Ann:

You're absolutely correct, and I think your confusion
stems largely from the lack of explanation Custer
offers of his terms and analytical methods. This is
part of a broader problem with the incorrect or
inconsistent ways in which cordage (and basketry and
textile) terminology is often used in the literature.

I took the liberty of copying the listserv this reply
to your e-mail so that others who belong to the list
who are more well versed can chime in if I've said
something incorrect.

To my mind, and following Irene Emery (1966), cordage
represents a class of elongate fiber constructions,
the components of which are generally subsumed under
the English terms "string" and "rope." These items may
be the end products of a construction sequence or may
constitute the construction elements of more complex
products. So, I think your understanding of the terms
is appropriate and how many archaeologists
specializing in this subject would use them.

Custer does not explain his terminology nor does he
discuss the S/Z notation common in the technical
descriptions seen in archaeology today. Without going
into too much detail here, he is employing terms and
methods borrowed from Hurley (1979), much of which
itself comes from Emery (1966) originally. S denotes
the slant of the fibers resulting from a spin or twist
to the right, while Z a spin or twist from the left. S
and Z are used as shorthand notation in the literature
because the slanting part of the letters, when
superimposed over the cordage, reflects the slant of
the fibers and, hence, direction of spin/twist. Of
course, as you point out, you may have multiple ply or
compound cords, in which case there are initial spins
and final twists imparted to the fibers.

In Custer's case, he is working with the negative
impressions of cordage in pottery sherds. As a result,
and though he doesn't say so (to my recollection), he
is almost certainly discussing the _final_ twist of
the cordage in the negative impressions he has
examined (Hopefully, he has analyzed them from
positive casts, so that his data are not reversed!).
Given the poor quality common to most impressions, it
is likely he's unable to get good data on raw material
or construction sequence beyond final twist. The
points you raise about the cultural context of cordage
production are dead-on and I think we'd all agree on
their considerable importance. It strikes me that
Custer's main point in this piece was more
methodological, mainly being that we need to look at
the interpretations we draw from cordage impression
data more carefully, as the patterns they can reveal
can potentially be owing more to
depositional/use-context factors or a biased sample,
rather than simply cultural preference.

I hope this has clarified some of the confusion for
you. By no means are these things always clear in the
literature.

Take care, Ed



--- Ann Norman <ann@...> wrote:

> Hi Ed
>
> I find myself at a bit of a loss when reading your
> cordage article, for these two main reasons:
>
> First, being a hands-on spinner and ropemaker and
> not an archaeologist, I question the exact meaning
> of the words "cord" and "cordage" in this context.
> It may be that these words have an accepted meaning
> within the archaeological world of which I'm not
> aware.
>
> For instance, as I'm sure you will know, in
> traditional sailing terms, "cordage" would refer to
> the entire textile collection of ropes, cords and
> artefacts on board a ship. Within ropemaking, the
> word "cord" is a loose term that implies something
> string-like in form that is somewhat smaller in
> diameter than a rope, but not necessarily of twisted
> structure (cords could also be formed by techniques
> such as knitting, crocheting, braiding, knotting,
> looping etc.). And "cordage" in basketry is often
> simply twisted by hand and consists of some sort of
> plant material.
>
> Secondly, I find myself querying each of the
> references to Z and S twist. There is no mention
> anywhere that I can find of how each Z and or S
> structure is formed - ie, whether the original cord
> was likely to have been of a single twisted strand
> or made up of several strands, or if cabled or more
> complex in some other way, and if so, what the twist
> direction is of each component - from individual
> yarn/s upwards?
>
> It may well be that answers to my first question
> would make further questions superfluous. Or my
> questioning may stem from being too
> practically-minded, where that aspect may not be
> perceived to be relevant to your research (?)
> However, the unknown details of fibre, structure and
> techniques used in the cord-making seem to me to be
> of major importance when considering the cultural
> setting...
> If that's not so, please forgive my naivety.
>
> Regards
> Ann Norman
> UK
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "E. A. Jolie" <edjolie@...>
> To: "Ann Norman" <ann@...>
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 2:16 AM
> Subject: Re: new journal article on cordage twist
>
>
> > Ann:
> >
> > I've attached the article. Please do pass along
> any
> > useful references you've come across to the list,
> as
> > I'm sure many would find them of use.
> >
> > Take care, Ed
>


Edward A. Jolie, MA, RPA - PhD Student
Department of Anthropology, MSC01 1040
1 University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
Cell Phone: (775)815-2178

Perishable Technology Research and Consulting
http://www.perishabletechnology.org



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html