In the tomb of Chnem-hotep, at Beni Hasan, there is a wall painting of
a horizontal loom with two weavers, women, squatting on either side,
and at the right in the background is drawn the figure of the
taskmaster. There are also figures represented in the act of spinning,
etc. For the present we are concerned with the weaving only.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from the
illustration in Cailliaud's _Recherches_, etc. Same size as
published.]
Of this illustration, there appear to be six reproductions. We have
first of all, Fig. 1, that of Fred. Cailliaud (_Recherches sur les
Arts et Metiers_, etc., Paris, 1831) with illustrations of drawings
made by himself in the years 1819 to 1822. His publication was
followed by Fig. 2, that of Sir J. G. Wilkinson (_Manners and
Customs_, etc., London, 1837). Mr. John Murray, whose house has
published Wilkinson's work from the first edition to the last, informs
me that a few of the drawings were made by George Scharf, afterwards
Sir George Scharf, Keeper of the National Portrait Gallery, but that
most of them seem to have been made by Joseph Bonomi, the well known
Egyptologist. Wilkinson's woodcut, although clearly and neatly done,
is on a very small scale; nevertheless it admits of a fair comparison
with those reproduced on a larger scale.
[Illustration:
Figs. 1 & 3. Weaving.
Fig. 2. Loom.
" 3. Putting in the woof, but not
by a shuttle thrown with
the hand.
" 4. Male Overseer.
" 5. Hackling.
" 6. Twisting the double threads
for the warp.
_a_ Weaving.
_b_ Chief of Loom.
_c_ Facing.
_d_ Pulling out.
Fig. 2.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from Sir J. G.
Wilkinson's _Manners and Customs_, London, John Murray, 1878, Vol. I.,
p. 317. Same size as published.]
[Illustration: Fig. 3.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from the
illustration in Rosellini's _Monumenti_ (Monumenti Civili), Plate XLI.
Reduced one-fifth lineal of size published.]
[Illustration: Fig. 4.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from
Lepsius' _Denkmaeler_. Same size as published.]
[Illustration: Fig. 5.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, from
Prof. Percy Newberry's _Beni Hasan_, I. Plate 29. Same size as
published.]
After him, Fig. 3, N. F. J. B. Rosellini began the publication of his
great work (_I Monumenti dell' Egitto_, Pisa, 1832-1844). The
similarity between the comparatively few drawings published by
Cailliaud and the very large number published by Rosellini is very
great. It is of course quite possible Rosellini may have made use of
some of Cailliaud's drawings. Five years after Rosellini's publication
came that of C. R. Lepsius (_Denkmaeler_, Leipzig, 1849), Fig. 4, his
drawings having been made in the years 1842 to 1845. Since the time of
Lepsius until quite recent years I can trace no further copying until
we get the illustration, Fig. 5, in Prof. Percy Newberry's _Beni
Hasan_, London, 1910. In this work the reproduction is about one
twentieth of the original, or about three fifths of the size of that
of Wilkinson, and unfortunately so crude as not to be available for
our present purpose.[B] Lastly we have the reproduction, Fig. 6, from
Mr. N. de Garis Davies' drawing made in 1903, and now first published
by kind permission of Mr. F. Ll. Griffith.
[Illustration: Fig. 6.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep. Size of
original: Height of the figures 9-1/4" = 24.4 cm. Drawn by Mr. N. de
G. Davies, and now published for the first time by permission of Mr.
F. Ll. Griffith.]
In the various reproductions by the above explorers, the only three
which agree very closely are those of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies.
The others vary considerably and in essentials do not agree with the
above nor with one another. The differences may in the first instance
be due to difficulties in copying the original in the tomb. Others may
be due to ignorance of detail on the part of the secondary
copyist--the man who prepared them for publication--so that he was
unable to follow up the clues on the drawings laid before him. The
differences may also be due to careless copying and to "touching up"
of the copies when made; they may be slightly due to deterioration and
obliteration of the original in the course of time.
The _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ gives a variant from all six illustrations,
but approaching nearest to that of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies. It
is misleading in so far that the drawing has been made to suit
Professor Kennedy's idea as to what it should be.
Some of the differences are of minor importance, but a comparison will
help materially to our understanding of the method of weaving adopted
by the Egyptians from the XIIth to the XIXth Dynasties, or about B.C.
2000 to 1200. To go into details, and taking Mr. N. de G. Davies'
illustration as our basis, we find slight differences in the shape of
the pegs B, B1, which are immaterial. A more pronounced difference is
seen in the way in which the threads are attached to the warp beam A.
Neither Wilkinson nor Lepsius carry these threads over the beam, the
former carrying them only as far as the laze threads C, while the
latter carries them up to a line drawn parallel to and below the beam;
Cailliaud and Rosellini carry them over the beam while Mr. Davies
carries them half way only. The object of this half carrying over is
not clear. The threads in chain-form at C are probably laze threads,
apparently placed there so that in case of any disarrangement of the
warp threads the weaver can from that point run her fingers along them
and get them disentangled. It has been suggested to me that this
chain-form might be a tension chain for taking up slack warp, but the
former explanation seems the more likely.
All the drawings but Wilkinson's show the warp threads converging
towards the breast beam; Wilkinson shows them parallel and in Lepsius
their convergence is excessive. There should be a slight convergence
shown, as in the course of weaving the threads get drawn in, and in
later forms of looms in semi-civilised countries we find an endeavour
to counteract this tendency by the use of a tool known as a "temple."
The cross sticks D1, D2, look like laze rods. It may not be out of
place here to point out that in primitive weaving laze rods serve two
purposes, or one more than in the later somewhat more advanced looms.
They serve throughout to keep the warp threads in place, and they
serve to separate the odd threads from the even (1, 3, 5, 7 from 2, 4,
6, 8, &c.), and in so doing take the place of the fingers in making
the "shed," _i.e._, the opening through which the "weft (or woof)" is
passed, a function which in turn is usurped by the "heald (or
heddle)." The heddle therefore becomes a very important factor, and
Dr. H. G. Harrison by no means overstates the case when he says that
the development of the heddle is the most important step in the
evolution of the loom (Horniman Museum Handbooks, No. 10, pp. 47-49).
We may now return to the drawing. Wilkinson shows the rod D1
indistinctly and the left hand end only of D2. Lepsius' artist seems
to have taken a liberty with D1 but in the right direction, by making
it more definitely into an early form of heddle--the loop and rod--but
he shows D2 the same as Cailliaud and Rosellini. Prof. Kennedy argues
that these rods are in the wrong position and that D1 which is a
heddle should be in the place of D2. Mr. Davies' drawing as well as
those of Cailliaud and Rosellini show that D1 is a heddle while D2 is
shown to be a laze rod. Asiatic primitive looms, like those from
Borneo and Bhutan, have two laze rods but no heddle; on the other hand
many primitive African looms have one laze rod and one heddle as is
the case with this Egyptian loom. More threads are shown on the left
hand end of D2 than on the right hand end. Mr. Davies informs me that
the same quantity should be shown from end to end across the warp, but
on the right hand side they are so indistinct that he was just able to
detect but not to trace them and so he omitted them.
We now come to the rod E. Cailliaud and Rosellini show an undulation
at the one end _a_, but do not make the other end clear. Wilkinson
shows a small hook at the end _a_, which appears to me to be a
transcriber's development of the curved end of his two predecessors;
in the text Wilkinson says there is a hook at each end of this stick,
but he does not show any at the end opposite to _a_; he refers to
these hooks more than once (1st ed., III., p. 126 footnote). Lepsius
has altered the shape of the curve and transferred it from the end _a_
to the opposite end. In Mr. de G. Davies' drawing, it has been
inserted in dotted lines, as the original is in such a state that
tracing is almost impossible. Wilkinson, Erman, v. Cohausen (_Das
Spinnen u. Weben bei den Alten_, in _Ann. Ver. Nassau. Altherthumsk._,
Wiesbaden, 1879, p. 29), and others call it a shuttle, but I am more
inclined to consider it a slashing stick ("sword" or "beater-in") for
pushing the weft into position. A tool which appears to be a beater-in
and of similar end shape is seen held in the hand of a woman on a
wall painting at El Bersheh--see Fig. 11, top right-hand corner. We
have in another illustration, Fig. 7, an article which appears to be a
spool, which I think confirms the view that E is not the shuttle but
the beater-in. In all the illustrations, too, the pose of the hands of
the women bearing on this stick is indicative of a downward pressure
and not of a grasp.
[Illustration: Fig. 7.--Tomb of the Vizier Daga. Date about end XI.
Dynasty, B.C. 2000. Mr. N. de G. Davies' _Five Theban Tombs_, Plate
XXXVII.
The upper illustration indicates a woman warping or beaming, probably
warping.
In the lower illustration note the left hand figure holding the spool
in her hand. At first sight this small black line looks like a
continuation of the "beater-in" in the hands of the other weaver, but
Mr. Davies informs me that it is quite a distinct article, and that
there can be no doubt about it. Just above the breast beam there are 8
or 9 threads of weft but they are too faint to be included.]
The selvedge F on the one side of the cloth and not on both sides is
also interesting from the fact that selvedges do not appear on the
Egyptian cloths until the XVIII. Dynasty _circa_ B.C. 1600.
The breast beam:--It appears to me that the three portions marked G1,
G2 and G3 joined up are intended to represent the breast beam and its
holding pegs, similar to the warp beam A and its pegs B1, B2, but the
portion K is not clearly drawn in any of the reproductions. Wilkinson
omits this altogether, but in its place has two black pieces which
also are still less clear. Lepsius has omitted G2 altogether and
appears to have made G1 and K and G3 into treadles, by raising G1
above the level of G3, and to support the view that these are
treadles, he makes use of the overseer's foot by placing it on the
supposed treadle, and the casual observer thinks it is the foot of the
woman weaver. However, Mr. Davies' copy seems to offer a solution. He
agrees with Cailliaud and Rosellini in so far as G1, G2 and G3 are
concerned. With him K takes quite a different form, in fact it looks
very similar to an article which an attendant woman in another panel
has close by her, see Fig. 8. It might perhaps be a rest to prevent
the beater-in being driven home too forcibly--this, however, is still
only a surmise--as the length of the beater-in makes it heavy at the
far end.
[Illustration: Fig. 8.--Weaver with the support K, Fig. 6; the woman
appears to hold a beater-in in the right hand and a ball of thread in
the left hand. Rosellini.]
In Cailliaud the warp threads are coloured in pale blue and red on top
of the black lines of the drawing; he has painted the selvedge and
finished cloth a pale blue, as well as that portion of G2 which is
covered by the cloth indicating that this is the breast beam, G3 and
G1 are painted a dark red. Rosellini colours A, B1, B2, D1, D2, G3
orange; G1 and K dark red, but E from end to end light ochre. This
shows that K is distinct from E.
[Illustration: Fig. 9.
Upright or Vertical Looms from the Tomb of Thot-nefer at Thebes, XVIII
Dynasty, _circa_ B.C. 1425. From a drawing by Mr. N. de G. Davies. Size
of original: Height from Base Line to top of frame at A, 11-1/2" = 29
cm.]
In consequence of this loom being represented as upright it is often
spoken of as an upright or vertical loom. But it is drawn upright
because the Egyptian artist did not understand perspective, and it was
only by making the loom upright that he was enabled to show the
details we have just been examining. For the same reason mat making is
illustrated edgeways. If the loom were an upright one the two women
weavers would have had their backs turned towards the onlooker as can
be seen in Fig. 9. Any doubt on the matter has however been set aside
by Prof. John Garstang's extremely interesting discovery of a wooden
model depicting a group of women spinning and weaving which he
illustrates in his work, _The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt_,
London, 1907. After referring to the woman spinning, he continues:
"The other seated figures apparently represent women at work upon a
horizontal loom; the frame and the woof [_sic_, should be _warp_]
threads are faintly represented upon the board. It is possible that
they are making mats or, perhaps, weaving (p. 132)." He gives an
illustration of the group taken from a photograph, but as it does not
show the lines which indicate the loom lying horizontally on the
ground nor the warp threads, I have asked him to let me have a drawing
made of it and, with his kind permission, it is now reproduced here,
Fig. 10. The threads of the warp and the finished piece of cloth at
the breast beam end are clearly indicated. The whole model supports
conclusively the well founded supposition that the loom we have been
considering is a _horizontal_ one. Curiously enough, Prof. Garstang
does not appear to appreciate the important bearing of his discovery,
for on a later page (p. 134) in speaking of Lepsius' illustration,
discussed above, he says: "the weavers are seen at work at an upright
loom."
[Illustration: Fig. 10.--Horizontal Loom. Outline sketch by Miss Davey
of the original model of a group of one woman spinning and two women
weaving, found by Dr. John Garstang at Beni Hasan. The model is in the
Museum of the Liverpool Institute of Archaeology.]
It must not be thought that the Beni Hasan representation is the only
one which illustrates a horizontal loom. A second one is reproduced by
Prof. Percy Newberry from the tomb of Tehuti-hetep _circa_ 1938-1849
B.C., see Fig. 11. In the upper portion the women are seen spinning
and preparing the thread generally, while in the lower portion two
women on the left are warping, and in the centre three apparently are
"beaming," _i.e._ putting the warp on to the beams preparatory to
commencing to weave, the warp threads being apparently drawn over pegs
to ensure the proper tension. This illustration shows the warp flat
against the wall like the mat making shown at Beni Hasan.
[Illustration: Fig. 11.--Tomb of Tehuti-hetep. Date about 1939-1849
B.C. From Professor Percy Newberry's _El Bersheh_ I. Pl. 26.