The Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Textile Art of Eastern United
States, by William Henry Holmes

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: Prehistoric Textile Art of Eastern United States
       Thirteenth Annual Report of the Beaurau of American
              Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution
              1891-1892, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1896
              pages 3-46

Author: William Henry Holmes

Release Date: November 27, 2006 [EBook #19921]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TEXTILE ART ***




Produced by Carlo Traverso, Turgut Dincer, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at
http://gallica.bnf.fr)

PREHISTORIC TEXTILE ART

OF

EASTERN UNITED STATES

BY

WILLIAM HENRY HOLMES

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

 009

PREHISTORIC TEXTILE ART OF EASTERN UNITED STATES

By W. H. Holmes

INTRODUCTORY.

SCOPE OF THE WORK.

About the year 1890 the writer was requested by the Director of the Bureau of Ethnology to prepare certain papers on aboriginal art, to accompany the final report of Dr. Cyrus Thomas on his explorations of mounds and other ancient remains in eastern United States. These papers were to treat of those arts represented most fully by relics recovered in the field explored. They included studies of the art of pottery, of the textile art and of art in shell, and a paper on native tobacco pipes. Three of these papers were already completed when it was decided to issue the main work of Dr. Thomas independently of the several papers prepared by his associates. It thus happens that the present paper, written to form a limited section of a work restricted to narrow geographic limits, covers so small a fragment of the aboriginal textile field.

The materials considered in this paper include little not germane to the studies conducted by Dr. Thomas in the mound region, the collections used having been made largely by members of the Bureau of Ethnology acting under his supervision. Two or three papers have already been published in the annual reports of the Bureau in which parts of the same collections have been utilized, and a few of the illustrations prepared for these papers are reproduced in this more comprehensive study.

Until within the last few years textile fabrics have hardly been recognized as having a place among the materials to be utilized in the discussion of North American archeology. Recent studies of the art of the mound-building tribes have, however, served to demonstrate their importance, and the evidence now furnished by this art can be placed alongside of that of arts in clay, stone, and metal, as a factor in determining the culture status of the prehistoric peoples and in defining their relations to the historic Indians. This change is due to the more 010 careful investigations of recent times, to the utilization of new lines of archeologic research, and to the better knowledge of the character and scope of historic and modern native art. A comparison of the textiles obtained from ancient mounds and graves with the work of living tribes has demonstrated their practical identity in materials, in processes of manufacture, and in articles produced. Thus another important link is added to the chain that binds together the ancient and the modern tribes.

The textile art dates back to the very inception of culture, and its practice is next to universal among living peoples. In very early stages of culture progress it embraced the stems of numerous branches of industry afterward differentiated through the utilization of other materials or through the employment of distinct systems of construction. At all periods of cultural development it has been a most indispensable art, and with some peoples it has reached a marvelous perfection, both technically and esthetically.

Woven fabrics include all those products of art in which the elements or parts employed in construction are more or less filamental, and are combined by methods conditioned chiefly by their flexibility. The processes employed are known by such terms as wattling, interlacing, plaiting, netting, weaving, sewing, and embroidering.

Viewing the entire textile field, we find that the range of products is extremely wide. On the one hand there is the rude interlacing of branches, vines, roots, and canes in constructing houses, weirs, cages, rafts, bridges, and the like, and on the other, the spinning of threads of almost microscopic fineness and the weaving of textures of marvelous delicacy and beauty.

The more cultured peoples of Central America and South America had accomplished wonders in the use of the loom and the embroidery frame, but the work of the natives of the United States was on a decidedly lower plane. In basketry and certain classes of garment-making, the inhabitants of the Mississippi valley were well advanced at the period of European conquest, and there is ample evidence to show that the mound-building peoples were not behind historic tribes in this matter. In many sections of our country the art is still practiced, and with a technical perfection and an artistic refinement of high order, as the splendid collections in our museums amply show.

The degree of success in the textile art is not necessarily a reliable index of the culture status of the peoples concerned, as progress in a particular art depends much upon the encouragement given to it by local features of environment. The tribe that had good clay used 011 earthenware and neglected basketry, and the community well supplied with skins of animals did not need to undertake the difficult and laborious task of spinning fibers and weaving garments and bedding. Thus it appears that well-advanced peoples may have produced inferior textiles and that backward tribes may have excelled in the art. Caution is necessary in using the evidence furnished by the art to aid in determining relative degrees of culture.

The failure of the textile art to secure a prominent place in the field of archeologic evidence is due to the susceptibility of the products to decay. Examples of archaic work survive to us only by virtue of exceptionally favorable circumstances; it rarely happened that mound fabrics were so conditioned, as the soil in which they were buried is generally porous and moist; they were in some cases preserved through contact with objects of copper, the oxides of that metal having a tendency to arrest decay. The custom of burial in caves and rock shelters has led to the preservation of numerous fabrics through the agency of certain salts with which the soil is charged. Preservation by charring is common, and it is held by some that carbonization without the agency of fire has in some cases taken place.

Considerable knowledge of the fabrics of the ancient North American tribes is preserved in a way wholly distinct from the preceding. The primitive potter employed woven textiles in the manufacture of earthenware; during the processes of construction the fabrics were impressed on the soft clay, and when the vessels were baked the impressions became fixed. The study of these impressions led to meager results until the idea was conceived of taking castings from them in clay, wax, or paper; through this device the negative impression becomes a positive reproduction and the fabrics are shown in relief, every feature coming out with surprising distinctness; it is possible even to discover the nature of the threads employed and to detect the manner of their combination.

Evidence of the practice of textile arts by many ancient nations is preserved to us by such implements of weaving as happened to be of enduring materials; spindle-whorls in clay and stone are perhaps the most common of these relics. These objects tell us definitely of the practice of the art, but give little insight into the character of the products. It is a notable fact that evidence of this class is almost wholly wanting in the United States; spindle-whorls have in rare cases been reported from southern localities, and a few writers have mentioned their use by modern tribes.

It happens that in some cases we may learn something of the progress made by vanished peoples in this art by a study of the forms of such of their earthen vessels as were manifestly derived from baskets, or 012 made in imitation of them. The ornamental art of peoples well advanced in culture often bears evidence of the influence of the system of combination of parts followed originally in the textile arts, and little art, ancient or modern, in which men have endeavored to embody beauty, is without strongly marked traces of this influence. By the study of archaic ornament embodied in clay, wood, and stone, therefore, the archeologist may hope to add something to the sum of his knowledge of ancient textiles. It should be noted that the pottery of the mound-builders shows less evidence of the influence of textile forms than does that of most other nations, and some groups of their ware appear to present no recognizable traces of it whatever.

