Upon completion of the analysis and classification of any assemblage of fiber artifacts, the specimens must be described, the resultant date compiled and, ultimately the collection must be interpreted. Adovasio (1977) and Emery (1966) provide appropriate standardized descriptive protocols for basketry and textiles respectively, while Hurley (1979) affords the same for cordage. Andrews, Adovasio, and Carlisle (1986) offer a model for sandal descriptions, and Andrews and Adovasio (1980) include descriptive schema for netting and a variety of miscellaneous fiber constructions.
If properly analyzed and described, and if the specimens so treated were recovered from tightly controlled archaeological contexts, the potential information recoverable from even the smallest ‘scrap’ of fiber artifact is potentially illuminating on a wide range of issues. Even when specimens are recovered from contexts with limited or no stratigraphic chronological control, they may often inform about their makers in a way that no other artifact class can.
As noted above, this information is encoded into each fiber artifact specimen and only requires the proper methodological protocols for decipherment. The decoding process, while superficially formidable at times, is relatively simple and certainly well within the capabilities of most discerning and patient professionals and laymen.
Excellent case studies of prehistoric fiber artifact assemblages are numerous and several have been cited above. Any or all of them as well as countless others attest most eloquently to the probative power of fiber artifacts in a wide variety of arenas. While among the most fragile products fabricated by prehistoric artisans, fiber artifacts often serve as the most enduring legacy of the life and times of the individual craftsperson and social milieu which produced them.
See also: Caves and Rockshelters; Conservation and Stabilization of Materials; Frozen Sites and Bodies; Macroremains Analysis; Preservation, Modes of; Sites:
Waterlogged.
World History
