Textile actovoty and cultural identity in Sicily between the late Bronze Age and Archaic Period. 9781789255997, 9781789256000, 2021934335, 1789256003

Table of contents :
Cover
Book Title
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgements
List of illustrations
List of maps
List of tables
Abbreviations
Introductory framework
Chapter 1 Geographical, chronological and cultural framework
Chapter 2 Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence
Chapter 3 Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts
Chapter 4 Textile tools in votive and sacred contexts
Chapter 5 Technology and production
Chapter 6 Tracing textile culture in Sicily
Annex A Analysis of textile tools in Sicily: the case studies
Annex B Analysis of textile tools from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari
Annex C Analysis of loom weights from the so-called Bothros of Aeolus at Lipari
Annex D Analysis of textile tools from Metapiccola (Lentini)
Annex E Analysis of textile tools from the FBA-IA Cittadella hill (Morgantina)
Annex F Analysis of textile tools from the Archaic Cittadella hill (Morgantina)
Annex G Analysis of textile tools from the FBA-IA settlement of Sabucina
Annex H Analysis of textile tools from the Archaic settlement of Sabucina
Annex I Analysis of textile tools from Himera
Annex J Analysis of textile tools from Monte Maranfusa
Annex K Analysis of textile tools from Monte Polizo
Afterword
Bibliography

Citation preview

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily Between the Late Bronze Age and Archaic period

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily Between the Late Bronze Age and Archaic period Gabriella Longhitano

Oxford & Philadelphia

Published in the United Kingdom in 2021 by OXBOW BOOKS The Old Music Hall, 106–108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JE and in the United States by OXBOW BOOKS 1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083 © Oxbow Books and the author 2021 Paperback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-599-7 Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-600-0 (ePub) A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2021934335 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing. Printed in the United Kingdom by Short Run Press Typeset by Versatile PreMedia Services (P) Ltd. For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact: UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Oxbow Books Oxbow Books Telephone (01865) 241249 Telephone (610) 853-9131, Fax (610) 853-9146 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] www.oxbowbooks.com www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group Front cover: Lekythos from Akrai (Palazzo Cappellani, Palazzolo Acreide, Collezione Iudica, no. 3104). Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archaeologico di Siracusa, Eloro, Villa del Tellaro e Akrai, no. 4556, 17-12-2020). Back cover: Drawing by the author.

Contents Acknowledgements����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������vi List of illustrations�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� viii List of maps����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xv List of tables��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xvi Abbreviations����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� xix Introductory framework������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xx 1. Geographical, chronological and cultural framework������������������������������������������������� 1 2. Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence���������������������������������������������������������� 10 3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts������������������������������������������������������ 27 4. Textile tools in votive and sacred contexts����������������������������������������������������������������� 50 5. Technology and production�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 62 6. Tracing textile culture in Sicily������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 74 Annex A: Analysis of textile tools in Sicily: the case studies���������������������������������������� 80 Annex B: Analysis of textile tools from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Annex C: Analysis of loom weights from the so-called Bothros of Aeolus at Lipari����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 Annex D: Analysis of textile tools from Metapiccola (Lentini)����������������������������������� 100 Annex E: Analysis of textile tools from the FBA-IA Cittadella hill (Morgantina)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 102 Annex F: Analysis of textile tools from the Archaic Cittadella hill (Morgantina)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 106 Annex G: Analysis of textile tools from the FBA-IA settlement of Sabucina��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 108 Annex H: Analysis of textile tools from the Archaic settlement of Sabucina��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 110 Annex I: Analysis of textile tools from Himera������������������������������������������������������������� 116 Annex J: Analysis of textile tools from Monte Maranfusa������������������������������������������� 131 Annex K: Analysis of textile tools from Monte Polizo�������������������������������������������������� 134 Afterword����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 Bibliography������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147

Acknowledgements This work is largely based on my PhD project carried out at the Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology of the University of Liverpool and completed in October 2019. I sincerely thank my supervisors Prof. Lin Foxhall and Dr Matthew Fitzjohn for their guidance and support with my project, and my examiners Dr Bruce Routledge and Dr Margarita Gleba for their stimulating comments on my PhD thesis. My special gratitude goes to Prof. Pietro Militello, who introduced me to the study of archaeological textiles with his project TE.SI. (Textiles in Sicily), encouraged my research, helped me in obtaining the permits from Soprintendenze and continues to provide his unwavering support. This work has greatly benefited from my experience at the Centre for Textile Research in Copenhagen in 2014 and 2017 and I would like to thank Prof. Eva Andersson Strand and Prof. Marie-Louise Nosch for the invaluable opportunity to stay at the Centre and learn from people with great expertise and knowledge. The visits to the museum were supported by the Pasold Fund, Andrew Sherratt Grant and Peet Travel Award, which allowed me to conduct my data collection across Sicily. I am thankful to all the generous people working at the museums of Lipari, Aidone, Caltanisetta, Lentini, Himera, Roccamena and Salemi, where I carried out my analyses. I am grateful to more people than I can possibly name here, but some deserve special mention. I warmly thank, for giving the permissions to study and publish the material and for their supportive help: Dr Maria Amalia Mastelloni, Dr Maria Clara Martinelli, Arch. Rosario Vilardo (Lipari); Prof. Massimo Frasca, Dr Maria Musumeci (Lentini); Dr Laura Maniscalco, Arch. Biagio Greco, Dr Rosario Patanè, Arch. Liborio Calascibetta (Aidone); Arch. Giovanni Crisostomo Lucera (Caltanissetta); Dr Francesca Spatafora, Dr Rosa Panzica (Palermo); Dr Rossella Giglio, Dr Riccardo Guazzelli and Dr Giuseppina Mammina (Trapani). I kindly thank Prof. Carla Antonaccio and Prof. Nunzio Allegro for generously entrusting me with the study of the material from the Archaic Cittadella hill and Himera, respectively. For illustrations and permissions for their use, I thank the Parco Archeologico di Siracusa, Parco Archeologico di Morgantina and the American excavations at Morgantina. Also, I would take this opportunity to thank people met during my PhD whose experience have provided invaluable help: Dr Hedvig Landenius Enegren and Dr Francesco Meo for our productive discussions on textile tools in Italy; Nadia Barbi for her help with the study of textile tool manufacture and Antonello Rizzo for his help with the material from Monte Polizo.

Acknowledgements

vii

During the preparation of the manuscript many people provided me with their support, no matter how many kilometres away they lived. I am deeply indebted to my colleagues and friends Alistair Dickey, Sarah Hitchens, Katarzyna Żebrowska and Mia Montesanto who have patiently read the manuscript at its various stages, provided insightful comments and shared important references and unpublished information. Thanks to Prof. Pietro Militello for his thoughts on Sicilian chronology and commenting on an earlier version of this work. I am solely responsible for any errors or misunderstandings. Friends all over the world who offered their support during the years of this project are too numerous to name – I thank them with all my heart. Finally, I thank my family who have supported and encouraged me through every step of my academic studies and my husband Salvo for his unfailing support and love – I could have not done this without you all. I dedicate this work to my parents Pina and Salvatore and my brother Giuseppe. Gabriella Longhitano Catania, December 2020

List of illustrations Fig. 0.1 Fig. 0.2

Fig. 0.3 Fig. 0.4 Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.2

Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2.7 Fig. 2.8 Fig. 2.9a Fig. 2.9b Fig. 2.9c Fig. 2.10

Throne of Verucchio (Tomba del Trono, Rocca Malatestiana, 8th century BC) with two scenes in the top register of women weaving at their looms (after Kossack 1999, fig. 44). Tintinnabulum from Bologna (Arsenale Militare, Tomba degli Ori, late 7th century BC) with scenes of textile production. Side A (a), spinning (top) and dressing the distaffs (bottom); side B (b), weaving (top) and warping (bottom) (after Lipkin 2012, fig. 31). Lekythos of the Amasis painter (c. 550–530 BC) with scenes of fibre production (a) and weaving process (b). Photo: © Metropolitan Museum of Art. Stele from Prinias (Crete) (Drawing by author, after Lebessi 1976, pl. 3). Lekythos from Akrai showing Omphale standing in front of Herakles and holding a spindle and a distaff. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archaeologico di Siracusa, Eloro, Villa del Tellaro e Akrai, no. 4556, 17-12-2020). (a) 3rd century BC female fictile shoulder bust from Morgantina, (b) with decoration of a mythological scene of the rape of Persephone. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico di Morgantina e della Villa Romana del Casale di Piazza Armerina, no. 1426, 14-11-20); (Drawing after Bell 1981, 140–141, no. 106c, Pl. 28). Drawing of decorations on a Castelluccian cup (after Lukesh 1999, fig. 39). Example of a low-whorl drop spindle (Drawing by author). Example of a warp-weighted loom (Drawing by author). Tablet weaving with spools (Drawing by author). Drawing of the distaff from the 8th–7th BC cemetery of Molino delle Badia, Grammichele (after Orsi 1905, 129, 132, fig. 36). Spindle whorl types (Drawings by author). Loom weight types A–C (Drawings by author). Loom weight types D–E (Drawings by author). Loom weight types F–G (Drawings by author). Spool types (Drawings by author).

List of illustrations Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3

Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.7 Fig. 4.1

Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 5.1

Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3

ix

The Acropolis of Lipari. Part of the overlapping settlements on the Acropolis of Lipari with α II hut, which yielded one of the largest concentrations of textile tools (after Bernabò Brea et al. 1980, modified by author). Plan of the settlement of Metapiccola (after Frasca 2012, fig. 9, modified by author). Plan of the Cittadella hill with location of the principal trenches and Archaic buildings (courtesy of Carla Antonaccio and the American Excavations at Morgantina, modified by author on Erik Thorkildsen’s design). Plan of the settlement of Sabucina with the Prehistoric and Archaic buildings (after Panvini et al. 2008, 18, modified by author). Plan of the Upper and Lower City of Himera (after Vassallo 2005, fig. 64, modified by author). Occupation phases at Monte Maranfusa (after Spatafora 2003, modified by author). The main excavation areas at Monte Polizo (after Mühlenbock 2008, fig. 7, modified by author). (a) Statue of Athena Ergane (a) from Provide kiln of Camarina (after Pisani 2008, pl.  XVIII, a); (b) from the Quartiere Ceramico of Scornavacche (after Di Vita 1952–54, fig. 1); (c) from the Eastern District at Himera (after Allegro et al. 1972, pl. XIV, no. 2). The so-called Bothros of Aeolus (after Bernabò Brea et al. 1998, fig. 9, modified by author). Stamp of a flying Nike on a loom weight from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Plan of the sanctuary of the Eastern District at Himera (after Allegro 1976, modified by author). Examples of Late Bronze-Iron Age spindle whorls. Photo by author (with permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019 and Parco Archeologico di Morgantina e della Villa Romana del Casale di Piazza Armerina no. 554, 15-11-2019). Examples of Late Bronze-Iron Age loom weights. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Discoid spindle whorls made from pottery sherds from Himera. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019).

x Fig. 5.4

Fig. 5.5 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. B.1 Fig. B.2 Fig. B.3 Fig. B.4 Fig. B.5 Fig. B.6 Fig. B.7 Fig. B.8a–b

Fig. B.9 Fig. C.1 Fig. C.2

List of illustrations Final Bronze-Iron Age (a) and Archaic (b) loom weights from the Cittadella hill. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico di Morgantina e della Villa Romana del Casale di Piazza Armerina, no. 554, 15-11-2019). Cubic loom weights decorated by painted crosses from Monte Maranfusa. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). Drawing of balanced tabby weave (Drawing by author). Drawing of weft-faced tabby weave (Drawing by author). Drawing of different types of twill weave: 2/2 twill (a) and 2/1 twill (b) (Drawing by author). Spindle whorl shapes from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari. Weight and diameter of the spindle whorls from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari. Examples of spindle whorls from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Examples of loom weights from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Weight and thickness of the loom weights from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari. Example of a notched pebble from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Weight and thickness of the clay loom weights and pebbles from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari. A bone pointed tool (a) and a needle (b) from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Comb from the Late-Final Bronze Age settlements at Lipari. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Weight and thickness of the loom weights from the Bothros of Aeolus. Loom weights of the group a (a) and incision on the top (b) from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019).

