Textile Workers: Skills, Labour and Status of Textile Craftspeople Between the Prehistoric Aegean and the Ancient Near East (Oriental and European Archaeology) 9783700181385, 3700181388

Citation preview

Louise Quillien – Kalliope Sarri (Eds.) Textile Workers

Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Klasse

Oriental and European Archaeology Volume 13

Series Editor: Barbara Horejs

Publications Coordinator: Ulrike Schuh

Louise Quillien – Kalliope Sarri (Eds.)

Textile Workers Skills, Labour and Status of Textile Craftspeople Between the Prehistoric Aegean and the Ancient Near East

Proceedings of the Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016

Accepted by the Publication Committee of the Division of Humanities and the Social Sciences of the Austrian Academy of Sciences: Michael Alram, Bert G. Fragner, Andre Gingrich, Hermann Hunger, Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger, Renate Pillinger, Franz Rainer, Oliver Jens Schmitt, Danuta Shanzer, Peter Wiesinger, Waldemar Zacharasiewicz

Picture on the opposite page: Peruvian weaver working on her back-strap loom with coloured warp (photo: K. Sarri)

This publication was subject to international and anonymous peer review. Peer review is an essential part of the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press evaluation process. Before any book can be accepted for publication, it is assessed by international specialists and ultimately must be approved by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Publication Committee.

The paper used in this publication is DIN EN ISO 9706 certified and meets the requirements for permanent archiving of written cultural property.

English language editing: Hazel Harrison Graphics and layout: Angela Schwab Coverdesign: Mario Börner, Angela Schwab

All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-3-7001-8138-5 Copyright © Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna 2020 Printing: Prime Rate, Budapest https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/8138-5 https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at Made in Europe

ORIENTAL AND EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Vol. 1

B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millenium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012 (Vienna 2014).

Vol. 2

B. Eder – R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg, Institute for Archaeological Studies, 30th May–2nd June, 2012 (Vienna 2015).

Vol. 3

M. Bartelheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka (Rahden/Westf. 2016).

Vol. 4

M. Luciani (ed.), The Archaeology of North Arabia. Oases and Landscapes. Proceedings of the International Congress held at the University of Vienna, 5–8 December, 2013 (Vienna 2016).

Vol. 5

B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd Millennium BC. With contributions by Ch. Britsch, St. Grasböck, B. Milić, L. Peloschek, M. Röcklinger and Ch. Schwall (Vienna 2017).

Vol. 6

M. Mödlinger, Protecting the Body in War and Combat. Metal Body Armour in Bronze Age Europe (Vienna 2017).

Vol. 7

Ch. Schwall, Çukuriçi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Westanatolien und der Ostägäis. Mit einem Beitrag von B. Horejs (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 8

W. Anderson – K. Hopper – A. Robinson (eds.), Landscape Archaeology in Southern Caucasia. Finding Common Ground in Diverse Environments. Proceedings of the Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016 (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 9

St. Gimatzidis – M. Pieniążek – S. Mangaloğlu-Votruba (eds.), Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands. Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 10

E. Alram-Stern – B. Horejs (eds.), Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 11

J. Becker – C. Beuger – B. Müller-Neuhof (eds.), Human Iconography and Symbolic Meaning in Near Eastern Prehistory. Proceedings of the Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016 (Vienna 2019).

Vol. 12

M. Brami – B. Horejs (eds.), The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier. Proceedings of the Neolithic Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016 (Vienna 2019).

Preface by the Series Editor

7

Contents Preface by the Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Louise Quillien – Kalliope Sarri Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Textile Technologies: Knowledge, Skills and Production Kalliope Sarri In the Minds of Early Weavers: Perceptions of Geometry, Metrology and Value in the Neolithic Aegean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Małgorzata Siennicka Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece . . . . . . . . . 27 Luca Peyronel Mediterranean Interconnections: Weaving Technologies during the Middle Bronze Age . . . . 45 Karina Grömer – Abolfazl Aali How to Make a Sassanian Tunic: Understanding Handcraft Skills based on a Find from the Salt Mine in Chehrābād, Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Working Conditions: Apprenticeship, Labour and Working Environment Christopher Britsch – Barbara Horejs Agencies of Textile Production in Western Anatolian and Aegean Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Marie-Louise Nosch How to Become a Textile Worker? Training and Apprenticeship of Child Labourers in the Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Agata Ulanowska Contemporary Actors and Bronze Age Textile Techniques from Greece: Experience Approach to Textile Work, its Specialisation and Apprenticeship . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

The Social Status of Textile Workers: Economy, Family and Gender Cécile Michel Textile Workers in the Royal Archives of Mari (Syria, 18th Century BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Aline Tenu Textile Tools, Significant Markers of Gender? The Case of the Cremation Cemetery Tell Shiukh Fawqâni (Syria) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Louise Quillien Insights into the Professional Life of a Dyer’s Family from Sippar across the 6th Century BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Preface by the Series Editor

9

Preface by the Series Editor The 13th volume of the OREA series addresses ‘Textile Workers. Skills, Labour and Status of Textile Craftspeople between the Prehistoric Aegean and the Ancient Near East’. It represents the outcome of a workshop held on 25th of April 2016 at the International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE) organised by Louise Quillien and Kalliope Sarri. The 10th anniversary conference of the ICAANE took place from 25th to 29th of April in Vienna and was hosted and organised by the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology (OREA) at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Altogether 800 participants from 38 different countries found their way to Vienna to celebrate the 10th anniversary of ICAANE with 8 scientific sections, 28 workshops, round tables, a huge poster exhibition and a special section about ‘Cultural Heritage under Threat’. While the proceedings of the sections were published by the Harrassowitz Publishing House in 2018, the experts’ workshops appear as separate peer-reviewed volumes of the OREA series which are generously supported by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. The present volume is edited for our internationally peer-reviewed series by Louise Quillien and Kalliope Sarri, who also initiated and organised the workshop. The editors aimed to shed more light on the people behind the highly important crafts by focussing on textile technologies, working conditions and the social status of textile workers in a diachronic approach from the Neolithic until the late Antiquity. They successfully managed to bring together new data, scientific analyses and comprehensive studies from altogether 12 authors in 10 different contribution. Compiling Aegean and Near Eastern case studies offers the opportunity to contrast and compare different social, economic and cultural contexts of the people behind the textile production in the different regions. The editors’ helpful introduction is not only setting the scientific framework, but also summarises the main outcome of the collected papers regarding the workers’ social status, working conditions and applied technologies as quick overview. I warmly thank the authors for sharing their expertise and perspectives about textile workers and Louise Quillien and Kalliope Sarri for editing the 13th OREA volume. My sincere thanks for financial support for the 10th ICAANE conference go to several Austrian and international institutions which are the following: The Austrian Federal Ministry of Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, the University of Vienna, the City of Vienna, the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF), the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), the Austrian Orient Society Hammer-Purgstall and the Austrian Academy of Sciences. I would like to thank Ulrike Schuh for the coordination and editing, Hazel Harrison for language editing, Angela Schwab for the layout and the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press for supporting the publications of the 10th ICAANE workshops in the OREA series. Barbara Horejs Director of the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Vienna, 16 December 2019

10

Preface by the Series Editor

Introduction Louise Quillien 1 – Kalliope Sarri 2 Textiles have been the topic of multiple studies in recent years. In particular, the terminology of textiles, the place these objects hold in culture and society, their role in the economy and trade, and their function in society have all been explored.3 In continuance of these various lines of research, the purpose of this volume is to observe both the socio-economic status of those people involved in the manufacturing of textiles and their role in the learning and passing on of their skills. In the Near-Eastern as in the Aegean world, textile craft was a valuable skill inseparable from the people who mastered it. The aim of this book is to focus attention less on the textiles themselves and more on the people behind these objects in their daily life. Observing those who produce textiles as their work is useful for understanding who they were, what their place was in society and how they acquired and developed their specialised knowledge. The case studies presented here are distributed over a long period of time, from the Neolithic (7th millennium BC) to Late Antiquity (600 CE), in order to reveal the continuities and evolutions. The 10th ICAANE organisation committee invited specialists of the ancient Near-Eastern and Aegean worlds to contribute to this conference. The comparison between these two areas is fruitful because it reveals many common political and economic structures as well as local differences, which impacted differently on the working conditions of the textile workers. During its long history, Mesopotamia has known many different forms of political and social organisation, and the textile craft was adapted to these various contexts. For instance, in the Ur III period (3rd millennium BCE), palaces possessed large workshops with teams of textile workers; this type of organisation was also found later in the palace of Mari (2nd millennium BCE).4 Domestic textile work also existed, as it was documented in the Old Assyrian period (2nd millennium BCE) in the records of merchants trading the textiles manufactured by their wives in Aššur to Anatolia.5 During the 1st millennium BCE, religious institutions employed textile workers to manufacture the precious garments that were offered to the gods’ statues.6 Domestic production as well as textile trade are also attested during this period. From the 3rd to the 1st millennium of Mesopotamia’s history, the diversity of textile terminologies and iconography proves that craftsmen developed different local traditions and skills that have evolved through time.7 In the prehistoric Aegean, the picture of textile labour looks very different compared to the Near East, so far as the earliest contemporary periods have been examined. However, a diachronic evolution can be observed: from the Neolithic period until the age of the Mycenaean palaces textile production had distinct stages of technological evolution, but it is still considered to be a household industry that produced goods for exclusively internal use.8 From the Late Bronze Age, however, textile production was centralised and directed from the palaces which organised the manufacture of standardised textile products, employed professional weavers and were involved in long-distance commercial networks in order to spread their exceptional artefacts.9 The status, the professional occupation and the working environment of the Aegean weavers involved diachronically different conditions since, as in the Near East, it was mainly the politico-

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, ArScAn Laboratory (Nanterre), France; [email protected]. Centre for Textile Research, Saxo Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; [email protected]. See the different volumes edited in the Ancient Textiles Series, Oxbow Books, Oxford. Waetzoldt 1972; Durand 2009; Michel in this volume. Veenhof 1972; Michel 2006. Beaulieu 2003; Zawadzki 2006. Breniquet 2008; Michel – Nosch 2010; Breniquet – Michel 2014. Burke – Chapin 2016. Killen 2007; Shaw – Chapin 2016, 21.

12

Louise Quillien – Kalliope Sarri

economic system that defined the position of craftsmen in society. Nevertheless, in addition to the study of social organisation, there is a fertile, though not fully explored research field surrounding the personal environment of weavers and their creations. This is defined by the family and their local community traditions but also by their personal aims and abilities, which were sometimes directed towards new forms of artistic expression and new skills made possible by the potential of the textile craft itself. The studies assembled in this volume are created from different types of sources, such as archaeological remains, texts, and iconography which complement each other and so shed a different light on the people involved in textile production. Among the variety of approaches chosen by the authors were statistics, theoretical models, experimental archaeology, micro-study, socialpsychology and more. Three areas for reflection are merged in the studies. The first one concerns the techniques employed by the workers. Can we reconstruct the manufacturing process, skills, technical choices, tools and movements of the textile workers? How did they learn and pass on their knowledge, from father to son, mother to daughter or from master to apprentice? Was their specialised skill valued in their society? Kalliope Sarri approaches the Aegean Neolithic textile production through coding decorated pottery patterns. She attempts a visual reconstruction of the Aegean Neolithic textiles based on representations of textiles and complex geometrical motifs on pottery, often interpreted as textile patterns. Moreover, she argues that the abilities of early weavers to do calculative tasks is an indication that they understood mathematical concepts and implemented them in daily life. While attempting to explain the relationship of weaving with mathematics, she uses parallels from other time periods and cultures, where woven artefacts were used as calculation tools. Małgorzata Siennicka discusses the organisation of textile manufacturing during the Aegean Early Bronze Age through the repertoire, the development, and the innovations observed in the toolkit of this period. As a canvas for her study, she uses textile tools from some EBA key sites. The comparative analysis and the contexts of these tools sometimes reveal the status and the working conditions of the weavers: there is no evidence for specialised workshops, and spinning and weaving were mainly household-based occupations, connected sometimes with administrative practices. The diversity of textile tools demonstrates that the weavers were using different materials and techniques and could produce a wide range of textiles. The standardisation of the tool types shows local origin, while a series of innovations reveal foreign influences and cultural exchanges and foreign influences from the East to the West. Luca Peyronel addresses the introduction of the warp-weighted loom in the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age. After exploring the abundance of loom-weights in a series of key sites, he concludes that, in contrast to previous views, the appearance of the warp-weighted loom in the Levant cannot be explained by the arrival of craftspeople from Anatolia but has rather to be considered as a local development resulting from Mediterranean interconnections. This new type of vertical loom was presumably used in parallel with the traditional ground loom and its introduction was probably due to the necessity of producing a new type of textile. Karina Grömer and Abolfazl Aali, from a careful analysis of a Sassanian tunic dated from 400–600 CE found in a salt mine in Chehrābād, Northern Iran, deduce the techniques employed by the workers who manufactured it. They identify the work that was completed by the spinners, the weaver and the tailor and even evaluate their skills and ability. By doing so, they shed light on ‘the people behind the artefact’ and reveal not only the workers’ skills but also some of the living conditions of the people who wore this garment and recycled it. A second theme deals with the working conditions of textile workers. The place where they worked, inside the house or in workshops, their organisation, individual or collective, and their position, independent or under supervision, help us to understand what their life was like as well as their role within the economic and social structures. Christopher Britsch and Barbara Horejs explore settlements and burial sites from the Early Bronze Age (3000–2600 BCE) in western Anatolia and the Aegean in order to identify who the textile workers were, where they worked and how they were organised. They conclude, taking into consideration two specific burial sites, Demircihüyük-Sarıket and Ilıpınar, that there was only a slight overrepresentation of women

Introduction

13

buried with textile tools. Through the study of the EBA settlements of Demircihüyük, Poliochni azzurro and Çukuriçi Höyük, they show that textiles were produced in specific areas. The evolution of the tool shapes shows that textile technology became more complex and specialised over time. Marie-Louise Nosch proposes a new methodology combining theories of learning and textual sources from Mycenaean and Near-Eastern palaces during the Bronze Age in order to understand how the textile workers learned their craft at a young age. Through the texts of Knossos, she demonstrates that children were organised into groups according to their skill level and that the accomplishment of this training was associated with their passage to adulthood. She explains how the methods of learning had an impact on the finished products: the training of children inside the palatial workshops resulted in a conservative and standardised production. Agata Ulanowska develops the approach of experimental archaeology to investigate the non-discursive component of technology in terms of transmission of knowledge and working conditions. Teaching the Bronze Age techniques of manufacturing textiles to modern students, she observes how a skill is learned and taught and what the subjective experience of the worker was in terms of comfort, satisfaction or ability. She explains how her methodology results in a better understanding of the key role that textiles played in the economy. A third area of research involved identifying the social status of textile workers. What was their place in society? Did it depend on the historical context? Were textile workers of a specific gender? Questions about their remuneration and about whether they were or were not the owners of the raw materials they used and the objects they made are important to answer in order to understand the way they were perceived in society. Cécile Michel studies the organisation, working conditions and status of the textile workers of the Bronze Age palace of Mari, modern-day Syria (18th century BCE) through the rich cuneiform documentation made up of administrative texts and letters. At Mari, the textile workers were mainly women, slaves or prisoners of war working in teams in workshops located outside the walls of the palaces. They therefore had a low status. C. Michel, however, shows the specific gender division of the workers according to the tasks accomplished, and she sheds light on a complex organisation of work with different levels of specialisation. Aline Tenu explores the relationship between textile tools and the gender of the people buried in the cremation burials excavated at Tell Shiukh Fawqâni (Syria), dated from the end of the Bronze Age to the beginning of the Iron Age. She argues that there is a correlation between the female gender and the presence of textile tools in the tombs, and she hypothesises that some of the women could have been of high status. Louise Quillien studies a family of dyers working for the temple of Sippar (a city located in the north of Babylon) during the Iron Age (6th century BCE) known from the cuneiform texts. Through the reconstruction of their tasks, remuneration, organisation, passing on of knowledge through generations, she identifies the status of this family of dyers and evaluates how their skills were perceived by the temple administration. This volume is the result of a workshop held at the 10th ICAANE (International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East) on the 25th of May 2016. We thank the OREA and the ICAANE organisation committee for having greatly facilitated the organisation and publication of this workshop. This publication forms part of the research project ‘Ancient Textiles from the Orient to the Mediterranean’ (Groupement de Recherche International GDRI ATOM), coordinated by Cécile Michel. We thank the following people for their support: Cécile Michel, Director of Research at the CNRS in the ArScAn (Archéologie et Sciences de l’Antiquité) Laboratory in Nanterre, France, and Marie-Louise Nosch, Research Professor at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. We also thank Ariana Cailin Kwoh and Hazel Harrison for their significant help in editing this volume, as well as all the participants for their valuable contributions.

14

Louise Quillien – Kalliope Sarri

References Beaulieu 2003 P.-A. Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period, Cuneiform Monographs 23 (Leiden, Boston 2003). Breniquet 2008 C. Breniquet, Essai sur le tissage en Mésopotamie, des premières communautés sédentaires au milieu du IIIe millénaire avant J.-C., Travaux de la maison René-Ginouvès 5 (Paris 2008). Breniquet – Michel 2014 C. Breniquet – C. Michel (eds.), Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean. From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry, Ancient Textiles Series 17 (Oxford 2014). Burke – Chapin 2016 B. Burke – A. P. Chapin, Bronze Age cloth production. A cottage industry no more, in: Shaw – Chapin 2016, 17–42. Durand 2009 J.-M. Durand, La nomenclature des habits et des textiles dans les textes de Mari. Matériaux pour le Dictionnaire de Babylonien de Paris 1, Archives Royales de Mari 30 (Paris 2009). Killen 2007 J. Killen, Cloth production in Late Bronze Age Greece. The documentary evidence, in: C. Gillis – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles. Production, Craft, Society, Ancient Textiles Series 1 (Oxford 2007) 50–58. Michel 2006 C. Michel, Femmes et production textile à Aššur au début du IIe millénaire av. JC., Techniques et culture 46, 2006, 281–297. Michel – Nosch 2010 C. Michel – M.-L. Nosch, Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia B.C., Ancient Textiles Series 8 (Oxford 2010). Shaw – Chapin 2016 M. C. Shaw – A. P. Chapin (eds.), Woven Threads. Patterned Textiles of the Aegean Bronze Age, Ancient Textiles Series 22 (Oxford 2016). Veenhof 1972 K. Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology, Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia 10 (Leiden 1972). Waetzoldt 1972 H. Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie, Studi economici e tecnologici 1 (Rome 1972). Zawadzki 2006 S. Zawadzki, Garments of the Gods. Studies on the Textile Industry and the Pantheon of Sippar according to the Texts from the Ebabbar Archive, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 218 (Fribourg 2006).

Textile Technologies: Knowledge, Skills and Production

In the Minds of Early Weavers: Perceptions of Geometry, Metrology and Value in the Neolithic Aegean Kalliope Sarri 1 Abstract: The Neolithic period in the Aegean has not yielded any textile remains. Thus, we know very little about textile production itself and even less about the identities of the earliest Aegean weavers. Some related information derives from their contemporary toolkit and from textile imprints on wet clay and, to this indirect evidence, pottery decoration may be added. This often shows symmetrically painted or relief systems, which are interpreted as textile patterns based on their strong similarity to patterns present on textile products throughout the ages. Such ornamentation can be considered to be representations of patterned textiles and they sometimes enable us to recognise even specific textile techniques. Moreover, textile patterns reveal the abilities of the weavers to calculate, conceptualise and represent geometrical shapes, to create hierarchies and to estimate sizes, volumes and values. This observation is the key to the connection between the Neolithic textile art and measuring systems, as yet unknown or unrecognised in this cultural stage of the Aegean area. This paper approaches the tracing of early metric systems in the Aegean Neolithic through the analysis of textile patterns and discusses the calculating abilities of textile workers in a culture whose calculating and metric systems are as yet unknown. Keywords: Neolithic textiles; pottery patterns; visual mathematics; ethnomathematics; metric systems

The production of textiles is one of the oldest crafts in human history. The earliest finds in the archaeological records attest to so much expertise and perfection that it leaves no room for doubt that these are not the very first examples of this craft, but products of an elaborate weaving tradition resulting from a long period of experimentation and practice.2 The difference between the textile craft and other early crafts is that, with weaving, people did not simply produce desirable objects or fabricate efficient tools, but (in order to make them) they invented an early – if not the earliest – device, namely the prehistoric loom. The weaving craft was based on a careful arrangement of organic fibres, while the first products were presumably ropes, nets and simple baskets for trapping and carrying hunted animals and for the gathering of fruits. When the first textiles occur, they appear as the result of sophisticated work, made with the aid of a simple but efficient device. The difference between a loom and simple devices, i.e. the prehistoric stone tools, is that, in the case of a loom, the entire construction is made of moving parts, aimed at the desired operation. Cognitively, the invention of the loom brought the Stone Age communities to a state, where they were not only able to construct a better tool-kit but also to undertake complex projects and calculations. At a later stage, the craft of weaving even succeeded in changing the quality of human life immensely, bringing people closer to analytical thinking, to abstract concepts, and to a better understanding of physical laws. Geometry and mathematics, which appeared later as cognitive fields, began from an empirical understanding of nature, something which happens in a similar way in the past as it does today. While today, technology has developed a great deal, the experience of understanding mathematical concepts is the same as it has been over the millennia.3 The evidence for the first steps of the human brain to understand and represent abstract forms is very weak. We do not know exactly when the relevant experiences for analytical thinking occurred so that results could be seen in the archaeological record but, as I argue here, they must

1



2 3

Guest researcher at the Centre for Textile Research, Saxo Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; kalliope. [email protected]. For the first textile examples and their technicalities, see Barber 1991, 126–144. On the early abilities to count, see Merzbach–Boyer 2010, 3–6. For an overview of the first counting systems, see: Boyer 1989.

18

Kalliope Sarri

Fig. 1   Pottery with textile patterns (after Theocharis 1993)

have been closely related to the textile craft,4 something that may be observed not only in the early textile finds of the ancient Near East5 but also in the Aegean Neolithic, particularly in ceramic design.6 The idea of relating textile art to pottery decoration is not new, nor is it new to relate textiles and threads to mathematical theories, e.g. knot theory.7 A characteristic example is the pottery decoration of the Greek Geometric period which is interpreted as an imitation of textile design. The symmetrical and seamlessly repeated motifs, which cover the entire surface of the vessels, have often been explained in archaeology and in the history of art as textile patterns. The pottery of the two Thessalian key Neolithic sites of Sesklo and Dimini, first excavated and published by Christos Tsountas, has yielded a broad variety of the pottery decorations with ‘textile patterns’ (Fig. 1). Tsountas described the geometric motifs as stepped or isodomic, meaning patterns made of equal parts,8 while Dimitrios Theocharis, his successor, clearly expressed his views concerning the relationship between pottery and textile motifs when he spoke of plek­ togeni (πλεκτογενή) motifs, meaning deriving from knitting.9 Finally, it was James Mellaart who directly connected the decorations of the Anatolian Neolithic with the colourful traditional rugs of

4

6 5

7

8 9



On the connection of numbering and the textile craft, see: Merzbach–Boyer 2010, 6. Mellaart et al. 1989. The research on the similarities of pottery design and textile patterns is part of the project ΝΕΤΙΑ: Neolithic Textiles and Clothing Industries in the Aegean at the CTR, Saxo Institute, Copenhagen. For the knot theory, see: Crowell – Fox 1963; Jablan – Sazdanović 2007. On ethnomathematics, see: Ascher 1991. See also an ethnomathematical approach concerning basketry in: Adams 2010. Tsountas 1908, 218. Theocharis has also mentioned inspiration from embroidery, Theocharis 1993, 104.

In the Minds of Early Weavers: Perceptions of Geometry, Metrology and Value in the Neolithic Aegean

19

Fig. 2   Peruvian weaver working on her back-strap loom with coloured warp (photo: K. Sarri)

Anatolia.10 There has been much controversy over this theory11 and it has, therefore, remained in the background. Thus, discussions on the analysis of the Neolithic patterns are limited to the type and origin of the decoration, its aesthetic value and chronology, without comments on the origin, inspiration, skills and abilities of the craftspeople or possible craft transfers. One of our challenges is the identification of the textile motifs as such, since there can be no direct proof that they are direct representations of textile patterns. We can argue for this by using different kinds of evidence. 1. Much, primarily Middle Neolithic, pottery ornamentation, such as the rhombus and the flame pattern, is broadly recognised as textile patterns and frequently occurs – almost always – in the history of traditional weaving (Fig. 1). Some of the motifs, such as the flame and a type of symmetrical triangular composition of the Middle Neolithic period, may also be observed on the clothing of painted figurines; thus, we can easily discern a textile origin. 2. The patterns often develop symmetrically in endless rows or networks until they cover the entire surface of the vessels. This is the primary reason for their interpretation as rug patterns. Traditional rugs are indeed, in most cases, covered all over with patterns continuing from one end to the other. Beyond the decorative concept of creating a dense elaborate design, this may be considered as a result of planning and economic use of available materials: in many cases, for instance, a multi-coloured warp is used and, since this cannot be removed while weaving, the decoration programme continues (Fig. 2). 3. Textile elements are evident in a few cases. These comprise, for example, fringes, stitches and nets painted or stitched onto the surface of ceramic vases (Figs. 3–4). The combinations and

10

Mellaart et al. 1989. The criticism of Mellaarts’ textile view focusses on technical issues regarding the type of weaving used, i.e. slit-tapestry of the traditional rugs and the warp-weighted loom, cf. Mallet 1990.

11

20

Kalliope Sarri

Fig. 3   Ceramic bowl with a representation of a fringed textile (after Wace – Thompson 1912)

Fig. 5   Pottery with isometric textile patterns from Sesklo and Agios Petros (after Theocharis 1993)

Fig. 4   Pottery with textile patterns (after Theocharis 1993)

Fig. 6   Ancient Chinese abacus (Shutterstock.com)

arrangements of decorative elements frequently placed in repeated grids or modules12 reveal certain composite techniques such as quilting and patchwork.13 The combining of scraps of fabric or the reuse of scraps and older textile artefacts for other purposes must have been a particularly important task in households during this early stage of textile production. After having recognised certain pottery decorations as textile patterns and interpreted them, we realise that many of them are of a pixel-like form, since they consist of small rectangular elements of the same size, placed in different positions and connected together to create simple, and sometimes highly elaborate, compositions (Fig. 5). This is particularly obvious in the decoration of the Middle Neolithic pottery of Thessaly and Central Greece, while some distinctive examples derive from the Neolithic pottery found on the islands of Sporades.14 These depict a decoration made of very fine squares on a checked canvas background that appears to be a guiding pattern (template) for weaving or even embroidery.15 This isometric work demonstrates, in my view, that weavers had a good visual understanding of units, amounts and fractions, a good sense of symmetry and, more importantly, they were able to reproduce the shapes, all of which constitute the elementary proof of their understanding of geometry. Moreover, it also reveals the final stage of the cognitive experience, namely the successful experiment. In other words, Neolithic weavers must have been able to count, to estimate amounts and fractions, to reproduce geometric shapes and to combine them in order to create elaborate compositions. As seen in many ethnographic surveys, counting is necessary for making patterns, even if for very experienced weavers, even for some skilful illiterate craftspeople, a graphic guide is not always necessary for reproducing highly intricate ornaments.16

12

Jablan describes such decorative elements as modules, which combined create tile graphics, see: Jablan 1995; Jablan 1998. 13 Sarri 2018, 166–168. 14 See the typical Middle Neolithic red-on-white decoration on one of these examples from the island of Youra. Papathanasopoulos 1996, 212, fig. 5. 15 Theocharis has already mentioned the associations with embroidery, Theocharis 1993, 104. 16 I thank Ulrikka Mokdad for making me aware of this information.

In the Minds of Early Weavers: Perceptions of Geometry, Metrology and Value in the Neolithic Aegean

21

The similarity of a loom to an abacus, the first counting device, is particularly striking (Fig. 6).17 Thus, a reasonable question to ask is the following: if, why and how was this cognitive experience achieved through the textile craft? The answer, in my view, is to be found in the nature of the material, i.e., the thread, which is literally a three-dimensional line, a line that can be curved, stretched into a straight line, segmented to a zigzag or a wavy line or coiled into a spiral. It can also be combined with other threads and can make perfect geometrical shapes and compositions. Yet, even if we cannot always discern a relationship between the patterns and textiles, or do not aim to do so, the original pre-sketched patterns, made presumably on some perishable material such as wood and wax or on some unstable material such as wet sand or unfired clay, demonstrate the ability of potters and painters to understand, conceive and reproduce symmetries. Geometrical symmetries exist in nature, as seen in crystals, flower leaves, faces and bodies,18 but the reproduction of symmetries is a complex task which does not seem to appear before the Neolithic period,19 when we have the first clear evidence for woven textiles.20 Perhaps the knowhow to make thread and weave also influenced and benefited other crafts and practices, associated particularly with constructions and calculations. Geodesy and geometry possibly derived from the ability to deal with threads and patterns. As it is common even today to use thread to create and project straight lines and levelling in architecture and other building constructions, the inhabitants of the Neolithic sites could have also used spun thread for their building projects. Thereby, pottery decoration enables us to recognise that the Neolithic people, at least the potters and weavers, if not all members of the community, had the ability to count and estimate values and that perhaps they had applied this knowledge to other areas. At the same time, we can assume that these artisans enjoyed much respect and admiration from the rest of their community for their skills and elaborate artwork. As argued elsewhere,21 the same individuals may have woven the textiles and made the pots in a community, and this may be the reason for such a close transfer of craft concepts. Even still today, various textile devices and textile gadgets are used for measuring and counting. The knotted prayer ropes (rosaries) of the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox kom­ boskini (Κομποσχοίνι: knotted thread) and the worry beads komboloi (κομπολόι: knotted words) help believers to count their prayers, but, in the past, they have also been used to show the time when clocks and timers were not known or affordable. These simple textile devices combined speech, calculation and time enabling them to interact. The quipu, the knot record of the Andean cultures – sometimes used even today by illiterate people – has been used to count, memorise, make agreements and send messages to other people and constitutes a kind of textile document sometimes encountered in archives (Fig. 7).22 The potential of the mathematical abilities of the Aegean Neolithic people, who were geographically distant from the high cultures of the Near East, to calculate and estimate values suggests a re-examination of the first efforts to create metric systems in these areas. Although the evidence is not strong or generally accepted, the earliest numbering objects are clay tokens found in the societies and cultures of the Near and Middle East (Fig. 8).23 If we could identify similar objects in the Neolithic Aegean, we could obtain strong evidence for the abilities and the mental achievements of this culture as well as possible contacts of the Mediterranean people with the Eastern civilisations.

17

Ifrah 2001. See the work on symmetry by Jablan 2002. 19 The first but very rare examples of symmetries are already seen in Palaeolithic art. For the development of symmetric representations in prehistoric art, see Jablan 2002. 20 Barber 1991, 134; Perlès 2001, 248–252. 21 Vitelli 1993, 55–63. 22 On the quipu and the Inca abacus, see Day 1967, 31–38; Ascher 1986; Conklin 2002; Khipu Database Project 2018. 23 Schmandt-Besserat 1992; Schmandt-Besserat 1996. For a survey on early counting and recording with reference to the Aegean, see Marangou 2001. 18

22

Fig. 7   Inca accountant-treasurer holding a khipu. An abacus is depicted in the left corner (illustration of Guamán Poma de Ayala, 1534)

Kalliope Sarri

Fig. 8   Clay tokens from Tepe Zagheh, Qazvin plain, Iran (after Fazeli Nashli – Moghimi 2013, fig. 5 and 6)

If we consider the broad find-group of the undiagnostic archaeological objects, usually called generic ‘small finds’, it is possible to observe some small clay objects, similar to the Neolithic spindle whorls, sometimes unperforated, as well as some other small clay objects resembling eastern tokens.24 We can also see small conical objects, similar to playing stones, spherical objects with pinched surface, whorls with incised lines and a clay ball with a small cavity (Figs. 9–10).25 These finds from Sesklo and Dimini are almost identical with some Iranian clay objects, fixed together to tokens. Even common spindle whorls could have been used as tokens, especially those from the large group of discoid whorls which are not made separately but are produced in massive numbers, sliced from a long clay cylinder (Fig. 11).26 In conclusion, I suggest that the Aegean Neolithic weavers may have had the ability to calculate and understand mathematical and geometrical concepts, since they were able to draw and reproduce perfect and intricate geometrical patterns on their looms with great facility which undoubtedly required counting and a geometrical understanding of space. In addition to the production of elaborate textile patterns seen as a craft transfer onto pottery design, the weavers had an ability to calculate which may have brought them to an elevated stage of effectivity in solving practical daily problems and perhaps even in recording and exchanging goods, communicating and making agreements with other remote cultural groups. These ideas can still not be sufficiently supported by archaeological records, but they can be further investigated by a closer examination of a neglected group of archaeological finds summarised at present under the definition ‘various’ or ‘small finds’. In this investigation, textile-related finds, such as pottery with textile patterns, play an important role in decoding not only the

24

On the Near Eastern tokens and their interpretation as counters see: Schmandt-Besserat 1992; Swetz 2012. On the tokens in the Balkans and the Aegean see: Budja 2003. 25 Tsountas 1908, pl. 44; Budja 1998. 26 The high number of these artefacts at the two major Thessalian sites is also an indication of variable use. Tsountas refers to 500 spindle whorls from Sesklo and Dimini: Tsountas 1908, 343.

In the Minds of Early Weavers: Perceptions of Geometry, Metrology and Value in the Neolithic Aegean

23

Fig. 9   Clay spherical objects from Thessaly in the Athens National Museum (Inventory numbers 25691–25696) (Athens National Museum)

Fig. 11   Discoid clay whorls and pierced sherd-disc (21880) from Sesklo and Dimini in the Athens National Museum (Inventory numbers 21782, 21744, 21792, 21793, 21794, 21880 and 22101) Scale 1 : 2.6 (Athens National Museum)

Fig. 10   Clay conical objects from Thessaly in the Athens National Museum (Inventory numbers 25698–25700) (Athens National Museum)

abilities of the early potters and textile workers, but also the mental achievements and the intellectual networking of Neolithic societies in their entirety. Acknowledgements: I thank ICAANE and ATOM for the networking opportunities and Louise Quillien for a productive and amicable collaboration during the preparation and organisation of the workshop. I am also grateful to Cécile Michel and Marie-Louise Nosch for the idea of the workshop and also to the latter for helpful comments on my paper and for her encouragement and support. I owe many thanks to Diana Stein, who has generously supplied me with a bibliography on the Near Eastern finds, Sophie Desrosiers and Lena Bjerregaard for the pre-Columbian cultures and Catherine Breniquet and Peder Mortensen for discussions and their advice. I am grateful to Ulrikka Mokdad for useful discussions and ideas concerning the weaver’s way of thinking and Cherine Munkholt for the first proofreading of my manuscript. I would like to dedicate this work to the memory of Slavik Jablan whose inspiring work on visual mathematics attracted my interest and made me keen to investigate this topic further. I am grateful to the Athens National Museum, especially to M. Lagogianni, K. Manteli and K. Nikoletzos, for the permission to study and publish the textile tools from the old excavation at Sesklo and Dimini carried out by Ch. Tsountas which are kept in the Athens National Museum. The research is based on the project ΝΕΤΙΑ: Neolithic Textiles and Clothing Industries in the Aegean at the CTR, Saxo Institute, Copenhagen. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions 2015–2017 under grant agreement No 656848.

References Adams 2010 N. A. Adams, Mutual interrogation. A methodological process in the ethnomathematical research, in: International Conference in Ethnomathematical Research 2010, Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences 8, 2010, 700–707.

24

Kalliope Sarri

Ascher 1986 M. Ascher, Mathematical ideas of the Incas, in: M. P. Closs (ed.), Native American Mathematics (Texas 1986) 261–289. Ascher 1991 M. Ascher, Ethnomathematics. A Multicultural View of Mathematical Ideas (Pacific Grove 1991). Barber 1991 E. J. W. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, with Special Reference to the Aegean (Princeton 1991). Boyer 1989 C. B. Boyer, A History of Mathematics, 2nd edition (New York 1989). Budja 1998 M. Budja, Clay tokens. Accounting before writing in Eurasia, Documenta Praehistorica 25, 1998, 219–235. Budja 2003 M. Budja, Seals, contracts and tokens in the Balkans in the Early Neolithic. Where in the puzzle? Documenta Praehistorica 30, 2003, 115–130. Conklin 2002 W. J. Conklin, A khipu information string theory, in: J. Quilter – G. Urton (eds.), Narrative Threads. Accounting and Recounting in Andean khipu (Austin 2002) 53–86. Crowell – Fox 1963 R. H. Crowell – R. H. Fox, Introduction to Knot Theory (New York 1963). Day 1967 C. L. Day, Quipus and Witches’ Knots. The Role of the Knot in Primitive and Ancient Cultures (Kansas 1967). Fazeli Nashli –Moghimi 2013 H. Fazeli Nashli – N. Moghimi, Counting objects. New evidence from Tepe Zagheh, Qazvin plain, Iran, Antiquity Project Gallery 87, 336. Online < http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/nashli336/> (last accessed 8 July 2019). Ifrah 2001 G. Ifrah, The Universal History of Computing. From the Abacus to the Quantum Computer (New York 2001). Jablan 1995 S. V. Jablan, Theory of Symmetry and Ornament (Belgrade 1995). Jablan 2002 S. V. Jablan, Symmetry, Ornament and Modularity, Series on Knots and Everything 30 (London 2002). Jablan 1998 S. V. Jablan, Modularity in Art. Online (last accessed 20 April 2019). Jablan – Sazdanović 2007 S. Jablan – R. Sazdanović, LinKnot. Knot Theory by Computer, Series on Knots and Everything 21 (Singapore 2007). Khipu Database Project 2018 Harvard University, Khipu Database Project (last updated September 2018). Online (last accessed 8 July 2019). Mallet 1990 M. Mallet, A weaver’s view of the Çatal Höyük controversy, Oriental Rug Review 10, 6, 1990, 32–43. Online (last accessed 15 Oct. 2016). Marangou 2001 C. Marangou, Evidence for counting and recording in the Neolithic? Artefacts as signs and signs on artefacts, in: A. Michailidou (ed.), Manufacture and Measurement. Counting, Measuring and Recording Craft Items in Early Aegean Societies (Athens 2001) 9–43.

In the Minds of Early Weavers: Perceptions of Geometry, Metrology and Value in the Neolithic Aegean

25

Mellaart et al. 1989 J. Mellaart – U. Hirsch – B. Balpınar, The Goddess from Anatolia (Milano 1989). Merzbach-Boyer 2010 U. C. Merzbach – C. B. Boyer, A History of Mathematics, 3rd edition (New York 2010). Papathanasopoulos 1996 G. Papathanasopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece (Athens 1996). Perlès 2001 C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first Farming Communities in Europe (Cambridge 2001). Sarri 2018 K. Sarri, Aesthetics and apparel in the Neolithic period, in: M. Lagogianni-Georgakarakos (ed.), The Countless Aspects of Beauty in Ancient Art (Athens 2018) 163–174. Schmandt-Besserat 1992 D. Schmandt-Besserat, Before Writing (Texas 1992). Schmandt-Besserat 1996 D. Schmandt-Besserat, How Writing Came About (Austin 1996). Swetz 2012 F. J. Swetz, Mathematical treasure. Mesopotamian accounting tokens, Convergence, September 2012. Doi: 10.4169/ loci003901. Theocharis 1993 Δ. Θεοχάρης, Νεολιθικός πολιτισμός. Σύντομη επισκόπηση της Νεολιθικής στον ελλαδικό χώρο, 3rd edition (Athens 1993). Trilling 2001 J. Trilling, The Language of Ornament (London 2001). Tsountas 1908 Χρ. Τσούντας, Αι Προϊστορικές Ακροπόλεις Σέσκλου και Διμηνίου (Athens 1908). Vitelli 1993 K. D. Vitelli, Franchthi Neolithic Pottery, Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 8.1 (Bloomington 1993). Wace – Thompson 1912 A. J. B. Wace – M. S. Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly, being some Account of Recent Excavations and Explorations in North-Eastern Greece from Lake Kopais to the Borders of Macedonia (Cambridge 1912).

26

Kalliope Sarri

Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece Małgorzata Siennicka 1 Abstract: Prehistoric textile production continues to attract the interest of scholars studying the remains of textiles as well as textile tools made of various materials, particularly clay, stone and bone. From Early Bronze Age (EBA) Greece (the 3rd millennium BC), almost no actual fabrics have been preserved, thus textile research can only investigate the numerous implements used in their production which were primarily found in the settlements. The aim of this paper is to discuss craftsmanship in EBA Greece. New insights regarding textile tools, yarn manufacture and weaving, and the organisation of production will be presented. The textile implements commonly preserved display various qualities and methods of production, from ‘home-made’ to standardised. Therefore, it seems that in some cases they may have been made by professional craftspeople and widely distributed, while in other cases they were made instead for private use. By analysing the archaeological contexts of such finds (especially clay spindle whorls and loom-weights), it is to a certain extent possible to reconstruct patterns in their use, for example regarding the working areas and the organisation of textile manufacture. There is no reliable evidence for specialised textile workshops in this period and a household-based production or individual/home industry is more probable. On account of the wide range of types and dimensions of spindle whorls and loom-weights, it can be assumed that textile craftspeople developed specialised skills in the manufacturing of yarns of various thicknesses and quality and textiles of diverse quality, patterns and weaves, according to their needs or the requirements of the market, whether it was local or part of wider trade routes. Keywords: Aegean; Early Bronze Age; textile production; textile workers; textile tools; craftsmanship

Introduction The making of textiles must have been a crucial skill for the people in Early Helladic (EH) mainland Greece (c. 3100–2000 BC).2 An ability to produce a thread and then a piece of textile was probably more common in prehistory than we realise.3 However, information about who, when and why they produced fabrics remains vague as the archaeological evidence is often too scanty to help answer these questions. In the case of the Aegean in the Early Bronze Age (EBA) where written and iconographic documents related to textiles are absent, the situation becomes even more complicated.4 On the other hand, numerous textile implements, especially clay spindle whorls and loom-weights, are commonly found on archaeological sites in primary and, more frequently, in secondary contexts and they may significantly add to our understanding of the prehistoric textile craft. This paper will address issues regarding the manufacture of textile tools, the preparation and production of yarn, weaving, and the organisation of textile production, with the main focus on three sites, Tiryns, Lerna and Tsoungiza, in the Peloponnese.



