Ancient Egyptian and Greek Looms Part 1

Ancient Egyptian and Greek Looms.

by H. Ling Roth.

PREFACE.

Halifax, which is situated in the heart of the great textile trade of Lancashire and Yorkshire, has been a home of the woollen manufacture since the earliest time, and it is only meet, therefore, that its museum should possess specimens of the tools used in the early days of spinning, weaving, and cloth making generally. In spite of the considerable progress made towards that end, many typical specimens are still wanting, and, while we have plenty of material for the study of weaving in various parts of the world, we are lacking in everything relating to the industry in Ancient Egypt and Greece. Failing specimens I have had recourse to ill.u.s.trations, but the Egyptian ones published by Cailliaud, Rosellini, Sir J. G. Wilkinson and Lepsius, contradict each other in many important points, so that those who study them find them practically useless for an understanding of the art as carried on in the Nile lands. Fortunately, last year, Mr. N. de G. Davies, the well-known Egyptologist, hearing of my difficulty, very generously placed some of his copies of tomb drawings at my disposal, and with this invaluable help I have been enabled to complete the present paper, and to lay before Halifax students some new details of manufacture bearing upon their staple industry.

H. Ling Roth.

Bankfield Museum, Halifax.

April 1913.

I. EGYPTIAN LOOMS.

HORIZONTAL LOOMS.[A]

In the tomb of Chnem-hotep, at Beni Hasan, there is a wall painting of a horizontal loom with two weavers, women, squatting on either side, and at the right in the background is drawn the figure of the taskmaster. There are also figures represented in the act of spinning, etc. For the present we are concerned with the weaving only.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 1.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from the ill.u.s.tration in Cailliaud's _Recherches_, etc. Same size as published.]

Of this ill.u.s.tration, there appear to be six reproductions. We have first of all, Fig. 1, that of Fred. Cailliaud (_Recherches sur les Arts et Metiers_, etc., Paris, 1831) with ill.u.s.trations of drawings made by himself in the years 1819 to 1822. His publication was followed by Fig. 2, that of Sir J. G. Wilkinson (_Manners and Customs_, etc., London, 1837). Mr. John Murray, whose house has published Wilkinson's work from the first edition to the last, informs me that a few of the drawings were made by George Scharf, afterwards Sir George Scharf, Keeper of the National Portrait Gallery, but that most of them seem to have been made by Joseph Bonomi, the well known Egyptologist. Wilkinson's woodcut, although clearly and neatly done, is on a very small scale; nevertheless it admits of a fair comparison with those reproduced on a larger scale.

[Ill.u.s.tration:

Figs. 1 & 3. Weaving.

Fig. 2. Loom.

" 3. Putting in the woof, but not by a shuttle thrown with the hand.

" 4. Male Overseer.

" 5. Hackling.

" 6. Twisting the double threads for the warp.

_a_ Weaving.

_b_ Chief of Loom.

_c_ Facing.

_d_ Pulling out.

Fig. 2.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from Sir J. G.

Wilkinson's _Manners and Customs_, London, John Murray, 1878, Vol. I., p. 317. Same size as published.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 3.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from the ill.u.s.tration in Rosellini's _Monumenti_ (Monumenti Civili), Plate XLI.

Reduced one-fifth lineal of size published.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 4.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from Lepsius' _Denkmaler_. Same size as published.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 5.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from Prof. Percy Newberry's _Beni Hasan_, I. Plate 29. Same size as published.]

After him, Fig. 3, N. F. J. B. Rosellini began the publication of his great work (_I Monumenti dell' Egitto_, Pisa, 1832-1844). The similarity between the comparatively few drawings published by Cailliaud and the very large number published by Rosellini is very great. It is of course quite possible Rosellini may have made use of some of Cailliaud's drawings. Five years after Rosellini's publication came that of C. R. Lepsius (_Denkmaler_, Leipzig, 1849), Fig. 4, his drawings having been made in the years 1842 to 1845. Since the time of Lepsius until quite recent years I can trace no further copying until we get the ill.u.s.tration, Fig. 5, in Prof. Percy Newberry's _Beni Hasan_, London, 1910. In this work the reproduction is about one twentieth of the original, or about three fifths of the size of that of Wilkinson, and unfortunately so crude as not to be available for our present purpose.[B] Lastly we have the reproduction, Fig. 6, from Mr. N. de Garis Davies' drawing made in 1903, and now first published by kind permission of Mr. F. Ll. Griffith.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 6.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep. Size of original: Height of the figures 9-1/4" = 244 cm. Drawn by Mr. N. de G. Davies, and now published for the first time by permission of Mr.

