North European Symposium for Archaeological Textiles X 18 Smooth and Cool, or Warm and Soft: Investigating the Properties of Cloth in Prehistory by Susanna Harris ‘Studies of materiality cannot simply focus upon the characteristics of objects but must engage in the dialectic of people and things’ (Meskell 2005, 4). A number of researchers have looked at the signiicance of the properties of cloth to understand their suitability to environment and function (e.g. Rast 1990, 125; Barber 1991, 15; Rast-Eicher 1997, 303). his research is a good basis and has potential to be developed further. In this paper I investigate the physical, chemical and aesthetic properties of linen, wool and lime bast ibres, and the structure of knotless netting, woven textiles and twining that were used to make cloth from the Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Alpine region of Europe. hrough these results I look at examples of how these cloth types may have been used and valued in these societies. Properties and Materials he original idea for this research came from a conversation with a social anthropologist. She pointed out that while archaeologists are excellent at dealing with the technology and production of cloth, they are not as good at dealing with cloth as a material, and the social importance of materials in terms of materiality (e.g. Küchler 2003; Küchler and Were 2005). his investigation of materials poses particular problems for archaeologists examining cloth in prehistoric societies. Usually, preserved fragments of cloth are fragmentary, fragile and decayed and do not retain their original properties. To overcome this problem and understand the properties of these materials, archaeologists need to analyse the preserved fragments, and compare the results with modern examples. he analysis of preserved fragments is currently carried out to a high standard at many sites following standard cataloguing systems (e.g. Walton and Eastwood 1988; Bazzanella et al. 2003). he results from these analyses are highly suited for identifying the properties of the archaeological materials. However, the identiication of properties is only one part of a materials analysis; the relationship between people and materials or materiality is equally signiicant (Meskell 2005, 4). hrough everyday encounters, people associate ideas with the surfaces and structures of materials such as cloth in complex and subtle ways (Küchler and Were 2005, 198). his occurs through a combination of factors including the performance of cloth based on its properties, and the way people interact with it, and associate meaning with this relationship. To take an everyday example, doctors around the world wear a white coat. he colour of this garment is a selected property, as white is believed to show up dirt and is associated with hygiene and cleanliness. However, the actual signiicance of this material is more than this. hrough a combination of the colour and cloth type, the shape of the garment and the context in which it is worn, the doctor’s white jacket is imbued with beliefs about the wearer’s ability to heal the sick. In this example, a material is deemed appropriate due to some of its properties, but takes on meaning that is more than a sum of these. While a materiality approach to materials is arguably more diicult to research in prehistoric archaeology than social anthropology, it is necessary to ensure that an investigation of materials does not limit itself to investigating properties. herefore, a materials approach should see these materials as surfaces that people engaged with as socially understood materials. Archaeological Evidence of Cloth from the Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Alpine Region he majority of preserved cloth fragments in the Alpine region are made of plant ibres and come from the waterlogged contexts of lake dwellings, and belong to sites dating from the early 4th to mid-2nd millennium BC. Excavation reports of these sites identify a rich variety of cloth constructions including twined cloth, woven textiles, knotted netting, knotless netting and woven basketry; the raw materials used were often tree bast and lax plus unmodiied ibres from grasses and rushes (Winiger 1981, 57–64, 148–171; Rast-Eicher 1997, 302–310; Körber-Grohne and Feldtkeller 1998). Other important sources of preserved cloth include the frozen Iceman dating to the late Neolithic/Copper Age (Egg 1992, 35–100) and the mainly wool woven textiles from 18 Smooth and Cool, or Warm and Soft: Investigating the Properties of Cloth in Prehistory Properties Abrasion resistance Air permeability Dimensional stability Drape Elastic recovery Elongation Fibre fineness Flammability Handle Insulation Lustre Prickle Regain Resistance to biological attack Tensile strength Tickle Twist Water absorption Water repellency Windproofing Yarn fineness 105 What is this? Resistance to flexing, compression, twisting, rubbing; variables including type of abrasion, pressure, speed, tension The readiness with which air can pass through