Transcriber's Note

There is a small amount of Greek in this book; you may needto adjust your font to display it properly. 

 Ancient Egyptian and Greek Looms

 BY H. LING ROTH (Keeper). 

 WITH 38 LINE BLOCK AND ONE COLLOTYPE ILLUSTRATIONS. 

 BANKFIELD MUSEUM, HALIFAX APRIL 1913

PREFACE. 

Halifax, which is situated in the heart of the great textile trade ofLancashire and Yorkshire, has been a home of the woollen manufacturesince the earliest time, and it is only meet, therefore, that itsmuseum should possess specimens of the tools used in the early days ofspinning, weaving, and cloth making generally. In spite of theconsiderable progress made towards that end, many typical specimensare still wanting, and, while we have plenty of material for the studyof weaving in various parts of the world, we are lacking in everythingrelating to the industry in Ancient Egypt and Greece. Failingspecimens I have had recourse to illustrations, but the Egyptian onespublished by Cailliaud, Rosellini, Sir J. G. Wilkinson and Lepsius, contradict each other in many important points, so that those whostudy them find them practically useless for an understanding of theart as carried on in the Nile lands. Fortunately, last year, Mr. N. DeG. Davies, the well-known Egyptologist, hearing of my difficulty, verygenerously placed some of his copies of tomb drawings at my disposal, and with this invaluable help I have been enabled to complete thepresent paper, and to lay before Halifax students some new details ofmanufacture bearing upon their staple industry. 

 H. Ling Roth. 

 Bankfield Museum, Halifax. April 1913. 

I. EGYPTIAN LOOMS. 

HORIZONTAL LOOMS. [A]

In the tomb of Chnem-hotep, at Beni Hasan, there is a wall painting ofa horizontal loom with two weavers, women, squatting on either side, and at the right in the background is drawn the figure of thetaskmaster. 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 theillustration in Cailliaud's _Recherches_, etc. Same size aspublished. ]

Of this illustration, there appear to be six reproductions. We havefirst of all, Fig. 1, that of Fred. Cailliaud (_Recherches sur lesArts et Métiers_, etc. , Paris, 1831) with illustrations of drawingsmade by himself in the years 1819 to 1822. His publication wasfollowed by Fig. 2, that of Sir J. G. Wilkinson (_Manners andCustoms_, etc. , London, 1837). Mr. John Murray, whose house haspublished Wilkinson's work from the first edition to the last, informsme that a few of the drawings were made by George Scharf, afterwardsSir George Scharf, Keeper of the National Portrait Gallery, but thatmost of them seem to have been made by Joseph Bonomi, the well knownEgyptologist. Wilkinson's woodcut, although clearly and neatly done, is on a very small scale; nevertheless it admits of a fair comparisonwith 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 theillustration in Rosellini's _Monumenti_ (Monumenti Civili), Plate XLI. Reduced one-fifth lineal of size published. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 4. --Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, fromLepsius' _Denkmäler_. Same size as published. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 5. --Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep, fromProf. Percy Newberry's _Beni Hasan_, I. Plate 29. Same size aspublished. ]

After him, Fig. 3, N. F. J. B. Rosellini began the publication of hisgreat work (_I Monumenti dell' Egitto_, Pisa, 1832-1844). Thesimilarity between the comparatively few drawings published byCailliaud and the very large number published by Rosellini is verygreat. It is of course quite possible Rosellini may have made use ofsome of Cailliaud's drawings. Five years after Rosellini's publicationcame that of C. R. Lepsius (_Denkmäler_, Leipzig, 1849), Fig. 4, hisdrawings having been made in the years 1842 to 1845. Since the time ofLepsius until quite recent years I can trace no further copying untilwe get the illustration, Fig. 5, in Prof. Percy Newberry's _BeniHasan_, London, 1910. In this work the reproduction is about onetwentieth of the original, or about three fifths of the size of thatof Wilkinson, and unfortunately so crude as not to be available forour present purpose. [B] Lastly we have the reproduction, Fig. 6, fromMr. N. De Garis Davies' drawing made in 1903, and now first publishedby kind permission of Mr. F. Ll. Griffith. 

[Illustration: Fig. 6. --Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep. Size oforiginal: Height of the figures 9-1/4" = 24·4 cm. Drawn by Mr. N. DeG. 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 threewhich agree very closely are those of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies. The others vary considerably and in essentials do not agree with theabove nor with one another. The differences may in the first instancebe due to difficulties in copying the original in the tomb. Others maybe due to ignorance of detail on the part of the secondarycopyist--the man who prepared them for publication--so that he wasunable to follow up the clues on the drawings laid before him. Thedifferences may also be due to careless copying and to "touching up"of the copies when made; they may be slightly due to deterioration andobliteration of the original in the course of time. 

The _Encyclopædia Biblica_ gives a variant from all six illustrations, but approaching nearest to that of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies. Itis misleading in so far that the drawing has been made to suitProfessor Kennedy's idea as to what it should be. 

Some of the differences are of minor importance, but a comparison willhelp materially to our understanding of the method of weaving adoptedby 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 ofthe pegs B, B1, which are immaterial. A more pronounced difference isseen in the way in which the threads are attached to the warp beam A. Neither Wilkinson nor Lepsius carry these threads over the beam, theformer carrying them only as far as the laze threads C, while thelatter carries them up to a line drawn parallel to and below the beam;Cailliaud and Rosellini carry them over the beam while Mr. Daviescarries them half way only. The object of this half carrying over isnot clear. The threads in chain-form at C are probably laze threads, apparently placed there so that in case of any disarrangement of thewarp threads the weaver can from that point run her fingers along themand get them disentangled. It has been suggested to me that thischain-form might be a tension chain for taking up slack warp, but theformer explanation seems the more likely. 

All the drawings but Wilkinson's show the warp threads convergingtowards the breast beam; Wilkinson shows them parallel and in Lepsiustheir convergence is excessive. There should be a slight convergenceshown, as in the course of weaving the threads get drawn in, and inlater forms of looms in semi-civilised countries we find an endeavourto 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 ofplace here to point out that in primitive weaving laze rods serve twopurposes, or one more than in the later somewhat more advanced looms. They serve throughout to keep the warp threads in place, and theyserve 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 makingthe "shed, " _i. E. _, the opening through which the "weft (or woof)" ispassed, a function which in turn is usurped by the "heald (orheddle). " The heddle therefore becomes a very important factor, andDr. H. G. Harrison by no means overstates the case when he says thatthe development of the heddle is the most important step in theevolution of the loom (Horniman Museum Handbooks, No. 10, pp. 47-49). We may now return to the drawing. Wilkinson shows the rod D1indistinctly and the left hand end only of D2. Lepsius' artist seemsto have taken a liberty with D1 but in the right direction, by makingit more definitely into an early form of heddle--the loop and rod--buthe shows D2 the same as Cailliaud and Rosellini. Prof. Kennedy arguesthat these rods are in the wrong position and that D1 which is aheddle should be in the place of D2. Mr. Davies' drawing as well asthose of Cailliaud and Rosellini show that D1 is a heddle while D2 isshown to be a laze rod. Asiatic primitive looms, like those fromBorneo and Bhutan, have two laze rods but no heddle; on the other handmany primitive African looms have one laze rod and one heddle as isthe case with this Egyptian loom. More threads are shown on the lefthand end of D2 than on the right hand end. Mr. Davies informs me thatthe same quantity should be shown from end to end across the warp, buton the right hand side they are so indistinct that he was just able todetect but not to trace them and so he omitted them. 

We now come to the rod E. Cailliaud and Rosellini show an undulationat the one end _a_, but do not make the other end clear. Wilkinsonshows a small hook at the end _a_, which appears to me to be atranscriber'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 tothese hooks more than once (1st ed. , III. , p. 126 footnote). Lepsiushas 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 beeninserted in dotted lines, as the original is in such a state thattracing is almost impossible. Wilkinson, Erman, v. Cohausen (_DasSpinnen u. Weben bei den Alten_, in _Ann. Ver. Nassau. Altherthumsk. _, Wiesbaden, 1879, p. 29), and others call it a shuttle, but I am moreinclined to consider it a slashing stick ("sword" or "beater-in") forpushing the weft into position. A tool which appears to be a beater-inand of similar end shape is seen held in the hand of a woman on awall painting at El Bersheh--see Fig. 11, top right-hand corner. Wehave in another illustration, Fig. 7, an article which appears to be aspool, which I think confirms the view that E is not the shuttle butthe beater-in. In all the illustrations, too, the pose of the hands ofthe women bearing on this stick is indicative of a downward pressureand 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_, PlateXXXVII. 

The upper illustration indicates a woman warping or beaming, probablywarping. 

