Archaeological Textiles: a View of Current Research

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001. 30:209–26 c 2001 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved Copyright ° ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES: A Review of Current Research Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. Irene Good Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138; e-mail: [email protected] Key Words cloth, cordage, fiber analysis, perishables, pseudomorphs ■ Abstract Archaeological textile studies are now recognized as a robust source of information for anthropological inquiry. Over the past two decades several important developments have taken place, enabling a more integrated approach to their study than in the past. Topics addressed range from the development of methods for analyzing degraded fibers to the comparative study of specific histories of textile and clothing traditions. Archaeological textile studies address relevant issues ranging from aesthetics and style to gender; from technological development to production and exchange economics. This chapter presents an overview of current research in the growing field of archaeological textile studies. INTRODUCTION The craft of using fiber to produce goods, ranging from floor mats to bridal dowry, addresses all three of the basic human needs: food, clothing, and shelter. Cordage, basketry, and matting, as well as woven cloth, have long been such an integral part of human adaptations that one can hardly pass through a day without using a metaphor that is ultimately derived from the production of fiber-related goods. The history of textile technology and its related crafts of spinning, plaiting, twining, and basketry is long and wide. We now know from direct evidence that the fiber arts were known in the Upper Palaeolithic on the Eurasian continent and came with the earliest inhabitants of the New World. The advent of producing spun thread from plant fibers is now recognized as a technological revolution (Barber 1994; Adovasio 2001). Manipulating reeds, bark, basts, and seed down into cords, braids, baskets, nets, mats, and cloth bolstered our capacity to adapt exponentially. By fastening some of these manipulated elements into passive threads onto a frame, the history of the loom began. Direct evidence for looms is rare, but we find early depictions on ceramics in the neolithic in Egypt, western Asia and in Europe (Broudy 1979). Looms diversified in their evolution in different regions of the world as distinct weaving traditions developed. Simple looms are not limited to producing simple woven cloth, however, 0084-6570/01/1021-0209$14.00 209 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. 210 GOOD as particularly evidenced in the later prehistory of Peruvian textiles. Complexity in weave, design, and manufacture are, in a very general sense, attributes of wealth and prestige, as cloth is a very practical visual display of labor. Complexity in loom technology only increased mechanization, expanding the possible dimensions and qualities of cloth produced, but also reducing the relative effort to produce complex weaves. Although archaeological traces of early fiber use and textile production are sparse and tenuous, evidence for early technological developments in the textile arts in both the Old and New Worlds has been growing steadily for well over two centuries. The study of ancient textiles goes at least as far back as the earliest antiquarians in Egypt. Bronze age cloth from the northern European bog-finds were among the most comprehensive nineteenth-century recordings of antiquity. Rare and fascinating to us, these tangible, delicate, intimate aspects of the archaeological record hold multiple layers of information about our past. The general recognition of the importance of textiles as an aspect of the archaeological record has become manifest, in large part because of the efforts of scholars such as James Adovasio, Patricia Anawalt, Elizabeth Barber, Junius Bird, Irene Emory, and Veronika Gervers, to name just a few. Over the past 20 years, the number and caliber of technical studies has risen dramatically, thanks to a new generation of scholars and scientists under their tutelage. Perhaps more significant is a greater degree of integration of textile, basketry, and other fiber arts–related data into the main forum of current discussions in archaeological theory, which is having direct impact on basic theoretical assumptions and paradigms. This chapter presents a broad overview of some of the current trends in the study of archaeological textiles and related materials. Once treated as little more than chance finds and curiosities, textiles, fibers, cordage, and other “perishables” have now garnered notable attention in recent archaeological research, not only because of improved techniques in their recovery and analysis, but also because researchers are more aware of the value this kind of data holds in the overall interpretation of archaeological finds. Another important contribution to this trend has been the accumulation of technical studies, which allows a coalescence of earlier archaeological textile data, in both area studies as well as in diachronic studies, to the point where synthesis is now possible. Research interests in fiber arts now range from clarifying and synthesizing the history of technologies (Webster & Drooker 2000; Barber 1999, 1991; Jørgensen 1999, 1992; Crowfoot et al 1992; Walton & Wild 1990) and ancient aesthetic traditions and their cross-cultural transfer (Rubinson 1990, Adovasio 2000, Anawalt 1992, 1998, Barber 1999), to palaeoeconomic studies (Brumfiel & Earle 1987, Costin 1993, Jakes & Ericksen 1997), gender studies (Brumfiel 1991; Costin 1995, 1996), and division of labor (Soffer et al 1998, 2000a,b), production (Sherratt 1981, Chapman 1983; Costin 1990, 1995, 1998; Brumfiel 1996; Kuttruff 1988), and fiber source procurement (Janaway & Coningham 1995, McCorrison 1997). These vantage points have become viable and informative lines of inquiry among art historians and archaeologists, as Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES 211 well as scholars of ancient history. Critical methodological issues such as developments in fiber identification and interpretation (Angel & Jakes 1990, Jakes 2000, Chen & Jakes 2001, Jakes et al 1990, Srinivasan & Jakes 1997, Good 1999, Janaway & Scott 1989, Boddington et al 