Ancient Egyptian and Greek Looms — Inside the Classic

(8 User reviews)   1479
In Category - Inventions Industry
Roth, H. Ling (Henry Ling), 1855-1925 Project Gutenberg 2008
Weaving; Looms Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words: 17,802
Reading time: 78 min
Text sections: 3
H. Ling Roth's 1913 study reconstructs ancient weaving technology from tomb paintings and textile fragments. The work compares conflicting illustrations of Egyptian horizontal looms and analyzes preserved cloths for yarn structure, sizing, and dyes, revealing the practical challenges of interpreting archaeological evidence.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.5/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

Edition quality

Read the Text

d 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.

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.

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°. 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 Archæology and Anthropology of the 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 1-7/8 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.

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.

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 James Thompson, F.R.S., who, after researches into their characteristics and structure wrote a paper on the subject, which appears in the London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine, Vol. V., page 355. From that time until quite recently, little additional knowledge on the subject has appeared. In the early part of 1910, Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie, F.R.S., expressed a desire that the writer should undertake microscopic investigation of the body-wrappings of cloths of the III. and early IV. Dynasties (_circa_ 2980-2750 B.C.) which he had brought home from excavations made at a cemetery near Meydum, Upper Egypt. The report 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 Egyptian Mummy cloths in Bankfield Museum should be examined on similar lines, describing the construction of the fabrics and yarns, together with the characteristics of the fibres used, I undertook to carry out the work and forward to him the results for permanent reference.

Each of the fifteen cloths submitted was first examined by mounting about 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 out its plan of composition and the number of warp and weft threads per linear inch. Afterwards, a little of the warp threads as well as of the weft, was untwisted and the fibres separated, and these mounted apart on another 3" × 1" slip (76 × 25 mm.), so that the kind of textile fibre used and the diameter of the fibres could be measured. These microscopical preparations will be kept in Bankfield Museum, as they may be of interest to microscopists in the locality.

The cloths are from three sources:--Nos. 1 and 2 being from the private collection of Dr. Wallis-Budge, who has given the specimens to Bankfield Museum; Nos. 3 to 8 are from the old Meyer collection in the Liverpool Museum (unfortunately the origin of them is unknown); and those 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 Liverpool Museum.

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.

B.--Specimens from the Meyer Collection, marked No. 11088. (Date of acquisition 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 woven by the Ancient Egyptians has been examined both in this country and abroad. I may, however, call special attention to the results of examination 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.

[A] To the uninitiated I may explain that in a horizontal loom the plane 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 right angles to that of the floor.

[B] To avoid indistinctness through over reduction, I have endeavoured to keep all reproductions in this paper as large as possible, and think I have succeeded in not losing any detail in the necessary reduction.

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

Roth opens his 1913 paper with a frank admission: published illustrations of Egyptian looms by Cailliaud, Wilkinson, and Lepsius 'contradict each other in many important points,' making them 'practically useless' for understanding the craft. His solution—obtaining copies of tomb drawings from Egyptologist N. de G. Davies—sets the tone for a study that treats visual evidence with forensic caution. The preface grounds the work in a specific institutional context: Bankfield Museum in Halifax, at the heart of the Yorkshire woollen trade, where Roth served as Keeper. This local industrial heritage frames his interest in ancient tools as directly relevant to modern textile manufacture.

Reconstructing the Horizontal Loom

The first section examines a single wall painting from the tomb of Chnem-hotep at Beni Hasan, showing a horizontal loom with two squatting women weavers and a taskmaster. Roth methodically compares six published reproductions of this scene, noting discrepancies in the depiction of warp beams, heddles, and the weavers' postures. He does not simply describe the image but interrogates each copyist's interpretation, treating the drawings as secondary sources that may introduce error. The analysis is deliberately narrow: Roth limits his claims to what the painting shows—a ground loom with the warp stretched between two beams—and avoids extrapolating to other loom types. His approach privileges the material evidence of the painting over later scholarly reconstructions, a stance that recurs throughout the text.

Cloth as Evidence: Fibre, Size, and Dye

In the longest analytical passage, Roth turns from images to physical fragments. He describes fourteen cloth specimens from three collections—the Meyer Collection, Lord Denbigh's, and an unnamed source—recording for each: fibre type (linen or wool), presence of sizing, yarn diameter, twist direction, and selvedge construction. The descriptions are precise and unadorned: 'a coarse, highly-sized linen cloth. The yarns are agglutinated, are brittle, and it is difficult to separate the fibres.' Roth notes that many specimens have absorbed embalming gums, complicating fibre identification. He identifies one wool fabric as possibly Cashmere based on fineness, but immediately qualifies: 'particulars of locality, of burial, and the period of time to which this interesting fabric belongs has been lost.' The section demonstrates how textile analysis can yield technical data—warp/weft ratios, dye residues (saffron, red ferum), selvedge reinforcement—while remaining constrained by incomplete provenance.

The Greek Loom and the Limits of Inference

The second chapter shifts to Greek weaving, though the excerpts provide only the chapter heading and no substantive text. Based on the structure of the Egyptian section, Roth likely applies a similar method: examining vase paintings, literary references, and surviving tools. The absence of detailed Greek content in the excerpts is itself instructive—it suggests the evidence for Greek looms is even more fragmentary than for Egyptian. Roth's preface hints at this imbalance: he had 'plenty of material for the study of weaving in various parts of the world' but lacked 'everything relating to the industry in Ancient Egypt and Greece.' The Greek section probably relies heavily on textual sources such as Homer and on comparative analysis with Egyptian techniques. Readers should expect a cautious argument that acknowledges the scarcity of physical remains.

Roth's study is best read as a technical report rather than a narrative history. The value lies in its detailed descriptions of individual artefacts and its critical assessment of earlier illustrations. Readers interested in ancient technology will find a model of how to handle incomplete evidence; those seeking broad cultural context will need to supplement this text with other sources. The work rewards careful attention to the specific measurements, yarn counts, and selvedge structures that Roth records with evident care.

Camila Roberts
4 weeks ago

David Carter
2 weeks ago

Owen Harris
2 weeks ago

Jack Moore
1 week ago

Victoria Moore
2 weeks ago

4.5
4.5 out of 5 (8 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

What did you think of this book?

Answer a few questions and save a private reflection on this device.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Which reading stage best describes you?

2

How much did you enjoy the reading experience?

3

How likely are you to recommend this book?

4

How easy was the book to follow?

Related eBooks