List of illustrations Fig. C.3

xi

Loom weights of the group b from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Fig. C.4 Loom weights of the group c from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Fig. C.5 Loom weights of the group d from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Fig. C.6 Loom weights of the group e from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Fig. C.7 Loom weights of the group f (a) and the gem impression showing a lamp (b) from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Fig. C.8 Truncated conical loom weights from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Fig. C.9 The lenticular loom weight from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019). Fig. C.10(a–h) Incised decorations and gem impressions on the top of loom weights from the Bothros of Aeolus (Drawing by author). Fig. D.1 Spindle whorl shapes from Metapiccola. Fig. D.2 Weight and diameter of the spindle whorls from Metapiccola. Fig. D.3 A spool from Metapiccola. Photo by author (with the permission of Museo Archeologico Paolo Orsi, Siracusa, no. 2821, 15-12-2018). Fig. E.1 Spindle whorl shapes from the Final Bronze-Iron Age Cittadella hill. Fig. E.2 Weight and diameter of the spindle whorls from the Final BronzeIron Age Cittadella hill. Complete (dots) and calculated spindle whorls (triangles). Fig. E.3 Examples of loom weights from the Final Bronze-Iron Age Cittadella hill. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico di Morgantina e della Villa Romana del Casale di Piazza Armerina, no. 554, 15-11-2019). Fig. E.4 Estimated weight and thickness of the loom weights from the Final Bronze-Iron Age Cittadella hill. Fig. F.1 Examples of loom weights from the Archaic Cittadella hill. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico di Morgantina e della Villa Romana del Casale di Piazza Armerina, no. 554, 15-11-2019).

xii Fig. F.2 Fig. F.3

Fig. F.4 Fig. G.1 Fig. G.2 Fig. H.1 Fig. H.2 Fig. H.3 Fig. H.4 Fig. H.5

Fig. H.6 Fig. I.1 Fig. I.2 Fig. I.3

Fig. I.4

List of illustrations Weight and thickness of complete loom weights from the Archaic Cittadella hill. Examples of loom weights from the deposit in trench 12B from the Archaic Cittadella hill. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico di Morgantina e della Villa Romana del Casale di Piazza Armerina, no. 554, 15-11-2019). Incised marks on the loom weights from the Archaic Cittadella hill (Drawing by author). A spindle whorl from Final Bronze-Iron Age Sabucina. Photo by author (with the permission of Museo Archeologico Regionale di Caltanissetta, no. 672, 19-4-2016). A loom weight from Final Bronze-Iron Age Sabucina. Photo by author (with the permission of Museo Archaeologico Regionale di Caltanissetta, no. 672, 19-4-2016). The truncated conical loom weights from room no.  58 from Archaic Sabucina. Photo by author (with the permission of Museo Archeologico Regionale di Caltanissetta, no. 672, 19-4-2016). Weight and thickness of the loom weights from Archaic Sabucina. Examples of the disc loom weights from room no.  59 from Archaic Sabucina. Photo by author (with the permission of Museo Archeologico Regionale di Caltanissetta, no. 672, 19-4-2016). The truncated pyramidal loom weights from room ‘Vano Ripostoglio’ from Archaic Sabucina. Photo by author (with the permission of Museo Archeologico Regionale di Caltanissetta, no. 672, 19-4-2016). An incised cross made by lines of dots on the top of a loom weight from room ‘Vano Ripostoglio’ from Archaic Sabucina. Photo by author (with the permission of Museo Archeologico Regionale di Caltanissetta, no. 672, 19-4-2016). Stamps of oval impressions of a standing human figure from ‘Vano Ripostoglio’ at Archaic Sabucina. Photo by author (with the permission of Museo Archeologico Regionale di Caltanissetta, no. 672, 19-4-2016). Weight and thickness of A and C loom weight types from Himera. Weight and width of A and C loom weight types from Himera. Loom weights with an identical stamp from room no.  33, Himera, Northern District, Insula II. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). Oval impression of a gem displaying a woman holding a mirror on the loom weights from room no. 33. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019).

List of illustrations Fig. I.5 Fig. I.6

Fig. I.7a Fig. I.7b

Fig. I.7c

Fig. I.8 Fig. I.9

Fig. I.10

Fig. I.11 Fig. I.12 Fig. I.13

Fig. I.14

xiii

The textile tool assemblage from room no. 19, Himera, Northern District, Insula II. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). The assemblage of truncated pyramidal loom weights from room no. 23, Himera, Eastern District. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-62019). Examples of the loom weights from room no.  39, sanctuary, Eastern District. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). Example of a circular stamp with a running hare on the loom weights from room no. 39, sanctuary, Eastern District. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). The loom weights from room no.  39 (Eastern District) bearing four oval blank impressions around the central stamp of the running hare. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). Weight and thickness of the loom weights from Himera, Eastern District, room no. 25. Examples of the lenticular loom weights from room no. 25, (sanctuary, Eastern District). Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no.  2726, 6-6-2019). Examples of the discoid loom weights from room no.  25, sanctuary, Eastern District. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no.  2726, 6-6-2019). Examples of the pebbles from room no. 25, sanctuary, Eastern District. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). Examples of biconical loom weights from room no. 25, sanctuary, Eastern District. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). Group of 14 truncated pyramidal loom weights from room no.  25, sanctuary, Eastern District. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). Examples of marks on loom weights from Himera. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019).

xiv Fig. J.1 Fig. J.2 Fig. J.3 Fig. J.4 Fig. K.1 Fig. K.2 Fig. K.3 Fig. K.4 Fig. K.5

Fig. K.6 Fig. K.7 Fig. K.8a–b

Fig. K.9a–b

List of illustrations Examples of the loom weight shapes from Monte Maranfusa. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). Weight and thickness of the loom weights from Monte Maranfusa. Drawing of painted cross decorations on the cubic loom weights from Monte Maranfusa (Drawing by author). Marks on the loom weights from Monte Maranfusa. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019). Weight and thickness of the loom weights from Monte Polizo. Common decorations on the top of the C.4 loom weight type from Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). Decorations on a truncated pyramidal loom weight from Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). The loom weight assemblage from Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). Incised decoration on the top of a truncated pyramidal loom weight from Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). Decoration on one side of a C.4 loom weight from Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). Rectangular prism with two holes from House 3, Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). Groups of loom weights with identical stamps on the top found at House 1, Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). Types of spools found at Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019).

List of maps Map 1.1 Map of Sicily with main sites mentioned in Chapter. 1: Lipari; 2: Milazzo; 3: Punta Castelluzzo; 4: Metapiccola – Leontinoi; 5: Thapsos; 6: Pantalica; 7: Cozzo del Pantano; 8: Cassibile; 9: Finocchito; 10: Molino della Badia-Madonna del Piano; 11: Caltagirone; 12: The Cittadella hill; 13: Dessueri; 14: Sabucina; 15: Cannatello; 16: Sant’Angelo Muxaro; 17: Scirinda; 18: Mokarta; 19: Motya; 20: Panormos; 21: Solunto; 22: Himera; 23: Zancle; 24: Naxos; 25: Katane; 26: Megara Hyblaea; 27: Syracuse; 28: Akrai; 29: Casmene; 30: Camarina; 31: Gela; 32: Akragas; 33: Selinous; 34: Paternò; 35: Centuripe; 36: Cozzo della Tignusa; 37: Pozzo di Gotto; 38: Calascibetta; 39: Noto Antica; 40: Avola. Map 3.1 Map of Sicily with the seven case-study sites. Map 3.2 Distribution map of loom weights at the Northern District at Himera (modified by author after Allegro 1972). Map 3.3 Distribution map of textile tools at Monte Maranfusa, building 2 (modified by author after Spatafora 2003). Map 3.4 Distribution map of loom weights at Monte Polizo (modified by author after Mühlenbock 2008).

List of tables Table 1.1 A simplified comparative chronology and period terminology for Italian Peninsula and Sicily between the 13th to 5th centuries BC (elaborated after Leighton 2019, tab. 7.1). Table 2.1 Textile tool shapes from Sicily between the 13th to 5th centuries BC. Table 4.1 Textile tools from votive deposits in Sicily. Table 6.1 Table summarising results of the analyses at the select sites. Table A.1 Range of yarn diameters (after Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015, 192). Table A.2 Required warp tension per thread diameter based on the results from CTR’s experiments (after Mårtensson et al. 2009). Table A.3 Summarised CTR’s guidelines to estimate the tension, loom weight count and specific limit values for loom weights from Sicily. Table B.1 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a ring-shaped loom weight from Prehistoric Lipari. Table B.2 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a truncated pyramidal loom weight from Prehistoric Lipari. Table B.3 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a notched pebble from Prehistoric Lipari. Table C.1 Calculation for potential loom set-up with a loom weight of the group a, Bothros of Aeolus. Table C.2 Calculation for potential loom set-ups with a loom weight of the group b, Bothros of Aeolus. Table C.3 Calculation for potential loom set-ups with a loom weight of the group c, Bothros of Aeolus. Table C.4 Calculation for potential loom set-ups with a loom weight of the group d, Bothros of Aeolus. Table C.5 Calculation for potential loom set-ups with a loom weight of the group e, Bothros of Aeolus. Table C.6 Calculation for potential loom set-ups with a loom weight of the group f (Bothros of Aeolus), truncated pyramidal with rectangular base-weight and thickness. Table C.7 Calculation for potential loom set-ups a loom weight of the group f (Bothros of Aeolus), truncated pyramidal with rectangular base-weight and width. Table C.8 Calculation for potential loom set-ups with a loom weight of the group d, Bothros of Aeolus.

List of tables

xvii

Table C.9 Calculation for potential loom set-ups with a lenticular loom weight, Bothros of Aeolus. Table E.1 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a complete truncated pyramidal loom weight (1989 g) from the Prehistoric Cittadella hill. Table E.2 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a truncated pyramidal loom weight (184 g) from the Prehistoric Cittadella hill. Table F.1 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a truncated pyramidal loom weight from the Archaic Cittadella hill. Table G.1 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a truncated conical loom weight from Prehistoric Sabucina. Table H.1 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a truncated conical loom weight from room no. 58, Sabucina. Table H.2 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a truncated pyramidal loom weight from room no. 58, Sabucina. Table H.3 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with the lightest disc loom weight from room no. 59, Sabucina. Table H.4 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with the heaviest disc loom weight from room no. 59, Sabucina. Table H.5 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a loom weight from Vano Ripostiglio, Sabucina. Table H.6 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with the heaviest loom weight from Vano Ripostiglio, Sabucina. Table I.1 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a truncated pyramidal loom weight (type A) (Himera). Table I.2 Calculations for potential loom set-ups. Set of 21 loom weights from room no. 33 (Himera), weight and thickness. Table I.3 Calculations for potential loom set-ups. Set of 21 loom weights from room no. 33 (Himera), weight and width. Table I.4 Calculations for potential loom set-ups. Set of loom weights from room no. 23 (Himera), weight and thickness. Table I.5 Calculations for potential loom set-ups. Set of loom weights from room no. 23 (Himera), weight and width. Table I.6 Calculations for potential loom set-ups, with the heaviest loom weight from room no. 39, Eastern District, Himera. Table I.7 Calculations for potential loom set-ups, with the lightest loom weight from room no. 39, Eastern District, Himera. Table I.8 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with discoid/lenticular loom weights from room no. 25, Eastern District, Himera. Table I.9 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with pebbles from room no. 25, Eastern District, Himera. Table I.10 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with biconical loom weights from room no. 25, Eastern District, Himera.