1987), or the epistemological limitations of intrasite spatial distribution of small finds related to textile craft such as spindle whorls (Costin 1990), are also important and active pursuits. A comprehensive approach to the study of ancient textiles and fiber perishables addresses physical construction (Fowler et al 2000, Deegan 1997, Adovasio & Maslowski 1980, Frazier 1989), coloration (Jakes et al 1990, Sibley & Jakes 1994, Sibley et al 1992), and content (Körber-Grohne & Küstler 1985, Good & Kim 1994, Good 1995a, Wild 1984) in the context of the implements (if any) from which they are derived (Alfaro 1990; Bird 1983; Good 1995b; H. Tu, unpublished observations). These in turn are viewed within their social and physical environmental contexts (Sibley et al 1996; Song et al 1996; I.L. Good, unpublished data). This integrated approach has become a highly productive avenue of discovery into understanding some of the social processes that underlie the agency of production, use, and exchange, in terms of the generation and regeneration of style, genre, and aesthetic, as well as technique, process, and valuation. We now are able to examine how these facets of human experience are interfaced with regionalization, cultural demarcation, and the expression of social boundaries (Barber 1991; Bernick 1987; Cassman 2000; Teague 2000; Good 1998, 1999). Observing these critical social processes through the diachronic perspective offered by archaeology has allowed us to obtain a more comprehensive and seasoned understanding of issues that are highly relevant to social science. THE NATURE OF THE DATA What exactly is a textile? Most textile scientists would agree that it can be defined as “a web of interlaced threads produced on a loom.” However, there are numerous objects that do not fall easily into that precise a definition, and there are several classes of fiber artifact that derive from related but separate technologies (for current discussions of terminologies and definitions see Emery 1980, Fowler et al 2000, Adovasio et al 1999; see also Seiler-Baldinger 1994). The main venues for organic preservation are extreme aridity, freezing, acidic microenvironments (such as those near a metal object), or nitrogen-rich bogs in which little or no oxidation can occur. Each set of conditions plays a role in the nature of the preservation and concomitant conservation problems and courses of action. The ideal soil pH depends on the type of fiber. Linen and other cellulosic fibers preserve better in alkaline conditions, whereas animal protein fibers such as wool preserve better in slightly acidic environments. There are several ways in which cordage, netting, matting, basketry, felts, and textiles or their traces can be recovered archaeologically. They can range from 212 GOOD Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. actual intact objects, to degraded fragments of former objects or their components with intact fibers, to chemically degraded pseudomorphs, even mere traces in soil. Textile and basketry information can also be derived from impressions in clay and plaster, whether purposive or unintended, and from design and patterns found in representational art and other media. Finally, there is an encyclopedic source of textile information, from fiber procurement to regional specialized craft production and exchange, within its own social context, which has been recovered from ancient texts (e.g., Waetzoldt 1972, Kuhn 1982, Steinkeller 1995). Clearly, the resources at our disposal are abundant. Intact Structures of Perishable Materials Occasionally, complete articles of clothing are found in archaeological contexts (see for example, Crowfoot et al 1992, Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, Broholm & Hald 1940, Zhao & Yu 1998). Much more common in archaeological contexts are fragmented textiles or other perishable objects that have nevertheless retained their structure (see Figure 1). Intact textiles have been recovered and recorded from excavations for well over a century. The famous Bronze Age burial mounds and bog finds in Denmark, for example, turned the attention of antiquarians toward textile finds and their importance. From the barrows of Borum Eshøj, first Figure 1 Scytho-Siberian “animal style” reindeer carefully executed in tapestry technique woolen panel from late first millennium B.C.E., Sampula, Xinjiang. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES 213 excavated in 1875, a very important corpus of textiles has been preserved. Although many of the objects were compromised owing to the circumstances of their discovery, the textile finds from this well-known site to this day remain part of a large inventory of curated Bronze Age costume from northern Europe. The Tarim Basin sites discovered during the early twentieth-century Sino-Swedish expeditions of Bergman and Hedin (1927–1935) and the British and Indian government expeditions led by Stein (1913–1916) and more recently by the Chinese (1976– 1986) (Zhao & Yu 1998; Xia 1979; Wang 1986), as well as sites in the New World yielding large amounts of perishable remains, particularly in the American Southwest (Adovasio 1972, 1980; Adovasio & Gunn 1986) and Peru (Bird & Hyslop 1985), have collectively produced a considerable corpus of intact textile remains. Exhaustive technical studies of textiles and clothing recovered from these excavations have begun to accumulate over the past several decades; some are recent studies of earlier excavations, for example of the corpus of cloth from the famous discovery of Tutankh-amun’s tomb (Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993), and from the expedition to Pachacamac in Peru (Van Stan 1967). Others have been incorporated into final site reports, such as the several excavations in western Asia that recovered significant amounts of perishable fiber artifacts to warrant attention, such as those at Palmyra in Syria (Pfister & Bellinger 1945), at Gordion in Turkey (Ellis 1981; see also Bellinger 1962), and at Nahal Hemar in Israel (Schick 1988a,b). Textile specialists have written exhaustive documentation of the technical aspects of these finds, and later technical and textile historical syntheses have also been written (Andrews 1935; Sylwan 1937, 1941, 1949; O’Neale 1936; Simmons 1956; Hald 1980; Anawalt 2000). With each generation of interested specialists come new and more comprehensive techniques, so that techniques and methodological approaches can now address multiple levels of analysis (e.g., Ericksen et al 2000). With the advancement of analytical technology has come a plethora of scientific studies applying these new tools to the analysis of ancient perishable fiber artifacts (Jakes & Angel 1989; Jakes & Howard 1986; Good & Kim 1994; Chen & Jakes 2001; Chen et al 1996a,b, 1998, 2000). Degraded Fiber Artifacts with Intact Fibers A perishable object can be mechanically or chemically degraded, or both. Sometimes textile traces are found in soil but are too disintegrated to rescue. In each of these conditions, however, it is still possible to recover information about fibers and even threads, if present (see Figure 2). Threads often retain their shape from their former structure, under most conditions favorable to their preservation, making it possible to at least partially reconstruct the object structure. For example, construction along with fiber and spin information can often reliably relate partial finds to a larger cultural context and can inform us about technique, skill, craft specialization, choice, access to materials, and other basic factors that played Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. 214 GOOD Figure 2 Image of Linum fiber single cell “ultimates” from third millennium B.C.E., Shahr-i Sokhta, Iran, using interference microscopy to highlight diagnostic dislocation scars. a role in creating past social environments (see Deegan 1997; Johnson 1996; Kuttruff 1988; Good 1995a, 1999; Rodman 1992; DeRoche 2001; Anawalt 1988, 1997; Cassman 2000). A related situation to this is the occurrence of traces of thread or other binding material in a composite find, such as a necklace of beads, where traces of thread are still encased within the holes of some of the beads. The careful study of this type of small find, along with the removal of matrix soil around the find during retrieval in the field and withholding cleaning until examination, are each valuable tactics to practice. Beads found from a child’s grave in chalcolithic Nevasa in South Asia, for example, retained intact thread fragments made of mixed fibers of silk and bast (Gulati 1961). If this attribution and date are correct, the silk is one of the earliest examples on record outside of China. This kind of find also occurred at Roman Period Sardis in Turkey, where beads revealed traces of an exceptionally fine wool thread (Greenwalt 1990). This fine wool is one of a rare number of early examples of the development of fine wool fleece (Ryder 1969, 1983, 1987). These and other small pieces of evidence have been gradually filling in the gaps of our knowledge of fiber use in prehistory. Thread and cordage can be studied for the direction and degree of spin, as well as for fiber content. Much attention has recently been given to this very perfunctory utilitarian category, resulting in some surprisingly profound revelations ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES 215 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. concerning handedness, spinning technique, and the tenacity of taught methods of spinning and plying (Minar 2000, Petersen 2000, Petersen & Adovasio 1999, Sibley et al 1989). The consideration of this kind of work in reshaping current perceptions of issues such as the division of labor and status differentiation in the Upper Palaeolithic and PalaeoIndian periods, now that more evidence has come to light (Adovasio 1998; Soffer et al 2000a,b). Even when extant fibers are lost, in certain conditions, traces of fibers and fiber objects can be recognized, if care is taken to look for them. Pseudomorphs A pseudomorph is a physical trace remain of a former fiber, thread, or textile. The term was first coined by Vollmer (1974). Much more common than textile finds, these delicate traces are occasionally found on calcined ceramic vessels, metal objects, and even on stone. Pseudomorphs, sensu stricto, contain not intact fibers but only their chemical breakdown products. Pseudomorphs occur primarily when textiles are in contact with metal objects. As the metal breaks down, the concomitant metal salts create a specific type of microenvironment that is ideal for the preservation of textiles. Pseudomorphs are highly useful for study because they often leave negative hollows of the fibers in casings of metal salts, much like a fossil cast, leaving behind the structure of the former cloth and hints of the threads and fibers (see Chen et al 1998, Janaway & Scott 1989, Boddington et al 1987). It is quite common, however, for these pseudomorphs actually to have trace amounts of chemically intact fiber preserved in the matrix. Biochemical study of preserved fibers in pseudomorphs has yet to become routine, although this approach is feasible for identifying fiber content and can be much more informative than chemical testing (see Good 1995a, 1999). Impressions Another form of indirect textile trace formation is in the negative; textile and reed matting impressions are commonly found in clay, mud, and plaster from architectural features. Textile impressions are also found in ceramics; in fact there are distinct pottery manufacturing traditions that require the use of cloth. The traces of the cloth are baked right into the pot. Various ceramic traditions from regions throughout the world use some kind of technique involving cord-marking or textile-impressed paddling; and some of these traditions have been carefully studied (Bird 1956, Hyland et al 2000, Shishlina et al 2000, Shishlina 1999, Harding et al 2000). Impressions have been recovered from Mesolithic and Upper Paleolithic sites in eastern Europe and Russia (Adovasio 1998, 2000). Sometimes microscopic amounts of actual fibers can be retained in the matrix containing the impression (see Figure 3). This humble class of artifact is currently transforming fundamental perceptions we have built about the past, particularly in our deep prehistory (Adovasio 1999). Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. 216 GOOD Figure 3 An apparently unintentional textile and cord impression in a baked clay nodule from late fourth millennium B.C.E., Anau, Turkmenistan. Cloth and Clothing Design and Patterns Derived From Representational and Abstracted Art It is an almost universal maxim that social groups, and individual social stations within groups, are marked via cloth, clothing, and modes of dress. The study of ancient dress, therefore, is of particular interest to anthropologically trained archaeologists. There are also indirect ways of reconstructing ancient cloth and clothing from less perishable archaeological remains. One aspect of this type of approach is to study actual dress and ornamentation as derived from representational art, from detailed statuary (see Figure 4) to small ceramic figurines. Particularly noteworthy in this regard are the finely executed statuary from Early Dynastic Mesopotamia made of basalt or diorite. The hard stone has preserved a great amount of detail from some of the rather exacting executions of dress. Human dress and adornment derived from figurines and other forms of representational art have been studied in many other instances (Tosi 1983; Kawami 1992, 1992; Koslin 1987, 2001), some on the level of a concerted effort to reconstruct costume (Anawalt 1988, 1992, 2000; Anawalt & Davis 2001; Gullberg & Åstom 1970; Soffer et al 2000a,b). A second approach is that of inferring textile and basketry designs from artwork. Ceramic motifs in particular can help to ascertain the type of weave or possibly the type of loom. An example of this type of study is an examination of the traditional Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES 217 Figure 4 Extant paint showing detail of textile decoration on marble statue from fifthcentury B.C.E. Greece. Turkoman carpet patterns derived from ceramics (Pinner 1982). A better-known example of this is that of the wall frescoes of Çatal Hüyük by Mellart (1975, 1962). Barber has examined Bronze Age wall frescoes in the Mediterranean and deduced much concerning weaving structures from patterned motifs (Barber 1991; see also Sibley et al 1991). Discussion of Current Issues in Archaeological Textile Studies There have been two major difficulties challenging the archaeological study of textiles. The first is a methodological one, and the second is interpretive. There are several factors that make the analysis of archaeological textiles especially difficult. One obvious factor is that of fiber degradation. There are myriad ways in which a fiber can degrade, making it necessary to have a diverse range of analytical tests available. Carbonization is one of the more common states in which archaeological textile fibers are recovered. Researchers have worked on the specific problem of carbonization with regard to perishable material remains in general (e.g., see Letts et al 1994). The problem of identifying carbonized fibers and otherwise degraded samples is what makes archaeological fiber analysis challenging, and caution must always be exercised in making identifications. Fiber identifications can be inaccurate or inadequate, either because of difficulty distinguishing diagnostic features under poor conditions of preservation or Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. 218 GOOD because the information was not sought out. The vast majority of archaeological fibers are badly degraded or carbonized by the time they reach the specialist’s laboratory, and the limitations of conventional light microscopy can deter proper identification. Without access to an array of analytical techniques such as scanning electron microscopy, phase contrast and interference microscopy, and chemical and biochemical methods, identifications are often lacking or even counterproductive. For example, the famous textiles from the Neolithic site Çatal Hüyük in southeastern Anatolia, dating to 6000 B.C.E., were originally thought to be woolen (Helbaek 1963). Only later analysis by Ryder (1965), however, revealed that they are of bast. The difficulty in their identification was because the fibers were opaqued by carbonization, which is problematic in conventional transmission light microscopy. Proteins, lipids, and even DNA from cortical cells can be detected and identified from animal fibers in degraded condition (e.g., see Sibley & Jakes 1984). These types of analysis have begun to be carried out on archaeological fibers, in particular with wild and domesticated silks (Good & Kim 1994, 1995a). Biochemical testing can be applied to other animal fibers from archaeological textiles as well and has been done recently with success (Good 1999). Another biochemical test is polymerase chain reaction, where fragments of ancient DNA extracted from proteinaceous fibers are amplified. (For recent application of this type of test on ancient DNA, see Francolatti 1998; see also Pääbo et al 1989.) Each of these tests should be used as a corroborative tool for identification and should not be relied upon in isolation. Perhaps the more consequential problem, however, is interpretive. Imprecise or inconclusive identifications can be misinterpreted, and then the misinterpretations become amplified into general archaeological literature. For example, a textile discovered in 1932 in a Hallstatt grave was thought to be Chinese silk even though the technical report clearly stated that the chemical tests were inconclusive (Hundt 1971). The general literature discussing the finds assumes Chinese origin to be a fact, and the interpretation of long-distance contacts revolves around this single assumption (cf. Wells 1980, p. 84; Wild 1984; Barber 1991, pp. 31–32). In another example, linen was identified among the textile finds at Gordion in Turkey and assumed imported, simply because virtually nothing was known at that time about fiber procurement in Iron Age Anatolia (Young 1958, Bellinger 1962). Ascertaining the fiber in a fiber-perishable artifact will necessarily have a great bearing on the understanding of this critically important aspect of material culture history. The information required to make this judgment is not always consulted or is not always available. Even when the fiber identification is accurate, interpretation of it can be faulty. By using a multiple range of tests for identifications, along with a contextual and environmental approach to the interpretation of fiber perishables, a more precise knowledge of textile and fiber-related materials within a given area can be ascertained, thus allowing for more refined interpretation of finds. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES 219 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. CLOSING REMARKS A concise yet truly comprehensive review of the current state of research in archaeological textiles, from the Upper Palaeolithic to historic periods, in the Old and New Worlds, is a truly daunting task. This chapter is limited to the review of some of the more salient aspects of recent trends, primarily from reports in English, although much relevant literature exists in many other languages, particularly from journals published in Russian, Norwegian, Danish, Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese. Archaeological textiles and other perishable fiber artifacts are materials that are highly conducive to study from multiple approaches: from the perspective of a qualitative aesthetic discipline, as well as from a quantitative, deductive materials science investigation. The processes of their production have required complex, scheduled, highly labor-intensive human effort and have always been in constant demand (therein perhaps is the true significance of their being “perishables”), and perhaps even more than the processes of ceramic production, they tend to adhere to multiple semiotic and stylistic norms over time and place. Whereas fiber objects are a relatively small portion of the archaeological record, textiles have provided us with a relatively large portion of the information we have gained about the past. For this reason the study of archaeological textiles and other fiber products holds a unique position in anthropology. Although they will never be as commonly recovered from archaeological sites as more durable materials, textiles and other ephemeral fiber objects and their related materials have been studied intensely for well over a century. There is also much in the way of related evidence at our disposal that does preserve well. Recent efforts in art history, textile history, and archaeology, as well as in textile science and chemistry, have helped to create momentum in bringing cohesion, meaning, and accessibility to this once arcane subject. These cumulative data we now have at our disposal are amply suited for a new generation of comparative studies and syntheses for addressing some basic anthropological questions. Fresh textile and fiber perishables data can now be interpreted with the aid of a large interdisciplinary framework built from what we know, rather than simply documented in site report appendices and forgotten, as they often were just 20 years ago. This new trend will perhaps accelerate the process of bringing the subject of ancient fiber use into view as a serious subdiscipline of archaeology, routinely taught to students of archaeology, museum studies, and textile science, rather than being left to a handful of overwhelmed specialists. It is important to continue with diligence the restudy and revision of weaker aspects of earlier technical studies when possible, for accurate data sets are an imperative prerequisite to producing meaningful interpretations. We must also strive for a balance between technical acumen and relevance, taking care to increase the level of integration between inference and assumption, rather than to compromise one over the other. We can now expect much more of these valuable “perishable” 220 GOOD artifact data to come to the light of day, and we can also expect much more information to be revealed. Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. LITERATURE CITED Adovasio JM. 1972. Basketry as an indicator of archaeological frontiers: a case study from the Southwest. Presented at Annu. Meet. Soc. Am. Arch., 37th, Miami Adovasio JM. 1980. Prehistoric basketry of western North America and Mexico. In Early Native Americans: Prehistoric Demography, Economy and Technology, ed. D Browman, pp. 341–62. The Hague: Mouton Adovasio JM. 1998. Perishable industries and the colonization of the East European Plain. Presented at Int. Congr. Anthropol. Ethnol. Sci., 14th, Williamsburg, VA Adovasio JM. 1999. Perishable artifacts, paleoindians and dying paradigms. Presented at “Clovis Beyond—Peopling America.” Conf., Santa Fe, NM Adovasio JM. 2000. Style, basketry and basketmakers: agency concretized in a perishable medium. Presented at Annu. Chacmool Conf., 33rd, Calgary, Can. Adovasio JM. 2001. Perishable technology and Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene adaptations in the Americas. Presented at Plants Perishables Prehist. Symp., SAA 66th Ann. Meet., New Orleans, LA, Apr. 18–22, 2001 Adovasio JM, Gunn JM. 1986. The antelope house basketry industry. In Archeological Investigations at Antelope House, ed. DP Morris, pp. 306–97. Washington, DC: Natl. Park Serv., US Dep. Inter. Adovasio JM, Maslowski RF. 1980. Textiles and cordage. In Guitarrero Cave, ed. TF Lynch, pp. 253–90. New York: Academic Alfaro C. 1990. Weaving systems in northwest Europe: Prehistoric to Roman. See Walton & Wild 1990, pp. 29–37 Anawalt PR. 1988. Pageantry of Aztec warfare as reflected in military attire. In Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of Thelma D. Sullivan, ed. JK Josser, K Dakin, pp. 113–50. Oxford, UK: BAR Int. Ser. 402 Anawalt PR. 1992. A comparative analysis of the costumes and accoutrements of the Codex Mendoza. In The Codex Mendoza, ed. FF Berdan, PR Anawalt, 1:103–50. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Anawalt PR. 1997. Textiles as sacrifice: Aztec ritual capes. In Sacred and Ceremonial Textiles: Proc. 5th Bienn. Symp. Text. Soc. Am., 1996, pp. 131–40. Earleville, MD: Text. Soc. Am. Anawalt PR. 1998. They came to trade exquisite things: ancient West Mexican-Ecuadorian contacts. In Ancient West Mexico: Art and Archaeology of the Unknown Past, ed. RF Townsend, pp. 233–50. New York: Thames Hudson; Chicago: Art Inst. Chic. Anawalt PR. 2000. Textile research from the Mesoamerican perspective. See Drooker & Webster 2000, pp. 205–28 Anawalt PR, Davis V. 2001. Perished but not beyond recall: Aztec textile reconstruction via word, image and replica. In Fleeting Identities: Perishable Material Culture in Archaeological Research, ed. PB Drooker, pp. 187–209. Occasional Paper No. 28. Carbondale, IL: Cent. Archaeol. Investig., South. Ill. Univ. Andrews FH. 1935. Descriptive Catalogue of Antiquities Recovered by Sir Aurel Stein During His Explorations in Central Asia, Kansu and Eastern Iran. New Delhi: Central Asian Antiq. Mus. Angel A, Jakes KA. 1990. Preparing and analyzing fractured archaeological fibers. J. Electron Microsc. Tech. 20(14):1–5 Barber EW. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Barber EW. 1994. Women’s Work—the First Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES 20,000 Years. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Barber EW. 1999. The Mummies of Ürümchi. New York: Norton Bellinger L. 1962. Textiles from Gordion. Bull. Needle Bobbin Club 46:1–2 Bernick K. 1987. The potential of basketry for reconstructing cultural diversity on the northwest coast. In Ethnicity and Culture: Proc. 18th Annu. Conf. Archaeol. Assoc. Univ. Calgary, ed. R Auger, MF Glass, S MacEachern, PH McCartney, pp. 251–57. Calgary, Can.: Univ. Calgary Archaeol. Assoc. Bird J. 1956. Fabrics, basketry and matting as revealed by impressions on pottery. In WA Fairservis Jr: Excavations in the Quetta Valley, West Pakistan. Anthropol. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York. Appendix 2. 45(2):372–77 Bird J. 1983. Matched pair of archaeological looms from Peru. In In Celebration of the Curious Mind, ed. N Rogers, M Stanley, pp. 1–8. Loveland, CO: Interweave Bird J, Hyslop J. 1985. The preceramic excavations at Huaca Prieta, Chicama Valley, Peru, with textile sections by JB Bird, completed by MD Skinner. Anthropol. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York. 62(1) Boddington A, Garland AN, Janaway R. 1987. Death, Decay, and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press Broudy E. 1979. The Book of Looms—a History of the Handloom from Ancient Times to the Present. Providence, RI: Brown Univ. Press Broholm HC, Hald M. 1940. Costumes of Bronze Age Denmark; Contributions to the Archaeology and Textile History of the Bronze Age. Copenhagen: Ny Nordisk Brumfiel EM. 1991. Weaving and cooking: women’s production in Aztec Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, ed. JM Gero, MW Conkey, pp. 224–51. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Brumfiel EM. 1996. The quality of tribute cloth: the place of evidence in archaeological argument. Am. Antiq. 61(3):453–62 221 Brumfiel M, Earle T. 1987. Specialization, exchange and complex societies: an introduction. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, ed. E Brumfiel, T Earle, pp. 1–9. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Cassman V. 2000. Prehistoric ethnicity and status: the textile evidence. See Drooker & Webster 2000, pp. 253–60 Chapman JC. 1985. The secondary products revolution and the limitations of the neolithic. Bull. Inst. Arch. 19:107–22 Chen HL, Foreman DW, Jakes KA. 1996. X-ray diffractometric analyses of the microstructure of mineralized plant fibers. In Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic and Biochemical Analysis, ed. MV Orna, pp 187–201. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 625, Wahsington, DC. Chen HL, Foreman DW, Jakes KA. 2000. Peakfitting analysis of cellulose powder XRD spectra. Preprints Poly. Mat. Sci. Engl. Sect. Am. Chem. Soc. Natl. Meet. 20th Washington, DC Chen HL, Jakes KA, Foreman DW. 1998. Preservation of archaeological textiles through fibre mineralization. J. Archaeol. Sci. 20(25):1015–22 Chen HL, Jakes KA, Foreman DW. 1996. SEM, EDS and FTIR examination of archaeological mineralized plant fibers. Text. Res. J. 66(4):219–24 Chen R, Jakes KA. 2001. FTIR microspectroscopy as an effective tool for single fiber identification and fiber structural analysis. Postprints Text. Specialty Group, Am. Inst. Conservation of historic and artistic works, pp. 25–37. Vol. 10. Washington, DC: Am. Inst. Conserv. In press Costin CL. 1990. Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting and explaining the organization of production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, ed. M Schiffer, 3:1–56. Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press Costin CL. 1993. Textiles, women, and political economy in Late Prehispanic Peru. Res. Econ. Anthropol. 14:3–28 Greenwich: JAI Press Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. 222 GOOD Costin CL. 1995. Cloth production and gender relations in the Inka Empire. In Research Frontiers in Anthropology—Advances in Archaeology and Physical Anthropology, ed. PN Peregrine, CR Ember, M Ember. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Costin CL. 1996. Exploring the relationship between gender and craft in complex societies: methodological and theoretical issues of gender attribution. In Gender and Archaeology, ed. RP Wright, pp. 111–40. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Costin CL. 1998. Housewives, chosen women, skilled men: cloth production and social identity in the Late Prehispanic Andes. In Craft and Social Identity, ed. CL Costin, RP Wright, pp. 123–44. Arlington, VA: Arch. Papers Am. Anthropol., Assoc. No. 8 Crowfoot E, Pritchard F, Staniland K. 1992. Textiles and Clothing c. 1150–c. 1450: Medieval Finds from Excavations in London, Vol. 4. London: Mus. London Davis-Kimball J, Murphy EM, Koryakova L, Yablonsky LT. 2000. Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age. Oxford: Brit. Archaeol. Res. Rep.: Int. Ser. 870: Oxford: Archaeopress Deegan AC. 1997. Anasazi sandals of HseyiHatsosi Canyon, Arizona: attributes and cultural context. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 15:12–19 DeRoche D. 2001. European fabrics in Pennsylvania’s Native American graves. Presented at Text. Negot. Power Symp., SAA 66th Ann. Meet., New Orleans, LA, Apr. 18–22, 2001 Drooker P, Webster L, eds. 2000. Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Current Approaches to Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press Emery I. 1980. The Primary Structures of Fabrics—an Illustrated Classification. Washington, DC: Text. Mus. Ellis R. 1981. Appendix III. The textiles. In Three Early Tumuli, ed. R Young. Philadelphia, PA: Univ. Mus. pp. 294–310 Ericksen AG, Jakes KA, Wimberley VS. 2000. Prehistoric textiles: production, function and semiotics. See Drooker & Webster 2000, pp. 60–84 Fowler CS, Hattori EM, Dansie AJ. 2000. Ancient matting from Spirit Cave, Nevada. See Drooker & Webster 2000, pp. 119–52 Francolatti P. 1998. DNA analysis on ancient dessicated corpses from Xinjiang (China): further results. See Mair 1998, pp. 537–47 Frazier D. 1989. A Guide to Weft Twining and Related Structures with Interacting Wefts. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Good IL. 1995a. On the question of silk in preHan Eurasia. Antiquity 69(266):959–68 Good IL. 1995b. Notes on a Bronze Age textile fragment from Hami, Xinjiang, with comments on the significance of twill. J. IndoEur. Stud. 23(3&4):319–45 Good IL. 1998. Bronze Age cloth and clothing of the Tarim Basin: the Chärchän evidence. See Mair 1998, pp. 656–68 Good IL. 1999. The ecology of exchange: textiles from 3rd millennium BC Iran. PhD diss. Univ. Penn. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mirofilms Int. Good IL, Kim EJ. 1994. The Silk Project Final Report. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Res. Found. Greenwalt CH. 1990. Report of the Sardis Campaign of 1986. Bull. Am. Sch. Oriental Res. (Suppl.) 26 Gulati AN. 1961. A note on the early history of silk in India. In Technical Reports on Archaeological Remains III, ed. J Clutton Brock, Vishnu-Mittre, AN Gulati, pp. 53–59. Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute, Dept. of Archaeology and Ancient Indian History. Publication 2. Poona, India: Deccan College Gullberg E, Åstrom P. 1970. The thread of Ariadne: a study in ancient Greek dress. Stud. Mediterr. Archaeol. Vol. 7. Goteburg, Sweden: Paul Åstrom Hald M. 1980. Ancient Danish Textiles from Bogs and Burials. Vol. 21. Copenhagen: Natl. Mus. Denmark, Arch. Hist. Ser. Harding D, Olsen S, Jones Bley K. 2000. Reviving their fragile technologies: reconstructing perishables from pottery impressions from Botai, Kazakhstan. Presented at Annu. Meet. Soc. Am. Arch., 65th, Philadelphia, PA Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES Helbaek H. 1963. Textiles from Çatal Hüyük. Archaeology 67:39–46 Hoffman M. 1966. The Warp-Weighted Loom. Stud. Nor. 14. Oslo: Univ. Forlaget Hundt HJ. 1971. On prehistoric textile finds. Jahrbuch Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 16:59–71 Hyland DC, Zhushlikhovskaya IS, Medvedev VE, Derevianko AP, Tabarev AV. 2000. Pleistocene textiles in the Far East: impressions from the world’s oldest pottery. Presented at Annu. Meet. Soc. Am. Arch., 65th, Philadelphia, PA Jakes KA. 2000. Microanalytical methods for the study of prehistoric textile fibers. See Drooker & Webster 2000, pp. 51–59 Jakes KA, Angel A. 1989. The determination of elemental distribution in ancient fibers. In Archaeological Chemistry IV, ed. RO Allen. pp. 451–64. Adv. Chem. Ser. No. 220, Washington, DC: Am. Chem. Soc. Jakes KA, Ericksen AG. 1997. Socioeconomic implications of prehistoric textile production in the eastern woodlands, materials issues. In Materials Issues in Art Archaeol. 5th Annu. Symp., Dec. 3–5, 1996, Boston, MA, ed. P Vandiver, J Druzik, JF Merkel, J Stewart. 462:281–86. Pittsburgh, PA: Materials Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Jakes KA, Howard JH III. 1986. Replacement of protein and cellulose fibers by copper minerals and the formation of textile pseudomorphs. In Historic Textile and Paper Materials: Conservation and Characterization, ed. HL Needles, S Haig Zeronian, pp. 277– 87. Adv. Chem. Ser. No. 212. Washington, DC: Am. Chem. Soc. Jakes KA, Katon JE, Martoglio PA. 1990. Identification of dyes and characterization of fibers by infrared and visible microspectroscopy: application to Paracas textiles. In Archaeometry 90: Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Archaeometry, ed. E Pernicka, G Wagner, pp. 305–15. Basel: Birkhauser Janaway RC, Coningham RAE. 1995. A review of archaeological textile evidence from South Asia. South Asian Stud. 11:157–74 223 Janaway RC, Scott BG. 1989. Evidence preserved in corrosion products: new fields. In Artifact Studies. London: UK Inst. Conserv. Occasional pap. No. 8. Leeds: Proc. Joint Conf. UKIC Arch. Sect. Council Brit. Archaeol. Sci. Comm. Johnson WC. 1996. A new twist on an old tale: analysis of cordage impressions on late woodland ceramics from the potomac river valley. In A Most Indespensible Art: Native Fiber Industries from Eastern North America, ed. JB Petersen, pp. 144–59. Knoxville: Univ. Tenn. Press Jørgensen LB. 1992. Northern European Textiles until AD 1000. Århus, Denmark: Univ. Press Jørgensen LB. 1999. Textiles in European archaeology: Rep. 6th NESAT Symp. 7, Boras, Sweden, 1996. Goteborg : Goteborg University, Dept. Archaeol. Kawami TS. 1992. Archaeological evidence for textiles in pre-Islamic Iran. In The Carpets and Textiles of Iran—New Perspectives in Research. J. Soc. Iran. Stud. (special issue) 25(1–2):7–18 Körber-Grohne U, Küstler H. 1985. Hochdorf I. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Koslin D. 1987. Manifest insignificance— the consecrated veil of medieval religious women. Proc. Text. Soc. Am. pp. 141–47. Minneapolis, MN: Text. Soc. Am. Koslin D. 2001. Dressed in humility— consecration of religious women. In Robes of Honor—the Medieaval World of Investiture, ed. S Gordon. New York: St. Martin’s Kuhn D. 1982. The silk workshops of the Shang Dynasty 16th–11th century BC. In Explorations in the History of Science and Technology in China, ed. L Guohao, Z Mengwen, C Tianqin, pp. 367–407. Shanghai: Chinese Classics Kuttruff JT. 1988. Textile attributes and production complexity as indicators of Caddoan status differentiation in the Arkansas Valley and southern Ozark regions. PhD diss. Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Ann Arbor: UMI Letts JB, Evans J, Fung M, Hilman G. 1994. A Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. 224 GOOD chemical method of identifying charred plant remains using infrared spectroscopy. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, ed. C Hasdorf, C Johannson, pp. 67–80. St. Paul: Univ. Minn. Press Mair V, ed. 1998. The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age People of Eastern Central Asia. Washington, DC: Inst. Study Man McCorrison J. 1997. The fiber revolution. Curr. Anthropol. 38(4):519–50 Mellart J. 1962. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük. Anatolian Stud. 12:41–65 Mellart J. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. New York: Scribner’s Minar CJ. 2000. Spinning and plying: anthropological directions. See Drooker & Webster 2000, pp. 85–100 O’Neale L. 1936. A survey of the woolen textiles in the Sir Aurel Stein collections. Am. Anthropol. 38:414–32 Pääbo S, Higuchi RG, Wilson AC. 1989. Ancient DNA and the polymerase chain reaction. J. Biol. Chem. 264(17):9709– 12 Petersen JB. 1996. A most indespensible art: native fiber industries from Eastern North America. Knoxville: Univ. Tenn. Press Petersen J, Wolford J. 2000. Spin and twist as cultural markers: a New England perspective on native fiber industries. See Drooker & Webster 2000, pp. 101–18 Petersen J, Adovasio JM. 1999. Fiber perishable impressions. In Prehistoric Ceramic Artifacts, ed. JB Petersen. pp. 277–312. Prehistory of the Bay Springs Rockshelters 4. Erie PA: Mercyhurst Archaeol. Inst. Rep. Investig. 