed
by many peoples for embellishment alone. This was a common practice
of the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain, as shown by Jewett. The
accompanying cut (Fig. 60) is copied from his work.[1]
[Illustration: Fig. 60.--Ancient British vase with cord
ornamentation.]
[Footnote 1: Jewett, Llewellynn: Grave mounds and their contents,
p. 92.]
It is a remarkable fact that very few entire cord-marked vessels have
been obtained in this country, although fragments of such are very
plentiful.
In Fig. 61 we have an ancient vase from Pennsylvania. It presents a
combination of net or basket markings and of separate cord-markings.
The regularity of the impressions upon the globular body indicates
almost unbroken contact with the interior surface of the woven vessel.
The neck and rim have apparently received finishing touches by
separately impressing cords or narrow bands of some woven fabric.
[Illustration: Fig. 61.--Ancient fabric marked vessel, Pennsylvania.]
Many examples show very irregular markings such as might have been made
by rolling the plastic vessel irregularly upon a woven surface, or by
molding it in an improvised sack made by tying up the margins of a piece
of cloth.
It is necessary to distinguish carefully the cord and fabric markings
from the stamped designs so common in southern pottery, as well as
from the incised designs, some of which imitate fabric markings very
closely.
I shall present at once a selection from the numerous examples of the
fabrics restored. For convenience of study I have arranged them in six
groups, some miscellaneous examples being added in a seventh group.
For comparison, a number of illustrations of both ancient and modern
textiles are presented.
In regard to methods of manufacture but little need be said. The
appliances used have been extremely simple, the work in a vast majority
of cases having been done by hand. It is probable that in many instances
a simple frame has been used, the threads of the web or warp being
fixed at one end and those of the woof being carried through them by
the fingers or by a simple needle or shuttle. A loom with a device for
carrying the alternate threads of the warp back and forth may have been
used, but that form of fabric in which the threads are twisted in pairs
at each crossing of the woof could only have been made by hand.
The probable methods will be dwelt upon more in detail as the groups
are presented. In verifying the various methods of fabrication I have
been greatly assisted by Miss Kate C. Osgood, who has successfully
reproduced, in cotton cord, all the varieties discovered, all the
mechanism necessary being a number of pins set in a drawing board or
frame, in the form of three sides of a rectangle, the warp being fixed
at one end only and the woof passing back and forth between the lateral
rows of pins, as shown in Fig. 74.
FIRST GROUP.
Fig. 62 illustrates a small fragment of an ordinary coffee sack which I
take as a type of the first group. It is a loosely woven fabric of the
simplest construction; the two sets of threads being interwoven at right
angles to each other, alternate threads of one series passing over and
under each of the opposing series as shown in the section, Fig. 63.
[Illustration: Fig. 62.--Type of Group one--portion of a coffee
sack.]
[Illustration: Fig. 63.--Section.]
It is a remarkable fact that loosely woven examples of this kind of
cloth are rarely, if ever, found among the impressions upon clay or in
the fabrics themselves where preserved by the salts of copper or by
charring. The reason of this probably is that the combination is such
that when loosely woven the threads would not remain in place under
tension, and the twisted and knotted varieties were consequently
preferred.
It is possible that many of the very irregular impressions observed, in
which it is so difficult to trace the combinations of the threads, are
of distorted fabrics of this class.
This stuff may be woven by hand in a simple frame, or by any of the
primitive forms of the loom.
In most cases, so far as the impressions upon pottery show, when this
particular combination is employed, the warp is generally very heavy and
the woof comparatively light. This gives a cloth differing greatly from
the type in appearance; and when, as is usually the case, the woof
threads are beaten down tightly, obscuring those of the web, the
resemblance to the type is quite lost.
Examples of this kind of weaving may be obtained from the fictile
remains of nearly all the Atlantic States.
The specimen presented in Fig. 64 was obtained from a small fragment of
ancient pottery from the State of New York.
[Illustration: Fig. 64.--Fabric impressed upon ancient pottery, New
York.]