In the lower illustration note the left hand figure holding the spoolin her hand. At first sight this small black line looks like acontinuation of the "beater-in" in the hands of the other weaver, butMr. Davies informs me that it is quite a distinct article, and thatthere can be no doubt about it. Just above the breast beam there are 8or 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 isalso interesting from the fact that selvedges do not appear on theEgyptian 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 itsholding pegs, similar to the warp beam A and its pegs B1, B2, but theportion K is not clearly drawn in any of the reproductions. Wilkinsonomits this altogether, but in its place has two black pieces whichalso are still less clear. Lepsius has omitted G2 altogether andappears to have made G1 and K and G3 into treadles, by raising G1above the level of G3, and to support the view that these aretreadles, he makes use of the overseer's foot by placing it on thesupposed treadle, and the casual observer thinks it is the foot of thewoman weaver. However, Mr. Davies' copy seems to offer a solution. Heagrees with Cailliaud and Rosellini in so far as G1, G2 and G3 areconcerned. With him K takes quite a different form, in fact it looksvery similar to an article which an attendant woman in another panelhas close by her, see Fig. 8. It might perhaps be a rest to preventthe beater-in being driven home too forcibly--this, however, is stillonly a surmise--as the length of the beater-in makes it heavy at thefar end. 

[Illustration: Fig. 8. --Weaver with the support K, Fig. 6; the womanappears to hold a beater-in in the right hand and a ball of thread inthe left hand. Rosellini. ]

In Cailliaud the warp threads are coloured in pale blue and red on topof the black lines of the drawing; he has painted the selvedge andfinished cloth a pale blue, as well as that portion of G2 which iscovered by the cloth indicating that this is the breast beam, G3 andG1 are painted a dark red. Rosellini colours A, B1, B2, D1, D2, G3orange; G1 and K dark red, but E from end to end light ochre. Thisshows that K is distinct from E. 

[Illustration: Fig. 9. 

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

In consequence of this loom being represented as upright it is oftenspoken of as an upright or vertical loom. But it is drawn uprightbecause the Egyptian artist did not understand perspective, and it wasonly by making the loom upright that he was enabled to show thedetails we have just been examining. For the same reason mat making isillustrated edgeways. If the loom were an upright one the two womenweavers would have had their backs turned towards the onlooker as canbe seen in Fig. 9. Any doubt on the matter has however been set asideby Prof. John Garstang's extremely interesting discovery of a woodenmodel depicting a group of women spinning and weaving which heillustrates 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 ahorizontal loom; the frame and the woof [_sic_, should be _warp_]threads are faintly represented upon the board. It is possible thatthey are making mats or, perhaps, weaving (p. 132). " He gives anillustration of the group taken from a photograph, but as it does notshow the lines which indicate the loom lying horizontally on theground nor the warp threads, I have asked him to let me have a drawingmade 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 atthe breast beam end are clearly indicated. The whole model supportsconclusively the well founded supposition that the loom we have beenconsidering is a _horizontal_ one. Curiously enough, Prof. Garstangdoes 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 uprightloom. "

[Illustration: Fig. 10. --Horizontal Loom. Outline sketch by Miss Daveyof the original model of a group of one woman spinning and two womenweaving, found by Dr. John Garstang at Beni Hasan. The model is in theMuseum of the Liverpool Institute of Archæology. ]

It must not be thought that the Beni Hasan representation is the onlyone which illustrates a horizontal loom. A second one is reproduced byProf. Percy Newberry from the tomb of Tehuti-hetep _circa_ 1938-1849B. C. , see Fig. 11. In the upper portion the women are seen spinningand preparing the thread generally, while in the lower portion twowomen on the left are warping, and in the centre three apparently are"beaming, " _i. E. _ putting the warp on to the beams preparatory tocommencing to weave, the warp threads being apparently drawn over pegsto ensure the proper tension. This illustration shows the warp flatagainst the wall like the mat making shown at Beni Hasan. 

[Illustration: Fig. 11. --Tomb of Tehuti-hetep. Date about 1939-1849B. C. From Professor Percy Newberry's _El Bersheh_ I. Pl. 26. 

Note the woman on the top right hand corner holding a "beater-in. "]

A third representation of a horizontal loom is reproduced from theforthcoming volume of the Egypt Exploration Fund by kind permission ofMr. N. De G. Davies, who made the copy. In this, Fig. 7, alreadyreferred to, the lower portion is all that has come down to us. Thecloth is not shown contracted as in the Beni Hasan representation, thetwo laze rods are drawn close to each other and here also an attemptappears to have been made to show the over and under lapping warpthreads; the laze rods appear each with a hook, the hook on the upperrod turned upwards and the hook (if it be one) on the lower rod turneddownwards. It is possible these hooks may be pegs to prevent theshifting of the laze rods. It may be that one of the two rods is aheddle rod the indication being the fine double lines, but this maynot be compatible with the hook at the end of the rod. The weaver onthe left holds a spool in her hand, evidently a piece of stick withthe weft thread wound round it, which she is pushing through with herfingers. The weaver on the right holds a beater-in as shown in theBeni Hasan drawing. The breast beam is held in position by two pegsnear the right one of which there is a curved article of indeterminateuse. 

[Illustration: Fig. 12. --Study of a Bedawin Arab weaving, from asketch taken in the Forties of last Century, by Frank Goodall, R. A. The original sketch is in Bankfield Museum. The weaver appears to beprovided with one heddle and a beater-in. ]

There is no very clear evidence as to how the finished cloth was"taken up" unless we accept it that the bulging out of the part G2means that it was wound round the breast beam as is done on hand andpower looms of the present day. Some very long pieces of cloth havecome down to us and unless they were "taken up" in this way a longstretch of ground would have been necessary. A modified form of thishorizontal loom has been met with in recent years among the BedawinArabs, as shown in the illustration of a study sketch, Fig. 12, madeby Frank Goodall, R. A. , in the forties of last century. The loom wasprovided with pegs like the old Egyptian loom but it was supplied witha primitive heddle resting on a stone at each side of the warp and itwould appear that the weaver, to a certain extent, did not take up thewoven cloth by winding it round the breast beam and by that meansretaining his position, but, as the weaving progressed and the line offinished cloth got beyond his reach, he crept up to it and so gotfarther and farther away from the breast beam until in the end hearrived at the warp beam. Similar looms are still used for mat makingby the Egyptian fellah. 

VERTICAL LOOMS. 

[Illustration: Fig. 13. --Upright or vertical loom. Wilkinson's_Ancient Egyptians_, London, John Murray. 1st ed. , Vol. III. , p. 135. ]

Apart from the horizontal loom Wilkinson and Robert Hay[C] alsorecorded the existence of an illustration of an upright loom, said inerror to be at Eileithyias (El Kab). Wilkinson's copy, Fig. 13, ismore elaborate than that of Hay. Mr. Davies informs me that theoriginal is not at Eileithyias, but in the tomb of Nefer-hotep atThebes. Wilkinson in regard to this illustration quotes theoft-repeated statement of Herodotus (_circa_ 460-455 B. C. ) inreference to looms in general:--"Other nations make cloth by pushingthe woof upwards, the Egyptians on the contrary, press it down. " Onthis statement Wilkinson remarks: "This is confirmed by the paintingswhich represent the process of making cloth; but at Thebes, a man whois engaged in making a piece of cloth with a coloured border orselvedge, appears to push the woof upwards, the cloth being fixedabove him, to the upper part of the frame" [Fig. 13]. But I am unableto follow Wilkinson in this, for I can find no indication in hisillustration which shows how the beating-in of the weft isaccomplished. From the illustration all one can say is that it mighthave been done either way. Wilkinson's illustration is lettered from_a_ to _p_ but this lettering is not explained by him at all, excepting in the case of the letter _k_, of which he says: "_k_ is ashuttle, not thrown, but put in with the hand. It had a hook at theend ... " and he proceeds to refer to the drawing elsewhere of thehorizontal loom. He does not show the hooks in his illustration. InFig. 14, I give the sketch made by Mr. N. De G. Davies of the remainsof the original from which Wilkinson made his illustration. 

[Illustration: Fig. 14. --Drawing by Mr. N. De G. Davies, Jan. 1913, ofan Upright Loom in Tomb 49 at Thebes, belonging to Nefer-hotep, at endof XVIII. Dynasty, B. C. 1330. Drawn when in a better state byWilkinson, Fig. 13, and Hay. ]

A more satisfactory drawing of upright looms is that which Mr. N. DeG. Davies has placed at my disposal for reproduction here. I appendhis description, Fig. 9. "The picture of men working at two looms istaken from the tomb of Thot-nefer at Thebes, who was a royal scribein the middle of the 18th Dynasty, _circa_ 1425 B. C. In his tomb hishouse is shown. He himself sits in the hall, while inside someservants spin and weave, make bread, store the grain, etc. The roof ofthe chambers is supported on pillars, and between two of these thelooms are set up which are here depicted. They are not attachedhowever, either to the roof or the pillars. Faint sketching lines aremixed up with the darker reds in which the picture was re-drawn, andthe whole very simply and carelessly executed. I have found itdifficult to make it clear. In my sketch the first faint sketchingoutlines appear as lines. The more solid red lines which replacedthese I have 'hatched, ' and certain portions including the men's fleshcolour, the stools, the discs I have put in solid black, partlybecause they are for the most part more solid and dark red in theoriginal, and partly to distinguish the portions more clearly from oneanother. The horizontal lines which cross the web are very faintlydrawn and almost as good as obliterated by the white paint which hadbeen put on the web. I have put them in just to show that the barswere _conceived_ of as passing behind or under the web and concealedby it. 

"The larger loom is worked by two men, the smaller by one man only. The looms consist of an oblong frame A set up on two stones B. Thewarp is attached to the warp beam C on top and the breast beam D atthe bottom. The threads of the warp are not shown, no difference beingmade between any woven part and the warp threads; to all is given onesmear of white paint. Two discs E are seen hanging against the frameposts, one on each side, the earlier sketch showing a larger disc thanthe final drawing in dark red. 

"Two slender laze rods F are shown on the large loom and heavy bars G, H, lower down; a somewhat similar laze rod and beams are also shown onthe smaller loom. 

"The weavers sit on benches with their backs to the spectator. Theartist has not dared to draw a back view of their heads, but hasturned each man's head to the right to show a profile. They areholding a heavy looking rod which looks like a 'beater-in. ' One wouldexpect to see a shuttle but perhaps this was too small an object forso rough a picture--perhaps the man at the smaller loom holds anexaggerated shuttle L in his right hand. 

"The lines M seen alongside the framework are the faint red sketchlines _not_ cords. The diagonal line N on the left I do notunderstand, it does not seem an accidental one. 

"On the left hand of the two looms the original shows a man spinningcoarse thread into finer(?) using two spindles at once; the threadspass through rings fixed in the ceiling as in a picture at Beni Hasan. Behind him two girls are breaking up the flax and two others aremaking coarse threads of the fibres, almost exactly like those in thetomb of Daga (No. 103) a couple of hundred yards away. "

To this description of Mr. Davies I would like to add a word aboutthe discs E. Wilkinson indicates these as rings apparently joining thehorizontal beam to the post of the frame, the form of the ring beingarrived at as explained by Mr. Davies by the original outline of thesketch having been made larger than the final drawing of the circle, or disc, and not obliterated. In Mr. Davies' drawing these discs hangon or are fixed on to the uprights only, and I am inclined to thinkthey represent balls of weft thread hanging up in the same way as wesee whole rows of coloured balls hanging on the looms of Persianrugmakers, and as can be seen on an Indian rug loom in BankfieldMuseum. 

It is also very clear that these Egyptian vertical looms are verydifferent from the Greek looms in so far as we know anything aboutthem. The Greek looms had an upper beam only and the warp threads werebunched at the lower end and weighted with metal or clay balls to keepthem taut, Fig. 15. The _individual_ warp threads were not weighted;they were bunched and then weighted. The pyramidal shaped clay warpweights found in Egypt are I understand considered by Egyptologists tobelong to the Roman period, but in the Manchester University Museumthere is a mud article which Miss M. A. Murray describes as a warpweight, Fig. 17, so that it is possible vertical looms with warpweights may yet be forthcoming as an Egyptian and not a foreignindustrial tool. But Dr. H. R. Hall informs me this weight wasprobably found in the ruins of houses where Ægean pottery was foundand hence it is probably a temporary warp weight of those people andnot an Egyptian article. 

[Illustration: Fig. 15. --Greek loom with spool and warp weights. Illustration on a skyphos (van Branteghem vase in the AshmoleanMuseum, Oxford). From H. B. Walters' paper on _Odysseus & Kirke_ on aBoeotian vase, Jour. Hellenic Studies, 1892-3 XIII. P. 81. ]

Since writing the above Mr. N. De G. Davies has very kindly sent me ona new set of illustrations, Fig. 16, of which he says; "My attentionwas called to the scene by Dr. Alan Gardiner. The scenes whichrepresent the preparation of the flax and the stretching of the warpare almost replicas of those in the tomb of Daga of the MiddleKingdom, so far as we can judge, while the pictures of the loomsresemble closely those in the tombs of Thot-nefer and Nefer-hotep. Thework is done by both men and women. Men prepare the flax while womenstretch the warp. Men mostly work the loom, either singly or with acompanion. But in one case a woman is seen at work at one of theupright looms. She is shewn sitting sideways on the low bench and isnot pictured in a back view with widely spread legs like the men. Unfortunately the work is so slovenly and so much injured that fewexact outlines can be secured, and hence all detail is insecure. There are also superfluous lines in red colour which confuse thepicture. The tomb is Ramesside in date (_circa_ 1200 B. C. ) Theinscription over the seated man is too broken to be read. "

[Illustration: Fig. 16a. --Weavers at work as represented in the Tombof Nefer-ronpet, Superintendent of Weavers at Thebes. Date about 1200B. C. From a drawing by Mr. N. De G. Davies. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 16b. --Weavers at work as represented in the Tombof Nefer-ronpet, Superintendent of Weavers at Thebes. Date about 1200B. C. From a drawing by Mr. N. De G. Davies. ]

The drawings appear to confirm generally what we have gathered fromMr. Davies' previous illustration, Fig. 9. 

PORTIONS OF LOOMS WHICH HAVE COME DOWN TO US. 

In so far as I know, not many loom parts have yet been discovered, andthose which I have had an opportunity of studying do not assist us tomuch knowledge beyond that which we have gained by a study of the wallpaintings. We have the article from Kahun already mentioned, which maypossibly be a warp weight, as it somewhat resembles the later warpweights found elsewhere. It is of hardened mud with a perforation atthe thin end through which a piece of string has been passed andknotted (Fig. 17), but so far no illustration of a loom with weightshas been found, either for the period to which this article belongs orto any other period. On the other hand the material is not suitablefor a net-sinker, nor is it intended to be made to stand up. Asmentioned above it is probably Ægean. 

[Illustration: Fig. 17. --Piece of perforated hardened mud. Possibly awarp weight, 10 cm. × 8·7 × 4·2 (3-15/16 in. × 2-7/16 in. × 1-5/8 in. )Weight 470 gramms (1 lb. 1/2 oz. ) Probably of Ægean origin. _Kahun. _Manchester Museum. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 18. --Burnt-clay warp weight. Height 11·4 cm. (4-1/4in. ) 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 metwith, Fig. 18, but it is described as appertaining to Roman times, andmay therefore be either a Greek or Roman article. Similar weights fromCyprus and North Africa, &c. , can be seen in the British Museum. 

Wooden pegs have been found at Gurob, which may possibly have beenused for holding the warp and breast beams in position, Fig. 19. Thesepegs may appear to be rather short for the purpose, but in veryprimitive 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 shoulddeem necessary. The way to settle their use would be to fix them insolid ground and test them. 

[Illustration: Fig. 19. --Wooden Peg, possibly used for holding thewarp 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. (2in. ) 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 alaze rod, the notches being apparently for a nooze to slip into and soprevent the rod working towards the weaver which it has a tendency todo. 

Another long but curved lath, Fig. 21, also found at Kahun is probablya beater-in. 

Most large Egyptian collections contain one or more specimens ofwooden combs, which are generally called weavers combs, and ascribedto Roman times. But one at least, Fig. 22, has been found with XVIIIthto XIXth Dynasty articles at Gurob, that is belonging to the period1580-1150 B. C. , which is long before Rome existed. None of theseso-called combs, for they are really embryo reeds, are shown on thewall illustrations so that they no doubt belong to a later date thanthat of the XIIth Dynasty. If, as I take it, these "combs" are theforerunners of the reed and were used to drive the weft threads home, and if also the Romans had upright looms provided with warp weightsinstead of the breast beam, then I think the "comb" may not be Romanbut may be a late Egyptian invention. For, on trying to use such acomb on a _replica_ of a Scandinavian upright loom provided with warpweights (instead of with the breast beam) I can get no good result, infact rather the opposite, but tried on a primitive horizontal loomprovided with a breast beam the comb is found to be of someassistance, especially if the warp is not very taut as is generallythe case with primitive looms. At Bankfield we have an Indian rugloom, already referred to, with warp and breast beam on which asomewhat similar instrument, but of iron, was used. [D]

[Illustration: Fig. 22. --Weaver's Comb--a Beater-in. 19·5 cm. × 9·8 ×4·2 (7-3/4 in. × 3-7/8 in. × 1-5/8 in. ) _Gurob. _ Manchester Museum. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 23. --Possibly a warp spacer, somewhat similar inobject to the raddle of modern hand loom weaving. Height 2·8 cm. Width2·5 cm. (1-1/8 in. × 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_ butprobably Roman. Bankfield Museum. (Received from Prof. FlindersPetrie). ]

An article which Prof. Flinders Petrie describes as a "warp spacer" isshown in Fig. 23. From fragments in the Egyptian Collection, University College, London, it would appear to have been originallymore than a meter (three feet) long. It may have been used as a sortof a "raddle, " a tool used for assisting to keep the warp threads inposition when being beamed, _i. E. _ put on to the loom. At Bankfield wehave an old local hand loom the warp beam of which is provided with aseries of holes in which pegs were once inserted to keep the colouredwarp 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 96·8cm. × 8·0 × 3·0 (3 ft. 1-1/4 in. × 3-1/4 in. × 1-3/16 in. ) FromManchester Museum. ]

A piece of frame, Fig. 24, has been described as a "weaver's beam" formaking rush mats like the modern _hasira_. It is provided with 28holes which are arranged about 27 to 40 mm. Apart. The holes may havebeen more or less circular originally, and worn into present shape bythreads, etc. , and look more irregular inside than they really are, asthe inside surface of the holes is fairly smooth; the holes areslightly larger, on an average about 4 mm. , on the face shown than onthe other face. Prof. Flinders Petrie seems to think it resembles theframe on which the modern Egyptian mat is made. 