F. Ll. Griffith.]

In the various reproductions by the above explorers, the only three which agree very closely are those of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies.

The others vary considerably and in essentials do not agree with the above nor with one another. The differences may in the first instance be due to difficulties in copying the original in the tomb. Others may be due to ignorance of detail on the part of the secondary copyist--the man who prepared them for publication--so that he was unable to follow up the clues on the drawings laid before him. The differences may also be due to careless copying and to "touching up"

of the copies when made; they may be slightly due to deterioration and obliteration of the original in the course of time.

The _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ gives a variant from all six ill.u.s.trations, but approaching nearest to that of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies. It is misleading in so far that the drawing has been made to suit Professor Kennedy's idea as to what it should be.

Some of the differences are of minor importance, but a comparison will help materially to our understanding of the method of weaving adopted by the Egyptians from the XIIth to the XIXth Dynasties, or about B.C.

2000 to 1200. To go into details, and taking Mr. N. de G. Davies'

ill.u.s.tration as our basis, we find slight differences in the shape of the pegs B, B1, which are immaterial. A more p.r.o.nounced difference is seen in the way in which the threads are attached to the warp beam A.

Neither Wilkinson nor Lepsius carry these threads over the beam, the former carrying them only as far as the laze threads C, while the latter carries them up to a line drawn parallel to and below the beam; Cailliaud and Rosellini carry them over the beam while Mr. Davies carries them half way only. The object of this half carrying over is not clear. The threads in chain-form at C are probably laze threads, apparently placed there so that in case of any disarrangement of the warp threads the weaver can from that point run her fingers along them and get them disentangled. It has been suggested to me that this chain-form might be a tension chain for taking up slack warp, but the former explanation seems the more likely.

All the drawings but Wilkinson's show the warp threads converging towards the breast beam; Wilkinson shows them parallel and in Lepsius their convergence is excessive. There should be a slight convergence shown, as in the course of weaving the threads get drawn in, and in later forms of looms in semi-civilised countries we find an endeavour to counteract this tendency by the use of a tool known as a "temple."

The cross sticks D1, D2, look like laze rods. It may not be out of place here to point out that in primitive weaving laze rods serve two purposes, or one more than in the later somewhat more advanced looms.

They serve throughout to keep the warp threads in place, and they serve to separate the odd threads from the even (1, 3, 5, 7 from 2, 4, 6, 8, &c.), and in so doing take the place of the fingers in making the "shed," _i.e._, the opening through which the "weft (or woof)" is pa.s.sed, a function which in turn is usurped by the "heald (or heddle)." The heddle therefore becomes a very important factor, and Dr. H. G. Harrison by no means overstates the case when he says that the development of the heddle is the most important step in the evolution of the loom (Horniman Museum Handbooks, No. 10, pp. 47-49).

We may now return to the drawing. Wilkinson shows the rod D1 indistinctly and the left hand end only of D2. Lepsius' artist seems to have taken a liberty with D1 but in the right direction, by making it more definitely into an early form of heddle--the loop and rod--but he shows D2 the same as Cailliaud and Rosellini. Prof. Kennedy argues that these rods are in the wrong position and that D1 which is a heddle should be in the place of D2. Mr. Davies' drawing as well as those of Cailliaud and Rosellini show that D1 is a heddle while D2 is shown to be a laze rod. Asiatic primitive looms, like those from Borneo and Bhutan, have two laze rods but no heddle; on the other hand many primitive African looms have one laze rod and one heddle as is the case with this Egyptian loom. More threads are shown on the left hand end of D2 than on the right hand end. Mr. Davies informs me that the same quant.i.ty should be shown from end to end across the warp, but on the right hand side they are so indistinct that he was just able to detect but not to trace them and so he omitted them.

We now come to the rod E. Cailliaud and Rosellini show an undulation at the one end _a_, but do not make the other end clear. Wilkinson shows a small hook at the end _a_, which appears to me to be a transcriber's development of the curved end of his two predecessors; in the text Wilkinson says there is a hook at each end of this stick, but he does not show any at the end opposite to _a_; he refers to these hooks more than once (1st ed., III., p. 126 footnote). Lepsius has altered the shape of the curve and transferred it from the end _a_ to the opposite end. In Mr. de G. Davies' drawing, it has been inserted in dotted lines, as the original is in such a state that tracing is almost impossible. Wilkinson, Erman, v. Cohausen (_Das Spinnen u. Weben bei den Alten_, in _Ann. Ver. Na.s.sau. Altherthumsk._, Wiesbaden, 1879, p. 29), and others call it a shuttle, but I am more inclined to consider it a slashing stick ("sword" or "beater-in") for pushing the weft into position. A tool which appears to be a beater-in and of similar end shape is seen held in the hand of a woman on a wall painting at El Bersheh--see Fig. 11, top right-hand corner. We have in another ill.u.s.tration, Fig. 7, an article which appears to be a spool, which I think confirms the view that E is not the shuttle but the beater-in. In all the ill.u.s.trations, too, the pose of the hands of the women bearing on this stick is indicative of a downward pressure and not of a grasp.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 7.--Tomb of the Vizier Daga. Date about end XI.

Dynasty, B.C. 2000. Mr. N. de G. Davies' _Five Theban Tombs_, Plate x.x.xVII.

The upper ill.u.s.tration indicates a woman warping or beaming, probably warping.

In the lower ill.u.s.tration note the left hand figure holding the spool in her hand. At first sight this small black line looks like a continuation of the "beater-in" in the hands of the other weaver, but Mr. Davies informs me that it is quite a distinct article, and that there can be no doubt about it. Just above the breast beam there are 8 or 9 threads of weft but they are too faint to be included.]

The selvedge F on the one side of the cloth and not on both sides is also interesting from the fact that selvedges do not appear on the Egyptian cloths until the XVIII. Dynasty _circa_ B.C. 1600.

The breast beam:--It appears to me that the three portions marked G1, G2 and G3 joined up are intended to represent the breast beam and its holding pegs, similar to the warp beam A and its pegs B1, B2, but the portion K is not clearly drawn in any of the reproductions. Wilkinson omits this altogether, but in its place has two black pieces which also are still less clear. Lepsius has omitted G2 altogether and appears to have made G1 and K and G3 into treadles, by raising G1 above the level of G3, and to support the view that these are treadles, he makes use of the overseer's foot by placing it on the supposed treadle, and the casual observer thinks it is the foot of the woman weaver. However, Mr. Davies' copy seems to offer a solution. He agrees with Cailliaud and Rosellini in so far as G1, G2 and G3 are concerned. With him K takes quite a different form, in fact it looks very similar to an article which an attendant woman in another panel has close by her, see Fig. 8. It might perhaps be a rest to prevent the beater-in being driven home too forcibly--this, however, is still only a surmise--as the length of the beater-in makes it heavy at the far end.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 8.--Weaver with the support K, Fig. 6; the woman appears to hold a beater-in in the right hand and a ball of thread in the left hand. Rosellini.]

In Cailliaud the warp threads are coloured in pale blue and red on top of the black lines of the drawing; he has painted the selvedge and finished cloth a pale blue, as well as that portion of G2 which is covered by the cloth indicating that this is the breast beam, G3 and G1 are painted a dark red. Rosellini colours A, B1, B2, D1, D2, G3 orange; G1 and K dark red, but E from end to end light ochre. This shows that K is distinct from E.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 9.

Upright or Vertical Looms from the Tomb of Thot-nefer at Thebes, XVIII Dynasty, _circa_ B.C. 1425. From a drawing by Mr. N. de G. Davies. Size of original: Height from Base Line to top of frame at A, 11-1/2" = 29 cm.]