It is generally quite difficult to determine which set of threads is the
warp and which the woof. In most cases I have preferred to call the more
closely placed threads the woof, as they are readily beaten down by a
baton, whereas it would be difficult to manipulate the warp threads if
so closely placed. In the specimen illustrated, only the tightly woven
threads of the woof appear. The impression is not sufficiently distinct
to show the exact character of the thread, but there are indications
that it has been twisted. The regularity and prominence of the ridges
indicate a strong, tightly drawn warp.
Fig. 65 represents a form of this type of fabric very common in
impressions upon the pottery of the Middle Atlantic States. This
specimen was obtained from a small potsherd picked up near Washington,
D.C. The woof or cross-threads are small and uniform in thickness, and
pass alternately over and under the somewhat rigid fillets of the web.
The apparent rigidity of these fillets may result from the tightening
of the series when the fabric was applied to the plastic surface of the
vessel.
[Illustration: Fig. 65.--From a fragment of ancient pottery,
District of Columbia.]
I present in Fig. 66 the only example of the impression of a woven
fabric found by the writer in two summers' work among the remains of the
ancient Cliff-Dwellers. It was obtained from the banks of the San Juan
River, in southeastern Utah. It is probably the imprint of the interior
surface of a more or less rigid basket, such as are to be seen among
many of the modern tribes of the Southwest. The character of the warp
cannot be determined, as the woof, which has been of moderately heavy
rushes or other untwisted, vegetable fillets, entirely hides it.
[Illustration: Fig. 66.--From a fragment of ancient Cliff-house
pottery.]
The caves of Kentucky have furnished specimens of ancient weaving of
much interest. One of these, a small fragment of a mat apparently made
from the fiber of bark, or a fibrous rush, is illustrated in Fig. 67.
[Illustration: Fig. 67.--Fabric from a cave in Kentucky.]
This simple combination of the web and woof has been employed by all
ancient weavers who have left us examples of their work. The specimen
given in Fig. 68 is the work of the ancient Lake-Dwellers of
Switzerland. It is a mat plaited or woven of strips of bast, and was
found at Robenhausen, having been preserved in a charred state.[2]
Keller gives another example of a similar fabric of much finer texture
in Fig. 8, Pl. CXXXVI.
[Illustration: Fig. 68.--Fabric from Swiss Lake-Dwellings.]
[Footnote 2: Keller: Lake-Dwellers. Fig. 2, Pl. CXXXIV.]
An illustration of this form of fabric is given by Foster,[3] and
reproduced in Fig. 69.
[Illustration: Fig. 69.--Cloth from a mound, Ohio.]
[Footnote 3: Foster: Prehistoric Times.]
In the same place this author presents another form of cloth shown in my
Fig. 70. In Fig. 71 we have a section of this fabric. These cloths, with
a number of other specimens, were taken from a mound on the west side of
the Great Miama River, Butler County, Ohio. The fabric in both samples
appears to be composed of some material allied to hemp. As his remarks
on these specimens, as well as on the general subject, are quite
interesting, I quote them somewhat at length.
"The separation between the fibre and the wood appears to have been
as thorough and effectual as at this day by the process of rotting and
hackling. The thread, though coarse, is uniform in size, and regularly
spun. Two modes of weaving are recognized: In one, by the alternate
intersection of the warp and woof, and in the other, the weft is wound
once around the warp, a process which could not be accomplished except
by hand. In the illustration the interstices have been enlarged to
show the method of weaving, but in the original the texture was about
the same as that in coarse sail-cloth. In some of the Butler County
specimens there is evidently a fringed border."
[Illustration: Fig. 70.--Cloth from a mound, Ohio.]
[Illustration: Fig. 71.--Section.]
In regard to the second specimen described, I would remark that it is a
very unusual form, no such combination of the parts having come to my
notice either in the ancient fabrics themselves or in the impressions on
pottery. In a very closely woven cloth it might be possible to employ
such a combination, each thread of the web being turned once around each
thread of the woof as shown in Fig. 71; but certainly it would work in
a very unsatisfactory manner in open fabrics. I would suggest that this
example may possibly belong to my second group, which, upon the surface,
would have a similar appearance. The combination of this form is shown
in the section, Fig. 73.
SECOND GROUP.
It is not impossible, as previously stated, that open fabrics of the
plain type were avoided for the reason that the threads would not remain
in place if subjected to tension. A very ingenious method of fixing the
threads of open work, without resorting to the device of knotting has
been extensively employed in the manufacture of ancient textiles. The
simplest form of cloth in which this combination is used is shown in
Fig. 72. This example, which was obtained from a small fragment of
pottery found in Polk County, Tennessee, may be taken as a type.
[Illustration: Fig. 72.--From ancient pottery, Tennessee.]
[Illustration: Fig. 73.--Section.]
Two series of threads are interwoven at right angles, the warp series
being arranged in pairs and the woof singly. At each intersection the
pairs of warp threads are twisted half around upon themselves, inclosing
the woof threads and holding them quite firmly, so that the open mesh
is well preserved even when much strained. Fabrics of this character
have been employed by the ancient potters of a very extended region,
including nearly all the Atlantic States. There are also many varieties
of this form, of fabric resulting from differences in the size and
spacing of the threads. These differences are well brought out in the
series of illustrations that follow.
In regard to the manufacture of this particular fabric, I am unable to
arrive at any very definite conclusion. As demonstrated by Miss Osgood,
it may be knitted by hand, the threads of the warp being fixed at one
end and the woof at both by wrapping about pegs set in a drawing board
or frame, as shown in the diagram, Fig. 74.
[Illustration: Fig. 74.--Diagram showing the method of weaving
Form 2.]
The combination is extremely difficult to produce by mechanical means,
and must have been beyond the reach of any primitive loom. I have
prepared a diagram, Fig. 75, which, shows very clearly the arrangement
of threads, and illustrates a possible method of supporting the warp
while the woof is carried across. As each thread of the woof is laid in
place, the threads of the warp can be thrown to the opposite support,
a turn or half twist being made at each exchange. The work could be done
equally well by beginning at the top and working downward. For the sake
of clearness I have drawn but one pair of the warp threads.
[Illustration: Fig. 75.--Theoretic device for working the twist.]
Fig. 76 illustrates a characteristic example of this class obtained from
a fragment of pottery from the great mound at Sevierville, Tenn.
[Illustration: Fig. 76.--From fragment of mound pottery, Tennessee.]
The impression is quite perfect. The cords are somewhat uneven, and seem
to have been only moderately well twisted. They were probably made of
some vegetable fiber. It will be observed that the threads of the woof
are placed at regular intervals, while those of the web are irregularly
placed. It is interesting to notice that in one case the warp has not
been doubled, the single thread having, as a consequence, exactly the
same relation to the opposing series as corresponding threads in the
first form of fabric presented. The impression, of which this is only a
part, indicates that the cloth was considerably distorted when applied
to the soft clay. The slipping of one of the woof threads is well shown
in the upper part of the figure.
The fabric shown in Fig. 77 has been impressed upon an earthen vessel
from Macon, Ga. It has been very well and neatly formed, and all the
details of fiber, twist, and combination can be made out.
[Illustration: Fig. 77.--From ancient pottery, Georgia.]
The example given in Fig. 78 differs from the preceding in the spacing
and pairing of the warp cords. It was obtained from a fragment of
ancient pottery recently collected at Reel Foot Lake, Tennessee.
[Illustration: Fig. 78.--From ancient pottery, Tennessee.]
Fig. 79 represents another interesting specimen from the pottery of the
same locality. The border is woven somewhat differently from the body of
the fabric, two threads of the woof being included in each loop of the
warp.
[Illustration: Fig. 79.--From ancient pottery, Tennessee.]
Fig. 80 is from the pottery of the same locality. The threads are much
more closely woven than those already given.
[Illustration: Fig. 80.--From ancient pottery, Tennessee.]
The next example, Fig. 81, impressed upon a fragment of clay from
Arkansas, has been made of coarse, well-twisted cords. An ornamental
border has been produced by looping the cords of the woof, which seem
to have been five in number, each one passing over four others before
recrossing the warp.
[Illustration: Fig. 81.--From a piece of clay, Arkansas.]
In no locality are so many fine impressions of textiles upon clay
vessels found as in the ancient salt-making districts of the Mississippi
Valley. The huge bowl or tub-like vessels used by the primitive
salt-makers have very generally been modeled in coarse nets, or
otherwise have had many varieties of netting impressed upon them for
ornament.