xviii

List of tables

Table I.11 Calculations for potential loom set-ups. Set of 14 loom weights (type C.3) from room no. 25, Eastern District, Himera. Table I.12 Calculations for potential loom set-ups, with loom weights (type A.1) from room no. 25, Eastern District, Himera. Table J.1 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a truncated pyramidal loom weight from Monte Maranfusa. Table J.2 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with the lightest pseudo-cubic loom weight from Monte Maranfusa. Table K.1 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a weight of less than 300 g (Monte Polizo). Table K.2 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a weight of more than 400 g (Monte Polizo). Table K.3 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a light pyramidal truncated loom weight (type C.4) from Monte Polizo. Table K.4 Calculations for potential loom set-ups – A.1–2 loom weights from Monte Polizo. Table K.5 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a loom weights of c. 270 g – Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Table K.6 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a loom weight of over 800 g – Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Table K.7 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a 121 g loom weight from House 1, room I (Monte Polizo). Table K.8 Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a 288 g loom weight from House 1, room I (Monte Polizo).

Abbreviations Abbreviations of ancient sources

Ar. Lys. Aristophanes Lysistrata Ar. Ran. Aristophanes Ranae Ath. Deipn Athenaeus Deipnosophistae Cic. Verr. Cicero In Verrem D. Ol. Demosthenes Against Olympiodorus Diod. Sic. Diodorus Siculus Bibliothecae Historicae Dion. Hal. Dionysius Halicarnassensis Antiquitates Romanae Euseb. Chron. Eusebio Chronica Hsch. Lex. Hesychius Lexicon Leon. Ant. Pal. Leonidas of Tarentum Anthologia Palatina Paus. Pausanias Description of Greece Pl. Epist. Plato Letters Pl. Ly. Plato Lysis Pl. Plt. Plato Politicus Pl. Resp. Plato Respublica Plut. Vit. Alex. Plutarch Vitae Parallelae Alexander Strab. Strabo Geography Thuc. Thucydides History of Peloponnesian War Xen. Mem. Xenophon Memorabilia Xen. Oec. Xenophon Oeconomicus

Other abbreviations

c. century BC EBA Early Bronze Age MBA Middle Bronze Age LBA Late Bronze Age FBA Final Bronze Age IA Iron Age SW spindle whorl LW loom weight S spool excav. excavation

Introductory framework Research on textile activity is a recent field in archaeology. It has developed from new methodological approaches, which combine ethnographic studies, experimental archaeology and scientific analysis. Such research is primarily the result of a new way of seeing and understanding past societies and their textile production and implements. Over the last two decades, studies on textile tools have demonstrated their crucial contribution in gaining insights into production and economy as well as technical aspects of textile craft.1 However, if we consider any technology as an inseparable relationship with the material world constructed through tools, social practices and relations, and meanings and beliefs,2 studies on textile technology can go beyond the technical aspect and offer a broader spectrum of information on societies that used it. We can shed light on people who practised textile craft and the mutual entanglement between individuals and their own implements.3 As tools, textile implements can be analysed as simple artefacts created to make other things in response to practical needs. When we look at them as ‘things’,4 furthermore, we can see how deeply they are intertwined with weavers’ lives, through their daily and steady interactions. As personal tools, textile implements have the capacity to manifest their owner’s individuality. The ongoing engagement between weavers and their tools elicits emotions, which sometimes come to be imprinted on tools through the habit of customising them with personal decorations and objects.5 When found in burials, textile tools can be the reflection of not only social organisation but also personal expertise and skills.6 In votive and sacred contexts, such implements are capable of being charged with new values and meanings, thus moving them into the sacred object category. