In so far as I know, not many loom parts have yet been discovered, and
those which I have had an opportunity of studying do not assist us to
much knowledge beyond that which we have gained by a study of the wall
paintings. We have the article from Kahun already mentioned, which may
possibly be a warp weight, as it somewhat resembles the later warp
weights found elsewhere. It is of hardened mud with a perforation at
the thin end through which a piece of string has been passed and
knotted (Fig. 17), but so far no illustration of a loom with weights
has been found, either for the period to which this article belongs or
to any other period. On the other hand the material is not suitable
for a net-sinker, nor is it intended to be made to stand up. As
mentioned above it is probably AEgean.
[Illustration: Fig. 17.--Piece of perforated hardened mud. Possibly a
warp weight, 10 cm. x 8.7 x 4.2 (3-15/16 in. x 2-7/16 in. x 1-5/8 in.)
Weight 470 gramms (1 lb. 1/2 oz.) Probably of AEgean origin. _Kahun._
Manchester Museum.]
[Illustration: Fig. 18.--Burnt-clay warp weight. Height 11.4 cm. (4-1/4
in.) Weight 260 gramms (9-1/4 oz.) Probably Roman. Bankfield Museum.
(Received from Prof. Flinders Petrie).]
Another form of warp weight, of burnt clay, is somewhat frequently met
with, Fig. 18, but it is described as appertaining to Roman times, and
may therefore be either a Greek or Roman article. Similar weights from
Cyprus and North Africa, &c., can be seen in the British Museum.
Wooden pegs have been found at Gurob, which may possibly have been
used for holding the warp and breast beams in position, Fig. 19. These
pegs may appear to be rather short for the purpose, but in very
primitive looms the warp is not kept so taut as might and should be,
and hence there is not the same heavy strain on the pegs as we should
deem necessary. The way to settle their use would be to fix them in
solid ground and test them.
[Illustration: Fig. 19.--Wooden Peg, possibly used for holding the
warp and breast beams. Length 13.5 to 10.2 cm. (5-13/16 in. to 4 in.)
_Gurob_ XVIII.-XIX. Dyn. (about 1580-1205 B.C.) Manchester Museum.]
[Illustration: Fig. 20.--Long straight lath with notches at each end,
probably a laze rod. Length 1 m. 24 (4 ft. 13/16 in.) Breadth 5.2 cm. (2
in.) Thickness 2.2 cm. (7/8 in.) _Kahun._ Manchester Museum.]
[Illustration: 1/2 size section of Fig. 20.]
[Illustration: 1/2 size section of Fig. 21.]
[Illustration: Fig. 21.--Long curved lath. Probably a "beater-in."
Length 1 m. 20 (3 ft. 11-1/4 in.) Breadth 6.5 cm. (1-11/32 in.).
Thickness 1 cm. (3/8 in.) _Kahun._ XII. Dynasty about 2000-1788 B.C.
Manchester Museum.]
At Kahun a long straight lath, Fig. 20, was found which is probably a
laze rod, the notches being apparently for a nooze to slip into and so
prevent the rod working towards the weaver which it has a tendency to
do.
Another long but curved lath, Fig. 21, also found at Kahun is probably
a beater-in.
Most large Egyptian collections contain one or more specimens of
wooden combs, which are generally called weavers combs, and ascribed
to Roman times. But one at least, Fig. 22, has been found with XVIIIth
to XIXth Dynasty articles at Gurob, that is belonging to the period
1580-1150 B.C., which is long before Rome existed. None of these
so-called combs, for they are really embryo reeds, are shown on the
wall illustrations so that they no doubt belong to a later date than
that of the XIIth Dynasty. If, as I take it, these "combs" are the
forerunners of the reed and were used to drive the weft threads home,
and if also the Romans had upright looms provided with warp weights
instead of the breast beam, then I think the "comb" may not be Roman
but may be a late Egyptian invention. For, on trying to use such a
comb on a _replica_ of a Scandinavian upright loom provided with warp
weights (instead of with the breast beam) I can get no good result, in
fact rather the opposite, but tried on a primitive horizontal loom
provided with a breast beam the comb is found to be of some
assistance, especially if the warp is not very taut as is generally
the case with primitive looms. At Bankfield we have an Indian rug
loom, already referred to, with warp and breast beam on which a
somewhat similar instrument, but of iron, was used.[D]
[Illustration: Fig. 22.--Weaver's Comb--a Beater-in. 19.5 cm. x 9.8 x
4.2 (7-3/4 in. x 3-7/8 in. x 1-5/8 in.) _Gurob._ Manchester Museum.]
[Illustration: Fig. 23.--Possibly a warp spacer, somewhat similar in
object to the raddle of modern hand loom weaving. Height 2.8 cm. Width
2.5 cm. (1-1/8 in. x 1 in.) The slots are 6 mm. (1/4 in.) apart, 3 mm.
(1/16 in.) wide, and about 10 mm. (3/8 in.) deep. From _Gurob_ but
probably Roman. Bankfield Museum. (Received from Prof. Flinders
Petrie).]
An article which Prof. Flinders Petrie describes as a "warp spacer" is
shown in Fig. 23. From fragments in the Egyptian Collection,
University College, London, it would appear to have been originally
more than a meter (three feet) long. It may have been used as a sort
of a "raddle," a tool used for assisting to keep the warp threads in
position when being beamed, _i.e._ put on to the loom. At Bankfield we
have an old local hand loom the warp beam of which is provided with a
series of holes in which pegs were once inserted to keep the coloured
warp threads in position.
[Illustration: Fig. 24.
1/2 size of end of Fig. 24.
1/2 size section of Fig. 24.
A long piece of perforated wood described by Prof. Flinders Petrie,
_Kahun_, p. 29, as a Weaver's Beam for making rush mats. Length 96.8
cm. x 8.0 x 3.0 (3 ft. 1-1/4 in. x 3-1/4 in. x 1-3/16 in.) From
Manchester Museum.]
A piece of frame, Fig. 24, has been described as a "weaver's beam" for
making rush mats like the modern _hasira_. It is provided with 28
holes which are arranged about 27 to 40 mm. apart. The holes may have
been more or less circular originally, and worn into present shape by
threads, etc., and look more irregular inside than they really are, as
the inside surface of the holes is fairly smooth; the holes are
slightly larger, on an average about 4 mm., on the face shown than on
the other face. Prof. Flinders Petrie seems to think it resembles the
frame on which the modern Egyptian mat is made.
We now come to the two reeds in the Museum of the Liverpool Institute
of Archaeology, which Dr. John Garstang discovered near Abu Kirkas,
tomb No. 693, of which he tells us: "They are 27 and 29 inches (68.6
and 73.7 cm.) in length respectively, and are precisely similar in
general form. They are constructed on a system of nineteen or twenty
reeds to the inch, and they may be seen to be exactly similar to the
modern reed taken from a loom in the village of Abu Kirkas. It is not
possible, unfortunately, to assign a precise date to these objects.
They were found in a tomb which contained no other remains; this tomb
was surrounded by others, all of them likewise very much disturbed,
but equally characteristic of the general nature of the Middle Empire
tombs, and containing nothing but Middle Empire objects. Since, in
general, few tombs of this site show signs of intrusive burial of a
later age, there is no reason to suppose that these objects are of any
date later than the XII. Dynasty (_The Burial Customs of Ancient
Egypt_, London, 1907, pp. 134-136)."
The horizontal looms we have been describing belong to this period,
and the artists have not shown any reeds with them. My studies of
primitive looms lead me to think that these Egyptian looms are of a
date far anterior to the invention or the application of a reed. It
has also, I believe, been remarked by those who have examined cloths
of this date, that the irregular array of the warp threads is good
proof that reeds could not have been in use. I have already pointed
out that in the evolution of the loom the reed puts in a late
appearance, but apart from this fact, I do not think the artist would
have omitted such an important tool had it been in use in his time.
[Illustration: Fig. 25.--Reed in Cairo Museum. Length 66 cm. (26 in.)
It consists of two wooden frames fitted with flat iron wires. String
is wound round the frames binding them together. Then a kind of
canvas(?) cover in placed over the frames to cover up the projecting
ends of the wires, but this has disappeared in places.]
Dr. Garstang points out that although the surrounding tombs contained
Middle Empire objects, the reeds were found in a tomb _without_ any
other remains. This can hardly be considered evidence tending to prove
that they belonged to the period named, and it is certainly weakened
by the accompanying statement that the reeds are _exactly_ similar to
the modern reed, for that is almost sufficient to prove that they are
_not_ 3900-3700 years old. To me they seem comparatively modern and
very similar to one in the Cairo Museum which MM. Brugsch and Quibell
are inclined to think is Coptic with this difference, that in Dr.
Garstang's reeds the divisions appear to be of cane or wood, while in
the Cairo reed they are of iron (?steel). The sketch of this Coptic
reed, Fig. 25, has been drawn specially for me, and Miss W. M.
Crompton, Assistant Keeper in Egyptology in the Manchester University
Museum, has kindly examined the sketch with the article and pronounced
it correct. We may, I think, safely conclude that the reed found by
Dr. Garstang is Coptic and not Ancient Egyptian.
As regards the actual work of weaving, balls of thread have been found
and so have very flat bobbins and pieces of stick with thread wound
round which may have been spools as indicated in the drawing, Fig. 7.
There is no reason why balls of thread should not have been used as
they are in uncivilised countries at the present day, as, for
instance, in Tibet, as reported by W. W. Rockhill in _Diary of a
Journey through Mongolia and Thibet_, Washington, 1894, p. 41.
"DIAGONAL WEAVING."
I am unable to agree with a recently made statement published in _The
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Marghuneh_, by Prof. Flinders Petrie, E. A.
Wainwright and E. Mackey, p. 6, which runs: "The fact of the weft not
being at right angles to the warp, if one may conclude by the fabrics,
does not, I think, imply that such weaving is of inferior quality.
When I noticed the peculiarity first, I thought it might have arisen
through distortion by stretching over the body, but repeated examples
of the same fact have led me to consider other causes. We know how
closely analogous to 'darning' was the early weaving; and in our days
it is not unusual to find stockings not darned at right angles, and it
may be the women weavers of old sometimes put in the weft more or less
out of true right angle. In the childhood of weaving we should expect
different methods, and it may be, seeing that we have no selvedged
cloth until very long after this time, that they experimented with a
diagonal weft to see if it would not reduce the tendency to fray out
at the sides." The amount the warp and weft are out of the right angle
is stated to be about 20 deg. The specimen shown me under the microscope
indicated clearly that the warp and weft were not at right angles and
that the interstices were not square but diamond shaped.
It is possible to arrange the warp threads diagonally from beam to
beam, but with continuous weft (that is in weaving so as to get
selvedges) the weft has the tendency to slip up on one side and down
on the other, hence the weaving is made laborious. With a separate
weft for each pick, _i.e._, for every once the shed is opened, there
is naturally not this tendency, but this alleged diagonally woven
cloth frays just as easily as any other piece of cloth without
selvedge, so in either case there is not only no advantage but
distinct disadvantage taking the diagonal "beaming" into
consideration. We must give the Egyptians credit for using the least
laborious of two methods, that is _if_ the second one were known to
them.
Apparent diagonal weaving can be produced by anyone taking an ordinary
piece of linen or cotton cloth, cutting off the selvedge and
stretching the cloth in a direction diagonally to the direction of the
warp and weft, and a piece of diagonally woven cloth is the result!
The probability is that the specimen of cloth, without a selvedge,
having been stretched over the body for a long period of time, has, in
the course of that time lost its nature and when removed it has
retained its altered form and gives us the impression of having been
woven diagonally.
"THE LINEN GIRDLE OF RAMESES III."
In the foregoing I have shown how extremely simple was the whole
apparatus for weaving in use by the Ancient Egyptians, and one is
rather surprised to be told that about B.C. 1200, in the time of
Rameses III., the Egyptians "built and used looms very much more
complicated than has hitherto been believed to be the case," or to be
referred to "the really complicated form of loom used." Yet this is
what Mr. Thorold D. Lee tells us (pp. 84 and 86) in his paper on _The
Linen Girdle of Rameses III._ (_Ann. of Archaeology and Anthropology of
the Liverpool Institute of Archaeology_, July, 1912, V.)
The characteristics of this girdle are its great length, 17 feet (5 m.
2), its even taper diminishing from 5 in. (12.7 cm.) in width to 1-7/8
in. (4.8 cm.) in width, its elaborate design and excellent
workmanship. Perhaps the chief of these characteristics is the taper.
It is most probable, as Mr. Lee points out, that in the weaving the
warp threads have been gradually dropped out to make the taper, rather
than that additional warp threads have been added. As it is easy to
drop a warp thread, and almost impossible to add one while weaving is
in progress, Mr. Lee's view is confirmed by this. It would also be
almost impossible to keep the warp taut if the number of warp threads
were increased as the work went on. This means that the girdle was
commenced at the wide end and finished at the narrow end.
It is common knowledge that when a warp thread drops out, its place is
indicated by a thinness or fine opening for the whole length of the
missing warp, and this is so because the reed, besides pushing the
weft into position, also acts as a warp spacer, that is to say it
keeps the warp threads properly apart, every one being properly
aligned. When no reed is used the warp threads are not so evenly
placed--they are not so parallel to one another for there is nothing
but their tautness to keep them in position. Hence there is every
reason to conclude that when, on a loom provided with a reed, warp
threads have been removed their position must be indicated, and _vice
versa_ if no reed has been used the position of the removed threads
will not be so clearly indicated, but there will be a more marked
shrinkage in the width of the cloth as well as in the pattern, and
this is what has taken place in the girdle giving us the diminishing
taper.
[Illustration: "THE LINEN GIRDLE OF RAMESES III."
_Reproduced by kind permission of Dr. Clubb, Director, The Museums,
Liverpool._]
If this diminishing taper were indicated by a decrease in the width of
the pattern commencing at the selvedges, then it might be presumed
that a reed had been used for the central portion only--a very clumsy
even if feasible arrangement, but the pattern begins to decrease along
the middle and hence no reed could have been used.
It does not follow that because a loom was not provided with a reed it
was without heddles. Anyone who will examine the large series of
primitive looms at Bankfield Museum, will observe that heddles
preceded reeds; this must necessarily be so as the making of the shed
is the first step in weaving, while the reed's work is more that of a
finisher. But the heddles are all extremely primitive, and in my
experience do not exceed four in number where there is no reed. Such a
quantity of heddles with its complicated harness as Mr. Lee considers
necessary is quite out of the question with a loom so undeveloped as
not to be provided with a reed. Hence the indication is that the
girdle was woven on a loom of a primitive character.
In carrying out the work the weaver has made many mistakes. On the
left hand side of the right hand row of red crosses (they come out
black in the photograph) there is an "end down" for a considerable
distance--that is a thread has been missed.
On the same row of crosses three white threads show above and below,
while on the left hand row of crosses there are five white threads
above and below. The crosses are neither the same size nor shape in
the two columns and curiously their white hafts in both columns point
to the left instead of one row pointing to the left and the other to
the right. Then again the white point at the right apex of the zigzag
on the left corresponds to a red point at the left apex of the right
hand zigzag, but if the girdle had been woven on an advanced loom with
dobby and harness these points would have been red in both places.
As regards the large number of warp threads to the inch which Mr. Lee
puts down as 272-340 (107-134 per cm.), this does not by any means
indicate a complicated piece of machinery for the weaving of this belt
or any other fabric. The greater the number of threads to the inch the
finer must the threads be in order to get them into the allotted
space, and in the weaving there will be so many more threads to raise
and lower in order to make the shed opening. It means multiplying the
work but does not necessarily mean that a more complicated loom must
be used in the weaving.
It is not possible without opening the fabric to be quite positive on
the many points which are raised, but there seems nothing about it
which should prevent its having been made on a simple loom. Although
superior to most, but not all, of the well known Coptic cloths in
Bankfield and in many other museums, it very closely resembles some of
them in many respects excepting in the taper.
I should add that in making my examination of this girdle I was kindly
assisted by Mr. C. A. Trigg, a well known Halifax mill manager and
designer. We made the examination independently and on comparing notes
afterwards found that we agreed in all essential points.