Although much information has been brought together from all of the sources mentioned, it is not at all certain that we can form anything like a complete or correct notion of the character and scope of the art as practiced by the mound-builders. No doubt the finest articles of apparel were often buried with the dead, but a very small fraction only of the mortuary wrappings or costumes has been preserved, and from vast areas once thickly inhabited by the most advanced tribes nothing whatever has been collected. Of embroideries, featherwork, and the like, so frequently mentioned by early travelers, hardly a trace is left.

The relations of our historic tribes to the ancient peoples of our continent and to all of the nations, ancient and modern, who built mounds and earthworks, are now generally considered so intimate that no objection can be raised to the utilization of the accounts of early explorers in the elucidation of such features of the art as archeology has failed to record. The first step in this study may consist quite properly of a review of what is recorded of the historic art. Subsequently the purely archeologic data will be given.

013

In undertaking to classify the textile fabrics of the mound region it is found that, although there is an unbroken gradation from the rudest and heaviest textile constructions to the most delicate and refined textures, a number of well-marked divisions may be made. The broadest of these is based on the use of spun as opposed to unspun strands or parts, a classification corresponding somewhat closely to the division into rigid and pliable forms. Material, method of combination of parts, and function may each be made the basis of classification, but for present purposes a simple presentation of the whole body of products, beginning with the rudest or most primitive forms and ending with the most elaborate and artistic products, is sufficient. The material will be presented in the following order: (1) Wattle work; (2) basketry; (3) matting; (4) pliable fabrics or cloths.

The term wattling is applied to such constructions as employ by interlacing, plaiting, etc., somewhat heavy, rigid, or slightly pliable parts, as rods, boughs, canes, and vines. Primitive shelters and dwellings are very often constructed in this manner, and rafts, cages, bridges, fish weirs, and inclosures of various kinds were and still are made or partly made in this manner. As a matter of course, few of these constructions are known to us save through historic channels; but traces of wattle work are found in the mounds of the lower Mississippi valley, where imprints of the interlaced canes occur in the baked clay plaster with which the dwellings were finished. When we consider the nature of the materials at hand, and the close correspondence in habits and customs of our prehistoric peoples with the tribes found living by the earliest explorers and settlers, we naturally conclude that this class of construction was very common at all known periods of native American history.

The constructors of native dwellings generally employed pliable branches or saplings, which are bound together with vines, twigs, and other more pliable woody forms. John Smith says of the Indians of Virginia[1] that—

Butel-Dumont also, in describing the dwellings of the Natchez Indians of the lower Mississippi region, speaks of the door of an Indian cabin "made of dried canes fastened and interlaced on two other canes placed across."[2]

A singular use of wattle work is mentioned by Lafitau. He states that the young men, when going through the ordeal of initiation on attaining their majority, were placed apart in—

Of a somewhat similar nature was the construction of biers described by Butel-Dumont. Speaking of the Mobilians, he says:

According to John Lawson, similarly constructed "hurdles" were in use among the Carolina Indians.

The tide-water tribes of the Atlantic coast region made very frequent use of fish weirs, which were essentially textile in character. John Smith mentions their use in Virginia, and Hariot gives a number of plates in which the weirs are delineated. The cut here given (figure 1) 015is from Hariot's plate XIII. It represents a very elaborate trap; much simpler forms are shown in other plates. Slender poles set in the shallow water are held in place by wattling or interlacing of pliable parts.

It is probable that traps of similar character were used by the mound-building tribes wherever the conditions were favorable. The only apparent traces of such weirs yet found in any part of the country are a number of stumps of stakes discovered by H. T. Cresson in Delaware river near Wilmington, but these appear to be much heavier than would have been used for the purpose by the natives.

Another somewhat usual use of wattling is mentioned by various authors. Butel-Dumont speaks of a raft made of poles and canes, and Du Pratz, writing of the Louisiana Indians, says:

We learn from various authors that cage-like coffins were constructed of canes and reeds something after the wattle style; and hampers, cages for animals, chests for treasures or regalia, biers, carrying chairs, fish baskets, beds and seats were often similarly made. These articles, being generally light and portable, and constructed of delicate parts, can as well be classed with basketry as with wattle work.

Perhaps no branch of the textile art was of greater importance to the aborigines than basketry. This term may be made to cover all woven articles of a portable kind which have sufficient rigidity to retain definite or stable form without distention by contents or by other extraneous form of support. It will readily be seen that in shape, texture, use, size, etc., a very wide range of products is here to be considered. Basketry includes a number of groups of utensils distinguished from one another by the use to which they are devoted. There are baskets proper, hampers, cradles, shields, quivers, sieves, etc. There is frequent historical mention of the use of basketry, but the descriptions of form and construction are meager. An excellent idea of the ancient art can be gained from the art of the present time, and there is every reason to believe that close correspondence exists throughout.

Lawson refers to basket-making and other textile arts of the Carolina Indians in the following language:

There are other mats made of flags, which the Tuskeruro Indians make, and sell to the inhabitants.

The baskets our neighboring Indians make are all made of a very fine sort of bullrushes, and sometimes of silk grass, which they work with figures of beasts, birds, fishes, &c.

A great way up in the country, both baskets and mats are made of the split reeds, which are only the outward shining part of the cane. Of these I have seen mats, baskets, and dressing boxes, very artificially done.[6]

James Adair, although, a comparatively recent writer, gives such definite and valuable information regarding the handiwork of the Southern Indians that the following extracts may well be made. Speaking of the Cherokees, he remarks:

This statement could in most respects be made with equal truth and propriety of the Cherokee work of the present time; and their pre-Columbian art must have been even more pleasing, as the following paragraph suggests:

That there was much uniformity in the processes and range of products and uses throughout the country is apparent from statements made by numerous writers. Speaking of the Louisiana Indians, Du Pratz says:

It happens that few baskets have been recovered from mounds and graves, but they are occasionally reported as having been discovered in 017caverns and shelters where conditions were especially favorable to their preservation. Such specimens may as reasonably be attributed to the mound-building as to the other Indians. The following statement is from John Haywood:

It is apparent that baskets of open construction were employed as sieves in pre-Columbian as well as in post-Columbian times. Almost any basket could be utilized on occasion for separating fine from coarse particles of food or other pulverulent substances, but special forms were sometimes made for the purpose, having varying degrees of refinement to suit the material to be separated.

Bartram mentions the use of a sieve by the Georgia Indians in straining a "cooling sort of jelly" called conti, made by pounding certain roots in a mortar and adding water.

Butel-Dumont describes the sieves and winnowing fans of the Louisiana Indians. The Indian women, he says, make very fine sieves—

Le Page Du Pratz says that "for sifting the flour of their maiz, and for other uses, the natives make sieves of various finenesses of the splits of cane;"[12] and a similar use by the Indians of Virginia is recorded by John Smith:

From Hakluyt we have the following:

That cradles of textile construction were used by the mound-builders may be taken for granted. The following is from Du Pratz, who is speaking of the work of the inhabitants of the lower Mississippi:

Woven targets or shields would seem to be rather novel objects, but such are mentioned by John Smith, who used those belonging to friendly Indians in an encounter on the Chesapeake:

No class of articles of textile nature were more universally employed by the aborigines than mats of split cane, rushes, and reeds, and our information, derived from literature and from such remnants of the articles themselves as have been recovered from graves and caves, is quite full and satisfactory. Mats are not so varied in form and character as are baskets, but their uses were greatly diversified; they served for carpeting, seats, hangings, coverings, and wrappings, and they were extensively employed in permanent house construction, and for temporary or movable shelters. A few brief extracts will serve to indicate their use in various classes of construction by the tribes first encountered by the whites.

Hariot says that the houses of the Virginia Indians—

It would appear from a study of the numerous illustrations of houses given by this author that the mats so often referred to were identical 019 in construction with those still in use among the tribes of the upper Mississippi and the far west. The rushes are laid close together side by side and bound together at long intervals by cords intertwined across. In e, plate I, is reproduced a small portion of a mat from Hariot's engraving of the dead-house of the Virginia Indians, which shows this method of construction.

The modern use of mats of this class in house construction is known by an example which I have seen represented in a small photograph, taken about the year 1868, and representing a Chippewa village, situated somewhere in the upper Missouri valley, probably not far from Sioux City, Iowa.

Mats were used not only in and about the dwellings of the aborigines, but it was a common practice to carry them from place to place to sleep on, or for use as seats or carpeting in meetings or councils of ceremonious nature. The latter use is illustrated in a number of the early accounts of the natives. Figure 2, copied from Lafitau, serves to indicate the common practice.

The omnipresent sweat-house of the aborigines is thus described by Smith:

Bartram, speaking of the Seminoles, states that the wide steps leading up to the canopied platform of the council house are "covered with carpets or mats, curiously woven of split canes dyed of various colours."[19]

020The use of mats in the mound country in very early times is described by Joutel as follows:

The mats so much used for beds and carpets and for the covering of shelters, houses, etc., were probably made of pliable materials such as rushes. De la Potherie illustrates their use as beds,[20] one end of the mat being rolled up for a pillow as shown in figure 3.

The sizes of mats were greatly varied; the smallest were sufficient for seating only a single person, but the largest were many yards in length, the width being restricted to a few feet by the conditions of construction.

Mats were woven in two or more styles. Where the strands or parts were uniform in size and rigidity they were simply interlaced, but when one strong or rigid series was to be kept in place by a pliable series, the latter were twisted about the former at the intersections as in ordinary twined weaving. The heavy series of strands or parts were held together side by side by the intertwined strands placed far apart, a common practice yet among native mat-makers. Much variety of character and appearance was given to the fabric by varying the order of the strands in intersection. It was a common practice to interweave strands of different size, shape, or color, thus producing borders and patterns of no little beauty. Du Pratz thus mentions the use of dyes by the Louisiana Indians: "The women sometimes add to this furniture of the bed mats woven of cane, dyed of 3 colours, which colours in the weaving are formed into various figures."[22] This is well illustrated 021in the mat from a rock shelter in Tennessee, later to be described, and the Indians of the east and north practiced the same art.

Speaking of the ceremony of smoking the calumet among the Iroquois, De la Potherie says:

Frequent mention is made of the use of mats in burial. Two brief extracts will serve to illustrate this use. Butel-Dumont makes the following statement regarding tribes of the lower Mississippi:

Brackenridge[25] says that a few years ago, in the state of Tennessee, "Two human bodies were found in a copperas cave in a surprising state of preservation. They were first wrapped up in a kind of blanket, supposed to have been manufactured of the lint of nettles, afterwards with dressed skins, and then a mat of nearly 60 yards in length."

The use of simple strands or parts in textile art precedes the use of spun threads, but the one use leads very naturally up to the other. In employing rushes, stems, grasses, etc., the smaller strands were doubled to secure uniformity of size, and when a number of parts were used they were combined into one by twisting or plaiting. In time the advantage in strength and pliability of twisted strands came to be recognized, and this led to the general utilization of fibrous substances, and finally to the manufacture of suitable fibers by manipulating the bark of trees and plants. Spinning was probably not devised until the weaver's art had made considerable advance, but its invention opened a new and broad field and led to the development of a magnificent industry. Semi-rigid fabrics served for a wide range of uses, as already described, but soft and pliable cloths for personal use and ornament were made possible only by the introduction of spinning.

On the arrival of the whites the native art was well advanced; thread, cordage, and even ropes of considerable weight were made with 022a degree of uniformity and refinement that surprises us. The finest threads with which I am acquainted are perhaps not as fine as our no. 10 ordinary spool cotton thread, but we are not justified in assuming that more refined work was not done. What we have is only that which happened to be preserved through burial with the dead or by impression on the plastic surface of clay used in the arts.

The materials employed for spinning by the aborigines were greatly diversified. Through historical as well as through purely archeologic sources we learn that both vegetal and animal filaments and fibers were freely used. The inner bark of the mulberry was a favorite material, but other fibrous barks were utilized. Wild hemp, nettles, grasses, and other like growths furnished much of the finer fibers. The hackling was accomplished by means of the simplest devices, such as pounding with hammers or sticks. The hair and sinews of animals were frequently spun into threads and woven into cloth.

A few citations from early authors will indicate sufficiently for present purposes the methods of spinning and weaving employed by tribes which, if not in all cases mound-builders, were at least the neighbors and relatives of the mound-building Indians.

The character of the woven articles is to a great extent indicated in the extracts which follow. It evidently was not customary to weave "piece" goods, but rather to make separate units of costumes, furnishing, etc., for use without cutting, fitting, and sewing. Each piece was practically complete when it came from the frame or loom. For clothing and personal use there were mantles, shawls, and cloaks to be worn over one or both shoulders or about the body as described by Hariot, Smith, the Knight of Elvas, Du Pratz, and others; there were skirts fastened about the waist and drawn with an inserted cord or looped over a belt; there were belts, sashes, garters, shot pouches, and bags. For household use there were hangings, covers for various articles, and bedclothing; there were nets for fishing and cords for angling. Some of these extracts describe the whole group of activities included in the practice of the art as well as the use of the products. I have considered it preferable to quote as a unit all that is said on the subject by each author, giving cross reference, when necessary, in discussing particular topics under other headings.

Weaving among the Indians of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and the northeast is described by Kalm, De la Potherie, and others. The following extracts are from Kalm, and will serve to indicate the status of the art over a wide area:

In another place this author describes the weaving of bark fibers:

De la Potherie, who wrote at an earlier date than Kalm, says—

Hariot, John Smith, and Adair bear witness to the primitive practice of the art in Virginia and the Carolinas. Smith uses the following words:

The Cherokees and other Indians with whom Adair came in contact preserved in their purity many of the ancient practices. The following extracts are, therefore, of much importance to the historian of the textile art in America:

The extent and importance of the art among the Gulf tribes are indicated by a number of early observers. The Knight of Elvas speaks of the use of blankets by the Indians, 83 degrees west longitude, and 32 degrees north latitude, or near the central portion of Georgia:

At Cutifachiqui similar fabrics were observed:

The frequent mention of fabrics used by the Indians for shawls, mantles, etc., makes it plain that such were in very general use when 025the town of Pacaha was captured, and the Spaniards clothed themselves with mantles, cassocks, and gowns made from these native garments. Everywhere woven shawls were a principal feature of the propitiatory gifts of the natives to the Spaniards.

The extent of this manufacture of hempen garments by the Indians of the lower Mississippi is well indicated in the account of the adventures of the expedition on the western side of the Mississippi at Aminoga. The Spaniards undertook the construction of brigantines by means of which they hoped to descend the Mississippi and to pass along the gulf coast to Mexico. A demand was made upon the natives for shawls to be used in the manufacture of sails, and great numbers were brought. Native hemp and the ravelings of shawls were used for calking the boats.[33] What a novel sight must have been this first European fleet on the great river, consisting of five brigantines impelled by sails of native manufacture!

It is worthy of note that in this region (of the lower Mississippi) the Spaniards saw shawls of cotton, brought, it was said, from the west—probably the Pueblo country, as they were accompanied by objects that from the description may have been ornaments of turquois.[34]

The following is from Du Pratz:

This is illustrated farther on.

The manner of weaving in the middle and upper Mississippi country is described by Hunter, who, speaking of the Osage Indians and their neighbors, says:

Fabrics of various kinds were employed in burial, although not generally made for that purpose. The wrappings of dead bodies were often very elaborate, and the consignment of these to tombs and graves where the conditions were favorable to preservation has kept them for long periods in a most perfect state. By exhumation we have obtained most of our information on this subject. Our knowledge is, however, greatly increased by descriptions of such burial customs as were witnessed in early times. Extracts already given refer to the use of fabrics in mortuary customs. Many others could be cited but the following seems sufficient:

The manufacture and use of nets by natives in various parts of the country are recorded by early writers, some of whom have already been quoted. Speaking of the Iroquois De la Potherie says:

In another place the same author says:

A novel use of nets is recorded by this author as follows:

027Du Pratz, speaking of the fishing nets of the Louisiana Indians, states that they "are meshed like ours and made of lime-tree bark; the large fish are shot with arrows."[41]

Feather work was one of the most remarkable arts of the natives of Mexico and other southern countries at the period of the conquest. The feathers were sometimes woven in with the woof and sometimes applied to a network base after the fashion of embroidery. Rarely, it may be imagined, were either spun or unspun fabrics woven of feathers alone. Very pleasing specimens of ancient Peruvian feather work are recovered from graves at Ancon and elsewhere, and the method of inserting the feathers is illustrated in the Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology.[42] In few instances has such work been recovered from mounds or burial places, but there can be no doubt that the mound-building tribes were experts in this art. Frequent mention is made of the feather work of the natives by the earliest explorers of the Mississippi valley, and the character of the work may be gathered from the extracts already given and from those which follow.

John Smith, speaking of the feather work of the Virginia Indians, says:

Lawson mentions a "doctor" of the Santee nation who "was warmly and neatly clad with a match coat, made of turkies feathers, which makes a pretty show, seeming as if it was a garment of the deepest silk shag."[44]

In another place the same author says:

Du Pratz thus describes the art in Louisiana:

028Butel-Dumont describes feather work of the natives of Louisiana briefly as follows:

The use of beads, quills, and other articles to beautify the surfaces of fabrics and skins was as common, no doubt, with the ancient as with the modern native inhabitants of the Mississippi valley. In discoursing on the dress of native women of Louisiana Butel-Dumont says that the young girls wear—

From Du Pratz we have the following:

John Smith testifies to the same practices in Virginia as shown in the following lines:

Contenting myself with the preceding references to the practice of the arts of spinning and weaving in the various regions of the country, 029I pass on to an examination of the archeologic material which includes traces or remnants of the weaver's work from all sections of the country. As already mentioned, there are a number of ways in which textile articles or data relating to them may be preserved in such manner as to permit examination and study.

Through charring by the use of fire in burial rites, and by contact with copper or preservative salts in burial caves, numerous pieces of cloth and parts of costumes have come into our possession. One of the most fertile sources of information has but recently been made available. The ancient potter employed woven fabrics in handling, finishing, and decorating pottery. From mounds, graves, and dwelling sites, all over the country, vases and sherds are found covered with impressions of these fabrics, and so well preserved that by taking casts in clay or wax entirely satisfactory restorations are made. Something may be learned from the recovery of implements of spinning and weaving, but up to this time the only relics secured are a few rather rude spindle whorls.

I shall present in the following paragraphs such portions of the available data as seem calculated to illustrate briefly and clearly the nature of the ancient art.

At an early date in the history of the country reports began to find their way into print relating to the discovery of mortuary fabrics in caverns and shelters. Extracts from some of these publications may be given.

