Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLukesova, Hana
dc.contributor.authorHolst, Bodil
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-24T13:26:58Z
dc.date.available2021-02-24T13:26:58Z
dc.date.created2021-01-06T09:09:57Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.PublishedArchaeometry. 2020, .
dc.identifier.issn0003-813X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2730152
dc.description.abstractCorrect identification of textile fibres is an important issue in archaeology because the use of different materials can yield crucial information about the society that produced the textiles. Textiles made of plant and animal fibres can normally be easily distinguished, but to distinguish between different types of plant fibres, in particular different types of bast fibres, is difficult. Some years back it was shown that the features fibre diameter, lumen diameter, dislocation (nodes), and cross markings cannot be used on their own to distinguish between the typical bast fibres used for textiles in ancient Europe: flax, hemp, and nettle. Particularly not when only a few fibres are available for an examination so that statistical analysis is not possible, as is often the case in archaeology. The last two characterization features typically used to distinguish between bast fibres are cross‐section shape and lumen shape. In this paper, we present a study of retted and unretted fibres (in the stem) of flax, nettle, and hemp, and show that also cross‐section shape and lumen shape cannot be used as distinguishing features on their own.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleIs Cross‐Section Shape a Distinct Feature in Plant Fibre Identification?en_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2020 The Authors.en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12604
dc.identifier.cristin1866065
dc.source.journalArchaeometryen_US
dc.source.pagenumber216-226en_US
dc.identifier.citationArchaeometry. 2021, 63 (1), 216-226.en_US
dc.source.volume63en_US
dc.source.issue1en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal