Textile-Making in Central Tyrrhenian Italy from the Final Bronze Age to the Republican Period 9781407309569, 9781407339375

Citation preview

BAR S2369 2012 LIPKIN

Textile-Making in Central Tyrrhenian Italy from the Final Bronze Age to the Republican Period Sanna Lipkin

TEXTILE-MAKING IN CENTRAL TYRRHENIAN ITALY

B A R Lipkin 2369 cover.indd 1

BAR International Series 2369 2012

19/04/2012 15:02:11

Textile-Making in Central Tyrrhenian Italy from the Final Bronze Age to the Republican Period Sanna Lipkin

BAR International Series 2369 2012

ISBN 9781407309569 paperback ISBN 9781407339375 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407309569 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

For my lovely and beautiful daughter Rianna, who never forgets to ask: ”Why?”.

BARLIPKIN.indd 3

13.2.2012 12.50

Abstract This book is based on my doctoral thesis with a same title. This is a study on textile production in central Tyrrhenian Italy from the ¿nal Bronze Age to the Republican period. Textile production is studied here through its technological, social and economic aspects. This book presents new insights on the importance of textile-making in the ancient society and economy.

ing age, gender, ethnicity, social status, profession and religion. Through this a new insight on the multifaceted identity of textile makers and their social status is built.

Textiles and their making were important parts of all ¿elds of life in ancient Italy. Textiles and textile implements are found from settlement sites, burials, votive deposits and sanctuaries. The differences between the ¿nds from different contexts through time point out the changes in material culture related to textile-making. The changes in the materials also indicate the change from household production of textiles to a workshop mode of production and specialisation and later on slave work. Through the scope of this study textile production went through the introduction of many new technologies; for example the warp-weighted loom was ¿nally replaced by the two-beam loom. Also, the changes in the making of the implements point to the changes in the society and the economic structures. Textile-making is a process that starts from the selection of ¿bres and leads through many steps to the ¿nal product. The techniques used in central Tyrrhenian Italy are reconstructed through the source materials: textile tools, surviving textiles, written and iconographic sources and the data is combined with the results of experimental archaeology. Although a necessity textile production is also a very time consuming activity and as such had a great economic importance in the ancient society. The changes in the production through time insisted for a greater specialisation of textile makers as indicated by the archeological materials from the early Iron Age onwards and the skill of textilemaking became something that was highly valued within the society. Textile-making was a virtue of women. A single spindle whorl became something of a marker for female gender and also the most common grave good given to women. Textiles were mainly done by women, but the importance of children in the ¿eld of textile production in antiquity is also to be noted. The archeological materials show that children, also some boys were taught the basics of the craft maybe as early as at the age of three or four. However, the learning of textile-making was started in earnest as a juvenile. Everybody did not become as skilled and the skill level needed for special techniques and professionalism was achieved only by some. They can generally be recognised from the burial materials through the multiple tool sets. The question of the importance of textile-making is approached in this book through different angles concern-

BARLIPKIN.indd 4

13.2.2012 12.50

Preface My academic dissertation was presented with the assent of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, for public discussion on November 27th, 2010. During the six years of my PhD project, I received support, guidance and friendship in a number of ways from different people. First, I want to thank my supervisor Dr. Eero Jarva for the never-ending support and encouragement and the atmosphere that has always made me feel welcomed in his of¿ce. I would also like to thank my referees Dr. Margarita Gleba and Dr. Alessandro Guidi for their valuable comments on the manuscript of my thesis. Margarita Gleba also acted as an opponent in the public examination. In Rome, I have stayed at a number of apartments, but I have always been welcomed at Villa Lante where the Institutum Romanum Finlandiae is located. In addition to offering a room whenever needed, the Institute and its intendant Simo Örmä have also supported my work by writing letters of introduction to the other foreign scienti¿c institutes in Rome. Alongside the PhD project, I have attented excavations from 2004 to 2010 within the international Crustumerium project directed by Dr. Francesco di Gennaro in the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma.1 Currently, I work for the publication of the excavation materials discovered by a group directed by Eero Jarva from the University of Oulu (the Road Trench excavations). During this project, doctorates Antti Kuusisto and Juha Tuppi have become my dearest colleagues and friends.

Discussion Group, TePi, for the delicious pastries and savoury snacks and discussions on different theories in archaeology. My PhD thesis project was ¿nancially supported by the Finnish Graduate School in Archaeology and the Faculty of the Humanities at the University of Oulu. I have also received two grants for my travels in Rome from the Emil Aaltonen foundation and my stay as a guest researcher at the CTR (Centre for Textile Research) in Copenhagen was supported by the Danish PhD School in Archaeology. I thank the director of CTR, Marie-Louise Nosch for making my stay possible. Even though, I am fully responsible for the defects in language of this book, I thank Milton Nunez and Andrew Pattison for proofreading my text. I have ¿nalised this book while I have been working in Rome with my post doc research which is supported both by Osk. Huttunen Foundation and Kone Foundation. Finally, I thank my family. My mother Merja, farther Hannu, grandmother Kirsti and mother-in-law, Raija have supported me and my own family ¿nancially but foremost I am grateful for their lovely thoughts and mental support. My husband, Antti Kaarlela, has supported me perhaps the most. He has been reading my texts right from the beginning and the support I have received daily is unforgettable and extremely strong. Oulu September 2011 Sanna Lipkin

I am also thankful for the friendly and supportive atmosphere that I have experienced among the staff and PhD students at the University of Oulu. Professor Milton Nunez has created a stimulating working community, where creativity has been appreciated. With the best room-mate ever, Dr. Anna-Kaisa Salmi, I shared the fortunes and the misfortunes of our lives both in a personal and academic sense. With Titta Kallio-Seppä I have completed numerous projects and drank far more numerous cups of tea surrounded by friendly thoughts. With Tiina Äikäs we have started and completed many fascinating projects in a smooth and respectable manner. Dr. Janne Ikäheimo has made valuable comments on my work before it was sent to the pre-examiners. I would also like to thank the members (for instance Tiina Kuokkanen, Mirette Modarress and Sirpa Niinimäki) of the Theoretical Archaeology 1 More information on the project may be found in the special edition of Bollettino di Archeologia on line (http://151.12.58.75/archeologia/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=60) and the papers given at the seminar Alla ricerca dell’identità di Crustumerium, Primi risultati e prospettive di un progetto internazionale held at the Institutum Romanum Finlandiae in collaboration with the Soprintendenza Speciale ai Beni Archeologici di Roma in March 2008 (http://www.irfrome.org/ei/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=bl og&id=13&Itemid=64&lang=it).

BARLIPKIN.indd 5

13.2.2012 12.50

Contents

Abstract Preface List of ¿gures List of tables

4 5 8 9

1. Introduction

10

1.1 Aims and challenges 1.2 The database and processing methods 1.3 Theoretical background and methodologies Archaeological experiments Post-processual social archaeology and research on identity 1.4 Textile archaeological background Fibre preservation and ancient ¿bres Spinning yarn Weaves and patterns Weaving on the warp-weighted loom Other techniques and tools Depictions, inscriptions and written sources

10 14 14 15 16 18 18 19 20 22 22 23

2. Textile tools in central Tyrrhenian Italy – Technical features and results of archaeological experiments 24 2.1 Spindle whorls, spindles and distaffs Context and dating Spindle whorls from settlement sites Spindle whorls from sanctuaries and votive deposits Spindle whorls from burials Differences according to the periods Size and form of the spindle whorls Markings and decoration Spindle shafts Distaffs Conclusion on spinning implements 2.2 Loom weights Context and dating Loom weights from settlement sites Loom weights from votive deposits and sanctuaries Loom weights in burials Form Size: weight and thickness Grooves and other markings Conclusion on loom weights 2.3 Tablet weaving tools Tablets Clasps

24 24 24 25 25 26 26 34 35 37 39 40 40 43 46 47 48 49 52 54 55 56 56

6

BARLIPKIN.indd 6

13.2.2012 12.50

Spools Context and dating Spools in settlement sites Spools in sanctuaries and votive deposits Spools in burials Function of spools: form, size and weight Markings on spools Conclusion on spools and tablet weaving tools 2.4 Making of ceramic textile tools Spindle whorls and spools Loom weights 2.5 Conclusion on textile tools

3. Textiles and the techniques employed

57 58 58 59 59 60 62 63 64 64 65 67

68

3.1 Spinning threads – Fibres and techniques 3.2 Textiles – Techniques and ¿nished products 3.3 Conclusion on ¿bres, threads, textiles and techniques

4. The social meaning of textile-making

68 73 79

81

4.1 Textile-making in everyday life and afterlife Textile-making as a process Identity of textile makers Question of the age of Latin and Etruscan textile makers On skill and de¿ning status About gender From the after-life to the daily life 4.2 Textile-making as a part of central Tyrrhenian Italian religion Depositing tools Sanctuary weaving activities 4.3. Conclusions on social meanings

5. Economic importance

81 81 83 84 87 92 93 95 96 98 100

101

5.1 Wool and linen for textiles Wool and sheep husbandry Flax and its cultivation 5.2 Special ¿bres and colourful clothing 5.3 Time aspects reconsidered 5.4 Economic aspects 5.5 The importance of textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy – a conclusion

101 101 103 105 107 109 111

6. Conclusions

113

Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4

115 128 132 136

Bibliography

141

Index

159 7

BARLIPKIN.indd 7

13.2.2012 12.50

List of ¿gures p. 11

Figure 1. Map over Latium vetus, southern Etruria, Faliscan and Sabine areas.

p. 19

Figure 2. Spindles from Osteria dell’Osa (a–c), S’Omobono (d), Gran Carro (e), Tarquinia (f) and Casale Marittimo (g). (drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, 3c105; Enea nel Lazio 1981, 147; Tamburini 1995, Fig. 51.2081; Hencken 1968, 321, Fig. 318f.; Esposito & Maggiani 1999, Fig. 55).

Lipkin, National Museum of Finland, KM19322:23) I) Loom weight from Crustumerium with two impressions made on top (drawn by S. Lipkin). p. 45

Figure 17. Some of the loom weights from Acquarossa, house A in Zone B as they were found (Östenberg 1975, 79).

p. 45

Figure 18. Aqcuarossa Zone B, The ¿nd context of loom weights in House A (room 5) is marked (Östenberg 1972, 110).

p. 55

Figure 19. Making starting border with tablet weaving technique (drawn by S. Lipkin after Hoffman 1974).

p. 20

Figure 3. Spindle types: Low-whorl spindle, high-whorl spindle, drop-spindle (drawn by S. Lipkin).

p. 56

Figure 20. Bone tablet from Ficana zone 4a (drawn by E. Jarva).

p. 20

Figure 4. S-spin and Z-spin (drawn by S. Lipkin).

p. 56

p. 20

Figure 5. a) Tabby and b) 2/2 twill weaves (drawn by S. Lipkin).

Figure 21. Clasps from Vulci (drawn by S. Lipkin after Falconi Amorelli 1983, Fig. 86) and Veii (drawn by S. Lipkin after Berni Brizio et al. 1972, Fig. 38).

p. 21

Figure 6. Loom types: a) Warp-weighted loom (drawn by S. Lipkin), b) Two-beam loom in Thutnofer’s tomb at Thebes, late 15th century BC (drawn by S. Lipkin after Barber 1992, Fig. 3.29.) c) Two-beam loom from the Hypogeum of Aurelii, Rome (drawn by S. Lipkin after Broudy 1979, Fig. 3.13.) d) Horizontal ground-loom in a weaving shop found as a tomb equipment of Gemnienhat, c. 1990 BC, Saqqara, Ny Carlebergs Glyptotek, Copenhagen, photo S. Lipkin)

p. 56

Figure 22. Wooden clasps from the 20th century Finland (Merisalo 1978, Figs. 18–19).

p. 57

Figure 23. Spool typology by Gleba (2008, Fig. 99).

p. 58

Figure 24. Different type of spools from Ficana zone 4a (a–c, e–f, drawn by T. Jarva) and Osteria dell’Osa, Tomb 435 (d, g, drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, Fig. 3a314.

p. 62

Figure 25. Weaving side selvage with tablet weaving technique (drawn by S. Lipkin).

p. 63

Figure 26. Markings in spools a) Veii Quattro Fontanili (drawn by S. Lipkin after De Agostino et al. 1963, Fig. 106, Tomb KKLL18-19; Fig. 58, Tomb DD17-18A; Berni Brizio et al. 1972, Fig. 73, Tomb OP4-5), b) Inscriptions form Veii, Casale dell’Fosso, Tomb 870 (drawn by S. Lipkin after Bagnasco Gianni 1999, Fig. 2).

p. 68

Figure 27. The back of the throne chair found in Verucchio, 8th century BC (Tomba del Trono, drawn by S. Lipkin after Guerriero e sacerdote 2002).

p. 69

Figure 28. Athenian Black ¿gure lekythos from The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, drawn by S. Lipkin after Barber 1992, 2.38).

p. 69

Figure 29. Penelope from Chiusi. Museo Archeologico Nazionale: 1831. (drawn by S. Lipkin after Boardman 1989, 98, Fig. 247.)

p. 69

Figure 30. Etruscan mirrors from Arezzo (4th century BC, drawn by S. Lipkin after Gleba 2008, Fig. 11) and Copenhagen (330–320 BC, photo: S. Lipkin).

p. 70

Figure 31. Pendant from Bologna, Arsenale Militare, Tomba degli Ori, late 7th century BC. (drawn by Sanna Lipkin after Morigi Govi 1974).

p. 71

Figure 32. Spinning woman in the centre of a vase found at Orvieto, c. 480–470 BC (Blümner 1877, pl. 6).

p. 72

Figure 33. Jugglers tomb in Tarquinia (Scene with an actress, photo: Sanna Lipkin, Woman in a mantle drawn by S. Lipkin after Catalogo ragionato della pittura etrusca 1984, Pl. 89).

p. 74

Figure 34. Augurs tomb in Tarquinia (drawn by S. Lipkin after Moltesen & Weber-Lehmann 1991, Catalogue number 101 and Catalogo ragionato della pittura etrusca 1984, Pl 19).

p. 75

Figure 35. One possible weaving direction ¿gured in Tarquinian tomb paintings. The dotted lines mean the beginning border attached to the top-beam and ¿nishing border, both made with tablet-weave technique (drawn by S. Lipkin).

p. 77

Figure 36. a)Tomb 3 from Osteria dell’Osa. The outlines of the funeral shroud are visible as small bronze spirals (drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, Fig. 3a.391.) b) Tomb 18, Monte lo Greco at Narce. (Cozza 1895, 139, Fig. 56).

p. 78

Figure 37. Loom from Pisticci, 5th century BC (Quagliati 1904, 199 Fig. 4).

p. 79

Figure. 38. Two-beam loom from the Forum Transitorium (Forum of Nerva) in Rome. Scenes from the weaving competition between Arachne from Asia Minor and Pallas Athena (Minerva). (photo: S. Lipkin)

p. 23

Figure 7. Tablet-weaving technique (drawn by S. Lipkin).

p. 28

Figure 8. Two different sized spindle whorls used in the experiments conducted in University of Oulu (photo: S. Lipkin).

p. 30

Figure 9A. Spindle whorl typology according to Gleba (drawn by S. Lipkin after Gleba 2008, Fig. 80. Originally drawn by Marianne Bloch Hansen).

p. 30

Figure 9B. Examples from from Osteria dell’Osa, Tomb 580 (a) (drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, 3a439) and Ficana, 4a (a–e) (drawn by T. Jarva) according to classi¿cation.

p. 31

Figure 10. Spindle whorls with different kind of decorative elements a-c) faceted spindle whorls from Crustumerium (drawn by S. Lipkin), Ficana 4a (Lipponen 2004, Pl. 1, drawn by Eero Jarva) and Crustumerium (drawn by S. Lipkin), d–f) spindle whorls with incised decoration (drawn by Sanna Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, Tombs 435, Fig. 3a314.10; 163, Fig. 3a42; 382, Fig. 3a96) g) spindle whorl with four buttons with concetric circles (drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, Tomb 519, Fig. 3a261.8), h) spindle whorl with a graf¿to from the Palatine Hill, Rome (drawn by S. Lipkin after Pensabene 2006, Figure I.9).

p. 35

Figure 11. Spindle with hemp thread. The thread is looped be low the whorl and in the top (left, photo: S. Lipkin); Spinning experiment with similar tool construction (right, photo A. Kaarlela).

p. 37

Figure 12. Distaff from Narce, Gleba type I (Barnabei 1894, 221–222, Fig. 99n).

p. 37

Figure 13. The distaff types IIA–E by Gleba (2008, Fig. 83).

p. 40

Figure 14. Loom weight forms: oval (Ficana 4a, drawn by T. Jarva), truncated pyramid with quadrangular base (drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, Fig.3a259.10. Tomb 507) with rectangular base (Ficana 4a, drawn by T. Jarva), parallelepiped (drawn by S. Lipkin after Piergrossi 2005, Tav. 38.7), discoid (drawn by S. Lipkin after Giuseppina Ghini 1989, 125, Tav. 45).

p. 43

Figure 15. Loom weights from Crustumerium (photo: S. Lipkin).

p. 44

Figure 16. Impressions, markings and decorations in loom weights. A) Loom weight with longitudinal groove on top (Ficana 4a, drawn by T. Jarva), B–E) Loom weights with longitudinal groove and different kind of markings (drawn by S. Lipkin after Piergrossi 2005, 38.17, 19, 39.23, 24) F–G) Loom weight from Ficana zone 4a and Crustumerium with similar markings, cross on side and top (drawn by T. Jarva & S. Lipkin, Inv. Ostia 38537, SSBAR 516846). H) Loom weight possibly from Lucus Feronias (drawn by S.

8

BARLIPKIN.indd 8

13.2.2012 12.50

List of tables p. 13

Table 1. The chronology of Ancient Latium and Etruria. (Bietti Sestieri 1992, 8; Pacciarelli 2000, Fig. 38; Nijboer et al. 2002; Bartoloni 2003, 29; Guidi 2008a, Tab. 1.)

p. 25

Table 2.1. Number of spindle whorls in different regions in central Tyrrhenian Italy.

p. 29

Table 2.2. The amount of the spindle whorls in different size groups.

p. 32

Table 2.3. The number of forms of spindle whorls according to regions.

p. 34

Table 2.4. Different yarn weights and lengths that were considered as “full” for a spindle (TTTC tests: Mårtensson et al. 2006a, Appendix 1–2, Figs. 10–11).

p. 34

Table 2.5. Decoration of spindle whorls in percentages.

p. 34

Table 2.6. Decoration of spindle whorls according to their ¿nd contexts.

p. 41

Table 2.7. Loom weights from Latium, Southern Etruria, Sabine and Faliscan areas.

p. 41

Table 2.8. Loom weights from Latium.

p. 41

Table 2.9. Loom weights from Southern Etruria.

p. 48

Table 2.10. The weight of loom weights during different periods in central Tyrrhenian Italy.

p. 52

Table 2.11. The most frequent markings on loom weights.

p. 59

Table 2.12. Spools according to their dating in different regions in central Tyrrhenian Italy.

p. 60

Table 2.13. Number of spools in one burial in different regions.

p. 61

Table 2.14. Spool forms according to different regions.

p. 61

Table 2.15. Scaled spools in the database (For some spools the weight is reconstructed, if half of the spool has preserved, Crustumerium, documentation in 2006–2009; Ficana 2, Malmgren 1997, 102, Fig. 5.81; Ficana 4a, Lipponen 2004; Narce, Dohan 1942, 23 no. 37, Pl. XI; Davidson 1972, 79, Pl XXIV; Gleba 2008, 141.)

p. 84

Table 4.1 Age groups in Osteria dell’Osa (Osteria dell’Osa 1992).

p. 84

Table 4.2 Age groups in Quattro Fontanili (Alciati & Passarello 1963; Passarello 1965; Passarello 1967; Pacciarelli 2006: 265).

p. 85

Table 4.3 Textile tools in burials in Osteria dell’Osa (Osteria dell’Osa 1992).

p. 86

Table 4.4 The distribution of textile tools according to amounts in different age groups in Osteria dell’Osa (Osteria dell’Osa 1992).

p. 87

Table 4.5 The distribution of textile tools according to amounts in different age groups in Quattro Fontanili, Veii (De Agostino et al. 1963; Close-Brooks et al. 1965; Ward-Perkins et al. 1967; Batchvarova et al. 1970; Berni Brizio et al. 1972; Bedello & Fabbricotti 1975; Righetti 1976).

p. 88

Table 4.6 Textile tools in Rome and Latin necropolises. (Angle & Gianni 1985; Gjerstad 1956; Osteria dell’Osa 1992.)

p. 88

Table 4.7 Textile tools from tombs in Etruscan necropolises. (Iaia 1999; Pohl 1972; Berggren & Berggren 1972.)

p. 90

Table 4.8. Percentages of textile tools from Osteria dell’Osa according to age groups during all periods (Osteria dell’Osa 1992).

p. 91

Table 4.9. Textile tools from Osteria dell’Osa according to Bietti Sestieri (1992, 109–116). Period II (Phases IIA–IIB).

9

BARLIPKIN.indd 9

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy

1. Introduction

so Furbara and Casale Marittimo.4 An extensive research on textiles is published in Guerriero e Sacerdote. Autorità e comunità nell’età del ferro a Verucchio. La Tomba del Trono (2002). Two near-complete mantles and one larger piece of cloth (and many smaller pieces of textile) were fully researched by Lise Ræder Knudsen and Annemarie Stauffer. These textiles were found from the necropolis of Verucchio in northern Italy, where a signi¿cant number of textiles are incredibly well preserved. The most recent work had been done by Margarita Gleba (Textile Production in Pre-Roman Italy, 2008). She has collected together many published and some unpublished textiles from Italy and thoroughly presents the different phases of textilemaking and all the textile implements used in Italy, and she discusses their ¿nd contexts. Her work concentrates on the pre-Roman periods (i.e. before the Republican period) and covers the entire Italian peninsula, with a great emphasis on the Etruscan regions.

1.1 Aims and challenges Producing textiles was one of the major communal tasks, and later workshop duties, within ancient societies. Similarly to other human technologies, textile-making has a character that makes it universal. The same techniques used in ancient Italy were widespread on the shores of the Mediterranean and in the northern parts of Europe. This is evident from the similar features of tools, such as spindles, spindle whorls, weights, combs and swords.1 Clothing has always been important for humans in many ways: it keeps you warm in cold weather and offers protection from the sunlight. In addition to such concrete uses of clothing, clothes also have immaterial meanings. Clothes may have indicated the social status, age, ethnicity or gender of a person. Even though the basic idea of clothing and textile techniques were universal and widespread, negotiations, expectations and beliefs may have been directed into the uses of tools and textiles on different levels: individual, family, community, ethnic group, state etcetera. This is the reason why textile research is important in archaeological research.

According to Rottoli, textile-making and textiles have been quite poorly studied in Italian prehistoric archaeology.5 This is partly due to the small amount of surviving textiles. However, many of the textiles found have not yet been fully published. This is understandable because textile research requires special knowledge of differentiating different ¿bres and weaves. But the regrettable fact is that most of the textiles that might have survived until today have gone unnoticed or may have been destroyed by inexperienced excavators.6 Textiles should always documented in situ and be supported while lifting. Their conservation is also vital for preservation.7 For example, Margarita Gleba has found numerous pseudomorphs on iron and bronze objects in museum exhibitions but had not been previously noticed or at least had not been mentioned in publications.8

Research on textile-making techniques is mainly based on surviving textiles and preserved textile-making implements. Textile archaeological methodologies include also the research of written and iconographic sources,2 such as rock-carvings and representations on pottery vessels. Clay and lead impressions of woven fabrics also tell us about ancient textile-making techniques.

As studying textiles is problematic, researching textile implements is not easy either. To process the tool data requires a huge amount of knowledge on the techniques and materials in order to be able to make valid conclusions. To date, excepting a few exceptional examples,9 loom weights, spindle whorls and spools have received relatively little interest from archaeologists. In archaeological excavation reports they are usually poorly documented.10 For each tool the minimum measurements published are weight, height or length, width and thickness or diameter.

In textile studies it is important to consider the weave pattern, spin direction, yarn thickness as well as the material and properties of the ¿bre. The ¿rst two attributes may be studied through visual examination of the textile; the latter ones are done through more precise microscopic study.3 Some Italian archaeological textiles are presented in Textiles, intrecci e tessuti dalla preistoria europea (2003) which includes a list of the surviving textiles found from northern Italy. The textiles are dated from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. The publication also discusses different ¿bres and textile techniques. Two important funeral sites with several surviving textiles from Etruria proper are Sas-

For this research a number of published excavation reports were consulted. As a main search tool, the Dyabola project proved to be useful. In addition, I have browsed 4 Masurel 1982a–b; Mamez & Masurel 1992; Rottoli 2003. 5 Rottoli 2003, 68. 6 This notion applies to all archaeologists, regardless of the country of origin. For example, Bazzanella & Rast-Eicher (2003, 27) note that bogs preserve textiles but that peat soil is very dif¿cult to excavate because small fragments of textiles are not easily recognised. 7 See First Aid 2007 for guidelines for the excavation and documentation of archaeological textiles. 8 Gleba 2008, 43–63. 9 E.g. Scrodia 2001; Parrini 1997. 10 This is noticed also by Gleba 2008, 107. For further information see Chapter 1.3.

1 Bazzanella & Rast-Eicher 2003, 27. 2 The ¿rst work that introduced the basic history of Mediterranean textile technology is R. J. Forbes’ Studies in Ancient technology, volume IV (1964). It concentrates on textiles and their manufacturing procedures as they are described in surviving Greek and Latin literature and depictions. 3 Optic and scanning microscopes are used to identify the ¿bre, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) gives the best details, three-dimensional images. In addition to visual and microscopic examination, some chemical tests can be made: tests on density and solubility. (Raheel 1994, 140– 142.)

10

BARLIPKIN.indd 10

13.2.2012 12.50

Introduction

some regularly released publications, such as Archeologia laziale, Lazio e Sabina, Studi Etruschi, Notizie degli scavi and Skrifter utgivna av svenska institutet i Rom 4º. Some larger publications regarding certain regions also provided information that is utilised in the research. Such are, for example, Gli Etruschi (2000), Roma. Memorie dal sottosuolo. Ritrovamenti archeologici 1980/2006 (2006), Roma città del Lazio (2002) and Civiltà del Lazio primitivo (1976). The information that is presented in Appendix 1 has been gathered into the database which has been used for the analyses in this research.

Aneid 7.38).12 Southern Etruria, which is north of the Tiber River, is the second signi¿cant area in this research.13 A comparison will be made primarily between the Latin and Etruscan materials. Thus, the material found in southern Etruscan sites will act as an important marker of difference or similarity between these two cultures (See Chapter 4.). The archaeological record from the Faliscan and Sabine regions, which are on the north-eastern and eastern side of Latium, is scarce in this research due to the lack of available published excavation reports and have been taken into account in a lesser extent.

My research focuses on the textile archaeology of central Tyrrhenian Italy (Figure 1). Principally, the area may be divided into Latin, Etruscan, Faliscan and Sabine regions, but even within these regions there was interplay between the different groups.11 The interaction between these cultures changes from the ¿nal Bronze Age until the Republican period, which represent, respectively, the starting point of the research and the ¿nal period considered. Mainly, I will concentrate on the northernmost area of the region, which the ancient authors called Latium vetus or antiquum (Pliny the Elder, NH 3.56,59; Tacitus, Annals 4.5; Virgil,

The time frame, from the ¿nal Bronze Age to the late Republican period, is a fairly long period of time, but offers an opportunity to research the changes and continuity in textile-making. Knowledge of the late Bronze Age is limited. During the recent Bronze Age (1325/1300– 1175/1150 BC), the material from central Italy seems rather homogenous, but local differences did exist. In 12 Pliny the Elder tells that Latium antiquum had its borders in the River Tiber in the north and later on it was bordered by the Liri valley in the east. 13 The focus is in the centres closest to Latium because the interaction between these centres has been the greatest due to geographical reasons. The northernmost of these are Accesa and Acquarossa, but some northern centres further north that are highly relevant concerning this research are referred to on occasion (such as Chiusi, Orvieto and Poggio Civitate).

11 See Pliny the Elder’s (NH 3.50–51, 56, 68–69) list of populi that lived in the area as well as Strabo Geography 5.2.1, 5.3.1–2.

Poggio Civitate Chiusi Mount Ascensione Sibillini Hills

Mount Amiata

Massa Marittima

Mount Vettore Mount Fiori Lago d’Accesa o br Um

Lake Corbara

Volsini Hills

Tr ue ntu s

Lake Bolsena

Poggio Buco

Acquarossa

Castro

s anu Vom Lake Compotosto

ra Ne

Mount Terminillo Cosa

Vulci

Laga Hills

Lake Velino

Cimini Hills Sabini Hills

Mount Luco

Lake Vico Luni sul Mignone Sutrium

Lake Salto Nepet

San Giovenale Allumiere

Lake Turano

Lake Bracciano

Caere

Mount Sirente

Eretum Nomentum Crustumerium

Pyrgi Veii

io An

Simbruini Hills

Tibur

Fidenae Antemnae

Gabii / Osteria dell’Osa

Roma

Praeneste

Acqua Acetosa Ostia

Lake Albano Lake Nemi

Aricia Lanuvium

Y

R

R

Velitrae

Frosinone

Ardea

H

E

Pometia

N

IA

N

E

Antium

A

Lepini Hills

Mount S. Giovanni

Caracupa

Satricum

S

Ernici Hills

Albani Hills

Ficana

T

Mount Velino

Tibe r

Narce

Tolfa

s nu er At

Tarquinia

Falerii Veteres

Lir is

Latina Astura

Ausoni Hills Aurunci Hills Lake Fondi

0

10

20

30 km

Figure 1. Map over Latium vetus, southern Etruria, Faliscan and Sabine areas.

11 BARLIPKIN.indd 11

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy

sequent Imperial period brought about new needs for textile technologies as a consequence of population growth24 and military demands25. This kind of development, which had it beginnings already in the late Republican period, also affected textile-making techniques and procedures.

the course of the ¿nal Bronze Age (1175/1150–950/925 BC) local and distinctive features emerged.14 This is not, however, visible in the textile-making tools, which were similar throughout the region also during the later periods. But from the ¿nal Bronze Age onwards the amount of textile tools begins to increase, which is closely related to changes in habitation and thus the economy of the sites.15 During the ¿nal Bronze Age and the early Iron Age (950/925–725 BC), the habitation is characterised by settlement intensi¿cation.16 Minor- and medium-sized sites are often found on isolated and naturally defendable plateaux. The size of the Latin centres ranges generally between 40 and 60 hectares.17 On the other hand, the only two major centres, Rome and Gabii, were set in large areas marked by different and rather contrasting morphological features.18 During the early Iron Age period, in Etruria the great number (about 50) of small settlements shrank to a dozen at the same time as their size grew from 1–5 hectares to 100–200 hectares.19 These protourban centres20 appeared in Latium later (early Iron Age onwards) than in Etruria (¿nal Bronze Age onwards) and they were smaller in size.21 Thus this would imply that Latium and Etruria have had distinctive urbanisation patterns.

The prevailing “traditional” chronology of Latium and early Rome was ¿rst presented in Civiltà del Lazio primitivo (1976). Later, materials from archaeological excavations such as the Corinthian and the Euboean ceramics have provided more accurate dating.26 The traditional dating is widely accepted in research literature, but recently Albert Nijboer et al. have challenged the old datings27 and Marco Pacciarelli has presented a new chronology for the early periods of Latium and Etruria.28 The new dates are based on radiocarbon and dendrochronology measurements. I have chosen to speak of periods whenever possible in order to prevent misunderstandings concerning dating (Table 1). When making wider comparisons, I have used cultural de¿nitions such as the Archaic period since most of the research material used here is not accurately dated. Textile archaeology has a wide range of possibilities for research. I have made it my ¿rst goal to ¿nd out in which contexts textile tools are found. Textile tools come from four different kinds of provenances: burials, sanctuaries or votive deposits, and settlement sites. Spindle whorls, spindles, distaffs and spools are most frequently found from burial contexts. These are perhaps the most numerous, as many of the excavations have been conducted at necropolises such as Osteria dell’Osa, Rome, Satricum, Cerveteri, Veii and Tarquinia. Numerous textile implements have also been found from sanctuary or votive deposit contexts such as those at Ardea, Lavinium, Rome, Satricum, Cerveteri, Pyrgi and Tarquinia. Concerning settlement sites, textile implements have been published most numerously from Ficana, Rome, Satricum, Accesa, Acquarossa, Luni sul Mignone, San Giovenale, Cures Sabini and Narce.

During the late Iron Age (730/720–580 BC) a visible transformation called the Orientalising phenomenon occurred in the material record. It is characterised by Greek and Near Eastern materials in Italy. During this period Etruria becomes important in the wider Mediterranean area thanks to its metal ores and their trade.22 This research will concentrate on how these changes and the differences between regions were visible in textile-making and its importance in society. The Archaic period (580–480 BC) was the pinnacle of the Latin and Etruscan cultures. The cities Àourished and at least some continued to grow. Later, as the importance of Rome as a political centre became stronger, many of the Latin settlements diminished and their territories became primarily agricultural. This transition occurred during the Republican period. During the 4th century BC, Rome turned its expansionist policy against Etruria and conquered the southern Etruscan cities. The Republican period was a time of Romanisation in Etruria.23 The Republican period was also a time of signi¿cant short-term changes within society, which are reÀected in the textile implement materials. I chose to conclude with this period because the sub-

The decision to excavate at a particular site is not always directed by pure research reasons, but is often inÀuenced by external need for investigation, such as rescue excavations or research to protect the burials from grave robbers. Thus it is obvious that in different areas the investigations have been stressed differently. For this reason it is dif¿cult to compare tool ¿nd contexts according to their provenance. Only a small number of sites offers tools of each type (mainly spindle whorls, loom weights, spools) in different contexts (settlement site, burial, votive deposit or sanctuary). Moreover, this is the case especially when studying material over time. Whereas textile tools are most numerously found from Iron Age burials, their numbers in the Archaic and Republican period tombs are small, which

14 Bietti Sestieri 1992, 46–47. 15 See Peroni 1979 (1969). 16 Bietti Sestieri 1992, 233; Pacciarelli 2006 (2000), 93. 17 Pacciarelli 2006 (2000), 179. 18 Bietti Sestieri 1992, 47–50. 19 Guidi 1985. 20 Later on these developed into true urban centres. Their location was selected strategically and with a large population in mind. For this reason early on large areas were populated on easily defended areas, close to trade routes. Cemeteries surrounding the centres were numerous. (Pacciarelli 2006 (2000), 178–179.) 21 Pacciarelli 2006 (2000), 178–179. 22 Camporeale 1992, 42. 23 Bruun et al. 1975; Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 262–296.

24 Morley 1996, 38–39; Morel 2007, 509; Harris 2007, 516–517 25 During the Republican period there were a number of wars in central Tyrrhenian Italy. See for example Forsythe 2006. 26 Bartoloni 2003, 27–29. 27 Nijboer et al. 2001; Nijboer 2005. 28 Pacciarelli 2006 (2000), Fig. 38.

12

BARLIPKIN.indd 12

13.2.2012 12.50

Introduction Table 1. The chronology of ancient Latium and Etruria. (Bietti Sestieri 1992, 8; Pacciarelli 2000, Fig. 38; Nijboer et al. 2002; Bartoloni 2003, 29; Guidi 2008a, Tab. 1.) Traditional chronology

Pacciarelli

Nijboer et al.

Cultural definition

Latium

Etruria

Central Europe

c. 1000 BC

1175/1150–950/925 BC

1200–1020 BC

Final Bronze Age

Period I

Protovillanovan III

Hallstatt A2/B1

Phase IIA

Villanovan I

Hallstatt B2

Early Iron Age

Phase IIB Villanovan II

Hallstatt B3

c. 900–830 BC

950/925–900/875 BC

c. 1020–875 BC

c. 830–770 BC

900/875–875/850 BC

c. 875–845/820 BC

c. 770–740 BC

850/825–770 BC

c. 845/820–780 BC

c. 740–730/720 BC

770–730/725 BC

c. 730/720–630/620 BC

Phase IIIA

c. 780–770 BC c. 770–630/620 BC

Phase IIIB Late Iron Age

c. 630/620–580 BC

Phase IVA

Early Orientalising

Hallstatt C

Phase IV B

Final Orientalising

c. 580–480 BC

Archaic Period

Archaic Period

Archaic Period

c. 480–27 BC

Republican Period

Early and Late Republican Periods

Classical and La Tene A Hellenistic Periods

is caused by the low number of known burials.29 Settlement sites and sanctuary contexts have preserved textile tools fairly equally from one period to the next. In general, the ¿nal Bronze Age is less well represented than the other periods. Textile tools from Republican period habitation areas have also been published in relatively few provenances such as in Ficana, La Giostra and Sette Finestre.30 In addition, numerous textile tools have been found in sanctuaries (See Appendix 1). The Republican period textile archaeological materials have not been previously collected into a single database and researched as a whole. The notable differences in the existence of the material during different periods are however, also due to changes in the society and their effect on textile-making. This theme will be further considered in Chapter 2.

Hallstatt D

tity (Chapter 4). The intention is to discuss how the tools reÀect the role of the textile-makers within the community they lived in. Who made textiles and what was their social status, age and ethnicity? These questions will be duly considered in the case of surviving textiles or articles of clothing (Chapter 3). The information on clothing comes from funerary contexts in which ¿bulae and other ornaments usually point to which kind of dress the deceased was wearing. The surviving depictions, statues and written sources also give an idea of what the central Italian clothing looked like. This material will be researched from the perspective of textile-making procedures. Surviving textiles, pictures and written accounts in which the technical choices of textile-making are explained may be viewed differently in comparison with the archaeological experiments. It is important to know which techniques and which types of tools were used to achieve different kinds of patterns and clothing.

Textile tools include a variety of different kinds of artefacts: ceramic loom weights, spindle whorls and spools, metallic spindles, distaffs, clasps and occasionally other tools such as shears,31 needles and tablet weaving tablets. It is important to research the features of these tools. The questions related to these features will be answered through the results of the archaeological experiments and through results derived from the tools themselves. The production processes of ceramic tools as well as the changes in manufacture processes are researched here. Also considered in this research is: what are the most essential features in the use of textile tools in spinning and weaving or other actions and how these were taken into account in their manufacture? Textile tools also have markings or decorations that are superÀuous regarding their use. These will be discussed, as will the question of why they are present.

One important aspect is also the time used for textile-making. It is generally known that textile production was one of the most time-consuming tasks, but how much time did it actually take? In order to provide a rough estimation, the results of experimental tests were utilised. This, accordingly, leads to my ¿nal question concerning the textiles: What was the economic importance of textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy? (Chapter 5) Because it took up so much time, and was de¿nitely an important product (everyone needed clothes and other textiles) and possibly a tradable good, how was production organised? Were there different procedures connected to production or was everything made within households? Are there some notable differences over time? These aspects are closely related to economic changes in society and need to be researched from that point of view. Written sources as well as the archaeological experiments will give further reference for such research.

Because textile implements have been found in different contexts – settlement sites, burials, sanctuaries and votive deposits – it is obvious that they had a meaning in many perspectives of peoples’ lives, being important in day-to-day life and in the afterlife as well as in religion. These aspects I will research through the concept of iden-

Shortly, the aims of the research are as follows: 1. To record the different contexts (settlement, votive deposit, sanctuary, burial) in which textile tools are found during the varying periods (late Bronze Age – Republican period) and to analyse why these tools are found in these particular contexts during the different periods. (Chapter 2)

29 Colonna 1977; Rajala 2007. 30 I was able to research the loom weight material from the Republican period discovered at Ficana zone 6b (by a kind permission of Leena Pietilä-Castrén); Moltesen & Brandt 1994; Carandini & Ricci 1985. 31 Shears have been found only in northern and southern Italy (Gleba 2008, 93–97).

13 BARLIPKIN.indd 13

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy

Not all of the tools that could have been used in the statistical calculations have precise information. However, those materials which include more than one hundred tools have been included, even if the only relevant information published is their dating. These materials supply important information on the distribution of each tool type with regards to time and context. However, all of the possible tools that have come to my knowledge not have been included. Some selection has been made in the case of the regions outside Latium. The choice of whether to include or exclude was made based on the accompanying published information. Many singular tools without any measurements were left out. Such tools are, however, referred to in Chapters 4 and 5. Statistically, the database includes enough tools (more than 100) for each analysis.

2. To record the features (size and form) of the tools and the relevance of these in use. The physical properties of tools are examined through the results gained from experiments made with the tool replicas. The aim is to analyse how differences in the features affect usage. (Chapter 2) 3. To record the production processes of the ceramic tools and how the physical properties of clay are taken into account during manufacture. (Chapter 2) 4. To record the process of textile-making in a technical sense, based on the information gained through written and iconographic sources as well as surviving textiles. The information gained from the evaluation of the properties of the tools is compared whenever possible with the information acquired from the aforementioned sources. (Chapter 3) 5. To analyse the meaning of textile tools in different contexts through the concept of identity. (Chapter 4) 6. Based on the results of the experimental tests, to estimate how much time textile-making actually required. (Chapter 5) 7. To analyse how social and economic changes are reÀected in the procedures of textile-making and its economic importance? (Chapter 5)

It needs to be noted that a lot of the published data does not ful¿l the requirements that are needed for researching textile tools. This lack of requirements is also noted by Margarita Gleba,37 who, to date, has made the most comprehensive research on Italian textile tools, including many tools from central Tyrrhenian Italy as well. A textile tool material is best researchable if all the measurements (weight, height, thickness, width, length, diameter, diameter of the holes) and their variations are mentioned, not to forget the information on ¿nd location and context. A description of the markings, clay, shape and location of holes is also necessary. Drawings and pictures are of further aid when attempting to get a good idea of the tool. The publication of exact ¿nd positions, or at least the stratigraphic contexts of textile tools on settlement sites, enables the research concerning the tool concentrations and provides an opportunity to view textile-making as a craft and to explore its social meaning in detail.

1.2 The database and processing methods The textile tools of central Tyrrhenian Italy have not previously been researched in detail.32 The available information is scattered throughout different excavation publications and is thus not easily accessible. In these publications, the catalogues of tools include important information on the character of the tools and discussion regarding their function and meaning. The thousands of items collected into the database used in this research provide an opportunity to compare tools found from different regions (mainly Latium, including Rome but also southern Etruria) and during different time periods (late Bronze Age – Republican period). Spindle whorls and loom weights appear in Italy already during the Neolithic period.33 The increase of the number of inhabitants in the centres began in central Tyrrhenian Italy from the ¿nal Bronze Age onwards,34 which also lead to an increasing number of textile tools. In addition to the previously published information, the present database also contains a number of tools that I have measured and recorded myself. Such is the case with some tools from Ficana (zones 4a, 6b)35 and Crustumerium.36 In the case of many implements, the used database includes precise data; all of the calculations made in this research are based on precise data. The basic data and the publications that were used for compiling the database are presented in Appendix 1.

Through the database, it is possible to statistically compare the tools according to their ¿nd context and period in different regions (Latium, Etruria, Faliscan and Sabine areas), and to evaluate the importance of weight, size, form and decorations of tools in different periods, different contexts and between the regions. Intertwined with the information gained from the database, the results of the archaeological experiments will be used. Both the database and the experimental tests give important information concerning the properties of tools.

1.3 Theoretical background and methodologies The theoretical background of this research is based on two different theoretical and methodological starting points: experimental archaeology and post-processual social archaeology. Experimental archaeology is closely linked with the study of textiles and is necessary for being able to understand the textile techniques. Social archaeology necessary for understanding the social processes which were linked to making, trading and using textiles.

32 Gleba (2008) has gathered information on these tools and characterised their general features. 33 Bazzanella et al. 2003a, 92. Baioni et al. 2003. 34 Pacciarelli 2006 (2000). 35 The Italo-Nordic excavations in 1975–1981, 1983. 36 From the Road Trench excavations in 2004–2010 conducted by the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma and the University of Oulu.

37 Gleba 2008, 36.

14 BARLIPKIN.indd 14

13.2.2012 12.50

Introduction

Archaeological experiments

are no books available which provide guidance or ethnographic evidence, the archaeologist needs to learn everything independently. And even if guidance does exist, the archaeologist still does not possess the traditional knowledge or awareness of all possibilities of making which an ancient would have acquired during his or her childhood. These are inÀuential matters that affect the outcome of the experiments. At some point the archaeologist or the experimenter will acquire suf¿cient skill so that the experiments conducted will have a more profound context. The point at which this happens is not clear nor can it be determined beforehand. In some cases it can even be asked whether the experimenter will ever be as suf¿ciently talented as the ancient craft workers who conducted their chores day after day for years or even decades. Ten years of occasional experience will never be comparable to that of the ancient craftsmen. Of course one still would have acquired more useful knowledge on fabrics, methods and solutions for overcoming pitfalls.

At present, central Italian textile archaeological materials have not been analysed on the basis of archaeological experiments. This sort of approach is, however, crucial in order to understand the nature of the tools and the techniques employed in spinning and weaving. The aim is to reconstruct ancient techniques and tools as authentically as possible with modern materials and knowledge. The experiments conducted for this book include washing and combing wool, spinning wool and weaving linen. Using the results of the experiments, the following question will be answered: which are the relevant properties of each implement in use? The results of each experiment need to be critically evaluated. Their purpose, materials and outcomes are profoundly valued; their importance regarding interpretations is the primary premise. In addition to these technical questions, experimental archaeology allows a good perspective for investigating how much time textile-making took. In previous experimental tests, many scholars have neglected to record the amount of time used.

Conducting experiments to complement this kind of research is, however, well grounded because the actual knowledge of textile crafts is crucial for arriving at accurate conclusions about the archaeological material. If the basics of textile-making are not known, the suggestions made by archaeologists may be impossible. Knowing the technology and learning the properties of the ¿bres and threads makes possible more valid interpretation of the archaeological material more correctly.

Another interesting question is; how was textile-making learned? The experiments provide possible solutions, but ethnographical data offers perhaps a more primary answer. The following ethnographic studies give analogies of teaching and learning textile techniques from generation to generation: Weaving a Navajo Blanket (1974) by Gladys A. Reichard, Weaving Generations Together. Evolving Creativity in the Maya of Chiapas (2004) by Patricia Marks Greenfield and Androgynous Objects. String Bags and Gender in Central New Guinea (1991) by Maureen Anne MacKenzie.

The spinning and weaving experiments which are referred to in this research have been conducted by CTR/TTTC (Centre for Textile Research/Tools and Textiles – Texts and Contexts research program),39 Anne Batzer,40 Karina Grömer41 and spinning and weaving experiments carried out at the University of Oulu.42 The spinning tests conducted in Oulu have been made by archaeologists or students with little or no experience in spinning (Appendix 3).43 Most of the people who tried spinning did not learn to spin properly because of lack of practice, and their results are therefore not included. However, the test revealed the learning processes connected to spinning and was, thus, not unsuccessful. I have also tried out spinning with a tool found in a ¿eld survey at Crustumerium (Figure 10c).44

In order to design the experiments, the necessary ethnographic information was consulted. The most complete work considering traditional warp-weighted weaving is Marta Hoffmann’s The Warp-weighted Loom, Studies in the History and Technology of an Ancient Implement (1974). The main sources for her research were collected from Scandinavian museums and homes, where warpweighted looms nearly identical to the ones used in ancient Italy were still in use in the 1950s. This clearly indicates the signi¿cance and wide distribution of the knowledge of textile techniques in Eurasia in a long perspective as well.

39 These tests were made by textile technicians Anne Batzer and Linda Mårtensson. 40 Andersson & Batzer 1999. 41 Karina Grömer (2005c) has conducted spinning experiments with original spindle whorls from Upper and Lower Austria. 42 The experiments made by Sari Raitio, even though not fully resting on scienti¿c choices, will also be utilised (Raitio 1991. The work’s title in English would be ”Starting and ¿nishing of fabrics and weaving selvages in warp-weighted loom”). 43 The spindle whorls used in the tests made at the University of Oulu were made systematically so that they would weigh 10, 15, 20 and 25 g; two to three examples with a differing diameter (for 10 g whorl diameter is 2 and 2.5 cm and for 25 g whorl 2.5, 3 and 3.5 cm) were made for each of these weight groups. Not all of these whorls were used and to explore the variation between different diameters would require more testing. 44 The whorl from Crustumerium the Road Trench excavations 2006 (inv. SSBAR 516833) weighs 11 g and its diameter is 2.6 and height 1.6 cm. It worked perfectly.

Experiments should be conducted under controlled conditions and be able to be repeated. In the case of handicrafts, such as textile-making, this is not always possible because of human factors such as skill and experience. Other fundamental rules for experimental archaeology are listed in John Coles’s path-breaking Experimental Archaeology (1979). When planning archaeological experiments, the archaeologist is always in the position where the material in hand and the techniques to be used are unfamiliar.38 If there 38 Giannichedda & Mannoni 2003, 35–36.

15 BARLIPKIN.indd 15

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy

tion. Roles are full of expectations and they occur in respect to other roles (for example mother and child). Roles may become a part of identity if the person accepts them as a part of life and does not simply act them. Roles may be a part of personhood, but are de¿ned by the group identities.

In addition to these spinning tests, an experiment called “Coptic” tunic has been carried out (See Appendix 4). Within this project, archaeology students along with two textile specialists wove a linen tunic, based on published information on “Coptic” textiles. The thread was machine spun, but as a whole the clothe was woven, and it revealed some important aspects of weaving which have had a major inÀuence on my own understanding of textile work.

The identity of the ancient central Italian textile-makers presumably was not the same in the Bronze Age as it was during the Republican Era, since identity is a social construction which needs to be continually recon¿rmed and elaborated by society.51 Individuals play an active role in refashioning identities.

Post-processual social archaeology and research on identity The second theoretical concept in this research is the one used in social archaeology. In contemporary post-processual social archaeology “everything is social”. Such concepts as space, bodies, sex, the environment and technology might seem neutral, natural or biological, but in fact they have a social aspect. Everything is infused with the social, and human experience is not divisible.45 The conception of the archaeologist’s work is deeply affected by his or her worldview, which, no matter how objective one tries to be, affects the way the past is viewed. Each archaeologist is “a product” of the scienti¿c discussions he or she takes part in. The aim here is to research textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy primarily through the concept of identity. This is a starting point that has not been extensively researched, even though Gleba has made some valuable observations on the subject.46

Gender is both an individual’s self-identi¿cation and the identi¿cation made by others based on culturally perceived sexual difference. Sex and gender are interrelated but nevertheless differ from one another. Biological sex is determined by chromosomes, which produce the physical elements of the body such as genitalia and hormonal activities. These elements are intertwined into cultural perceptions of gender identity52 which are related to motherhood, fatherhood, warriorship or a weaver, just to mention a few sexed identities. Some researchers have suggested that sex and gender should be in fact considered as equal terms,53 but I view them as separate concepts that can be distinguished in the archaeological material. Gender roles start to be learnt already in early childhood. A child’s gender develops as s/he absorbs and learns gender rules.54

The term ‘identity’ may be de¿ned in many ways. Byron states that anthropological uses of identity are ambiguous: they can refer both to individual identity and to group identity.47 In archaeology, ‘individual identity’ may be de¿ned as personhood.48 By borrowing Margarita DíazAndreu and Sam Lucy’s de¿nition, identity is “individuals’ identi¿cation with broader groups on the basis of differences socially sanctioned as signi¿cant”.49 Identity is, in other words, the notion of selfhood or self-de¿nition largely affected by the surrounding cultural context and its rules. Identity is de¿ned through sameness and difference. Identity comprises of different categories that change according to human life cycles. For this reason, it may be researched from different perspectives: gender, age, status, body, skills and ethnicity. In the end, however, they form a unique entity that varies between different societies and individuals. Identity is born of social interaction and therefore is not an inborn character.

Gender archaeologists often claim, as Díaz-Andreu has, that gender is “a basic structuring principle, for it frames the primary parameters that guide our understanding of the world and creates the rules that serve as a basis for individual behaviour”.55 This kind of attitude neglects the other aspects of identity which to my understanding are at least on some occasions equally important: age, status or profession for instance. Later on, Díaz-Andreu also states that: “other types of identi¿cations such as status, religion and age signi¿cantly affect the rules by which gender is understood and embodied in daily practices”56 and with Lucy calls for “the intersections between several identities”.57 However, even if gender archaeology takes these into account, it still approaches them with gender as a starting point. As we do not know how the ancient societies were constructed, I view it as misleading to take one perspective of identity and see how the other seems from that vantage point. The best way to explore identities in ancient societies is to research different aspects stressing each equally. Meskell has argued for the breaking up the boundaries of

Social roles, on the other hand, are the expected and normative rights and obligations that direct behaviour in different statuses or tasks within the society.50 One person may have multiple roles, depending on the social situa45 Hodder 2007, 36–38. 46 Gleba 2007; Gleba 2008; Gleba 2009. 47 Byron 1996, 292. 48 Fowler 2004; Díaz-Andreu & Lucy 2005. 49 Díaz-Andreu & Lucy 2005, 1. 50 This is the general de¿nition given by most sociologists. See for instance Inkeles 1970, 413.

51 See Díaz-Andreu 2005, 17. 52 Further discussion in Sørenssen 2000, 41–59. 53 Kessler 1998. 54 Sofaer Derevenski 1997, 194. 55 Díaz-Andreu 2005, 17; See also Conkey & Gero 1997, 9. 56 Díaz-Andreu 2005, 41–42. 57 Díaz-Andreu & Lucy 2005, 9.

16 BARLIPKIN.indd 16

13.2.2012 12.50

Introduction

identity categories.58 Meskell and Preucel continue59: “In ancient contexts we can rarely be clear where one cultural domain ends and another begins. It might prove more interesting to inquire how meanings migrate across domain boundaries and how speci¿c actions are multiply constituted.”

of being interpreted: the possibility of a third gender64, a male taking some female aspects as a part of his life, or the normal phenomenon of professionalism (usually female/ sometimes male) connected to skills. Even though burials give us a hint of the society which created them, their testimony leaves something out because the artefacts found in them are given in accordance to beliefs and customs, not to represent the exact situation the deceased was living in. Moreover, if two or more social ranks existed, exploring one does not solve the questions concerning the other.65 It has been claimed that wool working and special textile-making techniques were the rights of high-ranked women.66 This statement will be evaluated and challenged in Chapter 4.

Identity, in any case, is socially constructed and changes over an individual’s life as certain life stages occur: ageing, attaining wealth, entering into a relationship, having children, or learning new talents. These different identities are particularly interesting, since there has never been a singular textile-maker identity. Textile-makers were mostly female, but there is evidence that men were involved also.60 The aim of Chapter 4 is to explore which aspects affected and were most dominant on textile-makers’ identities and to explore how these factors presumably changed over time. Underestimating the importance of gender, however, entails the risk of being inadvertent, but a neutral or objective approach to the past is not possible. Gender has surely always been one of the categories signi¿cant for social activities, although it has not necessarily been the most crucial one.61

Task division may not have been as well marked as is often assumed.67 Funerary gifts are the only materials that give us information on which gender, age group or social rank was responsible for textile-making. Depictions and literary sources also provide an idea but their credibility is suspect. All of these materials indicate the ideals of the society, a fact which needs to be constantly remembered. As the materials from necropolises such as from Osteria dell’Osa and Quattro Fontanili in Veii show, child mortality was fairly high in antiquity. This may have affected the ways the societies were structured. Lucy suggests that this would have inÀuenced the emotional involvement of parents with their children and the roles they were expected to carry on.68

The importance of textile-making in ancient central Italy needs further research. This fact has recently been pointed by Annette Rathje and Margarita Gleba.62 It was one of the most labour consuming tasks and presumably had a great effect on many people’s lives. In the research of identities, the information is mainly based on burials with textile tools from Osteria dell’Osa and Veii, Quattro Fontanili. The graves in these necropolises have been analysed based on osteological de¿nitions of the deceased. In other necropolises, where anthropological analyses have not been possible, grave dimensions and the diameters of bracelets have been used to differentiate adults from children.63 Identity comparison is mainly done with the materials from the necropolises of Osteria dell’Osa and Quattro Fontanili, but there are also some examples from other burial grounds which enrich the analysis. These include Guidonia, Caracupa and Satricum in Latium and the necropolises of Grotta Gramiccia and Casale del Fossa in Etruscan Veii, the necropolises in Tarquinia, San Giuliano, Vulci and Bisenzio as well as the Faliscan necropolises at Narce.

In Iron Age and Archaic Latium and Rome, foetuses and infants are often found buried beneath the eaves of houses, while older children are usually buried in the same cemeteries as adults. Occasionally children as old as 9 to 14 years were buried in the settlement sites.69 This could indicate that certain age groups were viewed as possessing different degrees of humanity.70 The intention of this research is to examine the differences between the textile funerary gifts between the two different child burial customs.

The cases where objects traditionally associated with females are found in male burials provide multiple ways

“Age is a cultural construction resting on biological foundations”.71 The concept of childhood cannot be seen as it is today. Growing up and ageing are also culturally constructed concepts.72 All age groups, including children and the elderly, are active agents and create their own realities, even though existing social structures will ultimately determine expectations in terms of roles. In

58 Meskell 2001. Sörensen (2000, 203–204) acknowledges the diversity of identity and gender as a part of it. 59 Meskell & Peurcel 2007, 124. 60 Pliny the Elder (NH 19.17) says that men could spin Àax. See for women studies consernig central Italy in general for example Fantham et al. 1994. 61 Díaz-Andreu 2005, 42. 62 Rathje 2005, 27; AIAC 2008 in Rome. Rathje gave a presentation named “Tracking down the Orientalizing” on 23rd September; Gleba 2008, xxiii. 63 For example Iaia 1999, 62.

64 Neutral genders understanding such as eunuchs or hermaphrodites (See Ajootian 1997). 65 See Fulminante (2003) for distinction of social ranks in the Iron Age Latium. 66 Rallo 1989, 153; Gleba 2008, 175. 67 Hamlin 2001, 132. 68 Lucy 2005, 50. 69 Modica 2007. 70 Lucy 2005, 63. 71 Lucy 2005, 61. 72 Lucy 2005, 53. For children in Roman culture, see for example Rawson 1986.

17 BARLIPKIN.indd 17

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy

learning these roles, children can often transform them.73 This transformation did not however happen as quickly in antiquity as it does today. It has been suggested that the transformation of social and institutional practices may be considerably slowed if more than one generation is involved: it allows only slow changes in beliefs and practices between generations.74 Even though I use the terms generally used in archaeological research to de¿ne age (infant 1 to 6 years, child 6+ to 11 years, juvenile 11+/12 to 19+ years, young adult 20 to 30 years, adult 30 to 40 years, mature adult 40+ to 60 years, old adult 60+ years)75, it does not mean that these categories were the prominent ones in ancient Latium.76 We cannot be sure whether all these age groups really existed or not. There might have also been some additional ones. These are just working tools for categorising different ages. Age was not necessarily understood as it is nowadays, being calculated today in years instead of life experience.

Acidic soil is the best environment for wool and hair ¿bres.79 Plant (i.e. cellulose) ¿bres, on the other hand, are best preserved in alkaline conditions. Textiles can also be preserved if in close proximity to metals. Pseudomorphs are formed as a result of the metal corrosion products which mineralise around ¿bres, maintaining their shape and pattern. Their formation is dependent on a stagnant damp environment and a stable pH level. The textile and the metal object must be buried in the ground, and the soil must be conducive to slowing ¿bre degradation and metal corrosion.80 Vegetal ¿bres are in their most stable form when carbonised by ¿re. Animal ¿bres, conversely, are usually destroyed by ¿re.81 Extremely well preserved textiles have been found from ancient Alpine salt mines such as the Hallstatt mines.82 Textiles have also been preserved in the salty dry sand of the Tarim Basin in northwest China.83 The presence of salt also inhibits the growth of micro-organisms. In addition to desiccants,84 frost preserves textiles as well.85

Identity is closely linked with the sense of belonging to certain groups. It is through identity that people perceive themselves and others see us.77 This is especially accentuated in ethnic identities.78 As the study area consists of at least four different cultures (Latin, Etruscan, Sabine and Faliscan), and because even local differences within each culture can be found, the distinctions between the materials of these cultures should be viewed through the concept of cultural identity. In particular, the border regions of these cultures may reveal important aspects of ethnicity in textile-making.

The ¿bres that were normally used in ancient central Tyrrhenian Italy were wool and linen. Hemp86, nettle, broom87, kapok88, esparto89 and some tree-basts (lime, willow, oak) are examples of vegetal ¿bres that were possibly used already in prehistoric times. Fibres gathered from trees were commonly used during prehistoric periods and they are occasionally found in Iron Age contexts as well.90 Goat hair91 and other animal ¿bres, such as rabbit fur,92 may have been used also, but their use has been more infrequent compared to sheep wool. Flax cultivation is also recorded in ancient Roman literature. Cotton was a latecomer, ¿rst appearing during the Imperial period.93 Some ¿bres (wool, linen, sea wool (sea-silk?) and rabbit hair) and their prices are col-

1.4 Textile archaeological background

79 Rast-Eicher 2003, 47. 80 Sibley & Jakes 1982. 81 Rast-Eicher 2003, 47. 82 Hallstatt textiles 2005. 83 Barber 1999, 32–33, 82. The salt and dry heat would have sucked the moisture out of the bodies. The salt has also brightened certain dye colours. 84 Dry climate has surviving textiles in Egypt (Barber 1992), Dura Euporos (P¿ster & Bellinger 1945) and Palmyra (P¿ster 1934; 1937; 1940) in Syria. 85 On preservation in general see: Ryder 2000, 2–3. 86 Fibres of Cannabis sativa were found from Pompeii (D’Orazio et al. 2000, 748) and Nemi (Textile no. 11, Ucelli 1950, 268). 87 Fibres of Spartium junceum have been found from Pompeii (D’Orazio et al. 2000, 748). 88 Asclepiadaceae ¿bres were also found from Pompeii (D’Orazio et al. 2000, 748). This vegetal “wool” is taken from tropical fruits and used as ¿lling of bed linens and life jackets and buoys. 89 Stipa tenacissima L. has been found from Pompeii and from the ships of Nemi Lake (Textile no. 10, Ucelli 1950, 268). Esparto was mainly used as ropes, especially in the rigging of ships. Pliny the Elder (NH 19.7–9) mentions the good quality of Spanish esparto and it was widely used in North Africa as well. Also Livy (22.60.6) mentions Spain and North Africa when speaking of esparto. 90 Rast-Eicher 2003, 48–50. 91 From Pompeii imported Anatolian (Angora) goat hair has been found (D’Orazio et al. 2000, 748). 92 Pliny the Elder (NH 8.219–220) tells that the fur of the hare was tested for making clothes. However, it is not as soft to the touch as it is when on the animal’s skin and the hair is too short as the clothes soon come to pieces. 93 Barber 1992, 32. Pliny the Elder (NH 19.4.) refers to cotton as follows: ”The upper part of Egypt, lying in the direction of Arabia, grows a bush which some people call cotton, but more often it is called by a Greek word meaning “wood”: hence the name of xylina given to linens made of it.”

This quick overview on the ¿bres, techniques of textilemaking, textile archaeological terminology and the sources that are used to research textile production may aid the reader in understanding the subsequent chapters in this research. For further reading, I suggest a thorough introduction to textile archaeology as presented by Helga Di Giuseppe in Dizionario di archeologia (2000).

Fibre preservation and ancient ¿bres In archaeological contexts, textiles are perishable and their survival requires particular conditions. Underground preservation usually requires the absence of air, which is achieved in water-logged conditions. Given these conditions, the aerobic micro-organisms that decay organic material cannot survive. The pH of the soil is also related to which kinds of ¿bre will be preserved, but exceptions exist. 73Lucy 2005, 61. 74 Edelstein 1983, 48–81; Green¿eld 2004, 63–66. 75 Osteria dell’Osa 1992. 76 Isidorus (Etymology 11.2, 2nd century AD) says that there are six different age groups (infantia, pueritia, adolescentia, iuventus, gravitas atque senectus). 77 Díaz-Andreu & Lucy 2005, 1. 78 On ethnicity in central Italy, see Cornell 1997.

18 BARLIPKIN.indd 18

13.2.2012 12.50

Introduction

the small number of shafts in the ¿nd material can be seen as an indicator of the use of organic material.

lected in Diocletian’s Edict (25–26, written AD 301), giving some perspective on their valuation.

The spindle whorl is essential for the spindle to function successfully. It maintains the momentum for the rotation of the spindle. The whorl is pierced in the centre, which allows it to be attached to the spindle.96 In prehistoric Italy the whorls are generally made of terracotta.

Spinning yarn Before weaving can begin, a great deal of work must be done in preparing the ¿bres and spinning them. During spinning, the ¿bres are simultaneously twisted and drawn into a thread. Thread can be spun without any tools at all, simply by using one’s ¿ngers to twist the ¿bres, for example, against a leg. This method is slow and the thread unwinds easily. A spindle solves both of these problems. A spindle generates the twisting and frees one’s hand for constant drafting, as well as for accelerating the twist.94

There are various types of spindles (it. un fuso, Figure 3). They may spin free or they may be supported on the ground, in a cup or against one’s leg. In a low-whorl spindle the spindle whorl is attached to the bottom of the shaft and the spindle is set spinning by a Àick of the ¿ngers. In a high-whorl spindle a Àywheel is fastened to the upper end of the shaft and is then set spinning by being rolled up or down the leg with a hand. In a drop-spindle the spindle is dropped hanging from the newly spun thread. The spindle spins freely until it reaches the ground or the spinning stops and the thread starts to unwind. Then the spindle is picked up and the spun thread is wound around it and it is dropped again. In a drop-spindle, the weight of the spindle further aids the drafting of the ¿bres.97

The spindle shaft is a narrow stick of wood or bone, mostly less than 30 cm in length, and is enlarged on one end to hold the spindle whorl (it. una fuseruola, Figure 2). Presumably, the majority of spindle shafts were made of wood, and thus they exist only in such contexts as have good conditions for the preservation of organic implements.95 Hence, 94 Barber 1992, 41–43. 95 Wild 1970, 32.

96 Wild 1970, 33. 97 Barber 1992, 43.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

Figure 2. Spindles from Osteria dell’Osa (a–c), S’Omobono (d), Gran Carro (e), Tarquinia (f) and Casale Marittimo (g). (Drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, 3c105; Enea nel Lazio 1981, 147; Tamburini 1995, Fig. 51.2081; Hencken 1968, 321, Fig. 318f.; Esposito & Maggiani 1999a, Fig. 55).

19 BARLIPKIN.indd 19

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy

4). Z-spun threads indicates for the use of a drop-spindle with a whorl at the bottom and a right-handed user. S-spun thread was usually made with a top-weighted drop-spindle or with a supported spindle pushed along the right thigh. S-spinning is, in most cases, used with linen ¿bres because it is the natural direction for Àax to wind. Z-spinning, on the other hand, is used with wool ¿bres. In Egypt, linen is the most commonly used fabric, and therefore S-spinning is more prevalent than Z-spinning there. The situation is the exact opposite in the Greek and Roman world.102

Figure 3. Spindle types: Lowwhorl spindle, high-whorl spindle, drop-spindle (drawn by S. Lipkin).

S

When multiplied, threads are twisted in the opposite direction as the original yarn, since the spun thread has a natural tendency to turns that way on its own.103 The resulting plied yarn is thicker and stronger.

Weaves and patterns

Z

Figure 4. S-spin and Z-spin (drawn by S. Lipkin.

a

b

Figure 5. a) Tabby and b) 2/2 twill weaves (drawn by S. Lipkin The distaff (it. una conocchia) is another implement used in spinning. Its use is not required for wool, but archaeological remains and ethnographic evidence attest to its use. It is needed if one wants to process large quantities of wool or spin Àax.98 The hand-distaff is a short stick, 20–30 cm in length (Figure 12), which is held in the opposite hand or on a belt while spinning. The distaff holds the prepared raw ¿bres, which are cleaned and combed or carded so that they are knot-free. The ¿bres are drawn from the distaff simultaneously as the spindle twists them into thread.99 To achieve ¿ne, uniform yarn this must be done with even speed. Examples of distaffs are present in materials from necropolis investigations in Latium and southern Etruria.100

A weave constitutes of a warp and weft which interlace at right angles. The tabby or plain weave is the simplest and the most universal weave, in which the weft threads pass over and under alternate warp threads (Figure 5a).104 Warp threads may also be packed so closely that the weft is hardly visible. This is called warp-faced rep. The rep may also be weft-faced when the number of wefts greatly exceeds the number of warps (usually the ratio is 2:1). Warps and wefts may also be paired to produce a basket weave; if only every other set is paired, it is called a half-basket weave. The twill weave is recognised for its diagonal effect (Figure 5b). The weft threads pass the warps staggered to the right or left. A 2/2 twill (four shed) is created by a weft passage of two over, two under. Variants include the warp- or weft-chevron, diamond and herringbone weaves. 2/1, 1/2 and 3/1 twills produce warp or weft-faced weaves. Because of its natural properties, Àax is usually woven in a tabby weave and wool with the twill technique.105 A complex weave structure is not, however, needed for patterns. By changing the texture, yarn thickness, spin direction or colour of the threads, stripes, checks or other variations may be achieved. Such patterns can be identi¿ed in Latin and Etruscan art. Plaid or checked designs represent woollen textiles with twill weaves, whereas linen clothes are usually left white or decorated with small motifs. In the 6th–5th-century BC Etruscan tomb paintings at Tarquinia, the “transparency” of the ¿nely folded white dress is considered to be an artistic convention representing linen cloth.106

The direction of the spin, Z or S101 appears to correspond to the type of ¿bres spun and the spinning technique (Figure 98 Grömer 2005c, 107. 99 Wild 1970, 23–24, 31. 100 See Appendix 1. 101 An S-spun thread is one in which the ¿bres of the thread lie at a slant similar to that of the central stoke of the letter S when you hold the thread vertically in front of you. In a Z-spun thread, the ¿bres slope the other way, like the centre part of the letter Z.

102 Granger-Taylor et al. 1989, 151; Bender Jørgensen 1992, 13. 103 Barber 1992, 42. 104 Harris 2004, 19; Wild 2003a, 20. 105 Rast Eicher 2005, 128. 106 Bonfante 1975, 12.

20 BARLIPKIN.indd 20

13.2.2012 12.50

Introduction

Starting edge Top beam

Spool with weft

Heddle bar

Shed bar

Supports for the heddle bar

Uprights Loom weights

b

Warp

a

c

d

Figure 6. Loom types: a) Warp-weighted loom (drawn by S. Lipkin), b) Two-beam loom in Thutnofer’s tomb at Thebes, late 15th century BC (drawn by S. Lipkin after Barber 1992, Fig. 3.29.) c) Two-beam loom from the Hypogeum of Aurelii, Rome (drawn by S. Lipkin after Broudy 1979, Fig. 3.13.) d) Horizontal ground-loom in a weaving shop found as a tomb equipment of Gemnienhat, c. 1990 BC, Saqqara, Ny Carlebergs Glyptotek, Copenhagen, photo: S. Lipkin).

21 BARLIPKIN.indd 21

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy

Weaving on the warp-weighted loom

Other techniques and tools

A loom is a wooden construction with which garments are woven. Looms may be divided into different categories according to their size and mode of operation. In Italy, the vertical warp-weighted loom (Figure 6a) was used from at least the Late Bronze Age to the Republican period and later, even after the two-beam loom was also taken into use (Figure 6b, c). Loom weights (it. un peso del telaio) are the main components of warp-weighted looms which have survived until today.

The spools (it. un rocchetto) are objects of terracotta with more or less concave sides (Figures 23, 24). It is commonly thought that they were used for carrying spun yarn. It has also been suggested that such spools were used as weights in making side-selvages in the tablet weaving technique (Figure 25).117 It is thought that this technique was invented in Central Europe.118 Spools are found frequently in Swiss Bronze Age contexts, while tablet-woven textiles are common in the Hallstatt area.119 Spools appear in northern Italy during the late Bronze Age, but become widely diffused only during the ¿nal Bronze Age.120 In central Italy this did not occur until the early Iron Age, which seems to indicate that the technique arrived from the north.121

Wooden loom parts have not been found in the central Tyrrhenian Italian material, but beating tools have been found preserved in the north (Fiavè-Carera).107 The ¿rst depictions of the warp-weighted loom are from the Late Bronze Age. A Cretan Linear Script A sealing from Hagia Triada, from the mid-second millennium BC, apparently represents a warp-weighted loom.108 On the great rock at Naquane, in the Camonica Valley in northern Italy, there are carvings depicting several looms with a few people next to them (dated probably around 1200–1000 BC).109

The warp for the warp-weighted loom needs to be prepared before the actual process of weaving can begin. The warp is attached to the cloth-beam of the loom on its starting border. The starting edges can be made either by weaving or cording.122 The older examples are woven, and they were most commonly made with the tablet weaving technique (Figures 7, 19).123 The tablets used in this technique are usually quadrangular and have at least one hole in each corner (Figure 20).

The warp-weighted loom was widely used in the northern parts of the Mediterranean, whereas in Egypt the vertical two-beam loom occurs in representations already in the age of the New Kingdom (late 15th century BC, Figure 6b).110 The oldest depictions of horizontal ground looms are dated to the Late Neolithic (Figure 6d).111 It was in use, for example, in Egypt, China and Turkey. Prototypes of the modern horizontal loom appeared during the Middle Ages, but foot-operated horizontal looms were apparently used during the antiquity as well.112

Another tool connected to the tablet weaving technique is a tool called the clasp (it. forcella). These tools, made of two thin bronze plates, are fastened with a rivet on one end and with a clasp on the other end (Figure 21). They have curly strips at both ends. Clasps have been associated with textiles because textile remains have been found between two plates of an example found from Civita Castellana as well as inside a tool from Quattro Fontalini at Veii.124 Clasps have also been thought to have been used as small embroidery looms or as implements for grouping warp threads together.125 If used in the tablet weaving technique, the clasps were used to attach the ribbon onto the belt of the weaver (Figure 22).

A warp-weighted loom usually stands upright at a slight angle. The warp hangs from the top beam and the loom weights at the bottom keep it pulled taut.113 Weaving starts from the top, and the rows of weft are packed upwards, against gravity. Occasionally, loom weights are found lying in rows, having dropped to the ground when the warp threads were destroyed by ¿re or decay. Such cases have been reported from Acquarossa on two occasions.114 As ethnographic evidence suggests,115 when not in use, looms were probably stored away. The clearest example of storage has been found from a Bronze Age basement at Akrotiri on Thera, where several discoid loom weights were found inside a jar. The jar had fallen into the basement from the Àoor above.116

117 Dohan 1942, 17; Hackworth 1993, 47; Gleba 1999, 92; Gleba 2000, 79; Ræder Knudsen 2002, 228–229; Gleba 2008, 140. 118 So far the earliest textile with a tablet weave (3700–3200 cal BC) has however been found in the North Caucasus site of Novosvobodnaya (Shishlina et al. 2003). 119 Grömer 2005a, 24–25. 120 Marzatico 1997, 146. 121 Gleba 2008, 145. 122 To prevent unravelling the ends of warp threads are twisted together. In the end a small tail remains and it is either knotted or bent into the cloth. 123 Hoffmann 1974, 154–155. 124 Barnabei & Pasqui 1894, 390, Fig. 180; Berni Brizio et al. 1972, 250, Fig. 38. 125 Paribeni 1906, 419–420; Barnabei & Pasqui 1894, 390– 391, Fig. 180; Hackworth 1993, 54.

107 Bazzanella et al. 2003b, 138, 141–142; Gleba 2008, Fig. 95. 108 Packard 1974, Fig. 6: L70; Barber 1992, Fig. 3.12. 109 Anati 1961, 142; Anati 1994, Figs. 118–121; Barber 1992, 91, Fig. 3.11; Gleba 2008, 27, Fig. 5. 110 Barber 1992, 113, Fig. 3.29. 111 Barber 1992, 83. 112 Wild 1970, 75. For discussion on the Roman horizontal loom see Carroll (1985) and Wild (1987). 113 Hoffmann 1974, 42, Figs. 3–10, 13, 20. 114 Östenberg 1975, 11–12. Architettura etrusca 1986, 111–112. 115 Hoffmann 1974, 31. 116 Marinatos 1968, 24, Fig. 27.

22 BARLIPKIN.indd 22

13.2.2012 12.50

Introduction

Depictions, inscriptions and written sources Interpreting the textile techniques in depictions on bronze objects, carvings on wood in Verucchio or pottery vessels is dif¿cult, since they do not necessarily present textiles or tools as they were (however, see Chapter 3). Sometimes it is even dif¿cult to say what exactly is happening in the picture. For instance, a late 7th century BC pendant from Bologna (Figure 31) and the back of a wooden chair from Verucchio (Figure 27), both with scenes of different phases of textile-making, have been interpreted in various ways.126 Yet, as we will see, some questions still remain unsolved.

Figure 7. Tablet-weaving technique (drawn by S. Lipkin).

this research. Pliny the Elder’s Natural History is one of the most fruitful accounts for textile historians. Throughout the book, he provides exact instructions on cultivation of ¿bres, sheep herding and the best sources of the ¿bres that he describes. He also discusses dyes.

During antiquity, warp-weighted looms were often depicted by artists. Their representations are, for example, on an Athenian black ¿gure lekythos datable to circa 560 BC (Figure 28)127, an Etruscan bronze pedant from Bologna128 and an Athenian red ¿gure skyphos (440–430 BC) found at Chiusi which shows Penelope in front of a loom (Figure 29).129 Perhaps the earliest inscription indicating textile-making in Latium is found from a jar in Osteria dell’Osa. At the same time, it is the earliest recorded writing in Italy. The burial in which it was found is dated to the Latial period IIB2.130 It has been suggested that the inscription should be read as eulin (an epithet of Eileithyia). Pausanias (8.21.3) tells of a poem made to Eileithyia that mentions her as “good at spinning” (eulinon). Thus, Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri has suggested that the inscription means “good at spinning”. This explanation has been criticised,131 although the Àask may be connected to weaving in another way: it may be a thread container.132 Textile tools also bear some of the earliest Etruscan inscriptions. They have been studied by Giovanna Bagnasco Gianni (1999) and Laura Ambrosini (2000). Inscriptions which occur on the early spindle whorls, spools and loom weights may testify to the important role of women in introducing writing (Chapter 4.1.2.2).133 Textile-making materials and tools are widely mentioned in the Greek and Roman literary sources which are used in 126 Bologna: Morigi Govi 1971; Barber 1992, 116; Verucchio: Gentili 1986, 244; Torelli 1997, 52–86; Nielsen 1998, 70–73; Haynes 2000, 40–41; Guerriero e Sacerdote 2002; Bonfante 2005. 127 New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, n. 31.11.10. (Boardman 1988, 55, Fig. 78.) 128 Morigi Govi 1971. 129 The Beazley Archive Database, n. 216789, Chiusi, Museo Archeologico Nazionale: 1831. (Boardman 1989, 98, Fig. 247.) 130 Osteria dell’Osa 1992, 687, Fig. 3a270. 131 Ampolo 1997; Colonna 2005. 132 See Chapter 3. Ridgway 1996, 92–96. 133 Spivey 1991, 60; Bartoloni 2003, 120.

23 BARLIPKIN.indd 23

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy

2. Textile tools in central Tyrrhenian Italy – Technical features and results of archaeological experiments

Context and dating Spindle whorls are found in settlement sites, sanctuaries, votive deposits and burials. The database used in this research includes 895 spindle whorls from Latium, 1057 from southern Etruria134 and 114 spindle whorls from the Falisco-Capenate area (Table 2.1). In the following section, I will concentrate on each context and on the unique questions concerning the dating of these spindle whorls.

Ceramic materials, spindle whorls, loom weights and spools are the focal point of this research. In this chapter, textile tools are analysed according to the characteristics that are fundamental concerning their use. Weight is one important factor in all textile-making tools, but research has shown that other attributes such as height or thickness are also inÀuential.

Spindle whorls from settlement sites A number of the spindle whorls come from settlement sites (369 examples, 18 % of all, Table 2.1). In the database, the number of settlement spindle whorls from each region (Latium, Etruria and the Falisco-Capenate) is quite equal. The largest single group in the database is composed of those from Ficana in Latium. In total, 68 spindle whorls have been found at the site from the layers dating from the ¿nal Bronze Age to the Archaic period.135 In addition, 36 of the spindle whorls in the database were found in Satricum,136 Latium; 11 come from Rome (Palatine and Velia)137 and six from Crustumerium138. All of these examples date to the Iron Age and Archaic periods.

There are remarkable differences among the ¿nd contexts of the tools, according to their dating or type. Textile tools have been found in four different contexts: settlements, burials, sanctuaries and votive deposits. This chapter presents the various types of tools that were found in each type of context over the different periods. The number of tools in different contexts is highly biased by the focus of the excavations (the earliest excavations concentrated on the burials), the nature of the contexts (in settlements and sanctuaries tools are rarely found in situ, whereas in burials and votive contexts the contexts have usually survived as an entity) and the scale of the excavations and their publication (usually only a fraction of the settlement is excavated). These uncertainties are considered in the case of each tool type (spindle whorl, loom weight, spool). The different markings and decorations on the tools are also discussed. The meaning of the tools in different contexts is, however, examined in Chapter 4.

The settlement site material from southern Etruria also consists primarily of tools found in the Iron Age and Archaic contexts. The spindle whorls from this period have been found at Acquarossa,139 Luni sul Mignone140 and San Giovenale.141 The spindle whorls from Accesa are roughly dated to the period from the late Iron Age to the Archaic.142 In the case of Latium and Etruria, no spindle whorls dated later than the Archaic period have been recorded. However, in Narce as many as 16 spindle whorls are recorded from the layers of this particular period (in total 76 spindle whorls from the layers dating from the Bronze Age to the middle Republican period).143 In Sabine Cures Sabini, several of the spindle whorls were found in Iron Age contexts, nine of which in two concentrations inside a structure.144

The processes related to production of the tools are also studied. This chapter will also examine how the tools were modelled and what the ¿nishing methods were. The ¿ring of the ceramic tools in hearths and kiln structures is also closely researched and evaluated.

2.1 Spindle whorls, spindles and distaffs 134 The higher amount of Etruscan whorls may be explained by the higher amount of investigated and published Iron Age cemeteries that constitute a great part of the collected data. 135 Piergrossi 1994, nos. 611, 704; Brandt 1996, 269–271, Fig. 162; Malmgren 1997, 101–102, 148, Fig. 5.81; Lipponen 2007. 136 Satricum 1982, 40; Area sarca 1985, 16, 134; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1987; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1992; Gnade 2007, 128. 137 Gjerstad 1960, Fig. 27/A 28, 32/3; Guidi 1998, 22–23, Fig. 18; Rossi 2001 269, Pl. 87.412; Magagnini 2002, 23; Falzone 2002, 19; Pensabene 2006, 48, I.2, 9,10. 138 Quilici & Qulici Gigli 1980, 111–112, Pl.. XXXIX.66–67; Barbaro & Borzetti 2008, Fig. 18. Three from the Road Trench excavations at Crustumerium (inv. SSBAR 516833–516835). 139 31 pieces, Lundgren & Wendt 1982, 46, 65–66, Pl. 36; Architettura etrusca 1986, 125; Wendt & Lundgren 1994, 78–79, Pl 11. 140 21 pieces, Hellström 1975, 63–64, Pls. 51, 52, 79. 141 45 pieces. In fact, some (less than 10) may also be from the Archaic period. (Malcus 1984, 43; Berggren & Berggren 1980, 18–19; Pohl 1977, 43, 57, 64, 69, 81 Figs. 36, 46, 51, 56 Pl. 21; Pohl 1981, 50, Pl. 29.) 142 28 pieces Parrini 1997, 205–209. 143 Potter 1976, 166–169, Fig. 54. 144 Guidi 1988; 1996; Belardelli & Guidi 2006.

The most numerous representations of spinning tools are ceramic spindle whorls (Figures 8 and 9). Spindle whorls are symmetric, centrally pierced objects, made of ¿red clay, bone, wood or stone. They are predominately conical, biconical or spherical-conical in shape. Generally, the wooden shafts of the spindles have not survived, but on certain occasions they have survived either in wood, iron, bronze or mixture of these. The remains of distaffs have also been found in burial contexts.

24 BARLIPKIN.indd 24

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile tools in central Tyrrhenian Italy Table 2.1. Number of spindle whorls in different regions in central Tyrrhenian Italy. Period

Latium settl. sanct. vot.dep. burial ? total Bronze Age 6 1 1 8 Iron Age 92 1 1 487 5 586 Iron Age - Archaic 17 3 8 1 29 Archaic 8 200 1 1 210 Republican period 2 10 12 Late Iron Age - Republican p. 6 3 1 10 ? 2 7 16 25 125 212 23 498 22 880

Spindle whorls from sanctuaries and votive deposits

Etruria settl. sanct. burial total 3 3 38 704 742 86 20 106 14 14

127

184

5

189

184

743 1054

Falisco-Capenate Total settl. burial total 24 24 35 44 1 45 1373 12 12 147 224 16 16 28 1 4 5 204 12 12 37 109 5 114 2048

the Imperial period (see below).156 Such tools may not have survived. However, as there is no evidence for the use of bone or other organic materials (wood etc.157) during the Republican period, it is possible that spindle whorls do not occur in sanctuaries because they were not used in such contexts or because they were deposited as gifts during this period. Otherwise, sanctuaries in general are the main sources for textile tools in the Republican period.

Sanctuary and votive deposit contexts are distinguished in this research because the tools in these contexts appear for different reasons: in votive deposits the tools were deposited as donations, but as they are also found elsewhere in the sanctuary area, it is not always clear whether they were offerings in the secondary contexts or were used in textile making in the sacred area (see Chapter 4.2). Approximately 212 of the spindle whorls were found in sanctuary contexts in Latium. Around 200 spindle whorls were found in the Archaic sanctuary contexts in Capitolium of Anagni, (S. Cecilia). 28 of these have been published with detailed information.145 Two spindle whorls were also found in the Archaic sanctuary of Comitium (Lapis Niger), Rome.146 Spindle whorls have been found in the Iron Age or Iron Age – Archaic contexts from the temples at Satricum,147 one was found in an Archaic votive deposit at Tivoli,148 six from S. Omobono,149 and three from Clivus Capitolinus150. The total amount of whorls does not include, for example, several unpublished spindle whorls that have been found in Lavinium: detailed information is provided only for three examples, dated to the Archaic period.151

Spindle whorls from burials The majority of the spindle whorls are recorded from Iron Age burials (58 %). 210 out of the 595 burials in Osteria dell’Osa contained spindle whorls. Of these, 59 had two or more whorls. 10 spindle whorls have been found at the necropolises of Satricum (in total more than 200 tombs have been excavated), most of which have been dated to the various Iron Age periods (although some have no datable context).158 One spindle whorl was recorded in an Archaic tomb in Satricum.159 In Latium, spindle whorls in burials have also been found in Marino,160 Grottaferrata,161 Caracupa,162 Castel di Decima,163 Colonna,164 and Crustumerium.165 The present database includes a total of 17 pieces from these locations. The database includes 25 spindle whorls from Rome, all of which were found as singles.166 In the case of many cemeteries, the number of found spindle whorls in the database is de¿nitely underrepresented, since many excavations still await their ¿nal publication.167

Spindle whorls are recorded in the sanctuaries in Etruria only occasionally (Pyrgi152, Cerveteri153 and Orvieto154), excepting from Veii Portonaccio where as many as 179 spindle whorls have been found in the Archaic – Republican period contexts.155 Most of the whorls are from the layers dated prior to the Republican period. Compared to the loom weight materials (Table 2.7) from sanctuary contexts, there is a striking difference with the spindle whorls. This may be caused by two reasons. It could be that the production of ceramic spindle whorls diminished during this period and they were subsequently replaced by bone whorls, which appear in the archaeological material from

156 D’Orazio & Martuscelli 1999, 93, catalogue on pages 143–144; Villedieu 2006, 64; Piranomonte 2006, 209–210. 157 Wooden spindle fragments with wooden whorls have been found at Fiavè Carera, in northern Italy (Middle Bronze Age) Bazzanella et al. 2003b, 137; Gleba 2008, 101, Fig. 77. 158 Gnade 1992, 188–189, 344; Waarsenburg 1994, 515, 516, 518–520, Pls 29, 58, 62, 88; Ginge 1996, 46–47, 57, Fig. 13, 16. 159 Gnade 2007, 148. 160 Gierow 1964, 178–179, 182, 187, 212, 216, 223, 257, Figs. 103, 105, 108, 124, 126, 129, 152. 161 Gierow 1964, 87, Fig. 43. 162 Cassieri 2002, 82. 163 Bedini et al. 1976, 274; Bedello Tata 2002, 49. 164 Angle et al. 2002b, 58–62. 165 di Gennaro 1988, 122; di Gennaro et al. 2002, 54; di Gennaro 2006, 227, II.218. Fulminante 2008. 166 Gjerstad 1956; Egidi 2006, 369. 167 For example, Belelli Marchesini 2008 mentions that the spindle whorl is a characteristic of female tombs in Crustumerium.See also di Gennaro & Belelli Marchesini 2011, 15–16.

145 Gatti 1996. 146 Gjerstad 1960, 240–242. 147 Area sacra 1985, 134, nos. 43, 44, 143, no. 87; Ginge 1996, 100; Bouma 1996a, 390. 148 Antonielli 1927, 230, 235. 149 Enea nel Lazio 1981, 147, C 64 c–h. 150 Archaic – early Republican period, Cristofani 1990, 68. 151 Enea nel Lazio 1981, 218–219; Fenelli 1991, 494, 500. 152 5 pieces, Pyrgi 1970, 543–544 153 Moscati 1992. Not in the database. 154 Andrén 1967, 72–73. Not in the database. 155 Martelli Antoniolo & Martelli 2002, 195–197.

25 BARLIPKIN.indd 25

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy Spindle whorls are seldom recorded from the contexts dated to the early Republican periods (around 1.4 %, Table 2.1).180 The absence of spindle whorls from the late Republican period may be caused by the lack of excavated and published sites. The examples from Narce are an exception181 which could indicate that spinning was done in countryside;182 but on the other hand, there are no spindle whorls from the countryside settlements where whorls were present during the previous periods (Ficana zone 6b) and/or loom weights have been found (La Giostra).183 Such is also the situation in the Etruscan sanctuaries of Pyrgi,184 Tarquinia185 and Veii186 as well as the two tombs in the south-west necropolis at Satricum.187 As spindle whorls were quite commonly deposited in sanctuaries before this period, it is possible that spindle whorls began to be commonly made of organic materials which have not survived such as wood or bone. Bone whorls, along with bone needles and distaffs, have been found, for example, from the Imperial layers in the Palatine Hill (AD 2nd–3rd cent.)188 and Capitolium (Giardino Romano, AD 1st cent.)189 of Rome and Pompeii.190 Bone tools were already in use during the Iron Age and the Archaic period, which is indicated by three bone examples from San Giovenale.191 One spindle whorl from the south-west temple in Satricum was made of lead.192 This choice of material may have been connected to religious beliefs, but as tools made of other materials than ceramic have also been found, they may have been in at least occasional use.

The spindle whorls from Veii included in the database are from around 150 tombs from the necropolises of Piccazzano168 (5 in Orientalising burials), Vaccareccia169 (17 in ¿nal Orientalising burials), Quattro Fontalini170 (tools in 132 burials out of 567 burials, of which 11 tombs contained two or more whorls, Veii period II), 41 spindle whorls from burials in Vulci, have been included in the database.171 From Etruscan cemeteries at Tolfa, eight spindle whorls are dated to the ¿nal Orientalising – Archaic period.172 The same dating applies to 11 spindle whorls found at the different necropolises of San Giovenale.173

Differences according to the periods Spindle whorls in the database are not as numerous in the Bronze Age contexts as they are in the following periods. This is probably due to the low number of excavations at Bronze Age sites and, in particular, excavations of burials, since all spindle whorls from this period are from settlements and many of them are sporadic ¿nds. Due to demographic reasons,174 the known Bronze Age sites are also smaller and the preserved strata thinner in comparison to the Iron Age. In the database, 17 spindle whorls are present in the Bronze or early Iron Age material from Latium175 and three from Etruria.176 From Faliscan Narce 24 spindle whorls were found in the Bronze Age layers.177 Spindle whorls are found most numerously in Iron Age burials (58 %), but they are also common ¿nds in Iron Age and Archaic settlement sites (14 %). Most numerously, whorls have been documented at the necropolises of Osteria dell’Osa (as many as 432 spindle whorls were found in 210 tombs)178 and Veii, Quattro Fontanili (211 spindle whorls in 137 tombs)179.

Size and form of the spindle whorls The weight, diameter and height of a spindle whorl constitute the most important factors in spinning. If the spindle whorl is too heavy, the thread will break. The relationship 180 From Rome, whorls of the Republican period have been found in the sanctuary at St. Omobono (Enea nel Lazio 1981, 147, C 64 c–h), three spindle whorls at the sanctuary at Clivus Capitolinus (Cristofani 1990, 68), and one in a tomb at San Biagio Saracinisco (Conical spindle whorl from tomb 22, Nicosia 2002, 95). In southern Etruria, a great amount of whorls (179), in such layers, have been found in Portonaccio at Veii (Martelli Antoniolo & Martelli 2002, 195–197). Four spindle whorls from Nepi have similar dating (Rizzo & Suaria 2004, 22, cat. No. 6.) as do ten whorls from votive deposits in Satricum, Latium (Bouma 1996b, 248–249). 181 Potter 1976, 166. 182 See Chapter 5.4, where I argue that textile-making was mainly done in the countryside during the Republican period. 183 Moltesen & Brandt 1994. 184 Bartoccini et al. 1959, 147. 185 Sartori 2001, 142–147. 186 Martelli Antoniolo & Martelli 2002, 194–195. 187 Gnade 1992, 188–189, 344; Gnade 2007, 134, 142, Figs. 255, 288. 188 Villedieu 2006, 64. 189 Piranomonte 2006, 209–210. 190 D’Orazio & Martuscelli 1999, 93, catalogue on pages 143–144. Elsewhere in Italy some spindle whorls were made of terracotta during Republican and Imperial periods. An example of the Imperial period (1st – early 2nd century AD) spindle whorl is the one with a stamp (L. Domiti Cnidi) found at the Roman villa of S. Pietro in southern Italian Tolve (Lucania) (Di Giuseppe 1996). In the sacred area of Fonte San Nicola (Abruzzo in central Italy), spindle whorls made of terracotta have been found in the layers dated to 3rd–2nd centuries BC (Faustoferri 1997). 191 Berggren & Berggren 1980, 19. 192 Ginge 1996, 100.

168 Palm 1952, 51–55, Pls. I–II. 169 Palm 1952, 64–72, Pls. XVIII, XX, XXI, XXX. 170 De Agostino et al. 1963; Close-Brooks et al. 1965; Ward-Perkins et al. 1967; Batchvarova et al. 1970; Berni Brizio et al. 1972; Bedello & Fabbricotti 1975; Righetti 1976; De¿nition of the phases of the tombs: Toms 1986. 171 These have not been dated. Falconi Amorelli 1983. 172 Brocato 1998, 40–46. 173 Östenberg & Vessberg 1972, 8, 10, Fig. 11; Östenberg 1969, 6, 13, Fig. 6, 14; Gierow 1969, 32, 55, Fig. 20, 33. 174 See Peroni 1979 (1969). Bietti Sestieri 1992, 233; Pacciarelli 2006 (2000), 93. 175 Five lenticular spindle whorls with Àattened edges found at Lago Albano, “Villaggio delle Macine” (Castel Gandolfo) are dated to the Bronze Age). (Angle et al. 2002a, 55.) One ovoid spindle whorl from Rome, Via Lucrecia Romana was found in Tomb 4 that is dated to the late Bronze Age (Egidi 2006, 367, II.644). Two spindle whorls from Ficana zone 2a have been found in layers dated to the late Bronze and early Iron Age (Malmgren 1997, 101–102.9). The rest of the spindle whorls are sporadic ¿nds published in Repertorio dei siti protostorici del Lazio (2007). 176 One spindle whorl from San Giovenale areas B. (Gierow 1984, Fig. 18). Two spindle whorls from Tolfa, Cesone (Brocato 1998, 23–24; Persiani 1992, 327, Fig. 3, n. 1, 4, PBI 83; di Gennaro 1998, 81, note 66). 177 Potter 1976, 166. 178 Osteria dell’Osa 1992. 179 De Agostino et al. 1963; Close-Brooks et al. 1965; Ward-Perkins et al. 1967; Batchvarova et al. 1970; Berni Brizio et al. 1972; Bedello & Fabbricotti 1975; Righetti 1976.

26 BARLIPKIN.indd 26

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile tools in central Tyrrhenian Italy have been spindle whorls as well as beads or buttons.200 Spinning with such a small whorl requires particular attention and care,201 and therefore such work would not have succeeded if the spinners were not already well skilled. After some practise, I was able to spin at even speed with a spindle with a 10 g whorl as well as with heavier ones. Spinning with lighter whorls was, however, not attempted. Grömer has noted that spindle whorls weighing 10–20 g can be used only for threads less than 1.5 mm in diameter; thicker threads will not twist with this type of a tool. The best results were achieved with woollen threads between 0.2 and 0.7 mm in thickness.202 Threads spun with such tools are thin, but not the thinnest possible.

between the weight and diameter of a spindle whorl also affects the twist angle of the thread.193 Height, on the other hand, determines this relationship. For these reasons, it is crucial to de¿ne the grounds for classi¿cation of whorl sizes. Because only those spindle whorls that I have been able to weigh personally (Ficana 4a and Crustumerium, 26 pieces)194 have a known weight, alternative methods were needed in order to process the material. The results from the archaeological experiments proved to be useful. By testing spindle whorls with different qualities, it was possible to evaluate how these qualities affect the process of spinning and the resulting thread. But it is not only the tool that has an effect on the results. Fibre and tool selection are related to each other. Some tools require ¿nely processed wool with ¿bres of equal length, while with others the spinning may be done with less sorted, and less uniform ¿bres.195 Shetland sheep wool was chosen for in the TTTC tests because it is one a modern breed that does not have uniform wool. The heterogenous mix of ¿bres in one Àeece is one of the characteristics of primitive sheep.196 My selection of the Finnsheep breed was purely practical. It was easy to obtain. Later, it was discovered that Finnsheep is one of the more primitive sheep breeds in European farming.197 The Finnsheep has a smooth, shiny and medium-quality Àeece. As there is no exact evidence regarding what kind of Àeece the sheep in central Tyrrhenian Italy had,198 it is extremely dif¿cult to decide which kind of wool best represents the original raw materials. However, the Àeeces differ not only according to breed but also individually and on different parts of the same animal. The results, however, showed that the spinning and weaving tests were more affected by (in)accurate preparation and sorting of the wool than the breed used. Diligent preparation was also no doubt important in antiquity as well.

The TTTC experiments also tested whorls weighing 8 g and 18 g. The resulting threads were analysed by microscope, and the result was that many threads spun with 8 g or 18 g whorls were of similar character. It was noted that yarn diameter and quality ranged considerably, even though the threads were made with spindles with a whorl of the same weight. Detecting the different tools used was only possible with background information and by enlarging the sample.203 This knowledge therefore presents a challenge for the evaluation of the differences of different kinds of whorls. If two whorls of similar weight can produce similar threads, what is the fundamental importance of weight anyway, and what are the limiting factors for achieving different types of threads? Using a heavier whorl (over 20 g), both thin and thick threads can be spun with ease.204 For example, Grömer notes that in her experience the whorls that weigh around 40 g are practical for producing nearly every thread thickness, that was in use in prehistoric Europe.205 The heavier the spindle whorl is, the less its weight affects the thickness of the thread. The biggest difference in the thread thickness is between the weights of 5 and 30 g.206 On the other hand, it needs to be noted that, according to the experiments, the heavier whorls weighing about 30 to 50 g seem to have had a multifunctional use, depending on the material and the technique used (suspended or supported spindle).207

The thinnest threads were achieved with the lightest whorls. The TTTC spinning tests were carried out with a 4 g spindle whorl, which worked fairly well. The thread, however, came out fairly thin and fragile, and even though it was plied it did not fare very well during the weaving process.199 The thread might also have been stronger if more homogenous, softer wool ¿bres had been used. Thus, it is plausible that whorls of approximately 4 g may

Grömer has also pointed out that heavier whorls (120–140 g) are better for spinning thick woollen thread (for wool between 0.7–2 mm and even more) and Àax, but only if the drop-spindle technique is used. If the spindle is supported on the ground or in a bowl, ¿ne thread of 0.3 mm diameter can be spun with heavy whorls as well (more than 100 g).208 However, a spindle whorl’s functionality is best revealed when it is used as a part of a drop-spindle. When

193 Andersson et al.: 9. 194 The ¿nd materials are from the Italo-Nordic excavations conducted in Ficana and the Road Trench excavations in Crustumerium. 195 For example, the TTTC report also notes that in another context they would have sorted the wool better and probably used a softer and more homogenous wooltype for the 4 g whorl. But as the purpose was to compare the results with the 8 and 18 g whorls, the tests were conducted with the same Shetland sheep wool for all of the whorls. (Mårtensson et al. 2006c, 6.) 196 Mårtensson et al. 2006a, 4. 197 Chessa et al. 2009, Fig. 3. 198 Even though there are many written accounts regarding the description of wool, Italian wool and its development has not been well researched. In Italy one study has been made on ancient sheep wool (RastEicher 2005, 127). See for more information on the textile, sheep keeping and wool in Chapter 5.1.1. 199 On the other hand, if the fabric had been woven more open (now 7 threads/cm), it would have prevented the friction of threads against each other (Mårtensson et al. 2006c).

200 Carington Smith (1992, 287–288) has argued that spindle whorls weighing less than 10 g are too light to have been used in spinning. 201 Mårtensson et al. 2006c. 202 Grömer 2005c, 110. 203 Möller-Wiering 2006, 22–24. 204 Andersson & Batzer 1999, 19. 205 Grömer 2005c, 111. 206 Andersson & Batzer 1999, 9. 207 Mårtensson 2007, 99. 208 Grömer 2005c, 109–110.

27 BARLIPKIN.indd 27

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy the spindle is allowed to spin freely on the ground or in a vessel, gravity has no inÀuence on the spinning process.209 The drop-spindle enables the spinner to move from one place to another, and according to evidence from depictions was the type used in central Tyrrhenian Italy during antiquity (Figures 30, 31 and 32). Whorl selection affects the ¿nished ¿bre of a drop-spindle. It is probable that a certain type of thread was spun with the knowledge that it was to be used for certain type of cloth. Furthermore, the quality of the thread also affects the selection of the loom set. During the TTTC tests, it was noticed that a yarn spun with a 4 g spindle whorl requires a tension of 10 g per warp yarn. For an 8 g whorl a tension of 20 g is required. The report also records that a yarn spun with a 44 g spindle whorl needs roughly 40 g of tension.210 However, at present, no systematic experiments focusing on the relation of loom weights to the quality of the threads have been conducted.211 The weight of the spindle whorl may also affect the length of the spun yarn/g. The lighter the whorl is, the longer the thread will be. The spinning tests carried out by TTTC show that approximately 1 600–1 700 metres of yarn can be produced from 100 g of wool with a whorl weighing 4 g; 960–1 100 metres with a 8 g whorl; and 580–670 metres with a 18 g whorl.212 In my own experiments, I achieved threads of equal length (710–880 metres/100 g) regardless the weight of the whorl. The whorl weights varied between 10.2–24.2 g. (Figure 8.) Apparently, I was not as skilful at controlling the thread thickness as the experimenters in the TTTC tests were. The spinning tests conducted by TTTC revealed that during the various different tests there was a signi¿cant variation among the individual spinners regarding the weight and length of the yarn as well as the amount of time used.213 This was evident also from the analysis of thread qualities.214 It is possible that this was caused by inexperience or perhaps by the vigorousness of the spinner. In my own experiments, I noticed that the quality of the spun thread sometimes depended on the time of the day. When tired and bad light, spinning becomes dif¿cult. For these reasons, the results of spinning experiments should always be evaluated carefully, bearing in mind human related problems as well. But at the same time, the circumstances in antiquity were likely similar. It is likely that one spinner produced different kinds of threads with the same tool and threads of the same character with whorls of different weights. Moreover, the variation was notable among the individuals in the experiments.

Figure 8. Two different sized spindle whorls used in the experiments conducted at the University of Oulu (photo: S. Lipkin). with an 8 g spindle whorl were woven with a tabby weave. Even if the one spinner’s threads were heavier because more wool was used for them,215 the weavers did not notice any differences between the threads made by two spinners, during the weaving process, even though they were clearly separated in the warp and weave.216 This means that it is plausible that several people may have spun thread for one woollen garment. The situation may have been the opposite with Àax. In the TTTC experiments the yarns of two spinners were grouped together to create a warp. Already when warping the starting border it was noticed that the threads of the ¿rst spinner were suitable for more closely warped fabrics. This resulted in an asymmetrical effect. The two warp thread groups were eventually separated, which corrected the problem. The ¿nished fabrics were different, one having a higher thread count per cm than the other. Within this test, it was

But did the varying quality of the thread affect the outcome of the cloth? In one of the TTTC tests, threads spun 209 Grömer 2005c, 109. 210 Andersson et al. 10. 211 Mårtensson et al. 2006a, 16. 212 Andersson et al., Fig. 6. 213 Mårtensson et al. 2006a, Fig. 12–14; Appendix 1–2. 214 Möller-Wiering 2006.

215 Mårtensson et al. 2006a, 11–14. 216 Mårtensson et al. 2006a, 15–17.

28 BARLIPKIN.indd 28

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile tools in central Tyrrhenian Italy Table 2.2. The amount of the spindle whorls in different size groups. Size Small

Ratio/variation 0.42–3.9

Ratio/mean value 1.5

Medium

0.58–2.2

1.39

Large

0.6–2.8

1.29

Extra large

0.7–1.7

1.14

Diameter x height Weight less than 4.4 less than 13 early Iron Age late Iron Age Iron Age Iron Age - Archaic Archaic late Iron Age - Republican ? 4.4–6.5 13–20 Bronze Age early Iron Age late Iron Age Iron Age Iron Age - Archaic Archaic late Iron Age - Republican ? 6.51–10 21–50 early Iron Age late Iron Age Iron Age Iron Age - Archaic Archaic ? more than 10 more than 50 early Iron Age late Iron Age Iron Age Iron Age - Archaic Archaic ?

Total amount

Amount % 148 (155) 20 % 94 1 13 19 14 5 2 251 (258) 33 % 1 159 15 23 24 18 2 9 288 (291) 37 % 173 14 60 20 7 14 80 (81) 10 % 45 2 19 6 2 6 767 (785)

cases both of these measurements have been published. By multiplying diameter by height, we can obtain a ¿gure that corresponds with size. The 26 spindle whorls that have been weighed are divided according to their weights into the following groups (see also Table 2.2):

noticed that there may be notable differences between Àax threads even though they are spun from the same raw material and with the same tool. It is possible though that the threads would have worked better, if they had been warped in altering turns. Generally speaking, weaving Àax threads is an uncomplicated process. Concerning spinning, the greatest difference was between spinners, not ¿bres. As with wool, weaving Àax thread spun with the 8 g whorl requires a tension of 18.5 g per thread.217

Small (less than 13 g, product of the diameter and height 4.4 or less219), Medium (13–40 g, product of the diameter and height 4.4–6.5), Large (41–49 g, product of the diameter and height 6.51–10), Extra-large (more than 50 g, product of the diameter and height more than 10).

These spinning tests have con¿rmed that the quality of the ¿bre and the weight of the spindle whorl affect the ¿nished product. With lighter spindle whorls, it is possible to produce thin threads, and with heavier spindle whorls the resulting threads will be thicker.218 However, from a piece of preserved textile, one cannot precisely say which type of tool has been used to spin its threads, and vice versa, one cannot say based on a spindle whorl precisely which type of thread it was used to spin.

The classi¿cations are in accordance with the above-mentioned experimental archaeology results and are suitable 219 Of course as these groupings are based only on 26 weighted spindle whorls from Ficana and Crustumerium (The Road Trench excavations), the range of mean values might slightly differ. Some spindle whorls may in reality be categorised to a different group according to weight than the mean values because of the different type of clay. However, at the moment, this is the best way to classify a material without all preferable information. In the end, the differences in clay type that have an effect on weight hardly change the overall results.

About 1/3 of the spindle whorls in the database have a documented height or diameter (circa 700 pieces), and in 785 217 Mårtensson et al. 2006b. 218 Andersson et al. 7–8. Andersson & Batzer 1999.

29 BARLIPKIN.indd 29

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy

a. Discoid

b. Cylindrical

c. Globular 1

2

d. Conical 1

2

3

A e. Biconical

Figure 9A. Spindle whorl typology according to Gleba (drawn by S. Lipkin after Gleba 2008, Fig. 80. Originally drawn by Marianne Bloch Hansen). Figure 9B. Examples from from Osteria dell’Osa, Tomb 580 (a) (drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, 3a439) and Ficana, 4a (a–e) (drawn by T. Jarva) according to classi¿cation.

a. Discoid

b. Cylindrical

c. Globular (spherical, lenticular, ovigal)

B d. Conical (conical, truncated conical) e. Biconical

30 BARLIPKIN.indd 30

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile tools in central Tyrrhenian Italy for the material from central Tyrrhenian Italy in particular. The majority of the whorls are either Medium (33 %) or Large (37 %) and these were used to spin threads of multiple thicknesses. Many spindle whorls fall into the Small category (20 %). The spindle whorls are predominately from the early Iron Age contexts (Table 2.2), which is due to the high number of spindle whorls from Osteria dell’Osa and Veii, Qattro Fontanali. Many spindle whorls are also from the Iron Age or Iron Age/Archaic contexts and are not precisely dated. The table does not provide the possibility to compare variation in sizes during the different periods because of the dominant number of early Iron Age whorls. Small tools were used only for spinning thin threads, which indicates that the need for this special kind of tool was fairly common. The experiments have shown that to using light spindles requires special skills and care. Therefore, it is likely that the small whorls are a strong implication of specialisation in textile craft (See Chapter 4). Around 10 % of tools are Extra-large. In addition to producing thick threads, these whorls were also used for plying. The heaviest weighted spindle whorl from Ficana zone 4a weighs 53 grams and its diameter x height is 15.17 (Inv. Ostia 38547) being the second largest in the database. In the case of the whorl from Acquarossa, zone K, the same ¿gure is 18.24.220 It appears that spindle whorls were not likely to weigh much more than 53 g.

a

d

g

b

c

e

f

h

In the database, there are also so-called Extra-small spindle whorls, weighing 4–8 g, Figure 10. Spindle whorls with different kind of decorative elements a-c) but because of the speci¿c weight of the clay, faceted spindle whorls from Crustumerium (drawn by S. Lipkin), Ficana the variation between the size and weight is 4a (Lipponen 2004, Pl. 1, drawn by T. Jarva) and Crustumerium (Inv. bigger the smaller the whorl is. For this rea- SSBAR 516833, drawn by S. Lipkin), d–f) spindle whorls with incised son, it was not possible to make a de¿nitive decoration (drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa 1992, Tombs 435, difference between Extra-small whorls and Fig. 3a314.10; 163, Fig. 3a42; 382, Fig. 3a96) g) spindle whorl with four Small ones (8–less than 13 g) according to buttons with concetric circles (drawn by S. Lipkin after Osteria dell’Osa the used parameters. The variation from 4 to 1992, Tomb 519, Fig. 3a261.8), h) spindle whorl with a graf¿to from the around 50 g is comparable to the weighed Palatine Hill, Rome (drawn by S. Lipkin after Pensabene 2006, Fig. I.9). materials in Italy.221 If the whorls were much heavier, it would perhaps indicate the use of a suspended spindle. Both the fairly small size of the The form of the spindle whorl is partly a result of the rewhorls and the iconographic sources (Figures 30, 31, 32) lationship of height and diameter. Gleba has divided spinwould seem to indicate that the spindle type used was the dle whorls into six categories: discoid, cylindrical, globdrop-spindle. ular, conical, biconical (Figures 9A and B) and cuboid. Also within these, variation occurs: globular whorls may be spherical, lenticular or ovigal and some of the conical whorls are truncated.222 These categories are based on Ital220 Diameter 4.8 and height 3.8 cm (Architettura etrusca 1986, 125 no. 283a). 221 Gleba 2008, Table 5. The table includes six materials, of which the one from Ficana 4a is included in this research.

222 Gleba 2008, 104–106, Fig. 80. See also Bettelli 1997, Tables 39 and 40 for one classi¿cation of spindle whorls and spools.

31 BARLIPKIN.indd 31

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy Table 2.3. The number of forms of spindle whorls according to regions. Latium Form Discoid Cylindrical Spherical Lenticular Ovoid Conical (also truncated) Spherical-(bi)conical Biconical Cubic Total Etruria Form Discoid Cylindrical Spherical Lenticular Ovoid Conical (also truncated) Spherical-(bi)conical Biconical Cubic Total Falico-Capenate Form Discoid Cylindrical Spherical Lenticular Ovoid Conical (also truncated) Spherical-(bi)conical Biconical Cubic Total All regions Form Discoid Cylindrical Spherical Lenticular Ovoid Conical (also truncated) Spherical-(bi)conical Biconical Cubic Total

Bronze Age (- early Iron Age) 1 1 4 2

Iron Age 2 1 62

Iron Age Archaic

3 4

3 3 4

15

509

15

Bronze Age

Iron Age

3 Bronze Age

Iron Age

1

2

1 2

3

8 2 1 10 6 5

8

32

1 1

Bronze Age (- early Iron Age) 2 3 5 3 3 9 25

Iron Age 4 2 93 3 17 345 38 287 1 790

Archaic Republican

Republican ? Total

1 4

13 235 4 192

2 1 23 1 3 110 28 90 1 259

Archaic

6

Iron Age Archaic

15

1

1 2

1

3

16

4 1 12

Archaic

2 4 1 35 2 18 1 63

14

14

4 1 1 1 1 8

3 2 77 5 19 255 12 204 1 578

Total 2 3 27 3 3 159 30 110 2 339

Archaic - Republican ? Total Republican 1 0 1 2 13 2 2 3 3 1 18 6 1 2 4 15 1 1 5 8 5 58 Iron Age Archaic 5 8 1 3 38 12 18 1 86

Archaic

Archaic Republican

Republican ? Total

1

8

14 1 2

15

1

2

17

18

6 2 17

6 7 4 117 1 10 1 24 1 414 54 5 329 4 12 965

32 BARLIPKIN.indd 32

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile tools in central Tyrrhenian Italy The twist of the thread affects the appearance of the textile. Loosely twisted threads give the fabric a softer feel, whereas those twisted very tightly can feel coarser. However, it is impossible to analyse the twist angle produced by a speci¿c spindle whorl:226 there is always the possibility that the spinner might give the thread extra twists to make it stronger.

ic material in general. In the case of some spindle whorls in the central Tyrrhenian material it is hard to distinguish whether they are spherical or conical, and for this reason they are here simply referred to as spherical-(bi)conical spindle whorls (See Figure 10a, b). The angles in whorls are rarely straight, which sometimes makes de¿nition of their form dif¿cult. De¿nition of the conical whorls is not always straightforward either, and in the published information it might be said that a whorl is conical, whereas a more accurate description would be truncated conical.

To determine how each spindle whorl slows down, weight is the necessary factor in the equation. Loss of momentum (kg/m²) may be calculated for discoid or cylindrical whorls as J=1/2m(r1²+r2²) and for rounded whorls J=2/5m(r1²+r2²), where m=weight (in kg), r1=radius (in meters) and r2=radius of the hole.

Conical spindle whorls are however the commonest form (Table 2.3, see All regions in particular). These were attached onto the shaft with their tip pointing downwards (Figure 2).223 Biconical whorls are the second commonest. Spherical whorls are fairly common too, but other forms appear in lesser amounts, some only occasionally. Discoid, cylindrical, lenticular and ovoid forms are not present after the Iron Age – (Archaic) period, whereas spherical, conical and biconical forms are found in the contexts of all periods. The majority of the whorls whose forms have been recorded are, again, from the Iron Age, which allows no possibility of evaluating whether the forms changed over time. During the Iron Age there seems not to have been any differences in forms between Latium and Etruria.

However, by calculating the ratio of the diameter and height of each whorl, one can compare it to others and get a general picture of the differences between whorls. For example, if the ratio (diameter/height) is large, the whorl’s diameter is larger compared to its height, and thus it will spin for a longer period of time than a whorl with a smaller ratio. This only takes into account the loss of intertia of a singular spindle whorl, and the ratio may be the same with two completely different sized whorls. This may be clearly seen in Table 2.2. The smaller the whorls get, the more increasingly the ratio varies. However, an interesting fact is that the mean value of the ratio decreases as the spindle whorls get larger. Thus, even though Large and Extralarge spindle whorls spin longer with the same initial force (because of their weight), their form is generally likely to slow them down quicker. These calculations prove, as mentioned before that without testing a spindle whorl or its replica it is dif¿cult to know which type of thread (quality and twist) it was used for.

Most of the spindle whorls have a diameter larger than their height. However, many exceptions exist, for example, in the materials from Ficana zone 4a and Osteria dell’Osa. The difference may vary from a few millimetres to 1.3 cm. There appears not to have been any general rules regarding form according to the proportions of height and diameter, and in this material, on the basis of the form, it is extremely dif¿cult to deduce which type of yarn twist a particular whorl is appropriate for. Gleba states that both conical and biconical whorls most often have a diameter that is either equal to or slightly greater than their height, and that this proportion appears to be optimal for spinning thread of medium twist.224 In the database collected for this research there seems to be so much variation in the proportions225 that it is impossible to say, according to the form of the whorls, which kind of thread they were used to spin. For this reason, rather than trying to ¿nd any similarities in the forms which could affect the spinning technique, the variations regarding their weight, diameter and height shall be researched instead.

A common assumption is that heavier whorls with a large diameter are needed to spin plant ¿bres.227 However, earlier experiments made by Batzer show that light spindle whorls with small diameters work well for spinning Àax.228 Mårtensson et al. however have suggested that the large diameter would have been functional for Àax to prevent slipping. In central Italy, many spindle whorls are faceted, which may have served the same purpose (see below). It is also possible that the slipping reported in the TTTC tests was caused by spinning in the Z-direction. For these reasons, it may be that whorls of small diameter are unsuitable for Z-spun Àax yarns.229

The diameter of the spindle whorl compared to its weight affects the type of thread achieved. If two whorls of equal weight are spun with the same force, the whorl with a smaller diameter runs faster but for a shorter period of time than the one with larger diameter. The longer the spindle whorl takes to slow down, the more tightly twisted the thread will be. As weight decreases the whorl naturally slows down quicker.

Moreover, the ef¿ciency of weight changes as the spun thread is wrapped around the spindle.230 The newly spun thread absorbs energy and will slow down the spindle – especially light spindles – and will eventually cause the spindle to start to wobble. In the TTTC tests, the spindles were ¿lled until the weight of the thread began to affect the rotation of the spindle negatively (Table 2.4). With an 8 g

223 The whorls are occasionally pictured upside down in archaeological publications. See for example Brandt 1996, Fig. 162. 224 Gleba 2008, 104. 225 The heights are greater in many cases and if the diameter is bigger than height it is in many occasions more than slightly bigger.

226 Andersson et al.: 9. 227 Carington Smith 1992, 287; Mårtensson et al. 2006b, 12. 228 Andersson & Batzer 1999: 18–19. 229 Mårtensson et al. 2006b: 12, Fig. 12. 230 Grömer 2005c, 112.

33 BARLIPKIN.indd 33

13.2.2012 12.50

Textile-making in central Tyrrhenian Italy Table 2.4. Different yarn weights and lengths that were considered as “full” for a spindle (TTTC tests: Mårtensson et al. 2006a, Appendix 1–2, Figs. 10–11). Spindle whorl 8 g (TTTC) 10.5 g 11 g 14.8 g 18 g (TTTC) 24.3 g 25 g

yarn length/spindle full 20.8–42 m 71.5 m 35.2 m 188 m 22.4–35 m 75 m 75 m

yarn weight 2–3 g 5–6 g 4g 24 g 3.2–5 g 10 g > 10 g

Table 2.5. Decoration of spindle whorls in percentages. Type No decoration Facets Other decoration

Settlement site 52 % 35 % 13 %

Sanctuary/ votive deposit 53 % 25 % 22 %

Burial 19 % 69 % 12 %

Total 31 % 55 % 14 %

Table 2.6. Decoration of spindle whorls according to their ¿nd contexts. Type Settlement site No decoration 145 Facets 99 Stripes 15 Incised decoration 16 Four buttons Graffito 1 Paint 4 Total 280

Sanctuary/ votive deposit 141 67 11 47

Burial 180 668 4 83 28

? 10 15 1

1 2 965

267

26

Total 476 847 30 149 28 2 6 1538

its general appearance. The clear difference between the results concerning the full spindles in TTTC and my own tests may be the result of different methods for winding the thread around the spindle shaft. In the TTTC experiments, the thread was wound right above the whorl, whereas I left some space between the thread and whorl. I used the weft carriers in ancient painting as a model and considered that in this way the shaft would be ready for weaving (Figures 10, 11, 28).

whorl, 2–3 g of wool were spun (yarn length of 20.8–42 metres) and with the an 18 g whorl 3.5–5 g (yarn length of 22.4–35 metres).231 In my tests, I spun more wool onto the spindle without noticing remarkable dif¿culties. With a 10.5 g whorl (total tool weight was 12.7 g), I was able to spin circa 5–6 g of wool before the spindle began to wobble. I continued to spin thread and, as the diameter of the thread bundle became larger than that of the whorl, the spinning rebalanced. With the whorl found at Crustumerium, weighing 11 g (Figure 10c, inv. SSBAR 516833), I was able to spin about 4 g of wool (yarn length 35.3 m). A whorl weighing 14.8 g (total tool weight was 17.5 g) spun evenly until c. 24 g of wool was spun (length 188 metres). With a whorl of 24.2 g (diameter 3.2 cm) the same happened when 10 g was spun (length 75 metres). However, with a whorl of 25 g (diameter 2.5 cm) more than 10 g was able to be spun (length 65.5 metres). Other spindles were not balanced throughout the entire spinning process, but the wobbling subsided as some more thread was spun.

Markings and decoration In total, 1538 whorls are in the database, being recorded as exhibiting decoration or exhibiting no decoration. Many of the spindle whorls have an undecorated surface. However, about two-thirds of the whorls have some kind of treatment on their surface that may be thought of as decoration. Of these, facets and stripes may have had a functional purpose, but otherwise the incised dots, star motifs and other scratches, as well as the four buttons with concentric circles on each end motifs are of decorative purpose (Figure 10).

The threads from my experiments were not studied, so it is impossible to know how the increasing weight of the thread affected the resulting yarn. However to the naked eye, each thread appeared similar at the end and at the beginning of its diameter (varying from 0.5 to 1 mm), as did

The most common decorative elements is faceting (55 %, Table 2.5).232 The number of facets on a whorl varies between 4 and 15. In Osteria dell’Osa six or seven facets

231 Mårtensson et al. 2006a, Appendix 1–2. Fig. 10–11.

232 The table is statistically signi¿cant, x²=241.6, p