the cloth The extent a fabric retains its original dimensions subsequent to manufacture The way a cloth hangs under its own weight Force applied to extend below the breaking point and then allowed to recover Force applied so it extends and eventually breaks Mass per unit length of fibre Behaviour when in contact with a flame Subjective properties assessed by touch and feel such as smooth, rough, limp, stiff, drape Heat loss by conduction and convection Reflection of light Caused by coarse and stiff fibres protruding from the surface Weight of water in a material expressed as a percentage Resistance to microorganisms Maximum tensile force when extended to breaking point Caused by fabric hairiness The number of turns per unit length, direction measured as S or Z Two determining factors; the speed of water uptake and the quantity The prevention or delay or water penetration or absorption Resistance to wind penetration by coating or using a tight weave Weight per unit length of yarn Table 18.1. List and description of a selection of industrial tests (After Saville 1999; Airoldi 2000, 21–33; Wulfhorst 2001, 9–10). the Middle to Late Bronze Age galleries of the Hallstatt salt mines, Austria (Grömer 2005). Flax and tree bast from indigenous lime, oak, willow and elm were important raw materials in the Neolithic (Rast 1995, 149). As a raw material, tree bast is less represented in the Bronze Age (Rast-Eicher 2005, 127; Médard 2005). Although wool is rarely preserved in the lake dwelling, other lines of evidence suggest it was probably an important raw material in the Bronze Age, whereas lax seems to become less important in this period (Rast-Eicher and Reinhard 1998, 285; Schibler 2005, 153; Rast-Eicher 2005, 127–128). In terms of cloth construction techniques, twining was common in the Neolithic with many variations known from the Neolithic lake dwellings of the Alpine region (Vogt 1937, 12–32; Rast-Eicher 1997, 307–308; Cardon 1998, 17–18). Knotted netting and variations of knotless netting are known throughout the Neolithic, Copper Age and Bronze Age but are not known continuously in all areas (Rast-Eicher 1997, 305; Cardon 1998, 17–18). Plain weave was the preferred weave structure in the Neolithic; the earliest appearance of twill weave dating to the Beaker period or early Bronze Age (Rast-Eicher 2005, 124–128). investigate an extensive range of physical, chemical and aesthetic properties. Some of the properties tested for are outlined in Table 18.1, with a short description of their meaning. However, these comparisons should be used with the following reservations in mind. First, hand processing as practised in prehistory may create diferent efects to modern mechanical processing; for example, industrial tests on sheep wool do not take into account the presence of lanolin on the ibres. Second, some raw materials have changed since prehistory. For example, Neolithic lax stems were only c. 30 cm in length (Körber-Grohne and Feldtkeller 1998, 137) and therefore shorter than modern plants. Similarly, Bronze Age sheep leece was coarser and hairier than in later periods (Ryder 1969, 500–501). Experimental archaeology and the modern ethnographic or historical accounts of craftspeople are useful for understanding how non-industrial processes afect the properties of cloth and to understand ibres and fabrics that are rarely encountered in the present day, such as knotless netting and lime tree bast (Table 18.1). Sources of Comparative Evidence Flax Fibres The investigation of a materials approach depends on the identiication of the archaeological cloth remains to understand the raw materials, thread diameter, thread count, cloth structure and other attributes. Once this information is established, it is then possible to compare the ancient cloth types with modern or historically known cloth types. Textile industry tests that measure the properties of diferent cloth types are a useful source for archaeologists to compare with ancient cloth types. Such industrial tests measure and he properties of lax ibres are outlined in Table 18.2. Cool, crisp and smooth to the touch with its excellent ability to absorb moisture, such as body sweat (Needles 1981, 62; Airoldi 2000, 30–34), the properties of lax ibres show how suitable they are for summer clothing. his summer clothing aspect of linen has come up in interpretations of woven linen (Barber 1991, 14–15). In addition, with a handle that is comfortable close to the skin, woven linen can be used for undergarments as part of a layered costume, suitable for any time of year. Results – the Fibres 106 Susanna Harris Physical properties Chemical properties Aesthetic properties Handle Flax fibres Strong Good tensile strength 20% stronger when wet Standard regain 12% Good heat conductivity Good water absorption Rigid fibre, creases on bending Break under repeated flexing Low elongation at break, but fairly elastic at low elongations Stable shape and size Resists abrasion Highly inflammable Good resistance to insects and micro organisms Only susceptible to mildew in extremely moist conditions Slow degradation by sunlight Resists acids, bases, chemical bleaches Dull fibre but becomes more lustrous if beaten (beetling) Natural colour: white, golden yellow, silver grey Accepts dyes, but the application of a mordant improves fastness Soft Cool Crisp Smooth Table 18.2. Properties of lax ibres (After Kornreich 1952, 11–17; Needles 1981, 60–62 and 73; Puliti 1987, 21–22; Airoldi 2000, 12–35). However, the ineness or coarseness of linen depends on the quality of the ibres. he short (tow) ibres produce coarser cloth, which was historically used for sacks, work cloth and towels; the long (line) ibres produce a more lustrous, stronger, smoother cloth which was used for ine clothing and bedding (Chandler 1995; Mott and Tomasoni 2000, 15, 206). Besides the signiicance of linen cloth for clothing, the diverse properties make lax useful in other ways. Flax ibres were one of the strongest ibres available to people in prehistoric Europe. In addition, its resistance to abrasion and chemical attack was probably useful in cloth for working tools and equipment. Not only strong, but increasing in strength when wet, it was a very suitable ibre for the knotted ishing nets that are excavated from the Neolithic lake dwellings (Körber-Grohne and Feldtkeller 1998, 135– 137). Other properties are that it resists decay from mildew and does not loose its shape when wet (Needles 1981, 62; Airoldi 2000, 34–35). he appearance of cloth made from lax is also interesting as although naturally dull, lax ibres become lustrous when they are beaten (beetling) or smoothed (Needles 1981, 62; Airoldi 2000, 34). As I understand from experienced weavers, this can occur also through extensive wear. his aesthetic property brings to mind the attention researchers have given to the colour and shiny, luminous surface of metals in the Copper Age (Keates 2002, 111). One negative property of lax ibres is their lammability (Needles 1981, 62). So much so that historically in Britain, the waste from preparing cellulose plant ibres (scutching and breaking debris) was sold as fuel (Evans 1985, 23). Although the burnt layers in the prehistoric lake dwelling settlements cannot be attributed to the presence of lax ibres and linen cloth, their presence shows that it is likely that they contributed to these blazes. Wool Fibres he properties of sheep’s wool ibres are outlined in Table 18.3. Wool cloth is often associated with winter clothing. his is supported by its excellent insulating properties, warm feel, and ability to absorb nearly 40% of its weight in water (Needles 1981, 88) and still feel dry and warm (Chandler 1995, 205). In contrast to plant ibres, wool has a low to moderate strength, with decreased strength when wet (Needles 1981, 88). An elastic ibre, it is even more elastic when wet, but will return to its normal shape and size except in very humid conditions (Needles 1981, 88). In many contexts, wool’s stretch, resistance to lexing and ability to absorb shocks compensates for its lack of strength (Kornreich 1952, 12–14). hese qualities were possibly exploited in the Hallstatt Bronze Age salt mines where coarse rags of fulled wool textiles may have been used to carry the mined salt (Grömer 2005, 20; Reschreiter 2005, 13). As the salt would have been a dry illing, wool’s weakness and over-elasticity when wet was probably not important. he salt mines are an interesting context to evaluate, as here many of the textile fragments appear to be reused from clothing, showing how cloth of the same type was valued for diferent properties depending on the context of use. For example, it probably did not matter that wool is a good insulator or good at taking dyes when reused to make containers. Another compelling reason to have wool in the salt mines rather than linen or other plant ibres could have been its resistance to ire. his may well have been useful in the conined environment lit by burning wooden spills (Barth and Lobisser 2002, 15). As mentioned above, linen is highly lammable, which may be why it is rare in the mines. he stifness of wool depends on the ineness of the 18 Smooth and Cool, or Warm and Soft: Investigating the Properties of Cloth in Prehistory Physical properties Chemical properties Aesthetic properties Handle 107 Wool fibres Low to moderate strength Weaker when wet Good heat insulator due to low heat conductivity and bulkiness Wool degrades and chars on heating Burns very slowly even in contact with a flame Elastic Good stretch and recovery except in very moist conditions Standard regain 13-18% Highly absorbent: can hold nearly 40% of its weight in water Resists repeated flexing Absorbs shocks Fairly abrasion resistant Will felt if agitated in warm water Slow drying Stiffness will vary according to breed and diameter of individual fibre Susceptible to attack by moths Quite resistant to mildew Resistant to acids Vulnerable to bases, even in low dilutions Slow degradation and yellowing in contact with sunlight Readily dyed and good colourfastness High to moderate lustre Natural colour: white, yellowish, reddish-brown, black Warm Soft, moderate or rough Drapes well Table 18.3. Properties of sheep wool ibres (After Kornreich 1952, 10–17; Needles 1981, 88–90; Puliti 1987, 11; Airoldi 2000, 12–35; Wulfhorst 2001, 11). Physical properties Chemical properties Aesthetic properties Handle Lime bast fibres Stronger than elm or oak bast, particularly if prepared without retting 47% stronger when wet Low water absorption Limited swelling when wet Lightweight Low extensibility Low resistance to wear Floats on water Quick drying* Resistant to attack by moths * Resistant to decay Natural colour: light to medium golden brown* Retted lime bast is soft Table 18.4. Properties of lime bast ibres (After Myking et al. 2005), *observations from own experiments working with lime bast ibres. individual ibres, which therefore afect the handle. When spun into thread, coarser ibres can be uncomfortable to the skin, producing what industry calls ‘tickle’ (hairiness) and ‘prickle’ (coarseness) (Saville 1999, 232). Before and during the Bronze Age, wool contained a mixture of ine underwool and hairy kemp ibres (Ryder 1969, 500–504; Rast-Eicher 2005, 27) and was therefore hairier, stifer and coarser than modern specialized leece. Tree Bast Fibres Tree bast is extracted from the inner bark of lime, willow, oak and elm.1 he species of tree bast ibres have diferent properties and provide a range of natural colours from nearly white to dark brown (Körber-Grohne and Feldtkeller 1998, 156). However, the information on the properties of these ibres concerns mainly lime as this has been subject to industrial testing. he properties of lime bast are outlined in Table 18.4. A strong ibre, lime bast is particularly interesting in its reaction to water. It is substantially stronger when wet than dry and is resistant to decay. Lime has a low extensibility, loats and due to its low water absorption does not swell in contact with water (Myking et al. 2005, 69–70). From my own experiments, I found that lime bast dries quickly, presumably because of the low water absorption. Undoubtedly, these are good properties for ishing equipment, but would also be a good choice of material for shoes, loor or wall coverings, clothing and containers by people living and working in wet environments, such as the Alpine lake dwellings. Historically, 108 Susanna Harris Fig. 18.1. Modern samples of cloth types from left to right: twill weave sheep’s wool, plain weave linen, plain weave sheep’s wool, open looping with single twist from lime tree bast, twining from lime tree bast (Photo: © S. Harris). lime bast rope was considered soft to handle in industries where manual work was carried out without gloves (Myking et al. 2005, 70). However, this softness depends on the ineness of ibres; the inest ibres lie close to the wood, whereas those extracted from near the bark are noticeably coarser. On the negative side, lime bast is prone to wear, making it less durable than other ibres. Results – Cloth Structures he properties of the inished cloth depend on the properties of the ibres, the thickness and spin of the threads (tight or loose, single or plied) and the way they are interworked. With this in mind, each fragment of cloth can be considered for its individual merits based on the technical analysis of the original preserved fragment. In the following section, I look at some general ideas of how diferent structures (Fig. 18.1) afect the properties of the inished cloth. Knotless Netting Looped cloth types, such as knotless netting, are the most lexible and elastic cloth types; the extendibility and irmness depends on the looping method and mesh width (MacKenzie 1991, 128–129; Seiler-Baldinger 1994, 11). Combined with strong ibres and thread, knotless netting provides a structure with no distinct direction of maximum strength; this is unlike textiles where the maximum strength is in the direction of the warp or weft (MacKenzie 1991, 132–133; Saville 1999, 154). Examples from prehistoric Europe are often open looping (e.g. Winiger 1981, 190–191, taf. 76.2 and 3). Such open looping is strong, lightweight, lexible, expandable, permeable and see-through. hese properties make it suitable for bags carrying heavy loads and stretching round awkward shapes. Some knotless netting archaeological artefacts are interpreted as possible bags (Winiger 1981, 190). In Papua New Guinea, knotless netting bags (bilums) are associated with women and women’s labour. As well as expandable, ‘strong and capable of hard work’, the open looping means that people can see the contents of the bag, which in turn reveals the owner’s capacity to contribute to society (MacKenzie 1991, 129–136). Such permeable and see-through properties of open knotless netting are in contrast to dense cloth structures. hese properties may be important in the way they can conceal or reveal their contents. 18 Smooth and Cool, or Warm and Soft: Investigating the Properties of Cloth in Prehistory Twined Cloth In the Neolithic, twining was used to produce a rich variety of cloth types of diferent thread thickness, warp and weft spacing. Although mainly spun, plaited threads are also employed as the passive element, as are fronds of tree bast or grasses. In some cases, the threads are tightly packed creating a dense structure; in others, they are widely spaced creating gaps in the structure; some are recognised as sieves (Körber-Grohne and Feldtkeller 1998, 144). Some examples are covered with tufts, known as pile (Rast-Eicher 1997, 308). his wealth of variation indicates the skill involved in manipulating the cloth structure to control the properties of the inished product. Here I consider some examples of how twined cloth has been used across the world as a way to understand how structure relates to properties. With widely spaced warps and wefts, twining can produce an open construction that is lightweight, permeable and see-through. As mentioned above, such structures seem to have been used as sieve bottoms in the Neolithic (KörberGrohne and Feldtkeller 1998, 144). Open twining was (and is) used for ish traps and large containers in Australia and North America (Aboriginal people of Jumbun 1992, 20–24; Fienup-Riordan 2005, 55–57, ig. 2). By contrast, closely twined warps and wefts produce a dense and solid cloth. In New Zealand, closely twined capes made from plant ibres covered with narrow strips of dog skin were reputed to be strong enough to withstand a ‘spear thrust’. On the basis of this property they were worn by warriors and were highly valued (Roth 1923/1979, 50–51, pl. XIX). Twined cloth made from thick threads has the ability to insulate, cushion and absorb shocks. his combination of warm, lightweight and insulating properties is recognised in the interpretation of the large twined grass item found with the Copper Age Iceman, identiied as a cape or mat (Spindler 1995, 144–145; Reichert 2006, 9). Examples of hats, shoes and large pieces that may be used for capes or mats show the use of twining for clothing in the Neolithic (Feldtkeller and Schlichtherle 1987, 78–80). However, the types of garment that could have been produced are more extensive than this. In North America, twined cloth from grasses, tree bast and other plant ibres were (and are) used for garments such as capes, coats, socks, boots, mittens to protect from the cold, as mats to sit and sleep on and as covering to protect fragile pottery (Turner 1998, 32, 68, 109, 145; Fienup-Riordan 2005, 54–58). Twining with a pile surface provides a water resistant surface as the tufts encourage the water to run away (Rast-Eicher 1997, 308). Such tufted surfaces could also provide warmth; the Maori of New Zealand made rain cloaks out of twining with pile, using coarse plant ibres that were described as impervious to rain and also warm (Roth 1923/1979, 46–48). Aesthetically, twined cloth has a distinctive texture and drape; a stif structure with poor drape, it falls in lat sheets rather than ine gathers (see Turner 1998, 123; Anawalt 2007, 348, igs 562–564). Archaeologists note the thick, furry appearance of twining with pile and its similarity in appearance to fur (Feldtkeller and Schlichtherle 1987, 78–79; Rast 1995, 150). In terms of visual properties, twined cloth 109 from ine thread is quite distinct from twining with thick threads; it is worth noting that, historically, on the Northwest coast of America, ine close-twined cloth was highly valued and exchanged and worn in the potlatch (Gillow and Sentence 1999, 64; Anawalt 2007, 352). Woven Textiles he properties of woven textiles are afected by the ineness of the threads, the number of threads per centimetre (the thread count), the way the threads were spaced on the loom (the set), the weave structure (e.g. plain weave or twill), and the post loom processing (the inish). A number of these attributes are recorded in the regular cataloguing of archaeological textiles (Walton and Eastwood 1988). During some periods of the Neolithic, the structure of linen textiles is noticeably uniform (Rast 1995, 149). At other times, there is more variation in thread count, thickness and set (e.g. Bazzanella et al. 2003, 161–172; Grömer 2005, 28–32). Woven textiles made of ine threads such as the examples of plain weave linen from the lake dwellings are lat and thin and would have draped well. Balanced plain weave drapes well and is good for nontailored clothing, although by comparison twill will drape better and is more pliable than plain weave (Chandler 1995, 132). A weft or warp faced cloth (reps) will be more pliable in one direction than another (Chandler 1995, 120–121, 132). Twill has a slightly more textured surface and is particularly noted for its lexibility, however this is relative; looped cloth types such as knotless netting are more lexible (Chandler 1995, 132). Although weaving patterns, dyes and finishes such as fringes are the most obvious sources of decoration in prehistoric textiles (Barber 1994, ch. 3), these would not have been the only way that value and meaning was associated with the visual appearance of cloth. he appearance of cloth without decoration known from everyday situations is also a signiicant visual statement. In this, the smooth, lat, thin properties of woven textiles are distinctive and would have contrasted with the twined or netted cloth structures, although in some cases ine twining appears very similar to weaving (Rast-Eicher 2005, 123). In many cases, it is assumed that woven textiles were used for clothing. Yet, taking note of historical examples, we should remember that textiles were used as sacks and sheets in agricultural work, for bedding and towels, as cloths for rubbing dishes and loors as well as shirts, skirts and underwear (Mott and Tomasoni 2000, 15). herefore, when we ind fragments of woven textiles, they may have had any number of uses. Discussion Through the combination of raw materials, processing methods, thread type, cloth structures and inish, each fragment of archaeological cloth would have had multiple properties. his makes the task of understanding materials complex in several ways. Properties of a material that were important in one context of use, such as colour or absorbency, 110 Susanna Harris may have been irrelevant in another. his also makes it diicult to understand which properties were valued and which were of secondary signiicance. How far were ineness and the ability to conceal important from the Neolithic to Bronze Age in contrast to cloth types that were thick and cushioned or see-through? Neither should we expect that properties were used in optimal ways. Flammable ibres may have been used in pyrotechnical activities and coarse cloth may have been worn close to the skin. In addition, the exploitation of properties can be contradictory, showing how diicult it is to separate cultural beliefs from properties. For example, historically in Britain there are contradictory accounts as to whether light or dark ishing nets were more efective on the basis of their invisibility to ish (Geraint Jenkins 1974, 79). However, through understanding the materials better, we are better able to approach these debates. By looking at the range of properties of ibres, threads and cloth, it is possible to expand the range of possible uses of the fragments of cloth found in excavation. his expands the potential role of cloth beyond ‘textile’ research. For example, the potential use of dense twining as armour to protect against piercing and cutting suggests a relationship between cloth and weapons; the resistance of wool to a naked lame suggests its use in pyrotechnical industries, or the strength of linen textiles for sacks, harvesting and food collection. To the more regularly cited properties such as insulation, strength and thickness, I have added aesthetic properties such as texture, drape, lustre, colour and the ability to conceal or reveal. his is signiicant in appreciating that even when not specially decorated or dyed, cloth would have been an aspect of visual culture in past societies; something that can be considered the aesthetics of the everyday. In this way, the range of cloth types at any one time would have represented a visual norm in past societies; the characteristic drape of clothes, the texture of cloth covers, the area of the body a cloth was expected to conceal or reveal. he aesthetic of cloth surfaces and structures may also have drawn comparison with other material surfaces. here are some hints towards these relationships, textured pottery surfaces that appear like textiles or other cloth structures, the tufted surface of twining with pile that resembles fur or the lustre of beaten linen textiles and metals. his approach is not new to archaeologists; as mentioned above, the colour and luminosity of metals in the Copper Age is seen as part of their value in addition to the properties of cutting and durability. Such an approach to cloth is also necessary. In this paper I have approached some of the most common ibres and cloth structures in the Alpine region from Neolithic to Bronze Age; there are more types to examine. Another approach could be to investigate individual fragments in a site context and chart the range of properties held by diferent cloth types at a particular time and place. It would also be interesting to consider change and continuity in the materiality of cloth from the Neolithic to Bronze Age, alongside change and continuity in the technology of cloth production. Conclusions With exceptions, archaeologists have focused on understanding techniques and technology above materials. Yet, the material surfaces and structures of cloth are as much an indication of social values and meaning as any other item of material culture such as housing, pottery and stone tools. A materials approach is therefore worth developing to understand the role of cloth in past societies. he investigation of a materials approach depends on the accurate analysis of the preserved cloth. Fortunately, the standard cloth cataloguing system ofers a ready resource, including the identiication of raw materials, thread diameter, thread count, cloth structure and other attributes. hese factors can then be compared with modern samples, reports of craftspeople, and experimental archaeology to understand the original properties of cloth, before the decay and degradation resulting from the preservation processes. From this knowledge, it is then necessary to evaluate these materials in the context of the societies they belonged to. his helps understand how cloth types may have been used, and why they were used in particular ways. In addition, as an aspect of visual culture, the aesthetic properties of ibres and cloth structures bring to attention the everyday aesthetic of cloth for clothing, housing and equipment in prehistoric societies. Acknowledgements his research was completed as a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. hanks to Professor Susanne Küchler who suggested I turn my research in the direction of the materiality of cloth, Jasper Chalcraft and Salvatore Notaro who read earlier versions of this paper and made useful suggestions. I am grateful to the organisers of NESAT X for allowing me the opportunity to present this paper and to the many participants who discussed these ideas with me at the conference. Note 1 Although Médard questions whether oak ibres were actually used for textiles, or, if in the ibre analysis they have been confused with elm bast (Médard 2005, 101). Bibliography Aboriginal people of Jumbun and Helen Pedley (1992) Aboriginal life in the rainforest (compiled and photographed by Helen Pedley). Peninsula Region, Cairns (�ueensland), �ueensland Department of Education. Airoldi, G. (2000) Il tessuto ordito e trama ad intreccio ortogonale. Lipomo (Como), Centrocot S.p.A.Editore. Anawalt, P. R. (2007) he Worldwide History of Dress. London/New York, hames and Hudson. Barber, E. J. W. (1991) Prehistoric Textiles. he Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Age with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Barber, E. J. W. (1994) Women’s Work: he First 20 000 years. Women, Cloth and Societies in Early Times. London & New York, W. W. Norton & Co. Barth, F. E., and Lobisser, W. (2002) Das EU-Projekt Archaeolive und 18 Smooth and Cool, or Warm and Soft: Investigating the Properties of Cloth in Prehistory das archäologische Erbe von Hallstatt. Wien, Naturhistorischen Museum in Wien. Bazzanella, M., Mayr, A., Moser, L., and Rast-Eicher, A. (2003) Schede [Catalogue]. In M. Bazzanella et al., (eds), Textiles: intrecci e tessuti dalla preistoria europea, 133–289. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servizio Beni Culturali Trento. Cardon, D. (1998) Neolithic Textiles, Matting and Cordage from Charavines, Lake of Paladru, France. In L. Bender J�rgensen and C. Rinaldo (eds), Textiles in European Archaeology: Report from the 6th NESAT Symposium, 7–11th May 1996, GOTARC Series A, Vol.1, 3–21. Göteborg University, Department of Archaeology, Göteborg. Chandler, D. (1995) Learning to Weave. Loveland (Colorado), Interweave Press. Egg, M. (1992) Die Ausrüstung des Toten. Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 39, 35–100. Evans, N. (1985) he East Anglian Linen Industry: Rural Industry and Local Economy 1500 – 1850. London, Gower, he Pasold Research Fund. Feldtkeller, A., and Schlichtherle, H. (1987) Jungsteinzeitliche Kleidungsstücke aus Ufersiedlungen des Bodensees. Archäologische Nachrichten aus Boden 38–39, 74–84. Fienup-Riordan, A. (2005) Tupigat (Twined hings): Yup‘ik Grass Clothing,, Past and Present.. In J. C. H. King, B. Pauksztat, and R. Storrie (eds), Arctic Clothing of North America – Alaska, Canada, Greenland, 53–61. London, he British Museum Press. Geraint Jenkins, J. (1974) Nets and Coracles. Newton Abbot and London, David and Charles (Holdings) Ltd. Gillow, J., and Sentance, B. (1999) World Textiles. A visual guide to traditional techniques. London, hames & Hudson. Grömer, K. (2005) he Textiles from the prehistoric Salt-mines at Hallstatt (Die Textilien aus dem prähistorischen Salzbergwerk von Hallstatt). In P. Bichler et al. (eds) Hallstatt Textiles: Technical Analysis, Scientiic Investigation and Experiments on Iron Age Textiles, 17–40. Oxford, Archaeopress. Keates, S. (2002) The Flashing Blade: Copper. Colour and Luminosity in Northern Italian Copper Age Society, In A. Jones and G. MacGregor (eds), Colouring the Past: he Signiicance of Colour in Archaeological Research, 109–125. Oxford, Berg. Körber-Grohne, U., and Feldtkeller, A. (1998) Planzliche Rohmaterialien und Herstellungstechniken der Gewebe, Netze, Geflechte sowie anderer Produkte aus den neolithischen Siedlungen Hornstaad,, Wangen, Allensbach und Sipplingen am Bodensee. In Siedlungsarchäologie im Alpenvorland V, 131–189. Stuttgart, Konrad heiss Verlag. Kornreich, E. (1952) Introduction to Fibres and Fabrics, their Manufacture and Properties. London, he National Trade Press Ltd. Küchler, S. (2003) he Poncho and the �uilt: Material Christianity in the Cook Islands. In C. Colchester (ed.), Clothing the Paciic, Photography by Glenn Jowitt, 97–118. Oxford and New York, Berg. Küchler, S., and Were, G. (2005) Paciic Pattern. London, hames & Hudson. MacKenzie, M. A. (1991) Androgynous objects: string bags and gender in central New Guinea. Chur, Harwood Academic Publishers. Médard, F. (2005) Les textiles préhistoriques. Anatomie des écorces et analyse des traitements mis en œuvre pour en extraire la matière textile. In P. Della Casa and M. Trachsel (eds), WES’04. Wetland Economies and Societies, Proceedings of the international conference in Zürich, 10–13 March 2004. vol. 3, 99–104. Zürich, Publication of the Schweizerisches Landesmuseum Zürich. Meskell, L. (2005) Introduction: Object Orientations. In L. Meskell 111 (ed.), Archaeologies of Materiality, 1–17. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. Mott, A., and Tomasoni, R. (2000) Filo da torcere: le ibre tessili e la loro lavorazione nella tradizione trentina. Trento, Museo degli Usi e Costumi della Gente Trentina si San Michele all’Adige. Myking, T., Hertzberg, A., and Skr�ppa, T. (2005) History, manufacture and properties of lime bast cordage in Northern Europe. Forestry, 78:1, 65–71. Needles, H. L. (1981) Handbook of Textile Fibres, Dyes, and Finishes. New York/London, Garland STPM Press. Puliti, M. (1987) Le Fibre Tessili Naturali-Artiiciali-Sintetiche: Nozioni Elementari ad Uso degli Istituti Statali d’Arte. Firenze, Istituto Statale d’arte d Firenze. Rast, A. (1990) Jungsteinzeitliche Kleidung. In Die ersten Bauern 123–126. Zürich, Schweizerisches Landesmuseum Zürich. Rast, A. (1995) Le vêtement néolithique. In A. Gallay (ed.), Dans les Alpes, à l’aube du metal. Archéologie et bande dessinée. Ouvrage publié à l’occasion del’exposition: Le Soleil des Morts, 149–153. Sion, Musée cantonal d’archéologie et bibliothèque municipale. Rast-Eicher, A. (1997) Die Textilien. In J. Schibler et al. (eds), Ökonomie und Ökologie neolithischer und bronzezeitlicher Ufersiedlungen am Zürichsee : Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen Mozartstrasse, Kanalisationssanierung Seefeld, AKAD/Pressehaus und Mythenschloss in Zürich, Band A, Text. 300–328. Zürich, Direktion der Öffentlichen Bauten des Kantons Zürich, Hochbauamt, Abt. Kantonsarchäologie. Rast-Eicher, A. (2005) Bast before Wool: the irst textiles. In P. Bichler et al. (eds), Hallstatt Textiles: Technical Analysis, Scientiic Investigation and Experiments on Iron Age Textiles 117–131. Oxford, Archaeopress. Rast-Eicher, A., and Reinhard, J. (1998) Textile et vannerie, 285–291. Basel, Verlag Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Reichert, A. (2006) Umhang oder Matte? Versuche zur Rekonstruktion des Grasgelechts des ‘Mannes aus dem Eis’. Wafenund Kostümkunde. Zeitschrift für Wafen- und Kleidungsgeschichte, 48:1, 1–16. Reschreiter, H. (2005) Die prähistorischen Salzbergbaue in Hallstatt und ihre Textilreste (he prehistoric Salt-mines at Hallstatt and its Textile remains). In P. Bichler et al. (eds), Hallstatt Textiles: Technical Analysis, Scientiic Investigation and Experiments on Iron Age Textiles, 11–16. Oxford, Archaeopress. Roth, H. L. (1923/1979) he Maori mantle. Reprinted from the original limited edition published by the Bankield Museum, Halifax, England, together with ‘he Maori mantle’: a review (1924) by Sir Peter Buck (Te Rangihiroa). First published 1923. Carlton (Bedford), Ruth Bean. Ryder, M. L. (1969) Changes in the leece of sheep following domestication (with a note on the coat of cattle). In P. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby (eds), he domestication and exploitation of plants and animals, 495–521. London, Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ryder, M. L. (1993) Skin and wool remains from Hallstatt. Circea 10:2, 69–78. Saville, B. P. (1999) Physical testing of textiles. Cambridge, Woodhead Publishing in association with he Textile Institute. Schibler, J. (2005) Bones as the key for reconstructing the environment, nutrition and economy of the lake-dwelling societies. In F. Menotti (ed.), Living on the Lake in Prehistoric Europe. 150 years of lake-dwelling research, 144–161. Abingdon, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Seiler-Baldinger, A. (1994) Textiles: A Classiication of Techniques. Washington (D.C), Smithsonian Institute Press. 112 Susanna Harris Spindler, K. (1995) he Man in the Ice; he preserved body of a Neolithic man reveals the secrets of the Stone Age. London, Phoenix. Turner, N. J. (1998) Plant Technology of First Peoples in British Columbia. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press in collaboration with the Royal British Columbia Museum. Vogt, E. (1937) Gelechte und Gewebe der Steinzeit. Basel, E. Birkhäuser & Cie. Walton, P., and Eastwood, G. (1988) A Brief Guide to the Cataloguing of Archaeological Textiles. 4th ed. London, Institute of Archaeology.. Winiger, J. (1981) Feldmeilen Vorderfeld: der Übergang von der Pfyner zur Horgener Kultur. Frauenfeld and Basel, Verlag Huber & Verlag Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Wulfhorst, B. (2001) Processi di lavorazione dei prodotti tessili. Italian Edition. Milan, Tecniche Nuové.