CONCLUSION

Textile production was important both functionally and symbolically. Major female deities from throughout Mesoamerica were closely associated with this important aspect of domestic production, which was also linked metaphorically with sexual reproduction. Ethnographic research indicates that this aspect of female ideology continues (Schaefer 1989). In fact, Cecelia Klein (1982) inferred a weaving paradigm for the Mesoamerican cosmos in her article “Woven Heaven, Tangled Earth.” We interpret similar evidence in the use of textile symbolism in Mixtec codices to denote architectural and natural spaces, as a metaphor for the acculturation of the landscape (McCafferty and McCafferty 2006).

Studies of the material evidence for textile production have also advanced beyond simply using whorls to identify possible fibers. Julia Hendon (2006) recently wrote about textile production as craft, with implications of how labor was organized and knowledge was communicated. Nichols and colleagues (2000) considered the organization of production at Otumba, and we have discussed cottage industries for textile production at both Cholula (Puebla) and Santa Isabel (Nicaragua) (McCafferty and McCafferty 2000, 2008). With more studies such as these, textile production will continue to develop as an important avenue for interpreting ancient political economy, while also providing unique insights into gender ideologies and female participation in Mesoamerican culture.