We now come to the two reeds in the Museum of the Liverpool Instituteof Archæology, which Dr. John Garstang discovered near Abu Kirkas, tomb No. 693, of which he tells us: "They are 27 and 29 inches (68·6and 73·7 cm. ) in length respectively, and are precisely similar ingeneral form. They are constructed on a system of nineteen or twentyreeds to the inch, and they may be seen to be exactly similar to themodern reed taken from a loom in the village of Abu Kirkas. It is notpossible, unfortunately, to assign a precise date to these objects. They were found in a tomb which contained no other remains; this tombwas surrounded by others, all of them likewise very much disturbed, but equally characteristic of the general nature of the Middle Empiretombs, and containing nothing but Middle Empire objects. Since, ingeneral, few tombs of this site show signs of intrusive burial of alater age, there is no reason to suppose that these objects are of anydate later than the XII. Dynasty (_The Burial Customs of AncientEgypt_, 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 ofprimitive looms lead me to think that these Egyptian looms are of adate far anterior to the invention or the application of a reed. Ithas also, I believe, been remarked by those who have examined clothsof this date, that the irregular array of the warp threads is goodproof that reeds could not have been in use. I have already pointedout that in the evolution of the loom the reed puts in a lateappearance, but apart from this fact, I do not think the artist wouldhave 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. Stringis wound round the frames binding them together. Then a kind ofcanvas(?) cover in placed over the frames to cover up the projectingends of the wires, but this has disappeared in places. ]

Dr. Garstang points out that although the surrounding tombs containedMiddle Empire objects, the reeds were found in a tomb _without_ anyother remains. This can hardly be considered evidence tending to provethat they belonged to the period named, and it is certainly weakenedby the accompanying statement that the reeds are _exactly_ similar tothe modern reed, for that is almost sufficient to prove that they are_not_ 3900-3700 years old. To me they seem comparatively modern andvery similar to one in the Cairo Museum which MM. Brugsch and Quibellare inclined to think is Coptic with this difference, that in Dr. Garstang's reeds the divisions appear to be of cane or wood, while inthe Cairo reed they are of iron (?steel). The sketch of this Copticreed, Fig. 25, has been drawn specially for me, and Miss W. M. Crompton, Assistant Keeper in Egyptology in the Manchester UniversityMuseum, has kindly examined the sketch with the article and pronouncedit correct. We may, I think, safely conclude that the reed found byDr. Garstang is Coptic and not Ancient Egyptian. 

As regards the actual work of weaving, balls of thread have been foundand so have very flat bobbins and pieces of stick with thread woundround 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 asthey are in uncivilised countries at the present day, as, forinstance, in Tibet, as reported by W. W. Rockhill in _Diary of aJourney through Mongolia and Thibet_, Washington, 1894, p. 41. 

"DIAGONAL WEAVING. "

I am unable to agree with a recently made statement published in _TheLabyrinth, Gerzeh and Marghuneh_, by Prof. Flinders Petrie, E. A. Wainwright and E. Mackey, p. 6, which runs: "The fact of the weft notbeing 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 arisenthrough distortion by stretching over the body, but repeated examplesof the same fact have led me to consider other causes. We know howclosely analogous to 'darning' was the early weaving; and in our daysit is not unusual to find stockings not darned at right angles, and itmay be the women weavers of old sometimes put in the weft more or lessout of true right angle. In the childhood of weaving we should expectdifferent methods, and it may be, seeing that we have no selvedgedcloth until very long after this time, that they experimented with adiagonal weft to see if it would not reduce the tendency to fray outat the sides. " The amount the warp and weft are out of the right angleis stated to be about 20°. The specimen shown me under the microscopeindicated clearly that the warp and weft were not at right angles andthat the interstices were not square but diamond shaped. 

It is possible to arrange the warp threads diagonally from beam tobeam, but with continuous weft (that is in weaving so as to getselvedges) the weft has the tendency to slip up on one side and downon the other, hence the weaving is made laborious. With a separateweft for each pick, _i. E. _, for every once the shed is opened, thereis naturally not this tendency, but this alleged diagonally wovencloth frays just as easily as any other piece of cloth withoutselvedge, so in either case there is not only no advantage butdistinct disadvantage taking the diagonal "beaming" intoconsideration. We must give the Egyptians credit for using the leastlaborious of two methods, that is _if_ the second one were known tothem. 

Apparent diagonal weaving can be produced by anyone taking an ordinarypiece of linen or cotton cloth, cutting off the selvedge andstretching the cloth in a direction diagonally to the direction of thewarp 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, inthe course of that time lost its nature and when removed it hasretained its altered form and gives us the impression of having beenwoven diagonally. 

"THE LINEN GIRDLE OF RAMESES III. "

In the foregoing I have shown how extremely simple was the wholeapparatus for weaving in use by the Ancient Egyptians, and one israther surprised to be told that about B. C. 1200, in the time ofRameses III. , the Egyptians "built and used looms very much morecomplicated than has hitherto been believed to be the case, " or to bereferred to "the really complicated form of loom used. " Yet this iswhat Mr. Thorold D. Lee tells us (pp. 84 and 86) in his paper on _TheLinen Girdle of Rameses III. _ (_Ann. Of Archæology and Anthropology ofthe Liverpool Institute of Archæology_, 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 1-7/8in. (4·8 cm. ) in width, its elaborate design and excellentworkmanship. Perhaps the chief of these characteristics is the taper. It is most probable, as Mr. Lee points out, that in the weaving thewarp threads have been gradually dropped out to make the taper, ratherthan that additional warp threads have been added. As it is easy todrop a warp thread, and almost impossible to add one while weaving isin progress, Mr. Lee's view is confirmed by this. It would also bealmost impossible to keep the warp taut if the number of warp threadswere increased as the work went on. This means that the girdle wascommenced at the wide end and finished at the narrow end. 

It is common knowledge that when a warp thread drops out, its place isindicated by a thinness or fine opening for the whole length of themissing warp, and this is so because the reed, besides pushing theweft into position, also acts as a warp spacer, that is to say itkeeps the warp threads properly apart, every one being properlyaligned. When no reed is used the warp threads are not so evenlyplaced--they are not so parallel to one another for there is nothingbut their tautness to keep them in position. Hence there is everyreason to conclude that when, on a loom provided with a reed, warpthreads have been removed their position must be indicated, and _viceversa_ if no reed has been used the position of the removed threadswill not be so clearly indicated, but there will be a more markedshrinkage in the width of the cloth as well as in the pattern, andthis is what has taken place in the girdle giving us the diminishingtaper. 

[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 ofthe pattern commencing at the selvedges, then it might be presumedthat a reed had been used for the central portion only--a very clumsyeven if feasible arrangement, but the pattern begins to decrease alongthe middle and hence no reed could have been used. 

It does not follow that because a loom was not provided with a reed itwas without heddles. Anyone who will examine the large series ofprimitive looms at Bankfield Museum, will observe that heddlespreceded reeds; this must necessarily be so as the making of the shedis the first step in weaving, while the reed's work is more that of afinisher. But the heddles are all extremely primitive, and in myexperience do not exceed four in number where there is no reed. Such aquantity of heddles with its complicated harness as Mr. Lee considersnecessary is quite out of the question with a loom so undeveloped asnot to be provided with a reed. Hence the indication is that thegirdle was woven on a loom of a primitive character. 

In carrying out the work the weaver has made many mistakes. On theleft hand side of the right hand row of red crosses (they come outblack in the photograph) there is an "end down" for a considerabledistance--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 threadsabove and below. The crosses are neither the same size nor shape inthe two columns and curiously their white hafts in both columns pointto the left instead of one row pointing to the left and the other tothe right. Then again the white point at the right apex of the zigzagon the left corresponds to a red point at the left apex of the righthand zigzag, but if the girdle had been woven on an advanced loom withdobby and harness these points would have been red in both places. 

As regards the large number of warp threads to the inch which Mr. Leeputs down as 272-340 (107-134 per cm. ), this does not by any meansindicate a complicated piece of machinery for the weaving of this beltor any other fabric. The greater the number of threads to the inch thefiner must the threads be in order to get them into the allottedspace, and in the weaving there will be so many more threads to raiseand lower in order to make the shed opening. It means multiplying thework but does not necessarily mean that a more complicated loom mustbe used in the weaving. 

It is not possible without opening the fabric to be quite positive onthe many points which are raised, but there seems nothing about itwhich should prevent its having been made on a simple loom. Althoughsuperior to most, but not all, of the well known Coptic cloths inBankfield and in many other museums, it very closely resembles some ofthem in many respects excepting in the taper. 

I should add that in making my examination of this girdle I was kindlyassisted by Mr. C. A. Trigg, a well known Halifax mill manager anddesigner. We made the examination independently and on comparing notesafterwards found that we agreed in all essential points. 

AN EXAMINATION OF FIFTEEN SPECIMENS OF MUMMY WRAPPINGS. 

By W. W. MIDGLEY, Curator, retired, The Museums, Bolton. 

"So far back as 1834, Mummy cloths occupied the attention of JamesThompson, F. R. S. , who, after researches into their characteristics andstructure wrote a paper on the subject, which appears in the Londonand Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine, Vol. V. , page 355. From thattime until quite recently, little additional knowledge on the subjecthas appeared. In the early part of 1910, Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie, F. R. S. , expressed a desire that the writer should undertakemicroscopic investigation of the body-wrappings of cloths of the III. And early IV. Dynasties (_circa_ 2980-2750 B. C. ) which he had broughthome from excavations made at a cemetery near Meydum, Upper Egypt. Thereport upon them forms part of the "_Historical Studies_, " Vol. II. , of the _British School of Archæology in Egypt_. 

When Mr. Ling Roth suggested that some of the examples of EgyptianMummy cloths in Bankfield Museum should be examined on similar lines, describing the construction of the fabrics and yarns, together withthe characteristics of the fibres used, I undertook to carry out thework and forward to him the results for permanent reference. 

Each of the fifteen cloths submitted was first examined by mountingabout 3/4" × 5/8" (20 mm. × 16 mm. ) of the cloth on 3" × 1" (76 mm. ×25 mm. ) glass slips, and covering with thin glass, so as to find outits plan of composition and the number of warp and weft threads perlinear inch. Afterwards, a little of the warp threads as well as ofthe weft, was untwisted and the fibres separated, and these mountedapart on another 3" × 1" slip (76 × 25 mm. ), so that the kind oftextile fibre used and the diameter of the fibres could be measured. These microscopical preparations will be kept in Bankfield Museum, asthey may be of interest to microscopists in the locality. 

The cloths are from three sources:--Nos. 1 and 2 being from theprivate collection of Dr. Wallis-Budge, who has given the specimens toBankfield Museum; Nos. 3 to 8 are from the old Meyer collection in theLiverpool Museum (unfortunately the origin of them is unknown); andthose marked 9 to 15 were taken from a mummy of the XXVI. Dynasty, brought to this country by Lord Denbigh, and now also in the LiverpoolMuseum. 

A. --Specimens of Mummy cloths from Theban Tombs date about B. C. 1400, presented by Dr. Wallis-Budge. 

 1. A plain "one-up-and-one-down" linen cloth. The yarns in this example are more irregular in diameter than usual--the warp strands varying from 1/25"th to 1/71"st (1 mm. To ·2/8 mm. ) The warp has about half its strands doubled (that is twined together), whereas the weft has only about one in twenty doubled. See Fig. 26. 

 2. This is a coarser fabric, has been dyed with saffron, and is somewhat brittle to tease out the fibres. Both these cloths had evidently absorbed some of the gums or balsams used in the process of embalming, and hence the difficulty of separating the fibres for identification is increased. The structure of the fabric is peculiar, and, indeed, the only instance I have seen in Egyptian cloths. A portion, near the middle of the piece sent, has the warp strands in pairs parallel to each other, a few of them being double yarns, while all the remainder are doubled. Of the weft, nearly half are double yarns. See Fig. 27. 

[Illustration: Fig. 26. --Magnified 10 diameters. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 27. --Magnified 10 diameters, showing the warp yarnin pairs. ]

B. --Specimens from the Meyer Collection, marked No. 11088. (Date ofacquisition about 1856; date and place of origin unknown). 

 3. This is a beautifully soft, fine _Wool_ fabric, containing no size or balsam. From the fineness of the yarn and of the individual fibres I have no doubt that the wool has been imported from India, or, more likely, that the cloth was made in Cashmere. The texture is a plain weave, has a selvedge edge, the warp yarns are doubled, while the weft is single yarn. It is much to be regretted that the particulars of locality, of burial, and the period of time to which this interesting fabric belongs has been lost. I assume from the general characteristics that it is of a late period--probably not earlier than the Ptolemaic. 

 4. This linen cloth has a plain selvedge, regular weave, and contains no size. About 25% of both warp and weft yarns are doubled, and all are very even in diameter. 

 5. A coarse linen cloth with plain selvedge. All the yarns are single and even in diameter. 

 6. This is a coarse, highly-sized linen cloth. The yarns are agglutinated, are brittle, and it is difficult to separate the fibres. The sample submitted has been cut from the end of the piece and shows the warp ends. 

 7. A coarse linen cloth, sized and brittle. No selvedge on the piece sent. Both warp and weft yarns are single, and even in diameter. 

 8. This is a very coarse linen fabric heavily sized and brittle. Both warp and weft yarns are single and very irregular in diameter. 

C. --Lord Denbigh's: XXVI. Dynasty. 

 9. A soft-spun linen cloth containing no size. Specimen has been cut from the body of the fabric, showing no selvedge. About half of the warp is composed of doubled yarns of irregular diameter; the weft is of doubled yarns and more regular in diameter. 

 10. The selvedge of this linen fabric is peculiar and somewhat elaborate. The outer margin is composed of four sets of ten yarns parallel to each other, forming one strand of warp; then comes a space of 1-9/10" (48 mm. ) where the warp yarns are dyed red; then occurs three more sets of ten parallel yarns (the object being to strengthen the selvedge), followed by the general body of the fabric. The entire selvedge is 2-1/4" (57 mm. ) wide. About half the warp yarns are doubled, while all the weft are composed of doubled yarns, both being fairly even in diameter, and not sized. 

 11. A fine, soft, linen cloth, with selvedge 1-1/8" (29 mm. ) wide; the three outer and the two inner strands of the warp are made up of many parallel yarns, as in No. 10, with an interspace of 3/8" (10 mm. ) All the warp yarns are dyed red, about 25% of them being doubled; the weft is peculiar in having five or six strands of single yarns alternating with six or seven double yarns, giving a faint stripe in the fabric. 

 12. A linen cloth, with no selvedge edge. It has been dyed red, probably _ferum_, a dye which I find uniformly associated with friable or decomposing fibres. 

 13. A peculiarly coloured fine linen cloth; the pattern is caused by some of the warp yarns being dyed, and occurring sometimes of four, two, or one red strands, with grey ones intermixed. A few of the warp yarns are doubled. The weft is composed of single yarns and are all in the grey. 

 14. A coarse soft-woven linen fabric, containing no size. Lines are indicated at irregular distances along the cloth, varying from 5/16" to 9/16" (8 to 14 mm. ); these are caused by the introduction of three strands of doubled yarn in the warp while the remainder are single yarns. The weft is all of doubled yarns; both warp and weft are very regular in diameter. 

 15. This is a variegated linen fabric with warps coloured something like No. 13, but the red strands of warp are more irregular in distribution. Like it, a few of the warp yarns are doubled, both the red and the grey; while the weft is all of single yarns and in the grey. "

[A considerable quantity of specimens of the cloths which were wovenby the Ancient Egyptians has been examined both in this country andabroad. I may, however, call special attention to the results ofexamination published in Miss M. A. Murray's excellent little work_The Tomb of Two Brothers_, Manchester Museum Publications, No. 68, 1910. --H. L. R. ]

DETAILS OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE BODY WRAPPINGS. 

 --------+-------+-----+-----++----------------------------------------- Specimen|Nature |Warp |Weft || Micro Measurements of Ten Fibres. No. | of |Ends |Picks|+-------------+-------------+------------- |Textile|per |per || Weft. | Warp. | Mean of. | Fibre. |inch. |inch. |+======+======+======+======+======+====== | | | || Max. | Min. | Max. | Min. | Weft. | Warp. ========+=======+=====+=====++======+======+======+======+======+====== | | | || in. | in. | in. | in. | in. | in. A. { 1| Linen | 44 | 32 ||1/1400|1/3333|1/1424|1/3330|1/1768|1/1786 { 2| " | 10 | 17 ||1/1786|1/3330|1/1780|1/2860|1/2020|1/1905 | | | || | | | | | { 3| Wool | 224 | 40 ||1/833 |1/2500|1/833 |1/2000|1/1351|1/1429 { 4| Linen | 64 | 32 ||1/1429|1/2500|1/1250|1/5000|1/1818|1/1754 { 5| " | 56 | 20 ||1/1250|1/3333|1/1250|1/2500|1/1754|1/1724 B. { 6| " | 48 | 24 ||1/1250|1/2500|1/1000|1/2500|1/1640|1/1594 { 7| " | 48 | 20 ||1/1111|1/2500|1/1000|1/2500|1/1408|1/1428 { 8| " | 36 | 16 ||1/833 |1/3333|1/1111|1/2500|1/1456|1/1613 | | | || | | | | | { 9| " | 48 | 24 ||1/1666|1/3333|1/1666|1/3333|1/2222|1/1860 {10| " | 32 | 60 ||1/833 |1/3333|1/908 |1/3333|1/1724|1/1613 {11| " | 80 | 36 ||1/1429|1/3333|1/1000|1/3333|1/1887|1/1784 C. {12| " | 96 | 40 ||1/1111|1/2500|1/1250|1/2500|1/1724|1/1695 {13| " | 80 | 36 ||1/1111|1/2500|1/1429|1/2500|1/1640|1/2040 {14| " | 56 | 24 ||1/909 |1/3333|1/1250|1/2500|1/1594|1/1695 {15| " | 64 | 36 ||1/1250|1/2000|1/1429|1/2500|1/1724|1/1818 --------+-------+-----+-----++------+------+------+------+------+------

THE ABOVE CONVERTED INTO METRICAL MEASUREMENTS. 

 --------+-------+--------+--------++----------------------------------- | | | || Micro Measurements of Ten Fibres Specimen|Nature | Warp | Weft || in Millimetres. No. | of | Ends | Picks |+-----------+-----------+----------- |Textile| per | per || Weft. | Warp. | Mean of | Fibre. | Centim. | Centim. |+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+===== | | | ||Max. |Min. |Max. |Min. |Weft. |Warp. ========+=======+========+========++=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+===== 1 | Linen | 17 | 12·6 ||·0181|·0076|·0178|·0076|·0144|·0142 2 | " | 4 | 6·7 ||·0142|·0076|·0143|·0089|·0126|·0133 3 | Wool | 88 | 15·6 ||·0305|·0101|·0305|·0127|·0188|·0178 4 | Linen | 25 | 12·6 ||·0178|·0101|·0203|·0050|·0140|·0145 5 | " | 22 | 7·8 ||·0203|·0076|·0203|·0101|·0145|·0147 6 | " | 19 | 9·5 ||·0203|·0101|·0254|·0101|·0155|·0159 7 | " | 19 | 7·8 ||·0229|·0101|·0254|·0101|·0180|·0178 8 | " | 14·1 | 6·3 ||·0305|·0076|·0229|·0101|·0174|·0157 9 | " | 19 | 9·5 ||·0152|·0076|·0152|·0076|·0208|·0130 10 | " | 12·6 | 23·6 ||·0305|·0076|·0278|·0076|·0147|·0157 11 | " | 31·5 | 14·1 ||·0178|·0076|·0254|·0076|·0135|·0142 12 | " | 37·4 | 15·6 ||·0229|·0101|·0203|·0101|·0147|·0149 13 | " | 19 | 14·1 ||·0229|·0101|·0178|·0101|·0155|·0124 14 | " | 22 | 9·5 ||·0278|·0076|·0203|·0101|·0159|·0149 15 | " | 25 | 14·1 ||·0203|·0127|·0178|·0101|·0147|·0140 --------+-------+--------+--------++-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

It is very obvious they had no scale to work to. 

FOOTNOTES:

[A] To the uninitiated I may explain that in a horizontal loom theplane of the warp is more or less parallel with that of the floor, while in an upright or vertical loom the plane of the warp is at rightangles to that of the floor. 

[B] To avoid indistinctness through over reduction, I have endeavouredto keep all reproductions in this paper as large as possible, andthink I have succeeded in not losing any detail in the necessaryreduction. 

[C] Hay's drawings are not published but can be seen in the Brit. Mus. , Add. MSS. No. 29823, Fol. 32. 

[D] Olafsson, to be referred to later on, remarks that while in Ovid'stime the _spathe_ was used for beating-in the weft, in Seneca's timethe weft was beaten in by a toothed instrument. In other words aweaver's comb--the embryo reed--had been introduced. 

II. THE GREEK LOOM. 

[Illustration: Fig. 28. --A Bushongo weaver at work. From Torday andJoyce, _Notes Ethnographiques_, _Ann. Du Congo_, p. 182. ]

We have now to say a few words about an upright loom which differsvery materially from the Egyptian loom already described. Whether thehorizontal loom is a later product than the vertical loom, or wasevolved from it, or whether both were independent inventions cannot bediscussed here, but I may point out that there is an intermediate formbetween the two. It is doubtful as to whether this is a transitionform. It was first brought to my notice by Mr. T. A. Joyce, as in useamongst some negro peoples in Central Africa possessing an old, highand possibly introduced civilisation, and is figured in Messrs. Tordayand Joyce's Notes _Ethnographiques ... Bakuba ... Et Bushongo_(_Annales du Congo_) pp. 24 and 182. In this loom the warp isstretched between an upper beam and a lower beam at an angle of about90 degrees, and the weaver sits underneath at his work, Fig. 28. It isnot at all uncommon to meet with illustrations showing the warpstretched at an incline, and apart from the fact that in many theweavers are posing for illustration, and therefore, are most probablynot exactly in their natural positions, the tilted arrangement hasthis advantage, namely, that the work of beating-in is improved bythe fall given to the "sword" which, with less exertion by theweaver, drives the weft home more effectively. In all these cases, however, the weaver sits or stands in front of the loom, but in thecase of the Bushongo the loom is tilted to such an extent that theweaver finds it more convenient to sit underneath the warp. 

The discovery by Messrs. Alan Gardiner and N. De G. Davies ofillustrations of Egyptian upright looms, confirms Wilkinson in hisstatement and illustration that the Egyptians had this class of loomas well as the horizontal one. The vertical loom is found in Europe, Asia, Africa and America, and is, probably, ethnically as old if notolder than the horizontal loom. [E] But this Egyptian upright loomdiffers from another, the Greek, or Central European, or Scandinavianform of the upright loom, in having an upper and a lower beam so thatthe warp is made taut between two beams, while in the Greek loom thereis only _one_ beam. The warp hangs from this beam, the warp threadsbeing made taut by means of weights attached at the lower ends. 

[Illustration: Fig. 29a. --Illustration on a small lekythos of anAthenian girl at work on a tapestry loom, together with a full sizetracing of the tapestry loom. British Museum. B. C. 500. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 29b. --Illustration of a Greek woman with atapestry loom. From Stackelberg's _Graeber der Hellenen_, pl. Xxxiii. ]

The Greeks were, however, acquainted with the tapestry loom, for thereexists in the British Museum a small lekythos with an illustration, Fig. 29a, of such an article resting on the knees of a lady weaver. [F]

[Illustration: Fig. 30. --Greek woman at work on a loom. From C. RobertἘφ ἀρχ 1892, pl. Xiii. , p. 247. It is not possible to say fromthis illustration whether this is a warp weighted loom or not. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 31. --Penelope at her loom. Illustration on anAthenian skyphos found in an Etruscan tomb at Chiusi, and at presentin the museum there. The illustration is taken from _Monumenti d. Inst. Archeologico_, IX. , pl. Xlii. ]

It has been described by Mr. H. B. Walters in _Jour. HellenicStudies_, XXXI. , 1911, p. 15, who says: "In front of her, Fig. 29a, isa white wool basket (_Kalathos_) and on her lap is a frame somewhat inthe form of a lyre, being formed by two upright pieces with knobs atthe top, diverging slightly towards the top, across between which arestretched two threads at the top and two at the bottom, seven verticalthreads being also visible. Her hands are placed on the threads, whichshe is engaged in manipulating. This object can only be intended for ahand loom, though there is apparently no evidence for the use of suchobjects in ancient times or among Oriental races either in the past orthe present day. The only other parallel to the representation on thisvase is one published by Stackelberg, Fig. 29b, where a woman holds asimilar frame and is similarly occupied with her hands. The writers ofthe articles _Sticken_ in Baumeister and _Phrygium Opus_ in Darembergand Saglio, misled by the likeness of the object to the moderncrewel-frame, interpret the process as embroidery. But this kind ofwork implies cloth or other textile substance already woven, on whichpatterns are worked in, whereas in both vase paintings the textile isobviously in course of construction. " He is right in so far as hegoes, but both representations are those of _tapestry_ looms whichfact is indicated by the warp threads in both cases, and by the designmarked on the warp threads of Fig. 29b--a method of preparing theirwork in use to this day by tapestry weavers. Some authorities considerthat tapestry weaving is more closely related to mat making than totrue weaving. In other words, I take it tapestry is an early stage inthe development of weaving. From this we get some idea as to how farthe Greeks had progressed in the textile arts. 

As pointed out by MM. Daremberg and Saglio, _Dic. Des AntiquitésGrecques et Romaines_ pt. 46, p. 164, "illustrations of Greek or Romanmethods of weaving are very rare, they are much reduced and in so faras the art is concerned purely diagrammatic. " On the other hand ifthere are numerous references in the texts of classic authors, thesereferences seem rather to obscure than elucidate the method ofworking. However, there are three illustrations--the Penelope loom, Fig. 31, and two Boeotian looms, one of which is illustrated in Fig. 15--quite sufficient to explain the principle of the upright loom asused with warp weights by the Greeks, and the discovery of numerousarticles, considered to be the warp weights, confirm the illustration. 

The principle is the same throughout, viz. : the looms are vertical, there is a warp beam on top, there are two cross rods one of which isa laze rod and _possibly_ the other is a heddle; and the warp threadsare all kept taut by means of attached weights. On one of the Boeotianlooms a bobbin or spool is shown. Along the top of Penelope's loomthere are indications of nine pegs, on six of which balls of colouredthread have been placed, evidently for working out the designs, verymuch the same as shown on the rug loom in Bankfield Museum alreadyreferred to. The warp weights on this Athenian illustration aretriangular in shape, and perhaps resemble the pyramidic weights foundin Egypt and attributed to Roman times. Assuming these pyramids areRoman warp weights it would appear that both Greeks and Romans hadvertical looms on which the warp threads were kept taut by means ofweights. In one of the few clearly expressed technical classicalreferences, Seneca speaks of the warp threads stretched by hangingweights. 

In the above classical illustrations which are after all only roughdiagrams, the warp weights appear to hang from a _single_ thread only, but this can not have been correct. The warp threads must have beenbunched, because a single suspended thread with a tension weightimmediately begins to unravel, and so loses the advantage of itshaving been spun, as any one can ascertain for oneself. As regards thesame point on the Lake Dwellers looms, Cohausen was the first tosurmise that the warp threads were bunched to receive the weight, andMessikommer proved it by practical experiment. [G]

As can be surmised with this class of loom the weaving begins at the_top_, working _down_wards, and the beating-in of the weft is_up_wards--the exact opposite to the method adopted with otherlooms--for the pendant warp ends, although weighted to keep them taut, do not appear to have been further fixed in position, so that tocommence weaving at the lower end made the operation so extremelydifficult as to be almost impossible. 

[Illustration: Fig. 32. --Illustration of a Scandinavian warp weightedloom in the Copenhagen Museum. The illustration is taken fromMontelius' _Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times_, translated bythe Rev. F. H. Woods, London, Macmillan & Co. , 1888, p. 160. 

[In the illustration of this loom published by the Trustees of theBritish Museum, in their _Guide to the Antiquities of the Early IronAge_, London, 1905, p. 139, the shape of the warp weights has beenaltered to suit the shape of such weights in the British Museumcollections. ]]

[Illustration: Fig. 33. --Icelandic Loom after Olafsson. 

_a a_ Beam on which the warp is fixed. _b b_ Weights to make the warptaut. _c c_ Brackets which support the beam and on which it can berevolved by means of the spoke _e_ when the warp has to be lengthened, on account of the weft _f_ working downwards and so shortening thefinished portion of the woven cloth. _g_ A sharp bone or tough pieceof wood to beat the weft into proper position. _h_ The wound up weftwhich is pushed through the warp with the fingers. _i i_ The unbeamedwarp. _k k_ The heddles or shed openers. _l l_ The supports on whichthe heddles rest when the "pick" is made [_i. E. _, the pushing the weftthrough]. _m_ The beater-in. _n_ and _o_ Laze rods. _q_ The templatefor regulating the width of the cloth. _r r_ and _s s_ Beam on towhich the loom is fixed. 

Some of the descriptions are not as clear as could be wished. It isprobable that _g_ is a preliminary to _m_. N. Annandale mentions thathe obtained in the Faroes a beater-in made of a whale's jaw or rib;while in Iceland he saw some of the perforated stones to which thewarp threads were attached (_The Faroes and Iceland_, Oxford, 1905, pp. 195-6). ]

The Scandinavian form of the "Greek" loom from the Faroes Fig. 32, ismade known to us through the article itself in the Copenhagen Museum, illustrated by Montelius, _Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times_, Lond. 1888, p. 160, and through the very clear illustration anddescription given us by Olafsson in his _Oeconomische Reise durchIsland_, 1787, translated from the Danish edition of 1780. The loomfigured by Olafsson, Fig. 33, shows an advance on that of Montelius, in being provided with heddles. [H] Upright looms with a lower beaminstead of with warp weights and furnished with heddles, are notuncommon. There are the well known Indian and Persian rug looms, andDu Chaillu figures one in his _Journey to Ashango Land_, London, 1867, plate facing p. 291. Randall-Maciver and Wilkin illustrate a verticalloom in use among the Kabyles, _Libyan Notes_, London, 1901, Pl. IX. , and although the details of the illustration are not clear the textindicates the existence of one heddle: "The warp is decussated bymeans of a horizontal rod and leashes. " Dr. Washington Mathews figuresseveral Navajo looms with heddles, _Third Ann. Rep. Bureau ofEthnology_, p. 291; Ancient Peruvians also used them, as shown by Dr. Max Schmidt, _Baessler Archiv, I. Pt. 1_, and so on practically _ad. Lib. _ But to work an upright warp-weighted loom with heddles isattended with great practical inconvenience, and this difficulty has, no doubt, been one of the chief causes of the complete discardance ofthis class of loom. 

In spite of the evidence in favour of the existence of warp weightedlooms, the Director of the Hermannstadt Museum, Dr. V. Kimakovicz-Winnicki, sees fit to deny their existence. He found thatin some parts of Transylvania the peasants use wooden pyramids (seeFig. 18) similar to the Roman warp weights for winding the threadfrom the spindle on to the shuttle. For this purpose sockets arebored into the thin or top end of two pyramids, which are placedjust so far apart that a spindle can rest horizontally with one endin the socket of one pyramid, and the other end of the spindle inthe socket of the other pyramid, and the thread in being wound offon to the shuttle causes the spindle to revolve in the sockets. Fromthis he argues that what we have hitherto taken to be warp weightsare not warp weights at all (_Spinn-u. Webewerkzeuge_, Wuerzburg, 1911), and having denied these articles to be warp weights he getsover the difficulty presented by the illustration of Penelope at herloom, by attempting to prove that what we take to be a loom is noloom at all but a _flechtrahm_, _i. E. _ plaiting frame! He thenattempts to pull to pieces the idea that the Scandinavian loom inthe Copenhagen Museum is a loom and condemns it as unworkable. Therecan be no doubt about his meaning as he defines his terms. Theprinciple of weaving (_Weben_) he describes "as the absorption oftwo groups of parallel material elements (warp and weft) at rightangles to each other, and the principle of plaiting (_Flechten_) asthe absorption by itself in one plane of one group only of materialelement, (warp)" and he gives diagrammatic illustrations showingclearly what he means (_op. Cit. _ p. 31). [I] Judging from hisremarks one must conclude he has not seen a primitive loom of anysort, and were it not for the official position he holds, hisremarks would not need answering. 

It has, I believe, been suggested more than once that some of theperforated stones, pieces of burnt clay, pieces of chalk and likeobjects may be and are net-sinkers, and there is some justificationfor Dr. Kimakovicz-Winnicki's statement that the pyramidic forms arenot warp weights; but it does not follow that all the perforatedarticles are either spindle-holders or net-sinkers, yet that is whathis subsequent statements lead one to infer. It is, however, difficultto prove that these perforated articles are warp weights. 

[Illustration: Fig. 34. --Side view and section of chalk warp weightfound at Great Driffield. Of three of the weights the followingdimensions were taken:

 7-3/4" (19·7 cm. ) long, 2 lbs. 3 oz. (1·0 k) 6" (15·2 " ) " 1 lb. 8 oz. (0·7 k) 6-3/8" (16·2 " ) " 1 lb. 3 oz. (0·6 k)

Hull Museum. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 35. --"Chalk weight, 6" × 4" × 2" (15·2 cm. × 10·2× 5·1), similar to those found in pits, at Mount Caburn and Cissburynear Worthing, Sussex. Found with eighteen more in the _filling_ ofpit 7, Winkelbury Hill. " _Excavations in Winkelbury Camp_, byLieut. -Gen. Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranbourne Chase_, Vol. II. , 1888). As Pitt-Rivers also found at Winkelbury the fragment of a comband a chalk spindle whorl, which are textile tools, we may safelypresume these fashioned pieces of chalk are warp weights. ]

In 1875 several flat irregular oblong perforated pieces of soft chalkwere found in enlarging the cattle market in Great Driffield, Yorkshire; they were found in a hole about three feet deep withAnglo-Saxon potsherds, animal remains, and bits of iron. They can nowbe seen in the Mortimer Collection in the Hull Museum. They consist ofpieces of chalk, similar to those which drop annually in thousandsupon thousands down the cliffs from the boulder clay betweenBridlington and Flamborough. On some a shoulder has been cut, Fig. 34, most have one perforation, but in a few specimens, where the thinportion above the hole has been broken off, a second hole has beenmade. None of them can stand unsupported. Owing to the soluble natureof the chalk they could not have been used as net-sinkers in the sea(about nine miles off) for they would quickly dissolve in salt water, and the same holds good in regard to fresh water, although in a lesserdegree. But I do not think they were used even in fresh water asnet-sinkers, for it was a characteristic of primitive peoples, withwhom time was of no account, to do their work thoroughly--what theymade was intended to last, and chalk net-sinkers would not havelasted. That these were found in a limited quantity, I believe aboutseventeen in number, tends to show that they are warp weights, foronly a few are required for every loom, in spite of the considerablenumber shown in the non-technical illustration of Penelope's loom. Notbeing able to find any other use for these pieces of chalk, andjudging that they are suitable for the purpose, I should say they arewarp weights. In this case the weaver has made the most of what naturehas given him; in other parts of England he has had to fashion theweight out of the rough chalk, Fig. 35. 

In the Museum at Devizes there are several hard pieces of perforatedand fashioned chalk which offer more conclusive evidence. Of theseMrs. M. E. Cunnington, the Curator, writes me: "All the weights herehave holes bored right through. Two large ones stand easily on thefloor. Others are more irregular in form and will not stand upright. This latter type is, as far as I am aware, the more usual in this partof the country. They are commonly cut out of the hard chalk, and weighabout 3 or 4 lbs. (1·5-2 Kilos). We think these weights are loomweights because we find them with Romano-British remains, as atWestbury, and late Celtic remains on our chalk uplands, far from waterwhere fishing could have been carried on. With the same remains wefind weaving combs, numerous spindle whorls and other tools of bonethat were also probably used in weaving operations. " The Westbury, inWiltshire, referred to, is some thirty miles in a straight line fromthe mouth of the Severn, and about forty miles from the EnglishChannel. These pieces of chalk cannot therefore have been used asnet-sinkers, leaving out of consideration their composition; they werefound with weaving tools and they fit the position. So far theingenuity of our ablest archæologists at home and abroad has notsucceeded in ascribing the use of these objects to anything else thannet-sinking or warp tension. The adaptability of the articles for useas warp weights, the small groups in which they are found, thediscovery of weaving implements in the closest proximity, ourknowledge of the Greek representations of warp-weighted looms, theOlafsson illustration, and the loom in the Copenhagen Museum all tendto prove that these articles are really warp weights. 

As regards the practical possibility or impossibility of working a"Greek" loom, I had a simple frame made in the Museum and showed Mr. J. Smith, a mill "Overlooker" at Messrs. Wayman and Sons, Ld. , Halifax, the illustration in Montelius' book already referred to, andasked him to weave me a small piece of cloth on it. In the course of afew hours he did the warping, beaming and weaving, making the pickwith his fingers and using a ball of weft thread instead of a spool orshuttle. The result is shown in the accompanying illustration, Fig. 36, conclusively proving that weaving on such a frame is quitefeasible, and practically proving that Olafsson's and the Copenhagenwarp weighted looms are properly constructed workable looms. 

[Illustration: Fig. 36. --A warp weighted loom made at BankfieldMuseum, to show the possibility of weaving by this method. There is noheddle nor shuttle used. The weaver made the "shed" and pushed theweft through with his fingers. He naturally worked _down_wards. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 37. --Diagram to show how the warp is kept taut ona Syrian loom. ]

Finally, it may not be out of place here to point out that there areother looms, besides the Greek and Scandinavian, on which the warp ismade taut by means of warp weights. The Rev. Dr. Harvey Porter, of theAmerican College, Beyrout, Syria, writing about the year 1901, thusdescribes the common loom of the country. He says: "Two upright postsare fixed in the ground, which hold the roller to which the threads ofthe warp are fastened, and upon which the cloth is wound as it iswoven. The threads of the warp are carried upward towards the ceilingat the other end of the room, and pass over rollers, and are gatheredin hanks and weighted to keep them taut (_Dic. Of the Bible_, Edinburgh, 1902, IV. , p. 901). " He has kindly sent me an illustrationof this loom, but unfortunately the weights are not clearly shown, andthe same is the case with an illustration of a loom from Cyprus. [J]The diagram, Fig. 37, shows the principle. In a Shan loom illustratedby Mrs. Leslie Milne, in _The Shans at Home_, London, 1910, p. 120, the warp makes a somewhat similar detour over the head of the weaver, it is, however, not weighted but tied to a beam. The point to beobserved is that these warp-weighted looms are horizontal and notperpendicular, and also that the weaving is the reverse of that on theGreek loom but similar to that on our horizontal looms, so that thepresent Syrian and Cyprian looms have nothing in common with the oldGreek loom. 

[Illustration: Fig. 38. --Hand of Penelope clutching her shuttle. Froma corner of a piece of sculpture discovered by O. Kern and describedby C. Robert, (_The Feet Washing of Odysseus_, fifth Century B. C. , _Mitt. Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. _, Athens, XXV. , 1900, pp. 332-3). The author considers Penelope to be in the act of unravelling what shehas woven: "We see her holding the spool with her right hand, whilethe left hand, half closed, is raised to about shoulder high, and thefingers, if I read the traces correctly, are posed as though she helda thread. "]

The Greeks evidently used a spool in weaving, that is a piece of stickround which was wound the thread that became the weft, as is shown inthe hand of Penelope, Fig. 38, and in Kirke's loom, Fig. 15. 

FOOTNOTES:

[E] I find frequent references, by various writers, to an upright loommentioned by E. H. Palmer as used by a Bedawin woman near Jebel Musa, but on looking up his description (_The Desert of the Exodus_, I. P. 125), I find it to be so indifferent as to be quite useless forpurposes of comparison. 

[F] My attention to this was kindly drawn by Mr. F. N. Pryce, Assistant in the Dept. Of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 

[G] The existence of warp weighted looms amongst the prehistoric LakeDwellers of Switzerland was first surmised by Pauer (_Keller's LakeDwellings_) from the discovery of the weights, and was madepractically certain by Messikommer and Jentsch. 

[H] Comparing the loom Olafsson saw with the description in the NialSaga, he concludes this sort of loom was in use A. D. 1014, in theNorth of Scotland. 

[I] He criticises the detail of the illustration of Penelope's loom. It must be remembered this illustration is not a technical drawing, but an artist's representation where correctness of detail cannot beexpected. In his own drawing of the Egyptian horizontal loom many ofthe warp threads are shown over instead of under the laze rods, andyet this is supposed to be a correct technical drawing!

[J] Since writing Dr. Porter has sent me photograph of another sort ofloom in which weights are used as counter balances to keep the heddlesraised. The subject requires further elucidation. 

III. CONCLUSION. 

From the foregoing we gather that the Ancient Egyptians had two formsof looms. The earlier or horizontal form, date about B. C. 2000, has ina modified way survived to the present day in desert Egypt and is alsofound in Seistan. It required a large area of ground for working andprobably in earlier times when there was plenty of space this did notmuch matter. But as the population in the towns increased and withthe increase of civilisation and its concomitant increased demand forcloth, probably out of proportion to the increase of population, spacewould be begrudged and this may have caused the invention or theintroduction of the vertical form of loom which we find in use some500 years later. In Egypt therefore the horizontal loom preceded thevertical loom but it does not necessarily follow that such was thecase elsewhere. In so far as we can gather from the small amount ofinformation at our disposal, in the earlier days the women were theweavers, and later on with the introduction of the upright loom themen were the weavers with an occasional female weaver. In the EgyptianDesert and in Seistan in the present day with horizontal looms theweavers appear to be males, but among the nomads of Persia wholikewise use horizontal looms the weavers are females. In the use ofeither form of loom the Egyptian weavers beat the weft downwards ortowards themselves and _not_ upwards or away from themselves. They hadthe heddle in one of its earliest forms and had consequently made thefirst great step in the evolution of the loom as we now know it. Inthe beginning they made no selvedges so that for every pick a separatelength of weft thread was used. The adoption of the selvedge wasanother improvement and until it was introduced the weft would nodoubt have been put through with the fingers, later on a spool beingused. It is possible also that in very late times the weavers' combwas introduced. It is safe to say that the Egyptians had no knowledgeof the reed. Both forms of looms were simple, without harness or othercomplicated pieces of mechanism. The Egyptians accomplished fairlygood work and judging these people from their looms alone we mustconclude they were a progressive race. 

The Greek form of loom was an upright one on which the warp threadswere kept taut by means of weights and similar to the form whichexisted in Central and Northern Europe (in the latter until recenttimes) but of which so far there is no trace to the east, or south, orwest. The Greek loom may have been furnished with a heddle but thedrawings are not clear on this point. A spool was used. The weaverswere women and the weft was beaten upwards or away from the weaver. Itwas not a form of loom so capable of improvement as the Egyptian formsand there appears to be no connection between the forms used on eitherside of the Mediterranean. The Greek tapestry loom could hardly havebeen more primitive. In respect to the forms of looms used by the twopeoples the Egyptians were considerably in advance of the Greeks. 

FINIS. 

Transcriber's Note

Punctuation errors have been repaired. 

The author uses some archaic and alternative spelling, for example, nooze for noose, gramms for grammes. These have been retained asprinted. 

The original text contained an erratum, as follows:

 Erratum:--Page 39, Line 5, for Dr. Henry Porter, _read_ Dr. Harvey Porter. 

The error has been fixed in this e-text. 

The following amendments have been made:

 Page 8--Calliaud amended to Cailliaud--"... As well as those of Cailliaud and Rosellini show that ... "

 Page 11--Tehuti-hotep amended to Tehuti-hetep--"... From the tomb of Tehuti-hetep _circa_ 1938-1849 B. C. , ... "

 Page 18--netsinker amended to net-sinker--"... The material is not suitable for a net-sinker, ... "

 Page 19, Fig. 21 caption--cm. Amended to in. --"... Breadth 6·5 cm. (1-11/32 in. ). "

 Page 23--pecularity amended to peculiarity--"When I noticed the peculiarity first, ... "

 Page 23--analagous amended to analogous--"We know how closely analogous to 'darning' was ... "

 Page 27--safron amended to saffron--"2. This is a coarser fabric, has been dyed with saffron, ... "

 Page 29--Millemetres amended to Millimetres--"Micro Measurements of Ten Fibres in Millimetres. "

 Page 32, Fig. 31 caption--Etrusian amended to Etruscan--"... An Athenian skyphos found in an Etruscan tomb ... "

 Page 32--repeated instance of use deleted--"... There is apparently no evidence for the use of such objects ... "

 Page 35, Fig. 33 caption--templete amended to template--"The template for regulating the width of the cloth. "

 Page 37, Fig. 35 caption--whorle amended to whorl--"... The fragment of a comb and a chalk spindle whorl, ... "

 Page 38--commonally amended to commonly--"They are commonly cut out of the hard chalk, ... "

 Page 38--archaeologists amended to archæologists--"... The ingenuity of our ablest archæologists at home and abroad ... "

 Page 38--impossibilty amended to impossibility--"As regards the practical possibility or impossibility ... "

The Figures have been moved, where necessary, so that they are not inthe middle of a paragraph.