From the writing of John Haywood historian of Tennessee, we have the following:

In the year 1815 a remarkably interesting set of mortuary fabrics was recovered from a saltpeter cave near Glasgow, Kentucky. A letter from Samuel L. Mitchell, published by the American Antiquarian Society, contains the following description of the condition of the human remains and of the nature of its coverings:

The Bureau of Ethnology had the good fortune to secure recently a number of representative pieces of burial fabrics of the classes mentioned in the preceding extracts, and somewhat detailed descriptions of these will sufficiently illustrate the art as practiced by the early inhabitants of the middle portions of the country.

The relics which have come into the possession of the Bureau were obtained in 1885 by Mr. A. J. McGill from a rock shelter on "Clifty" or Cliff Creek, Morgan county, Tennessee. Mr. J. W. Emmert, through whom they were procured, reports that they were found in a grave 3½ feet below the surface and in earth strongly charged with niter and perhaps other preservative salts. The more pliable cloths, together with skeins of vegetal fiber, a dog's skull, some bone tools, and portions of human bones and hair, were rolled up in a large split-cane mat. The grave was situated about as shown in the accompanying section (figure 4). A shelf some 20 feet in width, with depressed floor, occurs 031 about midway between the creek bed and the slightly overhanging ledge above, the whole height being estimated at 300 feet.

The mat, a very excellent piece of work, is 6 feet 6 inches by 3 feet 4 inches. By reference to plate II it will be seen that it is neatly and artistically made and quite well preserved. The strands are from one-third to three-sixteenths of an inch in width and are even on the edges and smoothly dressed on the back. The hard, glistening outer surface of the cane is light in color and the dressed surface is dark naturally or artificially, and the weaving is so managed that a tasteful border and a checkered effect are produced by alternately exposing the light and dark sides. This piece probably very fairly represents the split-cane work of the whole cane-producing region. A similar piece of work from the gulf coast is illustrated in figure 12.

Inclosed with the mat were three pieces of fabric of especial interest, all pertaining, no doubt, to the costume of the person buried. The piece of cloth shown in plate III probably served as a mantle or skirt and is 46 inches long by 24 wide. It is of coarse, pliable, yellowish-gray stuff, woven in the twined style so common all over America. The fiber was doubtless derived from the native hemp, and the strands are neatly twisted and about the size of average wrapping cord. The warp strands, 24 inches in length, extend across the piece; and on the left margin, as seen in the illustration, they are looped for the passage of a gathering string, while on the left they have been cut to form a short fringe. The opposing series (the woof strands) have been passed through with the length of the cloth in pairs, which are twisted half around at each intersection, inclosing the web strands in alternating pairs as shown in detail in figure 5. These twined strands are placed three-eights of an inch apart, the web being so close that the fabric is but slightly open. The twined strands are carried back and forth in groups of four as shown at the ends in the plate, and are knotted as illustrated in the figure.

A piece of fabric of much interest is presented in plate IV. It may be an unfinished garment of the class shown in the preceding illustration, but it is more likely a complete skirt, the narrow woven band with its gathering string serving as a belt and the long fringe being the skirt. The length at the gathered edge is 34 inches, and the pendant length is 20 inches. The material and the weaving are the same as in the piece of cloth already described, although the work is somewhat coarser. 032 A detailed study of the border is given in figure 6, the vertical series of threads being pulled apart to show more distinctly the manner of combination.

The two pieces just described would seem to correspond pretty closely with the garments formerly worn by women and girls of the lower Mississippi

country, as illustrated by Du Pratz in a plate facing page 310, volume II, of his Histoire de la Louisiane. His plate is reproduced in figure 7. The following are translations of his descriptions of the garments delineated:

Of equal interest to the preceding is the badly frayed bag shown in plate V. It is 20 inches in length and 13 inches in depth. The style of weaving is the same as that of the two preceding examples; a peculiar open effect is produced by the rotting out of certain strands of dark color, which were arranged in pairs alternating with eight lighter threads. The construction of the border or rim of this bag is quite remarkable. As shown in figure 8, the upper ends of the vertical 034 strands are gathered in slightly twisted groups of four and carried up free for about two inches, when they are brought together and plaited with remarkable neatness into a string border. As if to convey to the curious investigator of modern times a complete knowledge of their weavers' art, the friends of the dead deposited with the body not only the fabrics worn during life but a number of skeins of the fiber from which the fabrics were probably made. This fiber has been identified as that of the Cannabis sativa, or wild hemp. Two of the skeins are shown in plate V.

The presence of these unworked materials makes it probable that the individual burned was a female, for the distaff and the loom have been and are universal emblems of the practical enslavement of that sex.

A small but very instructive group of burial fabrics is preserved in the National Museum. These specimens were found with a desiccated body in 1877 in a cave 8 miles from Mammoth cave, Kentucky. They consist of a number of bags and other articles woven in the usual styles of bast and hemp. Nearly all of the articles are worn or fragmentary, but the fiber is wonderfully preserved and the original colors are as fresh as if the burial had taken place but yesterday. There are three wide-mouthed, shallow bags, resembling the one from Tennessee illustrated in plate V. The largest is 34 inches long when closed, and 15 inches deep. Both web and woof are of bast. There is a border of open work bound by a plaited band as seen in figure 8, and the manner of weaving is identical with that shown in that figure. The second bag is 22 inches long and 16 deep. The web is of bast, the woof of hemp. The smaller specimen is 14 by 9 inches and is made exclusively of hemp, and is thus much more pliable than the others. The small remnant of a larger bag shows a web of heavy, plaited bast strands resembling the specimen impressed on pottery and shown in a, plate IX. Besides these pieces there is a bit of heavy, compactly woven stuff, resembling the broad part of a sling, which shows traces of a geometric pattern, and a piece of flattish rope 12 feet long and 12 inches broad plaited very neatly of hempen twine.

Among a number of cave relics from Kentucky donated to the Museum by Mr. Francis Klett, are some textile articles. Among these is a sandal or moccasin woven or plaited very neatly of bast. It is shown in 035figure 9. Prof. F. W. Putnam and other explorers of these caves have obtained numerous textile articles of interest.

That the well-preserved fabrics just illustrated represent fairly the textile work of the mound-builders is practically demonstrated by the evidence furnished by the mounds themselves. From hundreds of sources come the same story; and it is not necessary here to enter into any elaborate discussion of the subject or to multiply illustrations. I present in plates VI and VII specimens of mound fabrics which, since they were burned with the dead, undoubtedly formed part of the clothing of the living or were wrappings of articles deposited with the bodies. These coarse cloths may be considered as fairly representing the weaving of the mound-builders. There are among them some finer examples of weaving than those obtained from the caves and shelters of Tennessee and Kentucky, but there is nothing specifically different in material or methods of combination, and there is nothing whatever to suggest a higher stage of culture than that of the historic Indian.

The fiber is quite fine and is more probably of hemp than of the bark of trees. The strands are generally well twisted and even, the twist being in most cases to the right, or as if twisted on the thigh with a downward movement of the right-hand, the thread being held in the left. As in the case of cave fabrics as well as the work of the modern peoples of the region, the weaving is nearly all in the twined style, of which there are two varieties; one in which each strand of the web is in turn inclosed simply by the woof twisted in pairs, and the other in which alternate pairs of the web strands are inclosed by the twined pairs of the woof. Cloths woven in the first method are often quite close, as the woof threads are readily pressed or pounded down on one another entirely hiding the web strands, giving a fabric of much compactness and strength. The second variety is usually some 036what open and net-like, and very often the pairs of twined woof strands are placed far apart, as shown in several of the illustrations given in this paper. The finest mesh observed is in the first of these styles, and includes about twenty intersections to the inch.

From the Ohio mounds also there are examples of plain as well as of diagonal interlacing. In appearance the cloth is much the same as that done in the twined style. In a few cases a border or selvage of very simple construction is seen. A looped margin for the passage of a gathering cord is common.

In plate VI a number of bits of charred cloth are shown; being quite black the camera fails to give them with clearness, but the drawings presented in plate VII serve to make clear all details of the strands and their combination. The charring has taken place in cremating the dead, in the burning of offerings or through accidental subjection to heat. In some cases very considerable portions of the cloth are found, but it is usually in a very fragile state and little has been preserved.

Specimens preserved in this way are obtained from a large area, including the Ohio and a large portion of the Mississippi valleys.

The preservation of woven textures through association in burials with implements or other articles of copper is of common occurrence. Our museums contain many examples of copper celts retaining on their surfaces portions of cloth so well preserved that the fibers retain much of their original strength as well as color. In plate VIII three examples are shown from a mound near Davenport, Iowa, and a fourth from a mound near Savannah, Georgia. The fabrics on a and b are of the twined style and, although occurring 800 miles apart, are identical in every respect. The cloth on c is very closely woven and has the appearance of simple interlacing. The finest piece of work that has come to my notice is a bit of cloth from a mound in Pike county, Ohio. It has from thirty-five to forty strands to the inch, and looks much like coarse twilled goods. It is woven in the twined style, however, and is therefore of native origin. It was preserved by contact with a large number of copper beads, four of which are shown in the cut, figure 10.

Traces of basketry are rarely preserved either by charring or by contact with copper. Matting is occasionally preserved in these ways. Figure 11 illustrates a piece of rush matting found fixed to the surface of a bit of copper in a mound near Augusta, Georgia.

The weaving of the hair of many species of quadrupeds, the buffalo, the opossum, the rabbit, etc., is noted by a number of authors, and a few 037 specimens of haircloth have been recovered from mounds. Mr. Henry R. Howland found in a mound near Alton, Illinois, two varieties of cloth preserved by contact with a copper ornament representing a turtle-shell; they are described as follows:

An illustration of ancient split cane matting is presented in figure 12. The specimen was obtained from Petite Anse island, near Vermilion bay, southern coast of Louisiana, and a photograph was presented to the Smithsonian Institution in 1866, by J. F. Cleu. The following description, as given by Prof. Joseph Henry, appears on the label attached to the specimen:

It was a common practice among the aborigines to employ woven fabrics in the construction and ornamentation of earthenware. Impressions were thus left on the clay, and by baking these were rendered as lasting as if engraved on stone.

From no other source do we obtain so wide a range of fabrics. The fabric-marked vases and sherds are obtained from mounds, graves, and village sites all over the country. There is not a state within the Mississippi or Atlantic drainage that does not furnish some example of the preservation of native fabric impressions on earthenware. The perfection with which every character of these textures is preserved is well shown in a number of the figures here introduced.

A somewhat extended study of this subject was published in the Third Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, and illustrations of nearly all the styles of weaving were given. As indicated by subsequent 038investigations, a number of slight inaccuracies of analysis and drawing occur in that paper, but they are of such minor importance that detailed correction is unnecessary.

It would seem that imprints of cloth woven in the plain interlaced style appear to be quite rare, although it is difficult, from the impressions on clay, to distinguish this from other forms when the threads are closely impacted. In somewhat rare cases the interlacing is so arranged and alternated as to give diagonal effects as in a specimen shown in figure 13. These effects are peculiar to the interlaced fabrics, not being produced in twined or netted work.

It has been supposed that vessels of clay were often modeled in baskets, and that the native earthenware preserved numerous impressions of baskets. On closer analysis these impressions turn out to be the application of pliable cloths, or of cords singly or in groups, or of stamps covered with textiles or having geometric textile-like patterns engraved on them. I can not recall a single example from eastern United States in which it is entirely clear that the clay vessel was modeled in a basket. The impressions of basket work occasionally seen are only partial, having been applied after the vessel was practically finished.

I present in figure 13, a small earthen vessel from a mound in North Carolina, the entire exterior surface of which is marked with a fabric, 039 a pliable cloth or bag woven in the twined styled. The impressions are not the result of a single application of the texture, but consist of several disconnected imprintings as if the hand or a paddle covered with cloth had been used in handling the vessel or in imparting a desired finish to the surface.

Specimens of diagonal fabrics, restored from potsherds, are given in figures 14 and 15. The first is a very neatly woven diagonal from the ancient pottery of Polk county, Tennessee. Two series of cords have been interwoven at right angles to each other, but so arranged as to produce the diagonal effect. One series of the cords is fine and well twisted, the other coarser and very slightly twisted. The second is a piece of matting restored from the impression on a small piece of pottery collected in Alabama. It was probably made of rushes or heavy blades of grass.

Twined weaving prevails in the fabrics impressed on pottery as in those from all other aboriginal sources. An example of the simplest 040 form, obtained from a small fragment of pottery found in Polk county, Tennessee, is shown in figure 16. Two series of threads are interwoven at right angles, the warp 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 net-like effect is well preserved even under strain or in long continued use. There are many varieties of this form of fabric resulting from differences in size and spacing of the threads. These differences are well brought out in the succeeding figures.

In figure 17 we have a characteristic example of this fabric, obtained from a fragment of pottery from a mound at Sevierville, Tennessee.055

041 The impression is quite perfect. The cords are somewhat uneven, and seem to have been only moderately well twisted. They were probably made of hemp fiber. It will be observed that the threads of the web are placed at regular intervals, while those of the woof are irregularly placed. It may be noticed that in one case the woof has not been doubled, the single thread having, as a consequence, exactly the same relation to the opposing series as corresponding threads in simple interlacing. The impression, of which this is only a part, indicates that the cloth used in shaping the vessel was considerably distorted when applied to the soft clay.

Nowhere else are found so many fine impressions of fabrics on clay vessels as in the ancient salt-making localities of the Mississippi valley. The huge bowls or vats used by the primitive salt-maker have generally been modeled in coarse, open fabrics, or have had cloths impressed upon them for ornament. In figures 18 and 19 fine examples of these impressions are given. The latter engraving illustrates a specimen in which every detail is perfectly preserved. Only a small portion of the original is shown in the cut. It is noticeable that the cords are quite heavy and well twisted, although the spacing is somewhat irregular.

042 The example given in figure 20, impressed on a fragment of clay from Arkansas, has an ornamental border produced by looping the cords of the web, which seem to have been five in number, each one passing over four others before recrossing the frame. A specimen showing a somewhat different border is given in figure 21.

The interesting specimen illustrated in figure 22 was obtained from a small fragment of pottery found in Ripley county, Missouri. The 043 combination of the two series of strands clearly indicates the type of fabric, the twisted cords of the woof being placed very far apart. The warp is of braid formed by plaiting strands of untwisted fiber, probably bast. All the details are shown in the most satisfactory manner in the clay cast.

In figure 23 we have a similar fabric closely woven or impacted. I have made the drawing to show fillets of fiber appearing at the ends; these do not appear in the impression. It is highly probable, however, that these fillets are plaited bands, as in the preceding example. They are wide and flat, giving somewhat the effect of basket-work of splints or rushes.

Another variety of the twined fabrics, distinguished by peculiarities in the combinations of the threads, is illustrated in figures 24 and 25. The threads of the warp are arranged in pairs as in the specimens 044 already described, but are twisted in such a way as to inclose two of the opposing series instead of one, each succeeding pair of warp threads taking up alternate pairs of the woof threads. Figure 25 is from a small piece of pottery exhumed from a mound on Fain island, Jefferson county, Tennessee. The threads of the woof are quite close together, those of the web being far apart.

That the native love of decoration had a marked influence on the weavers' art in its simplest and rudest as well as higher forms is well

045 evinced even in the meager vestiges brought to light by researches in the mounds. Decorative borders and fanciful combinations of strands are shown in some of the preceding cuts, and figure 26, copied from a pottery fragment obtained in the Ohio valley, indicates a more ambitious attempt at embellishment. The fabric was evidently of ornate design and the execution excellent.

Plate IX is intended to convey a clear notion of the nature and appearance of fabric-marked pottery and of the manner of securing positive impressions in clay. Three bits of pottery from Illinois are placed at the left, and the three casts appear at the right. All illustrate open fabrics of comparatively simple pattern done in the characteristic twined style.

Nets were in use by the Indians of Florida and Virginia at the time of the discovery, and the ancient pottery of the Atlantic states has preserved impressions of innumerable specimens. The piece shown in figure 27 is from a small fragment of pottery picked up in the District of Columbia. The impression is so perfect that the twist of the cord and the form of the knot may be seen with ease. Most of the examples from this locality are of much finer cord and have a less open mesh than the specimen illustrated. The net illustrated in figure 28 is from a specimen of North Carolina pottery. Netting of this class was still in use among the natives of the Chesapeake region when the English colonies were founded.

The lesson of the prehistoric textile art of eastern United States is simple and easily read, and goes far to round out the story of native occupation and culture. Colonial records furnish definite knowledge of the woven fabrics and weaving of the nations first encountered by the whites. Graves, mounds, and caves give us an insight into the pre-Columbian status of the art, and evidence furnished by associated industries which happen to echo features of the textile art contribute to our information. Charred cloths from the great mounds are identical in material, combination of parts, and texture with the 046 fabrics of the simple savage. Cloths preserved by contact with copper implements and ornaments characteristic of the art of the builders of the mounds do not differ in any way from the humble work of the historic peoples. All tell the same story of a simple, primitive culture, hardly advanced beyond the grade separating the savage from the barbarous condition.