2 Pfister R, Bellinger L. 1945. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report 4, Part II: the Textiles. New Haven, CT:Yale Univ. Press Pinner R. 1982. Decorative designs on prehistoric Turkmenian ceramics. Hali 5(2):118– 19 Rodman AO. 1992. Textiles and ethnicity: Tiwanaku in San Pedro de Atacama, North Chile. Latin Am. Antiq. 3(4):316–40 Rubinson K. 1990. The textiles from Pazyryk: a study in transfer and transformation of artistic motifs. Exped. Mag. 32(1):49– 61 Ryder ML. 1965. Report of Textiles from Çatal Hüyük. Anatolian Stud. 15:176 Ryder ML. 1969. Changes in the fleece of sheep following domestication. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, ed. P Ucko, G Dimbleby. London: Duckworth Ryder ML. 1983. Sheep and Man. London: Duckworth Ryder ML. 1987. The evolution of the fleece. Sci. Am. 257(1):112–19 Schick T. 1988a. The cave of the warrior: a fourth millennium burial in the Judean desert. IAA Rep.; No. 5. Jerusalem: Israel Antiq. Auth. Schick T. 1988b. Nahal Hemar Cave: cordage, basketry and textiles. ‘Atiqot Engl. Ser. 18:31–43 Seiler-Baldinger A. 1994. Textiles: a Classification of Techniques. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Inst. Press Sherratt A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, ed. I Hodder, G Issacs, N Hammond, pp. 261–305. Cambridge UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Shishlina N. 1999. Textiles of the Bronze Age Eurasian Steppe. Vol. 109. Moscow: Pap. State Hist. Mus. Shishlina NI, Golikov VP, Orfinskaya OV. 2000. Bronze Age textiles of the Caspian Sea Maritime Steppes. In Origin of Textile Production and Use in the Bronze Age Western Eurasian Steppe, ed. J Kimball-Davis, pp. 109–15. Brit. Archaeol. Rep. No. 870. Oxford, UK: Archaeo Sibley LR, Jakes KA. 1984. Survival of protein fibers in archaeological contexts. Sci. Archaeol. 26:17–27 Sibley LR, Jakes KA. 1989. Etowah textile remains and cultural context: a model for inference. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 7(2):37–45 Sibley LR, Jakes KA. 1994. Implications of coloration in Etowah textiles from Burial 57. In Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian Sites and Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES Artifacts, ed. DN Scott, J Meyers, pp. 395– 418. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Conservation Inst. Sibley LR, Jakes KA, Larson LH. 1996. Inferring behavior and function from an Etowah fabric incorporating feathers. In A Most Indispensable Art: Native Fiber Industries from Eastern North America, ed. JB Peterson, pp. 73–87. Knoxville: Univ. Tenn. Press Sibley LR, Jakes KA, Song C. 1989. Fiber and yarn processing by prehistoric people of North America: examples from Etowah. Ars Textrina 11:191–209 Sibley LR, Jakes KA, Swinker ME. 1992. Etowah feather remains from Burial 57: identification and context. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 10(3):21–28 Sibley LR, Swinker ME, Jakes KA. 1991. The use of pattern reproduction in reconstructing Etowah textile remains. Ars Textrina 15:179– 202 Simmons P. 1956. Some recent developments in Chinese textile studies. Bull. Mus. Far Eastern Antiq. 28:19–44 Soffer O, Adovasio JM, Hyland DC. 1998. Moravia: new insights into the origin and nature of the Gravettian. Presented at Inst. Archaeol., Prague and Masaryk Univ., Brno, Czech Republic Soffer O, Adovasio JM, Hyland DC. 2000a. The well-dressed Venus: women’s wear, Ca. 27,000 BP. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 1(1):37–47 Soffer O, Adovasio JM, Hyland DC. 2000b. The ‘Venus’ figurines—textiles, basketry, gender and status in the Upper Paleolithic. Curr. Anthropol. 41(4):511–38 Song CA, Jakes KA, Yerkes RW. 1996. Seip Hopewell textile analysis and cultural implications. Midcont. J. Archaeol. 21(2):247–65 Srinivasan R, Jakes KA. 1997. Optical and scanning electron microscopic study of the effects of charring on Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum L.) fibres. J. Archaeol. Sci. 24:517–27 Steinkeller P. 1995. Sheep and goat terminology in UR III sources from Drehem. Bull. Sumer. Agric. 8:49–70 225 Sylwan V. 1937. Silk from the Yin Dynasty. Bull. Mus. Far East. Antiq. 9:119– 26 Sylwan V. 1941. The woollen textiles of the Loulan People. Rep. Sci. Exped. Northwest. Prov. China Leadersh. Dr. Sven Hedin. Vol. 7. No. 2. Stockholm: Archaeology Sylwan V. 1949. Investigation of silk from Edsen-Gol and Lop-Nor. Rep. Sci. Exped. Northwest. Prov. China Leadersh. Dr. Sven Hedin. Vol. 7. Stockholm: Archaeology Teague L. 2000. Revealing clothes: textiles from the upper ruin, Tonto National Monument. See Drooker & Webster 2000, pp. 161– 78 Tosi M. 1983. A bronze female statuette from Shahr-i Sokhta: chronological problems and stylistic connections. In Prehistoric Sistan, 307–17. Rome: Inst. Ital. Medio Estremo Oriente Van Stan I. 1967. Textiles from Beneath the Temple of Pachacamac, Peru. Philadelphia, PA: Univ. Mus. Vogelsang-Eastwood G. 1993. Ancient Egyptian Clothing. Leiden, Ger.: Brill Vollmer J. 1974. Textile pseudomorphs on Chinese bronzes. In Irene Emory Roundtable on Museum Textiles, 1974 Proceedings, ed. PL Fiske, pp. 170–74. Washington, DC: Text. Mus. Waetzoldt H. 1972. Die Neo-Sumerische Textilindustrie. Studi economici e tecnologici, n. 1. Istituto per l’Oriente, Rome Wang B. 1986. Several bronze assemblages discovered in East Xinjiang. Kaogu 10:887– 90 Walton P, Wild JP, eds. 1990. Textiles in northern archaeology. NESAT III Text. Symp. York. London: Inst. Archaeol. Webster LD, Drooker PB. 2000. Archaeological textile research in the Americas. See Drooker & Webster 2000, pp. 1–24 Wells P. 1980. Culture contact and culture change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Wild JP. 1984. Some early silk finds in northwest Europe. Text. Mus. J. 23:17–23 Xia N. 1979. New finds of ancient silk fabrics in 226 GOOD Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. Sinkiang. In Essays on Archaeology of Science and Technology in China. (Engl. summary of pp. 69–97), pp. 145–47. Beijing: Inst. Archaeol., Chinese Acad. Sci. Young RS. 1958. The Gordion Campaign of 1957: preliminary report. Am. J. Archaeol. 62:139–54 Zhao F, Yu Z. 1998. Legacy of the Desert King: Textiles and Treasures From Niya Site on the Silk Road. Hong Kong: ISAT Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:209-226. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 02/14/06. For personal use only.