1 2

3



4



Institute of Archaeology, University of Göttingen, Germany; [email protected]. For the chronology of the Early Bronze Age in mainland Greece see Rutter 1993, tab. 2. For a recent summary of the Greek Early Bronze Age cultures see Bintliff 2012, chap. 4. For recent studies of early textile production, fabrics and tools in Europe and the Mediterranean, see, e.g., Gleba – Mannering 2012; Andersson Strand – Nosch 2015; Grömer 2016; Ulanowska – Siennicka 2018a; Siennicka et al. 2018; Ulanowska et al. 2018. For textual and iconographic evidence, e.g. from the Near East, as well as from Minoan and Mycenaean (Middle – Late Bronze Age) Greece see, e.g. Chadwick 1973, 313–323; Killen 1984; Killen 2007; Burke 2010; Michel – Nosch 2010; Nosch 2011; Nosch 2012; Jones 2015; Shaw – Chapin 2016a.

28

Małgorzata Siennicka

Manufacture of textile implements Clay spindle whorls and loom-weights appear at the EH sites in various contexts, usually as single items randomly scattered around the habitation areas, both indoors and outdoors. Until now, no specialised workshops or domestic working areas which produced such implements have been identified. Therefore, questions arise about where textile implements were produced and by whom. It seems probable that the users of textile tools made them for their own purposes when needed, mainly at home from local clay sources. In this case it would be difficult to find any archaeological traces of such individual manufacture.5 Another possibility is that at least some of the textile implements were made in potters’ or other artisans’ workshops by craftspeople and they were distributed within local and/or distant communities. Unfortunately, we do not have any reliable evidence from the EBA Greek sites to prove this hypothesis.6 Nevertheless, we can observe that while the Neolithic, especially Middle and Late Neolithic, tools seem to be still very diverse as far as their dimensions, shapes and surface treatments are concerned,7 the implements dating to EH II present a different picture. This is especially true for spindle whorls. It is striking that clay spindle whorls of this period are very uniform across Greece as far as their forms and clay treatment are concerned8 and this may demonstrate ‘a strongly centralized tradition’ as Elizabeth Banks suggested.9 They are hemispherical in shape, made of well-burnt fine and mid-coarse clay of pinkish-beige colour; they were sometimes burnished but not painted or incised (Fig. 1).10 It is of importance that similar ranges of weights are repeatedly attested at different sites, e.g. heavy and very heavy spindle whorls of c. 40 to even 120g were very common in these times. E. Banks who worked on the small finds from Lerna suggests some sort of controlled industry being responsible for standardisation of spindle whorls throughout mainland Greece.11 Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no clay analyses revealing the provenance of the implements have been published12 which would certainly be very helpful in understanding the process of production and distribution of textile implements. Yet, as regards the EH II examples, we may think of pottery workshops specialising in the manufacture of spindle whorls which were distributed or traded across mainland Greece. In this case, the craftspeople making textile tools would be potters.13

5



6



7

9 8

10



11



12



13



Evidence of textile tools production is only rarely detected in the prehistoric contexts. Cf. a unique concentration of several large ring-shaped loom-weights which were recently uncovered in the vicinity of an oven in the area of a courtyard of a house complex from the Late Bronze Age (Late Helladic IIIC Early) at Tiryns, North-West Town (LII 24 Ofl. 5). According to the excavator, the loom-weights were not entirely finished (in one a perforation was missing) and were supposed to be fired in the nearby oven of a remarkable form: Maran et al. 2019, 71, fig. 11–12. I thank Prof Maran for additional information regarding this find. Cf. the Late Neolithic (Sitagroi Phase III) incised spindle whorls from Sitagroi in north-east Greece which according to E. S. Elster may have been made by skilful artisans: Elster 2003, 235–236, fig. 6.5–14, pl. 6.1–3. Carington Smith 1975, 119–122, 133–135, 144–154. Cf. Carington Smith 1992, 682; Siennicka 2012, 68, n. 21. Banks 1967, 538. Among numerous spindle whorls that I came across in the publications or/and I was able to study in person, only one example dated to EH II Initial from Tsoungiza possibly bears traces of painting with urfirnis: Pullen 2011, 619 (no. 776), fig. 8.13. Burnished surfaces seem to be rather common though, e.g. at Lerna (cf. Banks 1967). I thank Maria Kostoula for a fruitful discussion about clay treatment in the EH period. Banks in press. I warmly thank Elizabeth Banks for providing me with her unpublished manuscript of the small finds at Lerna and sharing with me her knowledge and observations about textile tools. A small number of objects were sampled for clay analysis at Lerna by M. Attas in 1977 and R. E. Jones in 1987, but the results have never been published (Banks in press). An interesting observation about the circulation of the EBA ceramic vessels was made by Bintliff (2012, 96). He suggests that ‘tableware, despite its simplicity, was exchanged locally between EH communities, although the receiving sites made similar products. Some of this pot circulation might reflect social rather than economic networks […]’. The same might be true for the spindle whorls of this period.

Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece

29

Fig. 1   Clay spindle whorls from EBA Tiryns (photo M. Siennicka)

In contrast to the EH II spindle whorls, the EH III objects at various sites represent greater irregularity and more careless manufacture regarding their shapes, fabrics and appearance.14 It seems, therefore, that they were no longer produced to uniform specifications and instead appear ‘home-made’.15 The clumsy, irregular spindle whorls tend to make us think of non-specialists making the tools in response to their individual needs. In fact, it is fairly easy to manufacture a spindle whorl, while more skills are needed to achieve a good, regular burnished example and to fire it in the proper way. This, however, could also have been done by non-specialists and only needed more training and experience. An interesting issue regards production of the EH loom-weights, especially during the EH II period which, as mentioned above, witnessed some standardisation of manufacture of spindle whorls. Contrarily to spinning implements, clay cylinders with lengthwise perforations and spools without holes, which most probably were used as loom-weights, were common, yet diverse at different sites, and seem to have been ‘home-made’. The majority of the examples we are aware of up to the present16 are very irregular in shape, coarse, with untreated surfaces, and were barely baked or sun-dried. They may have been prepared in sets, as an example from EH II/III Tiryns demonstrates. Here a group of cylinders with three lengthwise perforations came to light in Room R 143.17 All objects were made of identical clay, were poorly baked, and had similar sizes and shapes. Since they were found together and their technical features are so similar, we may assume that they were used together, perhaps on a warp-weighted loom put against the wall of the room, or, alternatively, they were only stored together. In any case, they seem to have been made on the same occasion, most probably as a set.18 A similar assumption can be made about clay spools, formed from coarse clay, irregular in shape, and sun-dried or poorly baked. They were found at Tiryns and at other EH sites, sometimes in small concentrations.19 They may also have been used as loom-weights for

14

E.g. Lerna: Banks 1967. ‘[…] the Lerna IV whorls fashioned as a kind of ‘cottage industry’ within a general framework of the basic geometric shapes of sphere, cone, and bicone’ (Banks in press). 16 Siennicka 2012, 68–70, n. 24–25, 29. 17 Kilian 1981, 189, fig. 45. 18 Siennicka 2012, 69, pl. XXV e. 19 At Tiryns four clay spool-shaped objects of c. 6–7cm in length and each with a diameter of 4.8cm, were found together in area LXIV 38/67 XI b–c (Rahmstorf 2008, 65, n. 219; Siennicka 2012, 69–70, pl. XXV.f). Similar implements are known from Kolonna on Aegina (Walter – Felten 1981, pl. 126, no. 492), Thermi on Lesbos (Lamb 1936, 164, pl. XXIII, no. 30.54) and possibly Lithares (Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 174). 15

30

Małgorzata Siennicka

warp-weighted looms or for tablet weaving.20 Since they are very easy to make, it can be assumed that they were manufactured by the weavers in relation to their current needs.

Yarn preparation Yarn was prepared primarily for weaving as well as for other possible, yet difficult to prove, methods of making textiles practised in the EBA, such as twining, looping, sprang, needlework and others. So far, no EH workshop has been identified where yarn would have been prepared, e.g. flax processed by being threshed, retted, broken and heckled or wool washed, dried, carded, and dyed. However, we should keep in mind that the majority of these activities are not easily detectable in archaeological material as they leave few traces. The only remains of yarn production we come across in the EBA Greek sites are spindle whorls made out of clay or less frequently of bone. Many of them are found in disturbed or mixed layers and only rarely in situ. Nevertheless, in the cases where they were uncovered on the floors of the buildings or in other primary contexts, it is possible to pinpoint areas used for spinning. Significant examples of (potential) spinning activities came from various contexts at EH Tsoungiza in the Nemea Valley, Corinthia. As D. Pullen has observed, the overall number of spindle whorls attested at the site (84 objects) and their distribution (one per 5m²) suggest that spinning was a major occupation during the EBA.21 Moreover, it is remarkable that spindle whorls from the contexts discussed below were found together with objects and features related to storage and food preparation, and not always in domestic compounds. This demonstrates that spinning was usually performed in the areas dedicated to various purposes, simultaneously with other domestic activities. In House A dated to the EH II Initial period,22 eleven spindle whorls were uncovered.23 All implements are very similar, yet not identical, as far as the types, dimensions and weights are concerned: they are short conical, convex and concave, with diameters of 5.0–5.5cm and weights of 60–70g. While the small House A seems to have had non-domestic functions, namely it was used for pottery storage, perhaps for large-scale communal feasting,24 a large number of very similar spinning implements found together suggest that they were either stored there or used to manufacture threads of similar kinds, i.e. rather thick and coarse. Taking into account the other finds from the building, as well as its overall character, it would be tempting to suggest that spinning was a part of public activities and was performed during or in relation to communal feasting.25 In House F, dated to EH III and consisting of two rooms on the central part of the hill at Tsoungiza, seven spindle whorls were discovered near the floor level and another in the layer 20cm above the floor level of the north room. In the same room a pithos, numerous charred acorns in halves as well as sherds of domestic and coarse vessels were discovered.26 The spindle whorls were again of similar types27 and had comparable diameters (c. 4.4–5.7cm) and weights (they

Siennicka – Ulanowska 2016, 27–28, 30–31, fig. 4. Pullen 2011, 592. 22 The building excavated in 1982 on the south-eastern slopes of the hill is named ‘1982 House A’ in the final publication: Pullen 2011, 8, 149–158, fig. 4.8–4.12. 23 Nos. 768–778, see Pullen 2011, 199, 618–619, tab. 8.2, fig. 8.13. 24 Pullen 2011, 157–158, 198–199. 25 An interesting suggestion about spinning in the open area used as working space was made for Neolithic Phaistos by P. Militello (2012, 199–206). 26 Pullen 2011, 452, figs. 6.1–6.2, 6.9. 27 Spindle whorls nos. 807–808 were conical and convex-sided, no. 802 conical and concave-sided and no. 804 conical and conical-sided according to Pullen’s typology: Pullen 2011, 596, tab. 8.2, fig. 8.15, cf. fig. 8.1 for the typology. 20 21

Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece

31

were rather heavy, weighing c. 40–60g, with one exception of a very heavy whorl of over 150g).28 Such a concentration of spindle whorls in one building suggests that this space was used as a spinning area29 or, alternatively, that the spinning tools were stored there for some reason. In any case, it shows that the preferred type of spindle whorls used in this working area was large and heavy, thus suitable for production of thick and coarse threads or for plying yarns. Several comparable spindle whorls found in one place may suggest that we are dealing with a working area or workshop where batches of a similar type of thread were produced. Since the amount of manufactured yarn would have probably exceeded the needs of a single household, it was possibly produced for other purposes and in this case we may speak of a home industry.30 Perhaps large amounts of threads were needed for organised production of particular types of textiles, such as coarse and thick outdoor cloths or rugs and blankets. House E on the central part of the hill at Tsoungiza31 also brought to light several spindle whorls along with numerous other features, especially eight pithoi and nine grinding stones.32 The spindle whorls, which were probably excavated in the house,33 represent similar forms and dimensions: they belong to the conical, convex and concave short types with diameters of c. 4.6–5.1cm, heights of 2.7–2.9cm and weights of c. 45–58g.34 Once again, this means that batches of similar types of threads were prepared by using these tools. Since the building produced evidence of storage and food preparation, it is possible that spindle whorls were also stored there; however, the available space inside the house (c. 10m²), as well as in a cobbled area outside, would be large enough for spinning activities.35 A different situation regarding working areas can be found at EH Lerna on the Argolic Gulf. Although numerous textile tools came to light in various contexts and layers of the site, they are usually single finds, often unstratified, unearthed from bothroi or in the streets and only occasionally found in situ on the floors of the buildings.36 One or two spinning implements, mainly spindle whorls, sometimes accompanied by clay or stone discs or single loom-weights occasionally came from the EH II and III closed contexts. Since, in most cases, the spinning tools found together represented different types and weights, we might suggest that they were used by individuals for conventional household production. Even in the monumental building called the House of the Tiles dating to the EH II period (Lerna III, Phase D),37 only two diverse spindle whorls were discovered in Room VI: one conical object was heavy and large, while a biconical one was small

28

Pullen 2011, 596, tab. 8.2. Pullen 2011, 596. 30 For a detailed discussion on the modes of production, see below. 31 The house was named ‘House of the Querns’ by its excavator J. P. Harland: Pullen 2011, 452. 32 Eight pithoi were set into the floor, while nine grinding stones (querns) were found around the storage vessels. Moreover, well preserved pottery for food preparation and drinking, including jars, bowls, jugs and tankards came to light. Among the small finds were a polished bone awl, obsidian blades and flakes, a stone celt and a possible whetstone. Finally, large quantities of food remains, including charred acorns, seeds and animal bones were discovered too: Pullen 2011, 452–460, figs. 6.1–6.2, 6.10–6.14. 33 Probably because of the fragmentary state of preservation of the documentation of the original excavations of Harland, it was not possible in the final publication to ascribe the spindle whorls uncovered in Trench P to this building. In the final publication, D. Pullen does not discuss these finds in detail in relationship to the house. We only find a short note about ‘a few spindle whorls (‘loomweights’ in Harland’s terminology)’ (Pullen 2011, 459) as well as a description of the spindle whorls from Trench P both in table 8.2 (p. 595) in the catalogue (p. 622–623) and in fig. 8.15. Based on the catalogue descriptions, the following spindle whorls may belong to House E: nos. 803, 806, 807 and 808. However, this interpretation may prove wrong. 34 Spindle whorls nos. 803, 806, 807 and 808: Pullen 2011, 622–623, tab. 8.2, fig. 8.15. 35 The interior space of house was c. 15m2, but the large storage jars situated along the north, east and west walls reduced it to c. 10m2. Perhaps there was also a hearth situated in front of pithoi 5 and 6 in the north part of the room. Outside the opening in the west wall of the house there was a cobbled area which continued to the other paved areas: Pullen 2011, 453–460, fig. 6.10–6.11. 36 Banks 1967. 37 On the House of the Tiles see Wiencke 2000, 213–304, fig. 1.103–107. 29

32

Małgorzata Siennicka

and light.38 According to Wiencke, the large central Room VI was of relatively private character and connected directly through a staircase with the upper floor. Because of the objects discovered here, including the spindle whorls,39 Wiencke suggested that it was used for various domestic purposes, such as food preparation and consumption, some storage and spinning.40 Sporadically, one or two spinning tools, such as spindle whorls and pierced discs which were potentially used as spinning implements,41 came to light in the EH III layers at Lerna which demonstrates a similar, household-based production modus as in the previous period.42 From ethnographic sources we know that preparation of fibres and spinning can be practised everywhere and by everyone, i.e. indoors and outdoors, inside the villages and outside, by women, men and children.43 Indeed, since we find spindle whorls inside the houses in the EBA settlements (e.g. at EH II Early Tiryns;44 in EH II–III buildings at Tsoungiza, mentioned previously; in EH II–III buildings at Lerna45), and in open spaces (e.g. on the streets at EH III Lerna46), it seems certain that spinning was a common activity. However, it is very difficult to speculate more about the EH spinners, their economic and social status or their gender based only on single archaeological finds47 and having at our disposal no other pieces of evidence, in particular written and iconographic sources.48 Regarding the skills of the spinners, we can deduce them only indirectly from the wide range of spindle whorls, their various sizes and weights. The spinners must have known how to prepare diverse yarns, made of plant and animal fibres, fine and coarse, tightly and loosely twisted. The quality and technical features of the threads must have been dictated by the nature of the textiles they anticipated making. As sometimes spindle whorls of different types or dimensions were discovered together, it is probable that the spinners owned and/or used different types of tools to obtain a range of threads or to work with different raw materials. As discussed

38

The conical spindle whorl L4.195: c. 80g, diameter 5cm, height 3.9cm; the biconical spindle whorl L4.326: c. 13g, max. diameter 2.9cm, height 1.6cm: Banks 1967, 491; Wiencke 2000, 228. 39 In Room VI, the following objects came to light: a few sherds of domestic pottery (including sherds from jugs or jars, bowls, saucers and pithoi), a bone awl, a stone arrowshaft straightener, obsidian bladelets and a clay sealing fragment with an impression of a woven material on its back (Wiencke 2000, 228). 40 It is, however, not entirely clear whether all objects date from the same phase. As Wiencke noted, some of them – and among them the conical spindle whorl – may actually be of Lerna IV date, i.e. EH III: Wiencke 2000, 228. 41 Pierced terracotta discs or potsherds potentially used as spindle whorls have already been discussed by many scholars. For a recent brief review see Siennicka 2014, esp. 164–165. 42 E.g. in House W-189, a truncated, convex conical clay spindle whorl L6.9 (c. 44g) was found together with a spherical spindle whorl L6.68 of 18g (Banks 2013, 294). In House W-193, a biconical spindle whorl L6.67 (19g) was found together with a terracotta pierced disc L6.85 (27g) and a stone pierced disc L5.998 (c. 33g) (Banks 2013, 299). 43 E.g. Crowfoot 1931; Weir 1970; Barber 1991, 69. 44 E.g. in EH II Early Room 202 at Tiryns, four spindle whorls were possibly found together: two large and two small: Siennicka 2012, 66; cf. Kilian 1983, 323, 327, fig. 40. 45 E.g. EH II (Lerna III C) Room CA: a spindle whorl was found together with two clay loom-weights, including a sealed one. For details see below (Banks 1967, 489, 565–567; Wiencke 1969, 508, S 84, no. 191; Wiencke 2000, 136). Spindle whorls were also found in the following locations: EH III (Lerna IV.1-3) Building W-35: a spindle whorl; Building W-39: two spindle whorls: Building W-189: two spindle whorls (Banks 1967, 494, 498, 500–501; Banks 2013, 80–81, 99, 294). 46 E.g. EH III (Lerna IV.3) streets south and east of Building W-98: two spindle whorls; south continuation of north– south street east of Building W-98: a spindle whorl; a street associated with the Building W-101: a spindle whorl; extension of the street associated with Building W-101: a spindle whorl (Banks 2013, 194–199). 47 There are almost no finds of spindle whorls in EH burials which may suggest that these kinds of objects were not gender- or status-related during this period and were not put in the graves to underline gender and the social or economic status of the deceased. Cf. the Middle Helladic spindle whorls at Lerna from the graves of males, females and children, even if it is difficult to understand what their functions were: Banks 1967, 513–519, 544–555, artefacts nos. 1404 (L6.71): male, 1431 (L2.2): female, 1434 (L4.120): female, 1447 (L6.64): male, 1444 (L6.19): a 4-yearold girl. 48 Pullen suggests that the spindle whorls found in House A were used by women who participated in communal feasting preparations (Pullen 2011, 199). Even if it is probable, there is virtually no archaeological evidence to support this hypothesis.

Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece

33

before, during the EH II period, spindle whorls show certain uniformity of types (hemispherical) and weights (very heavy dominating) so that we may speak of standardisation of their production. We could investigate this issue further and deliberate whether the homogeneity of spinning implements resulted from a wish to obtain uniformity of the final products, i.e. yarns and consequently textiles, and how far their production and distribution was controlled by the local communities and/or elites. Heavy and very heavy spindle whorls may have been used to produce coarse threads or to make plied or cabled yarns, i.e. twisting two or more threads together to form a stronger yarn. Such thick yarns may be used for weaving outdoor cloths or domestic and other textiles, such as blankets, rugs49 or maybe even sail cloth.50 The question arises as to whether these kinds of textiles were particularly in demand during this period, e.g. they were produced for exchange. Since we also know that small and light spindle whorls and rounded, pierced potsherds, possibly used as spindle whorls, also occurred in the EH period, it seems certain that finer and thinner threads were manufactured as well; however, the heavy spinning tools clearly dominated.51

Weaving During the EBA, the warp-weighted loom was undoubtedly used in Greece since loom-weights made of clay are found at many sites. Other types of looms, such as ground, horizontal, backstrap, rigid heddle looms, weaving frames and others, might also have been known, but virtually no archaeological evidence of them has survived.52 As far as we can deduce from the archaeological data, no specialised weaving workshops were preserved at the EH sites. Only occasionally do we come across remains of potential looms from which loom-weights were uncovered in small concentrations. Only sporadically do preserved postholes also suggest the presence of a warp-weighted loom, especially in relation to the discovered loom-weights (e.g. Lerna Room DM discussed below).53 In the already mentioned example from Tiryns, several clay cylinders with three lengthwise perforations were uncovered very close to a wall in the clearly domestic context of Room 143.54 Other potential weaving tools, such as a large, conical loom-weight and crescent-shaped loom-weights, came to light in the other rooms of the same complex but always as single finds. Therefore, it seems probable that in this house complex some textile activities were performed in domestic and/ or working area(s); however, we do not know what production mode and range they may represent: whether it was, for example, a household-based production or perhaps an individual/home industry. The latter could be true because the house complex was very large and its size comparable to the

49

Carington Smith 1992, 680. There is only an indirect (iconographic) evidence for sailcloth use in EBA Greece, such as the Early Minoan III seals depicting ships with raised masts from Palaiokastro and Adromyloi (Shaw – Chapin 2016b, 152–153). However, it seems probable that sails were manufactured as early as the 3rd millennium BCE. To weave linen (and woolen) sailcloth on a warp-weighted loom, heavy and thick loom-weights must have been used. Cf. Andersson 1999, 12–13 on sailcloth production in the Viking period: sailcloth was made then mainly of wool, prepared and spun by skilful spinners, and woven on looms tensed with heavy loom-weights (500g and more). The Viking age production of sailcloth required substantial amounts of raw material, was time consuming, and most probably required some form of organised production, and presumably the same occurred in BA Greece. 51 Siennicka 2012, 72. 52 Carington Smith 1975, 87–90. On ’invisible’ textile tools and looms see Ulanowska 2018 and Andersson Strand 2018. 53 A well-known example of loom-weights discovered in rows in combination with postholes possibly from a wooden loom came to light in Room 206 in Troy IIg (Blegen et al. 1950, 350, fig. 333–334, pl. 461). On a similar interpretation of the loom-weights and postholes found together in the EBA House A at Kastanas in Macedonia see Aslanis 1985, 49–51, fig. 23–24. 54 Kilian 1981, 189, fig. 45. 50

34

Małgorzata Siennicka

House of the Tiles at Lerna55 and therefore we could expect – even if it is not directly confirmed by archaeological finds – that in such a large compound, items, in this case textiles, were produced which extended beyond the individual needs of the household’s members. Interestingly, no spindle whorls came to light here so we may assume that only weavers worked there.56 At Lerna we come across two important cases of weaving activities during EH II (Phase C). In Room CA of the House CA, which served both as a storeroom of household goods (mainly pottery) and for food preparation and cooking, a clay spindle whorl and two clay loom-weights – one with clearly visible wear traces – were found on the floor.57 The uniqueness of one of the loom-weights (L4.204) lies both in its parallelepiped shape and the three circular impressions of the same seal on its sides. This kind of marking is uncommon in the Peloponnese;58 however, we know that contemporary loom-weights occasionally bore seal impressions on the Cycladic Islands,59 on Early Minoan Crete (this custom became more widespread in the Middle and Late Minoan periods60) and in Anatolia.61 It is unclear why exactly the early loom-weights were stamped and we face the same problem with the Lerna object. It might in some way have been related to the administration system of the settlement, especially since we know that sealing and administrative practices were indeed very common at Lerna. Perhaps the seal was meant to control and organise the production, in this case weaving, or, alternatively, it was made to distinguish sets of weights or was a kind of signature of the owner or producer or, perhaps, it was a protective mark.62 If the multiple impressions of a seal on the loom-weight in the room were intended to demonstrate the ownership or usage by a person involved in the administration practices, it may suggest that the process of weaving was managed, controlled or supervised by the local administration. Room DM at Lerna dating to the EH II Phase C contained potential remains of a loom. In the floor of the room, two groups of three and four postholes respectively came to light; however, neither of them formed rows but instead were placed in a rather irregular way.63 The group of three postholes64 was found along a badly preserved stone-and-brick wall, while to its south, two almost identical clay loom-weights were discovered (Fig. 2).65 Moreover, a typical hemispherical

55

Kilian 1981, 189. Spatial distribution of textile tools at Archontiko in western Macedonia revealed that there was a clear division of labour in the EBA settlement and spinning and weaving were performed in different places: Papadopoulou 2012, 61. 57 One loom-weight (L5.386) was a typical EH cylinder with two lengthwise perforations and weighed c. 293g. It has visible use wear traces around the holes, most probably caused by hanging it parallel to the ground on the additional string attached to the warp threads or directly on the warp threads (cf. Carington Smith 1975, 219, fig. 33a). The basic form of the second loom-weight (L4.204) was a parallelepiped with two lengthwise holes. It weighed c. 120g (Banks 1967, 565–566; Wiencke 2000, 136). It was stamped with a small seal probably with a tripartite or C-spiral design (Wiencke 1969, 508, S 84, pls. 129, 191; Aruz 2008, 25). 58 Cf. Banks 1967, 569–570. 59 Several parallelepiped loom-weights with single seal impressions were discovered in the Early Cycladic II settlement at Skarkos on Ios. This may be the closest parallel to the Lerna sealed loom-weight: Marthari 2004. 60 Loom-weights from EBA Crete with seal impressions come from Palaikastro (House d32, House x, possibly Street 5) and perhaps Mallia (Quartier Mu): Relaki 2009, tab. 1; cf. Burke 2010, 61. On Minoan seal impressions on loomweights see also Carington Smith 1975, 275–297; Müller 1999, 380–389; Burke 2010, 43–63. 61 At EBA Tarsus, tear-shaped and conoid loom-weights with seal impressions were found together in Room 94 with unstamped examples: Goldman 1956, 240 N 1–7, 319, fig. 395, 441. 62 Aruz 1994, 215; Militello 2007, 41; Relaki 2009, 364–368; cf. Carington Smith 1975, 295; Burke 2010, 43–44; Rahmstorf 2015, 7. 63 According to Wiencke, the postholes belong to the EH II levels, but it is also possible that they were made by the later inhabitants of Lerna IV (EH III): Wiencke 2000, 140–141. 64 The diameters of the three postholes were 0.12–0.16m and they still held a carbonised stick and a chert blade. Wiencke suggested two interpretations of the postholes: remains of a loom or a support for pottery found in large amounts in the room: Wiencke 2000, 140–142, plan 26. 65 Clay cylindrical loom-weights L5.789 and L5.790 with two lengthwise perforations were found together on the floor. They were made of almost identical clay and were shaped and poorly dried in a very similar way. Both weighed c. 320g and preserved possible use wear traces around the holes: cf. Banks 1967, 566. 56

Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece

35

Fig. 2   Room DM at EH II Lerna with postholes and textile tools found in situ (after Wiencke 2000, plan 26; photo M. Siennicka)

clay spindle whorl66 and some bone tools possibly used in leatherworking67 were also found there. Because of a large number of pieces of pottery of various character (table ware, vessels for mixing or serving, cooking and storing of grain), as well as potters’ marks on some of the vessels and finally the presence of clay sealings in the room, either connected with pithoi or packages wrapped in matting or reeds,68 Room DM seems to have been involved in the economic and administrative system of the settlement with some degree of specialisation taking place there, such as weaving,

66

The spindle whorl L5.863 was a ’classical’ EH hemispherical whorl and weighed 102g: Banks 1967, 489, 539; Wiencke 2000, 142–144. 67 Bone awls: Wiencke 2000, 142–144. 68 Wiencke 1969, 502–508; Wiencke 2000, 143–144.

36

Małgorzata Siennicka

leatherworking, bronzeworking, pithos making and other craft activities.69 Weaving might have been practised either on a household basis or on an individual industry basis if we take under consideration the multifunctional character of this compound. As a general rule, loom-weights are not particularly common finds in EBA Greek sites in comparison to spindle whorls. This may be caused by the poor state of preservation of barely baked or sun-dried objects that may have disintegrated in soil or are difficult to recognise in the archaeological material. Moreover, the small number of loom-weights found together that could be interpreted as weaving sets causes a real difficulty in the reconstruction of textiles potentially woven in prehistoric Greece.70 On the other hand, even if frequently discovered as isolated finds, the variety of loom-weights – with regard to their forms, dimensions and weights – found at the same sites may suggest that the EH weavers were very skilled and experienced. They knew varied techniques and weaves and could have manufactured a wide range of textiles using different types of loom-weights: from fine and open to dense and coarse fabrics, made on warp-weighted looms or even with tablets. Presumably, tabby (also called plain weave) was the most common weave in the Bronze Age and the imprints of tabby textiles are uncovered sporadically on EH clay sealings,71 vessels72 and roof tiles.73 In addition, twill might also have been known as finds of crescent-shaped loom-weights from Tiryns and other Aegean sites suggest.74 This particular type of loom-weight occurred in EBA Anatolia and it seems very probable that the objects found in the Aegean arrived from this direction together with the new weaving technology.75 The crescent-shaped loom-weights from EBA and MBA Anatolia have recently been studied and discussed by A. W. Lassen who suggested that they could produce twill, i.e. a diagonal weave,76 which is more flexible and complex than tabby. Nevertheless, direct evidence for twill textiles from EBA Greece and Anatolia is still absent.

Organisation of textile production After an overview of spinning and weaving activities in the EH settlements, the potential modes of production in EH Greece will be briefly discussed. The organisation and specialisation of production in prehistoric and later periods have been discussed by several scholars, primarily based on the archaeological remnants of working tools and areas.77 Altogether, we can pinpoint four main modes of production: 1. household-based manufacture, 2. household or individual industry, 3. independent specialisation and non-household organised workshops and, 4. attached specialised production and workshops controlled by authorised elites.

69

Wiencke 2000, 143. On reconstructions of woven fabrics based on loom-weights see, e.g., Mårtensson et al. 2009. 71 Textile impression on a clay sealing came to light at Geraki (Vogelsang-Eastwood 1999, 371–374, figs. 20–22; Weingarten 2000, 321–322, figs. 9–10). 72 Textile imprints appear on the surfaces of vessels, such as at EH Tsoungiza (Pullen 2011, 615, fig. 8.10) or inside the walls of a pot, such as the impression of fine cloth inserted between layers of clay into the walls of a vessel at Neolithic Kephala on Keos, which was probably added to strengthen the vessel (Carington Smith 1977, 82, 93, 114–118, pls. 90, 167, 201, 213). 73 Pullen 2011, 616, fig. 8.11. 74 As many as nine crescent-shaped objects came to light in various EH II–III contexts at Tiryns (Siennicka 2012, 70–71, pl. XXV h). Single items are reported also from EH Geraki in Laconia (Crouwel et al. 2007, 6–9, fig. 4, pl. II) and from EBA Thermi on Lesbos (Lamb 1936, 159, pl. XXIV, no. 31.61). Another potential loom-weight of a similar type (rather a semicircle than a crescent) has been discovered in Kastri on Syros. It is exhibited in the Archaeological Museum of Syros, but according to my knowledge it has never been published. 75 Crescent-shaped objects were discovered, e.g., at EBA Demircihüyük: Obladen-Kauder 1996, 238–239, figs. 164, 165 (VI), 168, colour pl. I. On the cultural influence of Anatolia on the Aegean during late EH II and beginning of EH III see cf. Rahmstorf 2006, 49–96, especially p. 50. 76 Lassen 2013; Lassen 2015, see also Firth 2012, 135–137. 77 On various modes of prehistoric production see, e.g. Tournavitou 1988; Costin 1991; Andersson 2007; Andersson Strand 2011, fig. 1; Brysbaert 2014; Ulanowska – Siennicka 2018a; Ulanowska – Siennicka 2019. 70

Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece

37

More specifically, the household-based manufacture covered the needs of a household, the raw materials were available to the producers who possessed the necessary skills to manufacture their daily products and who did not spend their entire time on making textiles. The next level, household or individual industry, can be characterised by a greater scale of production that exceeded the needs of the household members. While it was still organised at a domestic level, there was a surplus of raw materials and half-finished or finished products which were further distributed within the community or even to distant areas. Yet the producers did not work fulltime on textile production. We might expect a certain specialisation in the manufacturing, for example, a focussing on particular types of threads or woven textiles in the individual working areas in the households. The third level, independent specialisation and non-household organised workshops, relates to multi-craft workshops, characteristic of Middle and Late Bronze craftsmanship but possibly occurring already before palatial times. Finally, attached specialised production was directly controlled by palaces or other authorised elites mainly in the Middle and Late Bronze. In the last two cases we would expect fulltime work of at least partly professional craftspeople, specialisation of working tools and workshop features as well as standardised products of high quality and in large quantities. The chaîne opératoire of textile production was entirely or to a great degree controlled by and dependent on the palatial economies. As for EBA Greece, it seems that household-based manufacture and house or individual industry played the main role. Both in the case of spinning and weaving, there are no traces of attached specialised production or expert workshops and even identification of working areas, where spinning and weaving occurred on a regular basis, causes problems. From the archaeological and ethnographical evidence, it seems likely that the making of yarn and fabrics was a common activity in the settlements and they were possibly practised by many people of different age, gender78 and social or economic status. In some cases, such as at Lerna Rooms CA and DM, the evidence for some sort of control over the tools and/or weaving practices is visible in the form of a sealed loom-weight or clay sealings present in the room. Despite our limited knowledge of the organisation of textile production at the domestic or intra-site level, the number and diversity of textile tools suggest that already during the EBA this craft was essential for the economic development of the society. There is no evidence that, as in the Mycenaean times or Bronze Age Near East, EBA Greek textile production was centrally organised and administered, and depended on regular supplies and distribution of material, semi-products, products and tools, but it is possible that at prominent sites with monumental architecture and evidence of administration practice, such as Tiryns, Lerna, Zygouries, Tsoungiza, Akovitika, Eutresis and Kolonna, textile manufacture became an important part of the economy and considerably affected the economic and social development of the societies. Woven textiles may have been distributed, traded or exchanged with other communities or even distant places, as is known from the Near East.79

It is very difficult to define the gender of textile producers in the EH settlements based only on single implements found in multifunctional spaces. As mentioned previously, both spinning and weaving at the individual (home) level could have been performed by women, men and children. EBA women may have been the main producers of yarns and textiles, but there is no direct evidence for that. A different picture arises from the epigraphic documents, mainly letters and payment lists, coming from the contemporary Near East and Egypt as well as from Late Bronze Age Greece. It can be clearly seen that in the cases where textile production was centrally organised and belonged to the main palatial industries, it was dominated by female workers. Also in private letters, women are mentioned in relation to weaving. Men were sporadically occupied in textile industries and then they worked as qualified craftspeople mainly at supervising and finishing the textiles or cloths. On women in the EBA and MBA Near Eastern and Egyptian textile production see, e.g. Dalley 1977; Fischer 1989, 16–17; Van de Mieroop 1989, 55–56, 62, 64. On women and children in the Mycenaean textile industries see Nosch 2001, 41–43; Nosch 2003; Cutler 2012, 150–152. For ‘women’s work’ and textile production see Barber 1991, Chapter 13, 283–298. 79 On one of the most famous group of texts regarding the trading of textiles coming from the Anatolian city Karum Kaneš (modern Kültepe) see, e.g. Michel – Veenhof 2010. 78

38

Małgorzata Siennicka

A reminder of the significance of textile manufacturing may possibly be seen in clay sealings depicting spiders found at Tiryns, Lerna and Asine.80 They may represent weavers or more generally textile production.81 Moreover, as they were probably meant to protect various containers or even the entire rooms, one could imagine that, among other things, raw materials, such as flax and/or wool and hair, fibres prepared for spinning, spun threads, textile tools or maybe woven and finished textiles waiting for distribution were kept in the containers or rooms.

Conclusions The aim of the paper was to trace the evidence of textile craftspeople and to discuss some aspects of textile craftsmanship in EBA Greece, especially spinning and weaving, as well as organisation of textile production. Despite many restrictions caused both by the archaeological material itself and the lack of iconographic and textual evidence, it is still possible to reconstruct to a certain degree the way in which the manufacturing of textiles was organised and practised in the EH settlements. According to the data presently available, there is no direct evidence for specialised workshops for making textile tools, however some implements dating from EH II seem to be standardised and, as such, they may have been produced by expert (potters’?) workshops and locally or broadly distributed. On the other hand, the majority of textile tools from other periods were home-made according to the current needs of the users. As far as yarn preparation (spinning) is concerned, several working areas can be distinguished within EH buildings within both domestic and non-domestic contexts, with household-based manufacture predominating. The wide range of shapes and dimensions of commonly found spindle whorls suggests that the EH spinners were skilled and able to produce varied yarns, from very fine to coarse, and they probably used different spindle whorls for specific uses and different fibres, such as plant or animal fibres. The co-occurrence of similar spindle whorls in the same compounds, as the examples from Tsoungiza demonstrate, suggests that there was a sort of specialisation of yarn production in the individual households and, in these cases, we may assume an individual or household industry production mode. Weaving was performed mainly in domestic contexts, as the evidence of loom-weights demonstrates; however, more organised manufacturing, especially during EH II, cannot be ruled out. The evidence for this can be found at Lerna where a loom-weight with seal impressions and the potential remains of a loom in a building with clay sealings came to light. Nevertheless, the general poor quality of loom weights and their great diversity in spite of some similar features such as shapes and masses suggest that weaving was mainly a domestic and non-specialised occupation at those times. Textile production played an important role in the socio-economic life of EBA societies. The manufacture of fabrics and cloths as well as the use of plant and animal fibres may have been at least partly controlled by the EH chiefdoms, as was the case in the contemporary Near East. Textile implements, techniques and fibres could have been introduced and/or imported from distant areas, for example from Anatolia as finds of crescent-shaped loom-weights suggest. The evidence for EBA textile craftspeople is still vague but with the recently growing interest in textile production in the Aegean and new systematic and detailed publications about textile implements in relation to the find contexts, we are constantly improving our knowledge about this socially and economically important craft.

80

Sealings S4, S5, possibly S6 and S61 from Lerna (Heath 1958, pls. 20, 22; Pini 1975, cat. nos. 57–58, 115). From Tiryns: Kilian 1982, 424, fig. 47 (a depiction of a scorpion or a spider). From Asine: Pini 1975, cat. no. 519. 81 Aruz 1994, 220, figs. 24–29; Aruz 2008, 27. On a different interpretation of a spider on the sealings see Maran – Kostoula 2014, 154.

Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece

39

Acknowledgments: I would like to warmly thank Kalliope Sarri and Louise Quillien for inviting me to the ‘Textile workers’ workshop and the participants of the workshop for their valuable comments and remarks on my paper. My research on textile tools from Tiryns, Lerna, Tsoungiza, Korakou, Zygouries and Kolonna was possible due to permissions granted by the Greek Ministry of Culture (Δ’ ΕΠΚΑ, ΛΖ’ ΕΠΚΑ and ΚΣΤ’ ΕΠΚΑ), the German Archaeological Institute and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. I am very grateful to the directors and staff of the archaeological museums in Argos, Nemea, Corinth and Kolonna on Aegina for their kind help and support during my studies. I would like to express my gratitude to Joseph Maran for granting me permission for research on the Bronze Age textile tools from Tiryns and to Elizabeth Banks for providing me with fragments of an unpublished manuscript on the small finds from Lerna. I cordially thank Kalliope Sarri, Maria Kostoula and Pernille Bangsgaard for discussing with me some interesting aspects of the Neolithic textile tools, clay treatment in the EBA and faunal remains from EBA Tsoungiza. I am grateful to Eva Andersson Strand for discussing with me various issues regarding spinning and weaving, for example making of sailcloths. This paper was written during my Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship at the Centre for Textile Research in Copenhagen in 2016. The research is based on the project ‘Greek Textile Tools. Continuity and changes in textile production in Early Bronze Age Greece’, which has received funding from the European Union’s Marie Curie Actions (Intra-European Fellowship FP7-PEOPLE-2012-IEFPIEF-GA-2012-329910). Agata Ulanowska and Lorenz Rahmstorf were kind enough to read the first draft and provided valuable comments on it. I also thank Paul Barford for improving my English text.

References Andersson 1999 E. Andersson, The Common Thread, Textile Production during the Late Iron Age – Viking Age, University of Lund, Institute of Archaeology Report Series 67 (Lund 1999). Andersson 2007 E. B. Andersson, Engendering central places. Some aspects of the organisation of textile production during the Viking Age, in: A. Rast-Eicher – R. Windler (eds.), Archäologische Textilfunde – Archaeological Textiles, NESAT IX. Nord­europäisches Symposium für archäologische Textilien / North European Symposium for Archaeological Textiles, Braunwald 18–20. Mai 2005 (Ennenda 2007) 148–153. Andersson Strand 2011 E. Andersson Strand, Tools and textiles – production and organisation in Birka and Hedeby, in: S. Sigmundsson (ed.), Viking Settlements and Viking Society. Papers from the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Viking Congress, Reykjavík and Reykholt, 16th–23rd August 2009 (Reykjavík 2011) 11–17. Andersson Strand 2018 E. Andersson Strand, Early loom types in ancient societies, in: Siennicka et al. 2018, 17–29. Andersson Strand – Nosch 2015 E. Andersson Strand – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Tools, Textiles and Contexts. Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age, Ancient Textiles Series 21 (Oxford, Philadelphia 2015). Aruz 1994 J. Aruz, Seal imagery and sealing practices in the early Aegean world, in: P. Ferioli – E. Fiandra – G. G. Fissore – M. Frangipane (eds.), Archives Before Writing. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Oriolo Romano, October 23–25, 1991 (Rome 1994) 211–235. Aruz 2008 J. Aruz, Marks of Distinction. Seals and Cultural Exchange between the Aegean and the Orient (ca. 2600–1360 B.C.), Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel Beiheft 7 (Mainz am Rhein 2008). Aslanis 1985 I. Aslanis, Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die frühbronzezeitlichen Funde und Befunde, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 4 (Berlin 1985). Banks 1967 E. Banks, The Early and Middle Helladic Small Objects from Lerna (PhD Diss., University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati 1967). Banks 2013 E. C. Banks, The Settlement and Architecture of Lerna IV, Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid Vol. VI (Princeton 2013).

40

Małgorzata Siennicka

Banks in press E. C. Banks, The Small Objects, Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid (in press). Barber 1991 E. J. W. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean (Princeton 1991). Bintliff 2012 J. Bintliff, The Complete Archaeology of Greece. From Hunter-Gatherers to the 20th Century AD (Oxford, Chichester 2012). Blegen et al. 1950 C. W. Blegen – J. L. Caskey – M. Rawson – J. Sperling (eds.), Troy. General Introduction. The First and Second Settlements (Princeton 1950). Brysbaert 2014 A. Brysbaert, Talking shop. Multicraft workshop materials and architecture in prehistoric Tiryns, Greece, in: K. Rebay-Salisbury – A. Brysbaert – L. Foxhall (eds.), Material Crossovers. Knowledge Networks and the Movement of Technological Knowledge between Craft Traditions (London 2014) 37–61. Burke 2010 B. Burke, From Minos to Midas. Ancient Cloth Production in the Aegean and in Anatolia, Ancient Textiles Series 7 (Oxford, Oakville 2010). Carington Smith 1975 J. Carington Smith, Spinning, Weaving and Textile Manufacture in Prehistoric Greece from the Beginning of the Neolithic to the End of the Mycenaean Ages with Particular Reference to the Evidence Found on Archaeological Excavations (PhD Diss., University of Tasmania, Hobart 1975). Carington Smith 1977 J. Carington Smith, Appendix 2. Cloth and mat impressions, in: J. E. Coleman (ed.), Kephala. A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery, Keos I (Princeton 1977) 114–127. Carington Smith 1992 J. Carington Smith, Spinning and weaving equipment, in: W. A. McDonald – N. C. Wilkie (eds.), Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Volume II: The Bronze Age Occupation (Minneapolis 1992) 674–711. Chadwick 1973 J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 2nd edition (Cambridge 1973). Costin 1991 C. L. Costin, Craft specialisation. Issues in defining, documenting and explaining the organisation of production, Archaeology, Method and Theory 3, 1991, 1–56. Crouwel et al. 2007 J. Crouwel – M. Prent – D. G. J. Shipley, Geraki. An acropolis site in Lakonia. Preliminary report on the thirteenth season (2007), Pharos 15, 2007, 1–16. Crowfoot 1931 G. M. Crowfoot, Methods of Hand Spinning in Egypt and the Sudan, Bankfield Museum Notes, Second series 12 (Halifax 1931). Cutler 2012 J. Cutler, Ariadne’s thread. The adoption of Cretan weaving technology in the wider southern Aegean in the mid-second millennium BC, in: Nosch – Laffineur 2012, 145–154. Dalley 1977 S. Dalley, Old Babylonian trade in textiles at Tell al Rim, Iraq 39, 2, 1977, 155–159. Elster 2003 E. S. Elster, Tools of the spinner, weaver, and mat maker, in: E. S. Elster – C. Renfrew (eds.), Prehistoric Sitagroi. Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968–1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report, Monumenta Archaeologica 20 (Los Angeles 2003) 229–282.

Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece

41

Firth 2012 R. J. Firth, The textile tools of Demircihüyük, in: Nosch – Laffineur 2012, 131–138. Fischer 1989 H. G. Fischer, Women in the Old Kingdom and the Heracleopolitan period, in: B. S. Lesko, Women’s Earliest Records. From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East. Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5 –7, 1987, Brown Judaic Studies 116 (Atlanta 1989) 5–30. Gleba – Mannering 2012 M. Gleba – U. Mannering (eds.), Textiles and Textile Production in Europe. From Prehistory to AD 400, Ancient Textile Series 11 (Oxford, Oakville 2012). Goldman 1956 H. Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age (Princeton, New Jersey 1956). Grömer 2016 K. Grömer, The Art of Prehistoric Textile Making. The Development of Craft traditions and Clothing in Central Europe, Veröffentlichungen der Prähistorischen Abteilung 5 (Vienna 2016). Heath 1958 M. C. Heath, Early Helladic clay sealings from the House of the Tiles at Lerna, Hesperia 27, 2, 1958, 81–121. Jones 2015 B. Jones, Ariadne’s Threads. The Construction and Significance of Clothes in the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 38 (Leuven, Liège 2015). Kilian 1981 K. Kilian, Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1978. 1979. Bericht zu den Grabungen, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1981, 149–194. Kilian 1982 K. Kilian, Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1980. Bericht zu den Grabungen, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1982, 393–430. Kilian 1983 K. Kilian, Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1981. Bericht zu den Grabungen, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1983, 277–328. Killen 1984 J. T. Killen, The textile industries at Pylos and Knossos, in: C. W. Shelmerdine – T. G. Palaima (eds.), Pylos Comes Alive. Industry and Administration in a Mycenaean Palace (New York 1984). Killen 2007 J. T. Killen, Cloth production in Late Bronze Age Greece. The documentary evidence, in: C. Gillis – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles. Production, Craft and Society, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19–23 2003, Ancient Textiles Series 1 (Oxford 2007) 50–58. Lamb 1936 W. Lamb, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (Cambridge 1936). Lassen 2013 A. W. Lassen, Technology and palace economy in Middle Bronze Age Anatolia. The case of the crescent shaped loom weight, in: M.-L. Nosch – H. Koefoed – E. Andersson Strand (eds.), Textile Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East. Archaeology, Epigraphy, Iconography, Ancient Textiles Series 12 (Oxford, Oakville 2013) 78–92. Lassen 2015 A. W. Lassen, Weaving with crescent shaped loom weights. An investigation of a special kind of loom weight, in: E. Andersson Strand – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Tools, Textiles and Contexts. Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age, Ancient Textiles Series 21 (Oxford, Philadelphia 2015) 127–137. Maran – Kostoula 2014 J. Maran – M. Kostoula, The spider’s web. Innovation and society in the Early Helladic ‘Period of the Corridor Houses’, in: Y. Galanakis – T. Wilkinson – J. Bennet (eds.), Αθύρματα. Critical Essays on the Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honour of E. Susan Sherratt (Oxford 2014) 141–158.

42

Małgorzata Siennicka

Maran et al. 2019 J. Maran – A. Papadimitriou – T. Birndorfer – S. Khamnueva – H.-R. Bork – I. Unkel – H. Kroll, Tiryns, Griechenland. Die Arbeiten der Jahre 2015 bis 2018, e-Forschungsberichte des DAI 2019. Online (last accessed 5 March 2019). Mårtensson et al. 2009 L. Mårtensson – M.-L. Nosch – E. Andersson Strand, Shape of things. Understanding a loom weight, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28, 4, 2009, 373–398. Marthari 2004 M. Marthari, Ios, Skarkos, in: I. Pini (ed.), Kleinere Griechische Sammlungen. Neufunde aus Griechenland und der westlichen Türkei. Ägina – Mykonos, Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel V, Supplementum 3, 1 (Mainz 2004) 281–289. Michel – Nosch 2010 C. Michel – M.-L. Nosch, Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Ancient Textiles Series 8 (Oxford, Oakville 2010). Michel – Veenhof 2010 C. Michel – K. R. Veenhof, The textiles traded by the Assyrians in Anatolia (19th–18th centuries BC), in: Michel – Nosch 2010, 210–271. Militello 2007 P. Militello, Textile industry and Minoan palaces, in: C. Gillis – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles. Production, Craft and Society, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19–23 2003, Ancient Textiles Series 1 (Oxford 2007) 36–45. Militello 2012 P. Militello, Textiles activity in Neolithic Crete. The evidence from Phaistos, in: Nosch – Laffineur 2012, 199–206. Müller 1999 W. Müller, Die Tonplomben und andere gestempelte Tonobjekte, in: N. Platon – W. Müller – I. Pini (eds.), Iraklion. Archäologisches Museum. Die Siegelabdrücke von Aj. Triada und anderen zentral- und ostkretischen Fundorten, Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel 2, 6 (Berlin 1999) 339–519. Nosch 2001 M.-L. B. Nosch, Kinderarbeit in der mykenischen Palastzeit, in: F. Blakolmer – H. D. Szemethy (eds.), Akten des 8. Österreichischen Archäologentages am Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Wien vom 23. bis 25. April 1999, Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie 4 (Wien 2001) 37–43. Nosch 2003 M.-L. B. Nosch, The women at work in the Linear B tablets, in: L. Larsson Lovén – A. Strömberg (eds.), Gender, Cult, and Culture in the Ancient World from Mycenae to Byzantium. Proceedings of the Second Nordic Symposium on Gender and Women’s History in Antiquity, Helsinki, 20–22 October 2000, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. Pocket book 166 (Sävedalen 2003) 12–26. Nosch 2011 M.-L. Nosch, The Mycenaean administration of textile production in the Palace of Knossos. Observations on the Lc(1) textile targets, American Journal of Archaeology 115, 2011, 495–505. Nosch 2012 M.-L. Nosch, From texts to textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age, in: Nosch – Laffineur 2012, 43–53. Nosch – Laffineur 2012 M.-L. Nosch – R. Laffineur (eds.), Kosmos. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference, 21–26 April 2010, Aegaeum 33 (Leuven, Liege 2012). Obladen-Kauder 1996 J. Obladen-Kauder, Die Kleinfunde aus Ton, Knochen und Metall, in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978. Vol. IV Die Kleinfunde (Mainz 1996) 211–321. Papadopoulou 2012 E. Papadopoulou, Textile technology in northern Greece. Evidence for a domestic craft industry from Early Bronze Age Archontiko, in: Nosch – Laffineur 2012, 57–63.

Craftspeople, Craftsmanship and Textile Production in Early Bronze Age Greece

43

Pini 1975 I. Pini (ed.), Kleinere griechische Sammlungen. Teil 1–2, Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel V (Berlin 1975). Pullen 2011 D. J. Pullen, The Early Bronze Age Village on Tsoungiza Hill, Nemea Valley Archaeological Project 1 (Princeton, New Jersey 2011). Rahmstorf 2006 L. Rahmstorf, Zur Ausbreitung vorderasiatischer Innovationen in die frühbronzezeitliche Ägäis, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 81, 2006, 49–96. Rahmstorf 2008 L. Rahmstorf, Kleinfunde aus Tiryns. Terrakotta, Stein, Bein und Glas/Fayence vornehmlich aus der Spätbronzezeit, Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte XVI (Wiesbaden 2008). Rahmstorf 2015 L. Rahmstorf, An introduction to the investigation of archaeological textile tools, in: E. Andersson Strand – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Tools, Textiles and Contexts. Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age, Ancient Textiles Series 21 (Oxford, Philadelphia 2015) 1–23. Relaki 2009 M. Relaki, Rethinking administration and seal use in third millennium Crete, Creta Antica 10, II, 2009, 353–372. Rutter 1993 J. B. Rutter, Review of Aegean prehistory II. The prepalatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek mainland, American Journal of Archaeology 97, 1993, 745–797. Shaw – Chapin 2016a M. C. Shaw – A. P. Chapin, Woven Threads. Patterned Textiles of the Aegean Bronze Age, Ancient Textiles Series 22 (Oxford, Philadelphia 2016). Shaw – Chapin 2016b M. C. Shaw – A. P. Chapin, Sailing the shining sea. Maritime textiles of the Bronze Age Aegean, in: M. C. Shaw – A. P. Chapin, Woven Threads. Patterned Textiles of the Aegean Bronze Age, Ancient Textiles Series 22 (Oxford, Philadelphia 2016) 149–181. Siennicka 2012 M. Siennicka, Textile production in Early Helladic Tiryns, in: Nosch – Laffineur 2012, 65–75. Siennicka 2014 M. Siennicka, Changes in textile production in Late Bronze Age Tiryns, Greece, in: K. Dross-Krüpe (ed.), Textile Trade and Distribution in Antiquity / Textilhandel und -distribution in der Antike, Philippika 73 (Wiesbaden 2014) 161–176. Siennicka – Ulanowska 2016 M. Siennicka – A. Ulanowska, So simple yet universal. Contextual and experimental approach to clay ‘spools’ from Bronze Age Greece, in: J. Ortiz – C. Alfaro – L. Turell – M. J. Martínez (eds.), Textiles, Basketry and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World / Textiles, Cestería y Tintes en el mundo mediterráneo antiguo. Proceedings of Vth International Symposium on Textiles and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Montserrat, 19–22 March, 2014), Purpureae Vestes V (València 2016) 25–36. Siennicka et al. 2018 M. Siennicka – L. Rahmstorf – A. Ulanowska (eds.), First Textiles. The Beginnings of Textile Manufacture in Europe and the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the EAA Session Held in Istanbul (2014) and the ‘First Textiles’ Conference in Copenhagen (2015), Ancient Textiles Series 32 (Oxford, Philadelphia 2018). Tournavitou 1988 I. Tournavitou, Towards an identification of a workshop space, in: E. B. French – K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory (Bristol 1988) 447–467. Tzavella-Evjen 1984 Χ. Τζαβέλλα-Evjen, Λιθαρές (Athens 1984).

44

Małgorzata Siennicka

Ulanowska 2018 A. Ulanowska, In search of ‘invisible’ textile tools and techniques of band weaving in the Bronze Age Aegean, in: Siennicka et al. 2018, 201–212. Ulanowska – Siennicka 2018a A. Ulanowska – M. Siennicka, The economics of textiles in Bronze Age Greece, in: M. S. Busana – M. Gleba – F. Meo – A. R. Tricomi (eds.), Textiles and Dyes in the Mediterranean Economy and Society. Proceedings of the VIth International Symposium on Textiles and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Padova – Este – Altino, Italy 17–20 October 2016), Purpureae Vestes VI, Valencia, 39–48. Ulanowska – Siennicka 2018b A. Ulanowska – M. Siennicka (eds.), Tradition and Innovation in Textile Technology in Bronze Age Europe and the Mediterranean, Światowit LVI/2017, 2018. Online (last accessed 8 July 2019). Ulanowska – Siennicka 2019 A. Ulanowska – M. Siennicka, Transmission of practice, transmission of knowledge. Dynamics of textile production in the Bronze Age Aegean, in: E. Borgna – I. Caloi – F. M. Carinci – R. Laffineur (eds.), Μνεμε / Mneme. Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference, University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, 17–21 April 2018, Aegaeum 43 (Leuven, Liège 2019) 753–757. Ulanowska et al. 2018 A. Ulanowska – M. Siennicka – M. Grupa (eds.), Dynamics and Organisation of Textile Production in Past Societies in Europe and the Mediterranean, Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae XXXI, 2018. Online (last accessed 8.07.2019). Van de Mieroop 1989 M. Van de Mieroop, Women in the economy of Sumer, in: B. S. Lesko (ed.), Women’s Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East. Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5–7, 1987, Brown Judaic Studies 116 (Atlanta 1989) 53–66. Vogelsang-Eastwood 1999 G. Vogelsang-Eastwood, The textile impressions from Geraki, contribution in: J. Weingarten – J. H. Crouwel – M. Prent – G. Vogelsang-Eastwood, Early Helladic Sealings from Geraki in Lakonia, Greece, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 4, 1999, 371–374. Walter – Felten 1981 H. Walter – F. Felten, Die vorgeschichtliche Stadt. Befestigungen – Häuser – Funde, Alt-Ägina III, 1 (Mainz 1981). Weingarten 2000 J. Weingarten, Early Helladic II sealings from Geraki in Lakonia. Evidence for property, textile manufacture, and trade, in: W. Müller (ed.), Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. Internationales Siegel-Symposium. Marburg, 23.–25. September 1999, Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel Beiheft 6 (Berlin 2000) 321–322. Weir 1970 Sh. Weir, Spinning and Weaving in Palestine (London 1970). Wiencke 1969 M. H. Wiencke, Further seals and sealings from Lerna, Hesperia 38, 4, 1969, 500–521. Wiencke 2000 M. H. Wiencke, The Architecture, Stratification, and Pottery of Lerna III, Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid Vol. IV (Princeton 2000).

Mediterranean Interconnections: Weaving Technologies during the Middle Bronze Age Luca Peyronel 1 Abstract: The use of the warp-weighted loom in Anatolia, the Aegean and Cyprus since the Early Bronze Age is attested by archaeological evidence, indicating that it was the main weaving technology in use in the area. However, the situation in the Levant during the Bronze Age was completely different: interactions between different weaving methods are known since at least the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), when loom-weights indicate the introduction of the warp-weighted loom and continued use of the traditional Syro-Mesopotamian horizontal ground-loom. The new technique of the two-beam vertical loom, later well documented by iconographic representations in Egypt, was also probably present. The distribution and types of textile implements found in the Syro-Palestinian regions also suggest that the evolution of the new loom types probably occurred in specific zones of interaction, along the southern coast, in the ‘Amuq Valley and in the Nile Delta, where the cultural and commercial relations between the Aegean, Cyprus and the Anatolian plateau were stronger. From a socio-economic perspective the presence of the warp-weighted loom in the Levant during the MBA seems to be a phenomenon mainly associated with a restricted group of craftsmen linked to palace organisation, possibly reflecting specific textile products and/or a distinct sector of the local textile industry. Keywords: Levant; Middle Bronze Age; textile manufacture; loom-weights

Fifteen years ago, Christopher Pare, taking a cue from the famous song sung by Liza Minelli, gave the title ‘Metals make the world go round’ to a Birmingham conference focussed on the role of metals in the rise of Bronze Age Europe.2 This statement was also true for the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant during the entire 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, but an appropriate title in this second case might have referred to both metals and textiles. Textual sources from Ebla, Kültepe, Mari, Ugarit, and Mycenaean centres all indicate that, together with precious and base metals, a fundamental role was played by the manufacture, exchange and consumption of textile products (mainly woollen items) in the development of local and interregional polities.3 The articulated networks of exchange of a variety of textile products based on redistribution, reciprocity and commercial systems are widely documented in written sources and it is possible to follow their development with a long-term perspective, thanks to the large amount of texts available.4 However, it is almost impossible to be sure of the exact nature of a large number of textiles mentioned in the texts (in Eblaite, Sumerian, Akkadian, Ugaritic and Linear B), and their appearance and social value thus remain hidden from our comprehension. Iconographic representations of textile-related activities (from weighing wool to weaving textiles), together with garments appearing on seals, statuettes and reliefs, provide very important data5, although the precise correspondence between terminology and visual sources is hampered by the problem of identification.6 The investigation of textile production through direct physical evidence is more difficult, due to the scarcity of textile remains in the Near East: de facto only spinning and weaving tools can be used to reconstruct the different steps of manufacture.7 Several detailed studies on textile im-

3 4 1 2

5

7 6

University of Milan, Italy; [email protected]. Pare 2000. Breniquet – Michel 2014. Perna – Pomponio 2008; Völling 2008; Michel – Nosch 2010. Several specific studies on textiles in ancient Mesopotamian written sources have been published since the seminal work by Waetzoldt (1972) dealing with the Ur III period: see, e.g., Durand 2009; Michel – Veenhof 2010 (Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian); Gaspa 2013 (Neo-Assyrian). Breniquet 2008; Breniquet 2010 mainly on Mesopotamia. E.g. Foster 2010. More data come from the Southern Levant where the climatic conditions resulted in the better preservation of textiles: see Shamir 2015.

46

Luca Peyronel

plements (especially from Levantine sites) are now available and there is growing attention on these classes of finds in the publication of excavation reports.8 It is thus possible to investigate the development of spinning and weaving methods through time, but other manufacturing steps are almost invisible in the archaeological record (fibre preparation, washing, dyeing, etc.). This contribution deals with weaving technology in the Middle Bronze Age, addressing the question of the emergence of a new type of loom – the warp-weighted loom – in the Levant.9 The overview of the Syro-Palestinian archaeological evidence – and its evaluation in comparison with the regions nearby – aims to stimulate a discussion on weaving method interactions and the possible transfer of know-how related to the new type of loom, which seems to have been introduced suddenly in the Levant at the beginning of the 2nd millennium, while in the Aegean, Cyprus and Anatolia it was used without interruption from the Neolithic onwards. Elizabeth Barber, in considering the appearance of conical loom-weights in the Southern Levant, proposed the explanation that ‘some Anatolian women moved with their families to Palestine in noticeable numbers at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, and set up housekeeping in their native fashion, which included the domestic weaving of cloth on the warp-weighted loom’.10 She also noticed that there seemed to be no trace of these weights in the area between Anatolia and Palestine, namely in Syria, suggesting therefore a rapid movement of Anatolian groups across this land or a maritime route bypassing the Northern Levant to account for the lack of Syrian loom-weights. Let us put aside this interpretation for now and ask what new evidence is available 25 years on. The answer to this is, not very much. According to published data, conical/bell-shaped weights in the Northern Levant seem to have been present only in the ‘Amuq at Tell Atchana-Alalakh and possibly at Tell Mardikh-Ebla and Hama. At Ebla, the primary role of the textile industry is well documented by the administrative texts found in the Royal Palace G (c. 2400–2300 BC) which inform us about the organisation and function of textile ateliers and finished-product circulation relating to the Early Syrian kingdom of Ebla.11 Archaeological finds (spindle-whorls and bone implements) confirm the epigraphic evidence and also show the continuity of textile production during the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000–1600 BC), when Ebla was one of the most important towns in north inner Syria.12 The extensive exposure of buildings and structures dating to the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC with a large amount of objects in situ has shown the absence of loom-weights, powerful evidence that the horizontal ground-loom was the common loom used for weaving at Ebla. The only exceptions are two possible conical terracotta weights dating to the Middle Bronze Age. These come from an area devoted to craft activities – as suggested by the presence of a kiln for clay figurines and a metalworking installation – from a level dated to the 19th century.13 The specimens are bell-shaped with a hole at the top and weigh c. 300g. Although they could be considered counter-weights, door-stops or

8



9



10

12 13 11

Cecchini 2000 (Tell Afis); Peyronel 2004; Peyronel 2007 (Tell Mardikh/Ebla); Matoïan – Vita 2009; Sauvage 2013 (Ras-Shamra/Ugarit); for Southern Levant see in particular Shamir 1996 with further bibliography. The traditional weaving system in Syro–Mesopotamia and Egypt from the Late Chalcolithic/Uruk period onwards used the horizontal ground-loom: Roth 1913, 3–14; Breniquet 2008, 135–149; the other main weaving method employed a vertical loom with warp-thread tension supplied by loom-weights (usually of clay) (Hoffmann 1964). The presence of the latter is widely documented in the Aegean and Anatolia from the 4th millennium BC, and some scholars suggest that it was introduced in the Southern Levant in the same period, although the evidence is fairly scarce and groups of possible loom-weights have been found only at Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 2008, 353–355). A vertical two-beam loom makes its appearance in Egypt during the Late Kingdom according to iconographic sources (Roth 1913, 14–18; cf. Crowfoot 1941 for a similar loom used in the Levant until recent times); however, the place of its invention is a matter of discussion since it is almost completely ‘invisible’ in the archaeological record; C. Breniquet has suggested its use also in Mesopotamia during the Early Bronze Age (2010). Barber 1991, 300. Archi 1999; Biga 2010; Pasquali 2010; Biga 2014. Peyronel 2004; Peyronel 2007; Andersson et al. 2010. Peyronel 2004, 200; Peyronel 2007, 70.

Mediterranean Interconnections: Weaving Technologies during the Middle Bronze Age

47

objects with other functions, their interpretation as loom-weights is strengthened by an experimental test carried out by the Centre for Textile Research (CTR) team and by comparisons with pieces from other contemporary Syro-Palestinian settlements. The technical evaluation shows that these loom-weights function well with thin warp threads requiring a warp tension of 10–20g.14 The possible presence at Tell Mardikh of loom-weights could be regarded as evidence of the introduction of the vertical loom in the Northern Levant at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. In this regard, the role played by the northernmost coastal Syrian centres might have been relevant, given their location in an overlap zone of interaction between the different weaving technology macro-regions of Anatolia and Syro-Mesopotamia. Therefore, a careful investigation of pertinent finds from Western Syria is fundamental for an evaluation of the hypothesis of the spread of the new kind of loom and its associated technical skill from Anatolia. The key site for establishing which spinning and weaving techniques were in use Fig. 1   Distribution of MBA loom-weights in the Southern in that area is Tell Atchana-Alalakh in the Levant (L. Peyronel) Hatay, the most excavated and best-known site for the Middle and Late Bronze Age.15 Sadly, as we know, Woolley in the 1930s did not consider textile tools a research priority and most of the data on MBA textile implements found during the recent investigations at the site are still unpublished. However, Woolley’s final report contains some short, but extremely interesting, comments on the discovery of loom-weights in Middle Bronze Age levels. The most significant discovery is the presence of 50 terracotta loom-weights in a wall recess in a domestic unit dated to Level XII which seems to be a suitable number of weights for a single loom kept in the house.16 It seems therefore quite certain that conical loom-weights were used at Alalakh during the Middle Bronze Age, whereas discoidal loom-weights with a lenticular section were found in the Late Bronze Age levels.17 They resemble finds from Ras Shamra-Ugarit and might be considered a type derived from Cypriote loom-weights rather than being a development of the conical Middle Bronze Age type. At Ugarit, fewer than 20 loom-weights in stone or terracotta have been

14

Andersson et al. 2010, 166–167. Yarn requiring a warp tension of only 10g is obtained using light spinning equipment such as light spindle-whorl (4–10g), widely attested at Ebla in the MBA (Peyronel 2004, 161–168). The two terracotta loom-weights discovered at Ebla can also be used for thicker yarn requiring 20g warp tension, obtained with spinning tools such as an 8g spindle-whorl, giving a balanced fabric with 5–6 warp threads/cm and 5–6 weft threads/cm. 15 Woolley 1955; Yener 2010. 16 Woolley 1955, 23, fig. 10. In the Level X public building, another loom-weight was unearthed and a further one was found in a context dated to Level VII: Woolley 1955, 29, 405. 17 Yener 2010, 24.

48

Luca Peyronel

Site

Total number

Set (loom?)

Scarabs

Range of masses (g)

Context

Alalakh

52?

50 (2 sets?)

/

n.s.

Domestic, Public

Ebla

2

/

/

300–330

Domestic

Hama

n.s.

n.s.

/

n.s.

Domestic

Kabri

73

41 (1–2 sets?)

2

235–600

Domestic, Public

Megiddo

c. 50

26

8

n.s.

Domestic, Funerary

Jericho

c. 70

n.s.

/

n.s.

Domestic

Gezer

35

n.s.

8

n.s.

Domestic

Ifshar

27

27 (1 set)

/

380–850

Domestic?

Beit Mirsim

20+

12 (1 set)

/

n.s.

Domestic

Far’ah North

5

/

1

n.s.

Domestic

Ta‛anakh

50+

n.s.

1

n.s.

Domestic, n.s.(Fillings)

Dothan

12

12 (1 set)

2

n.s.

Domestic

Nami

1

1

283

Funerary?

Khirbet er-Rujm

11

/

2

110–610

n.s. (Fillings)

Megadim

10+

/

/

162–413

Domestic

Te’enim

4

/

/

n.s.

Domestic

Mevorakh

1

/

/

n.s.

Domestic?

Beth Shean

n.s.

n.s.

/

n.s.

?

Bethel

n.s.

n.s.

/

n.s.

?

Shechem

n.s.

n.s.

/

n.s.

?

Yoqne’am

n.s.

n.s.

/

n.s.

?

Qashish

n.s.

n.s.

/

n.s.

Domestic

Ajjul

n.s.

n.s.

/

n.s.

?

Fig. 2   List of loom-weights found in the Levant during the MBA (L. Peyronel)

found in four residential quarters (comprising around 70 distinct houses). These were always isolated finds, suggesting that textiles continued to be manufactured mainly with the horizontal ground-loom during the Late Bronze Age as well.18 Several weights bear marks, including signs resembling Cypro-Minoan script, strengthening the hypothesis that they originated directly from the island. The only reference to other possible loom-weights from the Northern Levant comes from Hama, where their discovery in level H4 is briefly mentioned without any further information on shape, dimension or weight.19 Documentation from the Southern Levant is, however, more abundant, with several exemplars discovered at Megiddo, Jericho, Gezer, Ta‛anakh and Kabri and isolated specimens from several other sites (Figs. 1–2).20 The chronology of the contexts ranges from Middle Bronze I to the end of the Middle Bronze (c. 1950–1550 BC), with the majority dated to the Middle Bronze III. The loom-weights come from various types of context and some of them bear scarab impressions, indicating some kind of specific information related to the weights. More than 70 loom-weights have so far been found at Tel Kabri, from palace and residential contexts.21 The majority come from the palace area and were in the destruction level dated to the

18

20 21 19

Matoïan – Vita 2009, 480–482. Fugmann 1958, 96. Shamir 1996, 139–140; Peyronel 2004, 200–211. Oren 2002; Goshen et al. 2013, 47–51; see also Yasur-Landau et al. 2015a.

Mediterranean Interconnections: Weaving Technologies during the Middle Bronze Age

49

end of the MBA III (mid-16th century BC): they are made of fired clay, with conical or truncated-conical shapes and masses ranging from 235 to 600g (with a cluster at 300–400g). According to the excavators, the 40 weights from area A might be considered as a single group, originally kept on the second floor where the residential area of the building was probably located. They might have been used on one or two looms and could be distinguished according to their mass as lighter or heavier weights, the former probably used with threads needing 10–15g tension and the latter better suited to threads needing 20–30g tension.22 Six exemplars from Kabri bear scarab impressions, but only one is legible: a scarab stamp with traces of a ring press dating to the 12th–13th Dynasty. Several terracotta loom-weights, classified as ‘pendent weights’, have been published by Loud in the excavation report of Megiddo.23 They come from Level XIIIb–IX, dated from the 18th to the end of the 15th century BC. The usual shape is conical or piriform, with a rounded top and flat base, and several exemplars are carefully made with a surface treatment including smoothing and the application of a red slip or wash.24 The contexts are mainly domestic (dwellings and refuse pits), but the weights were also found in burials. A concentration of 26 weights in a domestic unit of Stratum X might be indicative of the presence of a loom in that house.25 Eight loom-weights come from funerary assemblages, always as single exemplars, in some cases associated with bronze pins and bone inlays.26 Of eight weights bearing stamped scarabs, four were found in burials, possibly indicating a preference for including a single stamped weight among the grave goods due to the meaning of this impression. The exemplars were stamped on the top or sides, without any apparent preference; the scarabs depict hieroglyphs and pseudo-hieroglyphic signs or human, animal and floral figures.27 The human personages are kneeling and holding a palm branch or standing with an outstretched arm holding an ankh sign. Numerous conical or tronco-conical loom-weights come from domestic contexts at Jericho, Gezer, Ifshar, Tell Beit Mirsim and Ta‛anakh, while isolated finds have been reported in several other southern Levant sites (Figs. 1–2).28 Most of the conical Jericho weights come from Site H, where a MBA domestic quarter was excavated by Garstang and later on by Kenyon.29 Unfortunately, the finds catalogue omits the precise distribution of the weights, although a group (number not given) is reported as coming from a room (L.41), possibly indicating the presence of a loom there.30 Fifty-four loom-weights from reliable MBA contexts are registered and they seem to be quite standardised, the majority being 10cm high and 5–8cm at the base, but the mass is given only for one exemplar, which weighs c. 800g.31 At Gezer, R. A. S. Macalister in the early 1900s identified a type of terracotta weight of conical shape related to the MBA settlement.32 In the level below the so-called ‘Maccabean’ urban gate,

22

Yasur-Landau et al. 2015b. Loud 1948, pls. 169–170. 24 Two exemplars are in stone and their shape is quite different from that of the others (Loud 1948, pl. 169.1, 15). Taking also into account that they were apparently isolated finds, their functional interpretation as loom-weights should perhaps be verified. 25 They were retrieved in Area BB, Square N-O 14, Room 3036: Loud 1948, fig. 400, pl. 170.17. 26 They come from inhumation burials T.2034, T.3018D, T.3027, T.3052, T.3107, T.3169, T.4007, T.4056 related to levels IX–XI. 27 Loud 1948, pl. 6. 28 Conical loom-weights dated to the MB have been found in the Southern Levant at Kabri, Megadim, Qashish, Yoqne’am, Nami, Ifshar, Megiddo, Khirbet er-Rujm, Mevorakh, Ta‛anakh, Dothan, Beth Shean, Far’ah North, Te’enim, Shechem, Bethel, Gezer, Jericho, Beit Mirsim: for references see Shamir 1996, 140; Peyronel 2004, 202–206 and Goshen et al. 2013 (Kabri); Miglio 2014 (Dothan). 29 Kenyon 1981, 339–371. 30 Ziffer 1990, 52*, fig. 12. 31 Wheeler 1982, 623–624, nos. 1–17, fig. 254:1–2, pls. 10–11. Another two weights were found together with spindle-whorls in Building A1 during the Italian excavation (Marchetti – Nigro 2000, 204–205, fig. 5.53). 32 Macalister 1912, 73–74, fig. 268. 23

50

Luca Peyronel

c. 30 conical-pyramidal loom-weights were found associated with probable domestic structures, 8 of which bore scarab impressions. The dating of these to the MBA period was confirmed during the American investigation of the 1970s: two exemplars come from Field I (Strata 8 and 8A) and three others from the Acropolis in Field VI.33 The presence of 27 conical loom-weights at Ifshar concentrated in a small area (3.5m²) belonging to Stratum G (end of MB IIA) suggests a textile installation in situ: the exemplars are conical with flat bottoms and weights ranging from 385.5g to 844.5g.34 W. F. Albright mentioned the discovery of several tronco-conical or conical weights coming from Stratum D at Tell Beit Mirsim.35 A group of more than ten exemplars was found in Area SE, in an open area between two domestic units (to the NE of room SE3D-1).36 More than 50 loom-weights have been unearthed at Tell Ta‛anakh in levels preceding the LB occupation.37 Some of them bear traces of wear and one is stamped with a scarab. In general, none of this material is discussed or described in detail, with the exception of the loom-weights from Tel Dothan and Tel Nami due to the presence of scarab impressions. At Dothan, two scarab-stamped loom-weights (one fragmentary) come from the so-called ‘patrician house’ dating to the Middle Bronze III.38 Both came from the courtyard together with another 10 unmarked weights of the same conical shape, and the quantity may be indicative of a single loom although no data are available on the precise position. The stamped scarabs bear pseudo-hieroglyphs and Egyptian symbols, such as the ankh. Artzy and Marcus published a conical 280g loom-weight from Nami bearing a scarab impression, probably dating to the 18th century BC, with the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt and a nbw sign, flanked by two ankh.39 The authors discuss the exemplar in detail, making comparisons and summarising the interpretations of the function of this kind of weight. Summarising the available data, the following points can be listed (Figs. 1–2): • chronology: conical/tronco-conical weights are attested from the 19th century until the end of the 16th century BC, with the majority dating from the end of the MBA period (17th–16th century BC). • general distribution pattern: conical loom-weights are widespread in the Southern Levant (20 sites) with only rare occurrences in the Northern Levant; in Palestine they are concentrated in the northern region, the coastal plain of Sharon and along the Jezreel Valley (11 sites), clustering around the major centre of Megiddo. • general contexts: weights come from large and small settlements and have been found in public and domestic buildings, but rarely in burials (the only sure attestation is from Megiddo). • specific intra-site contexts and associations: we have some data on the presence of weights grouped together, but never in rows on floor surfaces (looms not in use); there are also several single occurrences, including those in funerary assemblages; in some domestic contexts spindle-whorls were discovered together with loom-weights, indicating that spinning and weaving were conducted in the same place. • shape and manufacture: the weights are usually made of fine clays, well or slightly fired, and the majority are carefully made; surface treatment (slip or wash) is usually present; shapes are conical, tronco-conical, in a few cases cylindrical, with a horizontal perforation in the upper part; masses are between 100 and 800g, clustering at 300–400g.

33

35 36 37 38 39 34

Dever et al. 1974, pl. 40.2–3; Dever 1986, pls. 50.1, 54.9, 57.5. Marcus – Artzy 1995, fn. 48. Albright 1938, 56, pl. 45.1–8. For a functional analysis of the domestic structures in this sector see Daviau 1993, 152–164. Lapp 1969, 67. Miglio 2014. Marcus – Artzy 1995.

Mediterranean Interconnections: Weaving Technologies during the Middle Bronze Age

51

• presence of scarab impressions on the top or upper side of the weights. Out of a minimum of 370 loom-weights from the Southern Levant, 29 are stamped with scarabs. The latter were either found together with other unmarked weights or as isolated specimens. Now, let us return to Barber’s hypothesis and the question of interpreting the distribution of these loom-weights in the Levant. Firstly, the total absence of similar objects during the previous period excludes the possibility of development from a local weaving technique and, at the same time, the very low number of similar weights dated to the Late Bronze I suggests that the use of conical loom-weights had been largely abandoned by the end of the MBA. The total number of loom-weights per site never exceeds 80 specimens which implies the presence of 2 or 3 looms at most. Thus the new type of loom never replaced the horizontal ground loom and it is reasonable to suppose that it was used for producing a new type of textile. The practice of marking some weights with scarabs indicates a deliberate ‘distinction’ and this is certainly a key element for their interpretation. No such practice is known in Egypt, while it is found in the Aegean, Anatolia and Cyprus. However, the use of scarabs is embedded in the local cultures: Egyptian and Egyptianising scarab seals were rare in the early MBA and largely confined to coastal sites in the Southern Levant but became widespread by the late MB II and in MB III, also in central and northern Inner Syria.40 Local workshops might have been located mainly in the southern regions, such as at Ajjul and Farah’, and in the Egyptian delta, at Tell Daba’/Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos period. The overwhelming majority of scarab seals have been found in mortuary contexts and would have been associated with a regenerative amuletic symbolism. Therefore, the lack of a clear administrative adoption of scarabs in the Levant suggests that the stamping of loom-weights was not connected with regulating administration by a centralised power but may be more plausibly interpreted as a mark of ownership imbued with symbolic affinities. However, its use in marking certain categories of objects and vessels, such as loom-weights and handled jars, indicates that a system of identification was adopted for some specific economic activities, according to a tradition well attested in the Levant from the Early Bronze Age.41 Stamping loom-weights may therefore have been the following: • a system to identify ownership of a set of weights or of the loom and its equipment; • a system to indicate the quality or type of the product, which needed to be certified; • a system to identify the workshop where a set of weights was manufactured. The first two functions are not mutually exclusive and the symbolic value of the scarab itself might of course also have been relevant since it could have had an apotropaic meaning related to the protection of the household textile production. All these elements suggest, on the one hand, that the new loom (and associated loom-weights) were introduced in the Levant from the outside and, on the other hand, that it was then used by people adopting the local cultural tradition. On the basis of currently available data, Barber’s ‘Anatolian hypothesis’ seems to be unlikely, considering the scarcity of loom-weights in Syria and the distribution pattern of the evidence that points to an initial diffusion in northern coastal Palestine. Barber’s explanation for this lack of weights, which was dependent on the quick movement of people from Anatolia, bypassing the Syrian region, was grounded in an argumentum ex silentio, which is now partially contradicted by the possible presence of weights at Ebla and by the data from Alalakh, the latter unfortunately unpublished. However, it cannot be completely ruled out, since the MBA loom-weights in Anatolia are characterised mainly by tronco-conical shapes together with a peculiar crescent-like shape with two perforations, and both types may bear stamp seal impressions, suggesting the use of

40

Ben-Tor 2007. Mazzoni 2013, with updated bibliography.

41

52

Luca Peyronel

the same device known in the Southern Levant.42 Moreover, as Barber correctly pointed out, the shape of the Levantine MB loom-weights is also very similar to the weaving implements attested in Anatolia during the preceding EBA period, and an uninterrupted development of the types of conical/tronco-conical loom-weights with transverse perforation can be traced throughout the Bronze Age in the northern regions.43 There is an overall consensus that the warp-weighted loom was introduced into Cyprus from southern Anatolia in the mid-3rd millennium BC, along with flatter spinning-whorls.44 Conical or conical/cylindrical shapes characterised the Cypriote weights during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, but already during the late MBA and especially in the LBA, the flattened oval and discoidal forms appeared and to some degree replaced the conical type.45 At the end of the LBA cylindrical and pyramidal weights are also well documented, indicating the uninterrupted development of the warp-weighted loom, with probable adaptation and changes of weaving methods.46 However, textile interactions between Cyprus and the coastal Levantine settlements might date mainly to the LB II and certainly during that period of textile manufacture spinning and weaving techniques were shared, as testified especially by the material from Ugarit. Another possible candidate for the transmission of the new weaving technique is Crete. Middle Minoan loom-weights have been found in large numbers: several types are attested, but conical or tronco-conical specimens are virtually absent, the majority being of a flat discoidal form, in some cases with seal impressions, marks and signs.47 Notwithstanding the difference between Minoan and Levantine types, the hypothesis should perhaps be seriously considered, since the presence of Minoan craftsmen in some Syro-Palestinian centres is suggested by painted plaster decorating the public buildings, such as at Kabri, Qatna and Alalakh.48 The MBA was a period of intense interactions between Egypt, Crete and the Levant and therefore it is perfectly possible that the technological innovation had been spread in the eastern Mediterranean by the Minoans.49 Summing up, the use of the warp-weighted loom in Anatolia, the Aegean and Cyprus since the Early Bronze Age is well documented by archaeological evidence indicating that it was the main weaving technology in these areas. The situation in the Levant during the Bronze Age was completely different: the traditional Syro-Mesopotamian horizontal ground-loom was the predominant loom type, although interactions between different weaving methods are attested since at least the Middle Bronze Age, when loom-weights point to the introduction of the warp-weighted loom; the new technique of the two-beam vertical loom – later well documented by iconographic representations in Egypt – was also probably adopted. The distribution and types of textile materials found in the Syro-Palestinian region also suggest that the evolution of new loom types probably took place in specific border zones, along the southern coast, in the ‘Amuq Valley and in the Nile Delta, where the cultural and commercial relations between the Aegean, Cyprus and the Anatolian plateau were stronger. From a socio-economic viewpoint the presence of the warp-weighted loom in the Levant during the MBA seems to have been mainly related to a restricted group of craftsmen operating both in domestic and public contexts, possibly reflecting specific textile products and/ or a distinct sector of the local textile industry. The weights display features which cannot be precisely compared with any other type documented in the neighbouring regions and for this reason

42

Völling 2008, 137, tab. 3; Baccelli et al. 2014, 104–105. For the lunate loom-weights see Wisti Lassen 2013; Wisti Lassen 2015. 43 Barber 1991, 300. Barber’s interpretation is related to a hypothesis of diffusion from the Balkans, where the warp-weighted vertical loom seems to have been introduced during the Neolithic period (Barber 1991, 93–99). For EBA Anatolian loom-weights see Baykal-Seeher – Obladen-Kauder 1996, 243–244. 44 Webb – Frankel 2007. 45 Webb 2006, 175–177. 46 Smith et al. 2015. 47 Carington Smith 1975, 185–188; Cheval 2008; Burke 2010. 48 Niemeier – Niemeier 2000; Bietak 2007; von Rüden 2011. 49 Feldman 2007.

Mediterranean Interconnections: Weaving Technologies during the Middle Bronze Age

53

it is difficult to consider the introduction of the warp-weighted loom as a phenomenon exclusively dependent on the arrival of foreigners in the Levant during the MBA. Levantine terracotta loomweights possessed some shared characteristics in all the areas where the warp-weighted loom was used, such as the presence of a seal impression, approximately similar shapes with a hole at the top and a similar size. It is therefore very difficult to understand where this new weaving technology came from but it was probably adopted by means of a local development resulting from interactions with the eastern Mediterranean. Thus the enigma of the Middle Bronze Age warp-weighted loom’s arrival in the Levant cannot be solved for now; nor is it possible to trace its development during the following period, when new types of weights appeared. In this case they may have had direct relations with Cyprus and, for some reason, the MBA innovation was progressively abandoned. However, also in this case the new weaving technology seems to have been little used and did not take root. It was only at the very beginning of the 1st millennium BC, after the profound changes at the end of the Bronze Age, that the warp-weighted loom became widespread in the region – again probably due to external influences – and almost completely replaced the traditional ground loom.50

References Albright 1938 W. F. Albright, The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim II. The Bronze Age, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 17 (New Haven 1938). Andersson Strand – Nosch 2015 E. Andersson Strand – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Tools, Textiles and Context. Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age, Ancient Textiles Series 21 (Oxford 2015). Andersson et al. 2010 E. Andersson – E. Felluca – M.-L. Nosch – L. Peyronel, New perspectives on the Bronze Age textile production in the Eastern Mediterranean. The first results with Ebla as the pilot study, in: P. Matthiae – F. Pinnock – L. Nigro – N. Marchetti (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, May 5th–10th 2008 (Wiesbaden 2010) 159–176. Archi 1999 A. Archi, Clothes at Ebla, in: Y Avishur – R. Deutsch (eds.), Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer (Tel Aviv-Jaffa 1999) 45–54. Baccelli et al. 2014 G. Baccelli – B. Bellucci – M. Vigo, Elements for a comparative study of textile production and use in Hittite Anatolia and neighbouring areas, in: M. Harlow – C. Michel – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Prehistoric, Ancient Near Eastern and Aegean Textiles and Dress. An Interdisciplinary Anthology, Ancient Textiles Series 18 (Oxford 2014) 97–142. Barber 1991 E. J. W. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean (Princeton 1991). Baykal-Seeher – Obladen-Kauder 1996 A. Baykal-Seeher – J. Obladen-Kauder, Demircihüyük IV. Die Kleinfunde. A. Die lithischen Kleinfunde. B. Die Kleinfunde aus Ton, Knochen und Metall (Mainz 1996). Ben-Tor 2007 D. Ben-Tor, Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections. Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 27 (Fribourg 2007).

50

Peyronel 2004, 387–389.

54

Luca Peyronel

Bietak 2007 M. Bietak, Bronze Age paintings in the Levant. Chronological and cultural consideration, in: M. Bietak – E. Czerny (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June 2003, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9 (Vienna 2007) 269–300. Biga 2010 M. G. Biga, Textiles in the administrative texts of the Royal Archives of Ebla (Syria, 24th century BC) with particular emphasis on coloured textiles, in: Michel – Nosch 2010, 146–172. Biga 2014 M. G. Biga, Some aspects of the wool economy at Ebla (Syria, 24th century BC), in: Breniquet – Michel 2014, 139–150. Breniquet 2008 C. Breniquet, Essai sur le tissage en Mésopotamie des premières communautés sédentaires au milieu du IIIe millénaire avant J.-C., Travaux de la Maison René Ginouvès 5 (Paris 2008). Breniquet 2010 C. Breniquet, Weaving in Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age. Archaeology, techniques, iconography, in: Michel – Nosch 2010, 52–67. Breniquet – Michel 2014 C. Breniquet – C. Michel (eds.), Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and Aegean. From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry, Ancient Textiles Series 17 (Oxford 2014). Burke 2010 B. Burke, From Minos to Midas. Ancient Cloth Production in the Aegean and in Anatolia (Oxford 2010). Carington Smith 1975 J. Carington Smith, Spinning, Weaving and Textile Manufacture in Prehistoric Crete (PhD Diss., University of Tasmania, Hobart 1975). Cecchini 2000 S. M. Cecchini, The textile industry in Northern Syria during the Iron Age according to the Tell Afis excavations, in: G. Bunnens (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Louvain 2000) 211–233. Cheval 2008 C. Cheval, Protohistoric weaving, the Minoan loom-weights. A first approach, in: C. Alfaro – L. Karali (eds.), Vestidos, textiles y tintes. Estudios sobre la producción de bienes de consume en la Antigüedad. Actas del II Symposium Internacional sobre Textiles y Tintes del Mediterráneo en el mundo antiguo (Atenas, 24 al 26 de noviembre, 2005) (Valencia 2008) 19–24. Crowfoot 1941 G. M. Crowfoot, The vertical loom in Palestine and Syria, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 73, 1941, 141–151. Daviau 1993 P. M. M. Daviau, Houses and their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine. Domestic Activities and Artefact Distribution in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Sheffield 1993). Dever 1986 W. G. Dever, Gezer IV. Report of the 1969–71 Seasons in Field VI, the ‘Acropolis’ (Jerusalem 1986). Dever et al. 1974 W. G. Dever – H. D. Lance – R. G. Bullard – D. P. Cole – J. D. Seger – G. E. Wright, Gezer II. Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Field I and II (Jerusalem 1986). Durand 2009 J.-M. Durand, La nomenclature des habits et des textiles dans les textes de Mari, Archives royales de Mari 30 (Paris 2009). Feldman 2007 M. H. Feldman, Frescoes, exotica, and the reinvention of the Northern Levant in the second millennium B.C.E., in: M. Heinz – M. H. Feldman (eds.), Representations of Political Power. Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake 2007) 39–65.

Mediterranean Interconnections: Weaving Technologies during the Middle Bronze Age

55

Fischer 2008 P. M. Fischer, Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Volume I: The Early Bronze Age, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 16 (Vienna 2008). Foster 2010 B. Foster, Clothing in Sargonic Mesopotamia. Visual and written evidence, in: Michel – Nosch 2010, 110–145. Fugmann 1958 E. Fugmann, Hama. Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931–1938. II, 1. L’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistiques (Copenhagen 1958). Gaspa 2013 S. Gaspa, Textiles production and consumption in the Neo-Assyrian empire, in: Nosch et al. 2013, 224–247. Goshen et al. 2013 N. Goshen – A. Yasur-Landau – E. H. Cline, Textile production in palatial and non-palatial contexts. The case of Tel Kabri, in: Nosch et al. 2013, 45–53. Hoffmann 1964 M. Hoffmann, The Warp-weighted Loom. Studies in the History and Technology of an Ancient Implement, Studia Norvegica 14 (Oslo 1964). Kenyon 1981 K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho III. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell (London 1981). Lapp 1969 P. W. Lapp, The 1968 excavations at Tel Ta‛annek, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 195, 1969, 2–49. Loud 1948 G. Loud, Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935–1939, Oriental Institute Publications 62 (Chicago 1948). Macalister 1912 R. A. S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer. 1902–1905 and 1907–1909. Vols. I–III (London 1912). Marchetti – Nigro 2000 N. Marchetti – L. Nigro (eds.), Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine, Quaderni di Gerico 2 (Roma 2000). Marcus – Artzy 1995 E. Marcus – M. Artzy, A loom weight from Tel Nami with a scarab seal impression, Israel Exploration Journal 45, 1995, 136–149. Matoïan – Vita 2009 V. Matoïan – J.-P. Vita, Les textiles à Ougarit. Perspectives de la recherche, Ugarit-Forschungen 41, 2009, 469–504. Mazzoni 2013 S. Mazzoni, Seals and visual communication across the third millennium Mediterranean, in: G. Graziadio – R. Guglielmino – V. Lenuzza – S. Vitale (eds.), Φιλική Συναυλία. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario Benzi, BAR International Series 2460 (Oxford 2013) 193–203. Michel – Nosch 2010 C. Michel – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Ancient Textiles Series 8 (Oxford 2010). Michel – Veenhof 2010 C. Michel – K. R. Veenhof, The textiles traded by the Assyrians in Anatolia (19th–18th centuries BC), in: Michel – Nosch 2010, 210–271. Miglio 2014 A. E. Miglio, Scarab-stamped impressions and weaving at Middle Bronze Age Tell Dothan, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 6, 2014, 49–58.

56

Luca Peyronel

Niemeier – Niemeier 2000 B. Niemeier – W.-D. Niemeier, Aegean frescoes in Syria-Palestine. Alalakh and Tel Kabri, in: S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August – 4 September 1997 (Athens 2000) 763–803. Nosch et al. 2013 M.-L. Nosch – H. Koefoed – E. Andersson Strand (eds.), Textile Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East. Archaeology, Epigraphy, Iconography, Ancient Textiles Series 12 (Oxford 2013). Oren 2002 R. Oren, Loom weights and spindle whorls, in: A. Kempinski (ed.), Tel Kabri. The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons (Jerusalem 2002) 319–348. Pare 2000 C. F. E. Pare (ed.), Metals Make the World Go Round. The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997 (Oxford 2000). Pasquali 2010 J. Pasquali, Les noms sémitiques des tissus dans le textes d’Ebla, in: Michel – Nosch 2010, 173–185. Perna – Pomponio 2008 M. Perna – F. Pomponio (eds.), The Management of Agricultural Land and the Production of Textiles in the Mycenaean and Near Eastern Economies, Studi Egei e Vicinorientali 4 (Paris 2008). Peyronel 2004 L. Peyronel, Gli Strumenti di tessitura dall’Età del Bronzo all’epoca Persiana. Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla IV (Roma 2004). Peyronel 2007 L. Peyronel, Spinning and weaving at Tell Mardikh-Ebla (Syria). Some observations on spindle-whorls and loomweights from the Bronze and Iron Ages, in: C. Gillis – M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles. Production, Craft and Society. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19–23, 2003, Ancient Textiles Series 1 (Oxford 2007) 26–35. Roth 1913 H. L. Roth, Ancient Egyptian and Greek Looms (Halifax 1913). Sauvage 2013 C. Sauvage, Spinning from old threads. The whorls from Ugarit at the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale (Saint-Germainen-Laye) and at the Louvre, in: Nosch et al. 2013, 189–214. Shamir 1996 O. Shamir, Loomweights and whorls, in: D. T. Ariel – A. de Groot (ed.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. IV Various Reports, Qedem 35 (Jerusalem 1996) 135–170. Shamir 2015 O. Shamir, Textiles from the Chalcolithic period, Early and Middle Bronze Age in the southern Levant, Archaeological Textiles Review 57, 2015, 12–25. Smith et al. 2015 J. Smith – J. Cutler – E. Andersson Strand – M.-L. Nosch, Textile tools from Kition, Cyprus, in: Andersson Strand – Nosch 2015, 337–345. Völling 2008 E. Völling, Textiltechnik im alten Orient. Rohstoffe und Herstellung (Würzburg 2008). Von Rüden 2011 C. von Rüden, Die Wandmalereien von Tall Mišrife/Qaṭna im Kontext überregionaler Kommunikation, Qaṭna Studien 2 (Wiesbaden 2011). Waetzoldt 1972 H. Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie (Rome 1972).

Mediterranean Interconnections: Weaving Technologies during the Middle Bronze Age

57

Webb 2006 J. M. Webb, Small finds, in: D. Frankel – J. M. Webb, Marki Alonia. An Early and Middle Bronze Age Settlement in Cyprus. Excavations 1995–2000, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 123, 2 (Sävedalen 2006) 155–196. Webb – Frankel 2007 J. M. Webb – D. Frankel, Identifying population movements by everyday practice. The case of third millennium Cyprus, in: S. Antoniadou – A. Pace (eds.), Mediterranean Crossroads (Athens 2007) 189–216. Wheeler 1982 W. Wheeler, Loomweights and spindle whorls, in: K. M. Kenyon – T. A. Holland (eds.), Excavations at Jericho IV (London 1982) 623–637. Wisti Lassen 2013 A. Wisti Lassen, Technology and palace economy in Middle Bronze Age Anatolia. The case of the crescent shaped loom weights, in: Nosch et al. 2013, 78–93. Wisti Lassen 2015 A. Wisti Lassen, Weaving with crescent shaped loom weights, in: Andersson Strand – Nosch 2015, 127–137. Woolley 1955 C. L. Woolley, Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949 (Oxford 1955). Yasur-Landau et al. 2015a A. Yasur-Landau – E. H. Cline – A. J. Koh – D. Ben-Shlomo – N. Marom – A. Ratzlaff – I. Samet, Rethinking Canaanite palaces? The palatial economy of Tel Kabri during the Middle Bronze Age, Journal of Field Archaeology 40, 2015, 607–625. Yasur-Landau et al. 2015b Y. Yasur-Landau – N. Goshen – E. Andersson Strand – M.-L. Nosch – J. Cutler, Textile tools from Tel Kabri, Israel, in: Andersson Strand – Nosch 2015, 347–350. Yener 2010 K. A. Yener (ed.), Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Volume 1. The 2003–2004 Excavation Seasons (Istanbul 2010). Ziffer 1990 I. Ziffer, At that Time the Canaanites Were in the Land. Daily Life in the Middle Bronze Age 2, 2000–1550 B.C.E. (Tel Aviv 1990).

58

Luca Peyronel

How to Make a Sassanian Tunic: Understanding Handcraft Skills based on a Find from the Salt Mine in Chehrābād, Iran Karina Grömer 1 – Abolfazl Aali 2 Abstract: How can we understand the people behind the artefacts we find – in our case a tunic dated to 400–600 CE and found in a salt mine in Chehrābād, northern Iran? Applying the concepts of chaîne opératoire, we tried to search for the people involved in making the tunic as well as those who used and discarded it. This multi-approach investigation is supported by different analytical tools such as fibre analysis with a Scanning Electron Microscope, analysis of the tailoring patterns as well as use-wear analysis. The tunic was made of a cotton tabby fabric and tailored in a sophisticated way. As the fabric of the base web is a little irregular and some weaving faults were detected, we tend to assume that the maker of the fabric and the tailor were not the same person. It is also unclear how many users the garment had before it was discarded and left at a salt mine as a rag. Traces of greasy tissue and pilling on the inner side of the tunic show hints of hard physical work, i.e. the garment had been worn during hard labour. Keywords: Chehrābād salt mine; complete tunic; Sassanian period; spinning; weaving; tailoring; object biography

Introduction In searching for new perspectives in ancient textile research the workshop focussed on a comparative analysis of textile workers in the Aegean and Near-Eastern world. The aim was to highlight the people involved in textile craft, the technical skills and intellectual knowledge they needed, their gender and social status, labour organisation, working organisation and more. Methodological approach In the following paper we present a case study about a Sassanian tunic found in a salt mine in northern Iran. Analysing this archaeological textile find involves studying the whole chaîne opératoire,3 especially the production steps, but also the use, re-use and discard.4 Studying the technical details of the textile gives indications about the techniques used, even about technical skills and specific knowledge. After that, we can take a further step and ask about what happened to the garment after its production, i.e., how the finished product was handled in terms of use, reuse and disposal. It is important to understand the people involved, the life history of individual objects in relation to human beings and human behaviour. Besides questions about where things come from and how and who made them. Another focus is on how the item’s use changes with age and what happens to it when it reaches the end of its usefulness. Salt mines offer very specific conditions that differ from other archaeological contexts such as graves or settlements. The use, re-use and discarding processes of textiles in the mine even offer insights into the organisation of the salt mine and subsistence strategies. Archaeological background: Chehrābād salt mine The salt mine of Chehrābād, known as Douzlākh (salt ground), is located 75km north-west of Zanjan and is the oldest salt mine in Iran.5 Archaeological research started after 1994 when a salt mummy was found. During the excavations, remains of six human mummies and also large num-

3 4 5 1 2

Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria; [email protected]. Achaeological Museum Zanjan, Iran; [email protected]. Concept introduced by French anthropologists, e.g. Leroi-Gourhan 1993. See, e.g. Grömer 2016, chap. B, especially fig. 15. For general information about the salt mine Chehrābād see Aali et al. 2012; Aali – Stöllner 2015.

60

Karina Grömer – Abolfazl Aali

Fig. 1   Chehrābād, Trench C, Sassanian tunic (photo: N. Kanani, Museum Zanjan)

bers of organic material (leather, wood, textiles,6 human faeces, ropes, etc.) were detected. The ‘Chehrābād Saltmummy & Saltmine Exploration Project’,7 an international and interdisciplinary research project, is a cooperative project with the Iranian authorities, with the Miras Farhangi Iran (ICAR) and the Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum/Ruhr University of Bochum, Institute for Archaeological Studies as the main project partners. The aims of the project are to analyse the mining technology and to establish a chronology but also to analyse the social and economic background of individuals involved in the mining activities. At the salt mine, mining activities took place over a long time span,8 which began with the Achaemenid period dating from the 6th to the 4th century BCE. This period perhaps ended due to a large-scale catastrophe (429–359 BCE), when parts of the cave collapsed. It is quite likely that Salt Men 3, 4 and 5 died during this event. With the beginning of the Sassanid era (c. 3rd to 7th century CE), the exploitation of the salt mine resumed and continued until the end of the period. Salt Man 1 dates back to between the late Parthian and early Sassanian period and Salt Men 2 and 6 belong to the late Sassanian period. Mining activities also took place in the Safavid and Qajar periods between the late 17th century and early 20th century CE. To date, the main body of textiles

6 7

8



Hadian et al. 2012; Grömer et al. 2015a; Grömer et al. 2015b. For more information about the project, funding and project partners see Chehrābād Saltmummy & Saltmine Exploration Project ˂http://www.saltmen-iran.com/˃ (last accessed 20 Oct. 2018). C14 dates see Pollard et al. 2008; Stöllner et al. 2015, 49–52, fig. 48.

61

How to Make a Sassanian Tunic

found in the mine belongs to the Achaemenid and Sassanian periods. In the following section there is a specific focus on a complete garment from the Sassanid era.

The Sassanian tunic During the excavation season of 2004, a big piece of cloth (Find No. 180) – a tunic (Fig. 1) – was found in Trench C of the salt mine9. It was folded and reposed in Sassanian layers and no human remains were recorded in direct context with it. The remains of Salt Man 6 have been found at some distance in the layers above. Due to layer movements which resulted in the displacement of the mummy, the excavator discusses that the tunic might be associated to this salt man. It is also possible that the tunic belonged to another Sassanian miner who had taken off his tunic before the mine collapsed. The tunic is stored at the Archaeological Museum Zanjan in Iran. As well as the garment, a brown cord was found which might have been used to close the tunic (around the waist?). The tunic: technical description The tunic is technically complete; it is just a little torn and some minor parts (such as on the front side, right chest area) are missing. What makes this tunic very interesting are the cut pattern and tailoring details. The garment is composed of eleven parts. The technical details of all parts of the textile are similar so it is supposed that all parts were cut from one big piece of fabric. The base fabric was presumably a piece of 0.54 × 3.30m ready-woven fabric, woven as part of a number of piece goods, which was then cut into the desired pieces and sewn together, so the technical details of the weave are given collectively for all eleven parts of the tunic.10 Material identification carried out with a Scanning Electron Microscope11 proved that the raw material used for the garment is cotton. Even today, the main part of the textile, where there is no dirt, is of a light beige colour (NCS-Code: S2010-Y30R)12 so we are able to deduce that the tunic was originally made of natural-white cotton. The weave of the fabric is simple tabby with 9 and 14 threads per cm in warp and weft, respectively. The weave structure is quite regular and the fabric is not very dense. There are simple side selvedges on two sides of the main fabric and also on the sleeves (the part where the sleeve is attached to the main fabric and on the wrist end). As both selvedges survived, we are able to identify warp and weft. A single yarn, s- and z-spun, is used for both; it is of a rather fine quality with 0.2–0.4mm diameter thread (Tab. 1).

Warp

Weft

Yarn/plied yarn

yarn

yarn

Twist direction

z

s

Twist angle

35–40°

35–40°

Thread thickness

0.4mm

0.2–0.4mm

Thread count (threads per cm)

9

14

Tab. 1   Technical details of the Sassanian tunic

9



Trench C, „locus 3“, under the straw layer. See Aali in prep., chap. 4.4.7. Detailed see: Grömer et al. 2015b. 11 Scanning electron microscope (JEOL, JSM-6610LV) at the Central Research Laboratories, Natural History Museum Vienna. 12 Natural Colour System is used to provide standardised descriptions of textile colours. For the Natural Colour System (NCS) see NCS. 10

62

Karina Grömer – Abolfazl Aali

The cord: technical data and context The cord has a thickness of 7–8mm; brown wool (NCS-Code: S5040-Y20R) was used for plying. To make this cord, four threads, consisting of s-plied yarn, were twisted together to form a z-plied rope (Z4S2z cord) (Fig. 2). The cord was found in context with the tunic but was torn off and it is not clear where it belonged. The cord itself is knotted together with a simple knot with one loop. The ends after the loop which were intended to be the ‘natural ends’ of the cord have a knot to prevent fraying. The part of the cord that perhaps went around the waist is torn and disintegrating on one end. The other end was knotted to a tabby fabric. This textile has similar characteristics to the main fabric of the tunic, but it is cut into a narrow strip that was sewn together to form a cord-like narrow band; perhaps that fabric band was attached to the garment to hold the cord in place around the waist.

People involved After the context information and the technical description of the garment, we return to the concept of chaîne opératoire and also look at the relationship between this object and the producer(s) and user(s). In nearly all cases, the tunic gives no hint as to the gender and age of the people who made it. Making the fabric: the work of the spinner and weaver People involved in making the fabric can be traced though the various steps of the production process, starting with the raw material and the different steps necessary to produce it: raw mate-

Fig. 2   Chehrābād, Trench C, cord found together with the tunic, below: schematic drawings regarding cord construction, knot and tabby band (photo: N. Kanani; graphics: K. Grömer and N. Alidjani)

How to Make a Sassanian Tunic

63

rial preparation, spinning and weaving.13 In a Sassanian context, as the tunic dates somewhere between 400 and 600 CE, we can deduce that trade14 was also involved – trade of both raw material as well as half-finished (e.g. yarn, piece goods) and finished garments. Provision of raw material The analysis of the fibres demonstrated that the raw material of the tunic was cotton (Fig. 3). At this stage of the research, we have no information about the provenance of the cotton, so we are unable to make statements about the people involved in cotton harvesting, preparation and possible trade. In general, for the first half of the 1st millennium CE, cotton was an established raw material for garments.15 Cotton textiles can be found, for example, in Egypt, Iran and as far away as China.16 Unprocessed cotton, consisting of fibres of raw cotton with seeds, was also found in the SassanFig. 3   Chehrābād, tunic: raw material cotton ian layers of the Douzlākh salt mine.17 That (microscopic image: K. Grömer) cotton could have been imported from regions such as India or Egypt; Boenke also discusses that the cotton found in the mine ‘as part of the miner’s equipment could be a hint for the cultivation of cotton in the region, because the import of unprocessed bulky cotton to other regions might have been too expensive.’18 Within the project,19 further analyses on stable isotopes are planned, so that in the future we can get some idea about which region the cotton for the Chehrābād tunic came from. Spinning The cotton was then spun into threads with different twist directions. Within the fabric, the warpthreads are z-twisted and the weft is s-twisted. Therefore, we have to ask if just one person made all the yarn (s- and z-yarn with slightly different thread diameter) or if there were more suppliers/ producers of thread. After all, the threads are a more or less balanced yarn with 0.2–0.4mm thread diameter. All of this hints at a practised, skilled handcraft to be able to produce such a thin yarn; in addition, the twist angle is more or less regular at 35–40° which indicates skilled work. For the warp of this 54cm-wide fabric, c. 490 threads were used (calculation based on 9 threads per cm in warp direction); the fabric in this case is 330cm long, so we can calculate 1,617m of warp yarn at a minimum. We could not count the length of warp fixed on the loom. Depending on the loom type, the warp thrums can be more than 1m per warp thread (in the described case, about 490m of thread). The weft was inserted with a higher thread count than the warp – 14 threads per cm were used. So we know that for a 54cm-wide by 330cm-long fabric c. 2,495m of weft threads

13

For a description of the production steps see Grömer 2016, chap. B. For trade in Ancient Persia see Yajima – Kamioka 1988; Potts 2009. For textile trade for the Roman market see Casson 1989. 15 Alvarez-Mon 2015. 16 For Egypt see Falck – Lichtwark 1996, no. 347; for Iran see Vogelsang-Eastwood 2006, 237–238 (site Shar-i Qumis); for China see Wieczorek – Lind 2007, e.g. 217, 240. 17 Boenke 2015, fig. 64. 18 Boenke 2015, 66. 19 For isotopic analysis on the salt mummies from Chehrābād and some of the textiles see Ramaroli et al. 2010. 14

64

Karina Grömer – Abolfazl Aali

Fig. 4   Chehrābād, tunic: weaving faults. Left: paired yarns in weft; centre and right: floating warp threads (DinoLite microscope 50× and 200×) (K. Grömer)

were needed at a minimum. The calculations show a total need of c. 4.500m of thread, i.e. 4,5km of yarn (incl. unwoven warp threads) to make the fabric for the garment! To spin such an amount of thread, a lot of time was needed. Again, we are not sure if one or more persons were involved in spinning, but they were practised and skilled. Weaving The weaver chose a particular yarn to weave the fabric. We do not know whether he or she bought it in the market or if the spinner worked in the same household or workshop. Nevertheless, the yarn was chosen with care; the twist angle between 35 and 40° demonstrates that a stable yarn was needed,20 one that doesn’t break during the weaving process. This twist angle also influences the final weave and therefore the use of the finished fabric. The yarns are not very soft, but durable. The threads were woven into a simple tabby – in general, this is quite a balanced weave. The weaving itself was carried out with skill, but not very carefully. A lot of weaving faults (Fig. 4) could be detected. Irregularities in warp direction point to the fact that sometimes the shed was not opened fully, causing floats. Also paired yarns can be recognised in the weft direction due to threading errors. Sometimes the paired yarn runs over the full width of the fabric. Perhaps it was not a mistake; it might be the case that if you run out of weft yarn, you will insert a thread next to the old. In general, the person weaving the garment did not work very carefully, but the overall appearance of the fabric is of quite a fine and regular one and the faults can only be seen upon close inspection. Making the garment: the work of the tailor It seems as if the tailor and the weaver were not the same person. Here, the decisions made by the tailor are of interest: why had he or she chosen that particular fabric to make a tunic? The thread diameter and density of the weave selected demonstrate that the intended fabric should not be too fine so that it could serve as functional clothing. It is not too warm but also not too cold, stress resistant but not too dense which is good for keeping the body temperature regulated.21 Cut pattern The garment is tailored and cut slim-fit (Fig. 5 and Tab. 2); it is narrow around the waist and below that point on both sides gussets have been added to make it wider around the knees. Additionally,

To compare the influence of the fibre preparation and spinning on the working process and the final product see Hammarlund 2004. 21 Watkins – Dunne 2015, 89–98. 20

65

How to Make a Sassanian Tunic

Fig. 5   Chehrābād, tunic: construction of the garment and sewing details (graphics: K. Grömer)

Area

Type

Seam allowance

Sewing thread

Stitch distance

around the neck

trimming

3mm

0.4mm yarn

5–6mm

waist area and main fabric/sleeves

top seam

4mm

0.4mm yarn

5–6mm

main fabric/gussets and sleeve sides

counter hem seam

4mm

0.4mm yarn

5–6mm

garment bottom

hem

4mm

0.4mm yarn

5–6mm

right shoulder

hem

2–3mm

0.4mm yarn

5–6mm

Tab. 2   Chehrābād, tunic: technical details for seams and hems

the sides of the gores have been left open to a length of c. 40cm. The sleeves have been attached to the main fabric of the chest region; they are wider in the shoulder area than around the wrist. This was done by inserting a gusset at the armpit (on the back side of the garment). The shape of the neck opening is not quite clear because the garment is torn in that area. On the right side (shoulder region) there is a carefully sewn and hemmed flap attached which served to close the neck opening. Measurements: Length of the garment: c. 102cm Arm length: c. 52cm Circumference at the wrist: 21cm (right sleeve). Width at the shoulders: c. 52cm Width at the waist: c. 52cm Width at the bottom: c. 87cm Width of the neck opening: c. 25cm (?); this is unclear because the neck part is torn badly. Around the neck a trimming was added (Fig. 6 left), consisting of a minimum 30cm long and c. 3cm wide piece of tabby, which was cut into a narrow strip on the grain of the fabric. This was

66

Karina Grömer – Abolfazl Aali

Fig. 6   Chehrābād, tunic: details. Left: neck opening with trimming and flap; centre: gusset at the sleeve, back side; right: gusset at the bottom of the garment (photos: N. Kanani)

folded around the cut edge of the fabric to prevent it from fraying. Then it was fixed with tiny stitches that can hardly be seen. The seams on the waist area and between the sleeves and main fabric were top stitched (Fig. 6 centre). The seams between the main fabric and the gussets are counter hem seams. The same counter hem seams were used for the side seams of the sleeves (Fig. 5). The bottom end of the fabric is hemmed with a hemming stitch. This was done after the gussets were sewn on the sides (Fig. 6 right). The hem runs along the full width of the garment. For the hem, the fabric was folded inwards once (0.4cm) and then sewn with a fine hemming stitch that is not visible from the right side. The flap on the right shoulder was hemmed at the part in the direction of the chest area. This was done to enlarge the neck opening so that the tunic could be put on. For the hem, the fabric was folded inwards once (0.2–0.3cm) and then sewn with a fine hemming stitch that is not visible from the right side. A detailed analysis of the cut pattern offers some interesting facts: a fabric size of 0.54 × 3.30m in total was needed to make this garment (Fig.7). The garment represents very fine tailoring work;

Fig. 7   Chehrābād, tunic: tailor pattern (graphics: K. Grömer)

How to Make a Sassanian Tunic

67

in making this garment a total of eleven tabby pieces were used to put this together: one long piece for the back and front, four triangular pieces for the gussets, two larger pieces and two triangles for the sleeves, one small rectangular piece for the flap on the shoulders and a long narrow strip for the neck trimming. The tailor’s pattern is very elaborate work and the fabric was used in a resource-efficient way. The tailor’s overall pattern is a very sophisticated one, appearing to be an ‘established’ cut pattern. Therefore, we suggest that the tunic is the work of a specialised tailor. Comparison: Sassanian artwork and textile finds What kinds of upper garments (focussing on tunics) comparable to the Chehrābād tunic do we know from textile finds and pictorial sources from the first half of the 1st millennium CE in the Near East? The earliest representations of Sassanian male dress date from the 3rd century CE and were found at Fīrūzābād, Naqš-e Rajab and Naqš-e Rostam in Iran. The king, his god and the accompanying courtiers are all clad in heavy, smooth tunics which fall to the knees over trousers.22 The tunic was worn in slightly different forms throughout the Sassanian period and had a long tradition in Persia and western Asia,23 e.g. in Palmyra, Syria.24 From Achaemenid times, kneelong and long-sleeved tunics are known, e.g. from the eastern stairway facade at Persepolis.25 In Sassanian art, there are also knee-length tunics with diagonal closings, which are depicted as a variant of the king’s dress, e.g. on the relief of Šāpūr I at Naqš-e Rajab in Iran. The shirt, overlapping in front, was also worn in Parthia and the Kushan Empire in the 2nd and early 3rd centuries CE26 and appears in early coin portraits in Sassanian Persia.27 Complete examples of such tunics with diagonal closing in the front and gussets can be found more in the north and north-east of the Persian Empire, e.g. in Pazyryk, Kurgan 528 in the Altai Mountains or along the Silk Road in Xinjiang29 in western China. In their general shape with gussets, they are comparable with the Chehrābād tunic, but our tunic has no front opening. The main body of complete garments in this area and time period are known from Egypt.30 They derive from graves and represent the knee-length or ankle-length tunic. Their cut differs from the Chehrābād tunic because the tunics from Egypt are very wide around the chest with cylindrical sleeves and do not have gussets. Among the tunics from Egypt and Syria, the specific shape of the Chehrābād tunic with gussets and truncated sleeves are rarely found, occasionally in children’s garments, e.g. from Halebiyeh (Zenobia) in Syria31 or Akhim (Panopolis) in Egypt.32 This specific garment shape, which appears between the 3rd and 7th centuries CE, is seen by Annette Paetz gen. Schieck as deriving from the East and might be of Parthian origin.33 How the Chehrābād tunic was used The question about this object’s intended use is more or less easy to answer: it was made to be worn by a person (at work?). But what does it tell us about gender – was it intended to be an upper

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 22 23

Herrmann 1969, figs. 3–4, pls. II–IV. See, e.g., Ghirshman 1962, figs. 66, 119. Colledge 1976, pl. 22. Takht-e Jamshid, Apadāna. Shahbazi 2011 [1992], chap. ‘Male clothing’. Ghirshman 1962, 86 fig. 98. Göbl 1971, pls. 2/21; 2/23; 3/36; 3/45. Late 4th – early 3rd century BCE: Rice 1957, 67, fig. 41, pls. 4, 12. Wieczorek – Lind 2007, 179, 236–237. Stauffer 1995; Falck – Lichtwark 1996, e.g., 270–276; Thomas 2016. Pfister 1951, 11 (cut pattern), nos. 4–6, 10, tabs. III, V. Thomas 2016, no. 16, figs. 2–4.1. See Paetz gen. Schieck 2015, 81, fig. 5.

68

Karina Grömer – Abolfazl Aali

Fig. 8   Chehrābād, tunic: surface structure of the chest part outside (left) and inside (centre and right) (DinoLite microscope 50C and 200×) (photos: K. Grömer)

garment for a male or female? For this, only contemporary pictorial sources would be of use. Here we see that ‘normal’ garments for a man in the New Persian Empire, in the Sassanian period, were trousers or leggings and a tunic.34 There is scant evidence of clothing worn by Sassanian women of the lower ranks as most depictions are of queens or deities. Women35 wore long tunics; veils were appropriate dress only for noblewomen and court musicians and dancers. So we know that the garment was intended to be worn by a man. The context of the Chehrābād tunic tells us that it ended up as the garment of a miner – the length of the garment points to a male salt mine worker. So far, six mummies have been found in the salt mine, all of them are men. Are we able to deduce that all workers in the mine were of the male sex? Interestingly, the tunic shows no traces of repair; no mending or darning could be detected. This is in contrast, e.g. to the upper garment of Salt Man 4 from Chehrābād, dating to the Achaemenid Period. On his tunic, numerous marks of darning could be detected, especially on the sleeves or the lower parts of the garment.36 It seems as if the Sassanian tunic Find No. 180 was not a second-hand garment that was re-used as miners’ gear. Perhaps it was made as an efficient working garment for the miner who used it. Even if there are no traces of mending or darning, we have hints of the intensive use of the garment (Fig. 8). The fabric is soft and flat on the right side (outside: Fig. 8 left), but on the wrong side (inside: Fig. 8 centre and right) where it was worn next to the body, there was pilling on the surface. On the inside of the tunic there are also some fatty traces that look like a mixture of sweat, adipose tissue and dirt. Those traces might derive from the person who wore the garment. At this point we are not sure if only one person used the garment or if there were a succession of people who wore the tunic. The discarding of the tunic in the salt mine The context suggests, what happened to the tunic: it was left behind in the salt mine. This part of the mine collapsed in Sassanian times and salt debris buried the tunic until it was recovered by archaeologists in 2004. Unlike other complete preserved garments from the Douzlākh salt mine, the garment was not in connection with a human body37; it was not being worn directly by a miner when it was covered by debris (as was the case with the tunic of Salt Man 4), but it had been taken off. The tunic was found in a torn state, some minor parts were missing – enough for it to no longer be useful as a garment.

34

Peck 2011 [1992], chap. ‘Male dress’. Ghirshman 1962, e.g. figs. 106, 181. 36 Salt man 4, Achaemenid period: for general information see Aali – Stöllner 2015, 58, fig. 56; for marks of repair on his upper garment see Grömer et al. 2015a (unpublished report). 37 Aali – Stöllner 2015. 35

How to Make a Sassanian Tunic

69

Again questions remain: was it taken off because it was torn and then forgotten in the mine, or was it taken into the mine as a rag and, as a secondary function, used for purposes other than clothing? In a similar context, in the two salt mines in Austria38 (Hallstatt and Dürrnberg, both 1st millennium BCE), there are hints of such recycling of waste textiles. Some pieces of cloth are torn into strips and knotted and, sometimes, two textiles are tied together with a knot. Among the textiles found in the salt mine of Chehrābād some items are knotted.39 This particular behaviour sheds an interesting light on the resource management of ancient miners because, as stated before, textile production is very time-consuming and thus expensive. The evidence of targeted recycling of waste textiles shows that textiles were much appreciated and fully exploited until the end of their life.

Conclusions The Sassanian tunic found at the Douzlākh salt mine near Chehrābād serves as an interesting example, from which can be gained an understanding of handcraft skills and the people involved both in the production process and the use and discard of the garment (Fig. 9). The degree of skills and technique used in the different activities involved in the making of the garment can be traced by the technical evidence on the fabric, such as the quality of the threads and the weave. It seems as if the spinning was done by one or more persons with skills ranging from practised to expert, while the weaving faults point to a less skilful or perhaps just a less careful textile worker.

Fig. 9   Object biography of the Sassanian tunic (graphics: K. Grömer)

For Dürrnberg see Stöllner 2005, fig. 12; for Hallstatt see Grömer 2016, 307–310. Archive Zanjan Museum unpublished.

38 39

70

Karina Grömer – Abolfazl Aali

In contrast to the weaver’s work, the tailor’s pattern and the quality of the seams and hems of the whole garment represent examples of specialised tailoring. The person who made this was very experienced and had a specific dressmaking pattern in mind which was perhaps a wellestablished one at that time. It seems as if a professional tailor has been at work here. How did the garment then end up in a salt mine in a rural area? Working in a salt mine implies trading activities: there is a commodity produced in this place – salt – that is intended to be used far away. There must have been a lot of connections and transfer of commodities between local, regional and interregional markets and trading places. Because the tunic was found in the mine, it was unquestionably used as miners’ gear. Contemporary pictorial sources demonstrate that a tunic of this shape was a well-established garment type of this period and region and it does not represent a specific working cloth. In the salt mine the garment was used during heavy work, indicated by adipose tissue and dirt as well as use wear such as surface pilling in the chest area. The final damage to the tunic rendered it useless as a garment. Perhaps the garment was torn during work in the mine and discarded where it was. It is also possible that it was brought into the mine as a rag to serve some ‘recycling’ purpose. The biographical approach to an archaeological find offers interesting new insights, but there is much more to explore. Isotopic tracing can bring more insights into the origin of the raw material of the item and can present another stepping stone to our understanding of exchange and trade networks. It is the aim to also apply such detailed technical and interdisciplinary analysis to other textiles from Chehrābād. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Dr Annette Paetz gen. Schieck (Textile Museum Krefeld, Germany), Dr Isabella Bender-Weber (University Vienna, Austria) and Dr Lloyd Llewellyn Jones (Cardiff University, UK) for their support with pictorial sources and textile finds from 400–600 CE. We also gratefully acknowledge Dr Dan Topa (Natural History Museum Vienna, Austria) for the scanning electron microscopy. Furthermore, we would like to thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for providing financial support for a study trip to Zanjan, Iran, in October 2015. The authors also thank the head of the project, Prof. Dr. Thomas Stöllner (RUB/DBM Bochum), for constructive criticism and suggestions. Finally, we want to thank Neda Kenani and Nadia Alidjani (Zanjan) for their help with handling and describing the tunic Find No. 180.

References Aali – Stöllner 2015 A. Aali – T. Stöllner (eds.), The Archaeology of the Salt Miners. Interdisciplinary Research 2010–2014, Metalla 21, 1–2/2014 (Bochum 2015). Aali et al. 2012 A. Aali – T. Stöllner – A. Abar – F. Rühli, The salt men of Iran. The salt mine of Douzlakh, Chehrābād, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 42, 1, 2012, 61–81. Aali in prep. A. Aali, The Ancient Salt Mine of Douzlakh near Chehrabad. The Excavations of 2004 and 2005 (PhD Diss. Ruhr University Bochum in preparation). Alvarez-Mon 2015 J. Alvarez-Mon, The Introduction of Cotton in the Near East. A View from Elam. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 1, 2, 2015, 41–52. Online (last accessed 15 Oct. 2016). Boenke 2015 N. Boenke, The archaeobotanical record, in: Aali – Stöllner 2015, 60–74. Casson 1989 L. Casson, The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Princeton 1989). Colledge 1976 M. A. P. Colledge, The Art of Palmyra (London 1976).

How to Make a Sassanian Tunic

71

Falck – Lichtwark 1996 M. v. Falck – F. Lichtwark (ed.), Ägypten. Schätze aus dem Wüstensand. Kunst und Kultur der Christen am Nil. Katalog zur Ausstellung (Wiesbaden 1996). Ghirshman 1962 R. Ghirshman, Persian Art. The Parthian and Sasanian Dynasties (New York 1962). Göbl 1971 R. Göbl, Sasanian Numismatics (Brunswick 1971). Grömer 2016 K. Grömer, The Art of Prehistoric Textile Making. The Development of Craft Traditions and Clothing in Central Europe, Veröffentlichungen der Prähistorischen Abteilung 5 (Vienna 2016). Grömer et al. 2015a K. Grömer – N. Alidjani – F. Biglari – N. Kanani, Description of the textiles from Salt Man 4 from Chehrābād, Iran. Report Textile Archaeology 2015/9a (Unpublished report, Prehistoric Department, Natural History Museum Vienna, Austria). Grömer et al. 2015b K. Grömer – N. Alidjani – N. Kanani, A complete Sasanian tunic from the Douzlakh salt mine, Chehrābād in Iran. Report Textile Archaeology 2015/9d (Unpublished report, Prehistoric Department, Natural History Museum Vienna, Austria). Hadian et al. 2012 M. Hadian – I. Good – A. M. Pollard – X. Zhang – R. Laursen, Textiles from Douzlakh salt mine in Chehr Abad, Iran. A technical and contextual study of Late pre-Islamic Iranian Textiles, International Journal of Humanities 19, 3, 2012, 152–167. Hammarlund 2004 L. Hammarlund, Handicraft knowledge applied to archaeological textiles. Fabric thickness and density: a method of grouping textiles, Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 39, Autumn 2004, 7–11. Herrmann 1969 G. Herrmann, The Dārābgird relief – Ardashīr or Shāhpūr? A discussion in the context of Early Sasanian sculpture, Iran 7 (Tehran 1969) 63–88. Leroi-Gourhan 1993 A. Leroi-Gourhan, Gesture and Speech (Cambridge 1993). NCS Natural Colour System. Online