INDEX

• Adair, James, on Cherokee basketry 16
  • weaving 23
  • Indian method of spinning 23
• Alabama, Fabric-impressed pottery from 39
• Apogynum, Indian use of, in weaving 23
• Arkansas, Fabric-impressed pottery from 42
• Art, textile, Memoir on 3-45
•  
• Bags, Woven, described 33, 34
• Bark clothing 17
  • fiber used in weaving 23, 24, 25
  • Mulberry, used for fringe 32
  • used in embroidery designs 28
  • net making 27
  • spinning 22
• Bartram, W., on council houses of mats 19
  • on sieve of Georgia Indians 17
• Basketry discussed 15
  • Earthenware derived from 11
  • Lack of pottery modeled from 38
  • rarely preserved by charring 36
• Beads used in embroidery 28
• Biloxi Mortuary customs of the 21
• Brakinridge, H. M., on Tennessee mortuary customs 21
• Bridges of wattle work 13
• Butel-Dumont, G. M., on Louisiana indian embroidery 28
  • featherwork 28
  • mortuary mats 21
  • sieves 17
  • Mobilian wattled biers 14
  • Natchez dwellings 14
  • rafts of poles and canes 15
•  
• Cages of wattle work 13
• Canes used for matting 18
• Carolina indians, Textile fabrics of 14, 16
• Caves, Fabrics preserved in 29
• Charring, Fabrics preserved by 35
• Cherokee, Basketry of the 16
  • Weaving by the 23
• Choctaw, Woven pouches and blankets of the 24
• Claws of birds used with embroidery 28
• Cleu, J. F., Split cane matting found by 37
• Cloth, Methods of manufacture of 22
• Conti, a Georgia Indian food 17
• Copper, as a fabric preservative 36
  • used in embroidery 28
• Cordage, Primitive manufacture of 21
• Costumes of Louisiana indian women 32, 33
• Cotton shawls of lower Mississippi 25
• Cradles, Textile, described 18
• Cresson, N. T., Remains of fish-weirs found by 15
•  
• Delaware, Remains of weirs in 15
• De Soto, H., Expedition of 25
• District of Columbia, Fabric-impressed pottery from 44, 45
• Du Pratz, Le. P., on Louisiana basketry 16
  • cane rafts 15
  • clothing 22, 25, 32, 33
  • dyes 20
  • embroidery 28
  • feather work 27
  • nets 27
  • sieves 17
  • textile cradles 18
• Dwellings of wattle work 13
• Dyeing of basketry by the Cherokee 16
  • embroidery materials 28
• Dyes, use of, by Louisiana Indians 20
•  
• Elwas, Knight of, on Georgia indian blankets 24
  • on Georgia indian costume 22
• Embroidery, Lack of remains of 12
  • of southern Indians 28
• Emmeet, J. W., mortuary fabrics procured by 30
•  
• Fans of turkey feathers 17
• Feather blankets of the Choctaw 24
  • weaving among Louisiana Indians 25
  • work described 27
  • Lack of remains of 12
• Fish-weirs of Virginia indians 14
  • of wattle work 13
• Florida indians, Nets made and used by 45
• Fossil fabrics discussed 28
•  
• Georgia, Fabrics from 36
  • indians, Textile fabrics of 17
  • indians,Remains of matting from 36
• Grasses employed in spinning 22
•  
• Hair used in weaving 22, 24, 25, 28, 36
• Hakluyt, Richard, on Indian sieves 17
• Hariot, Thomas, on indian costume 22
  • mat houses 18
  • indian fish-weirs 14
  • method of spinning 23
• Haywood, John, Mortuary fabrics described by 17, 29
• Hemp, Indian, in spinning and weaving 22, 23, 24, 25, 34
• Henry, Joseph, Description of cane matting by 37
• Holmes, W. H., Memoir by, on prehistoric textile art 3-45
  • on Peruvian feather-work 27
• Howland, H. R., Copper-preserved cloth found by 37
• Hunter, J. D., on Osage weaving 25
•  
• Illinoia, Copper-preserved cloth from 37
  • Fabric-impressed pottery from 41, 45
• Iowa, Fabrics from 36
• Iroquois, Nets of 26
•  
• Joutel,—, on indian use of mats 20
•  
• Kalm, Peter, on indian weaving 22
• Klett, F., Description of textiles found by 34
•  
• Lafitau, J. E., Illustration by, of council mats 19
  • on Pamunki initiatory shelters 14
• Lawson, John, on Carolina baskets 16
  • mortuary wrappings 26
  • Santee feather-work 27
  • wattled "hurdles" 14
• Lousiana, Split-cane matting from 37, 38
• Lye, Use of, in net-making 26
•  
• McGill, A. J., Mortuary fabrics procured by 30
• Mats, cane, Burial accompaniments found in 30
  • of Carolina indians 16
  • flags and rushes 26
• Matting, discussed 18
  • preserved by charring 36
  • of split cane from Louisiana 37, 38
• Missouri, fabric-impressed pottery from 42
• Mitchell, S. L., Mortuary fabrics described by 30
• Mobilians, Wattled biers of the 14
• Mortuary customs of the Louisiana tribes 21
  • fabrics preserved in caves 29, 30
  • wrappings 26
• Mound-builders, Character of pottery of 12
• Mouse-wood, Indian use of, in weaving 23
• Mulberry bark, used in weaving 24, 25
•  
• Natchez dwellings of wattle-work 14
• Nets of Florida and Virginia indians 45
  • Manufacture and use of 26
• Nettles employed in spinning 22
• North Carolina, Fabric-impressed pottery from 38, 45
•  
• Ohio, Fabric from mound in 36
• Osage indians, Weaving by 25
•  
• Pamunki initiatory shelters 14
• Paskagula mortuary customs 21
• Pemmenaw, Use of, in weaving 23
• Pliable fabrics described 21
• Porcupine skins used in embroidery 28
• Potherie, B. de la, on indian nets 26
  • sleeping mats 20
  • spinning 23
  • weaving 22
  • Iroquois ceremonial mats 21
• Potterie, Fabrics impressed on 37
  • Use of textiles in manufacture of 11
• Preservation of fossil fabrics 28
• Putnam, F. W., Textile articles found by 35
•  
• Rafts of poles and canes 15
  • wattle work 13
• Reeds used for matting 18
• Rope, primitive manufacture of 21
• Rushes used for matting 18
•  
• Sandal, woven, described and figured 34, 35
• Santee feather-work 27
• Sauteurs, Use of nets by the 26
• Shawls, Indian, used by Spaniards as sails 25
• Shelters, Fabrics preserved in 29
• Shields of Virginia Indians 18
• Sieves of basketry 17
• Sinew, Cloth of 22
• Smith, John, on indian costume 22
  • method of spinning 23
  • shields 18
  • Virginia indian embroidery 28
  • feather work 27
  • fish-weirs 14
• Smith, John, on Virginia indian sieves 17
  • wattled houses 13
• Spindle whorls as evidence of textile manufacture 11
• Spinning, Development of 21
• Strainers of basketry 17
• Sweat-houses made of mats 19
•  
• Targets, Woven 18
• Tennessee, Fabric-impressed pottery from 39, 40, 42, 43, 44
• Thomas, Cyrus, Mound exploration by 9
• Thread, primitive, Manufacture of 21
• Turquois among indians of lower Mississippi 25
• Tuskarora, Basketry of the 16
•  
• Virginia indian nets 45
•  
• Wattle work defined and described 13
• Weaving, Development of 21
  • Early descriptions of 22

End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Textile Art of Eastern
United States, by William Henry Holmes

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TEXTILE ART ***

***** This file should be named 19921-h.htm or 19921-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/9/9/2/19921/

Produced by Carlo Traverso, Turgut Dincer, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at
http://gallica.bnf.fr)


Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.



*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).


Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works

1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.  See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.

1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.

1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
     License.  You must require such a user to return or
     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
     Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
     of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.

1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.


Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.


Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:
     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
     Chief Executive and Director
     gbnewby@pglaf.org


Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate


Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.


Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.


Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

     http://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.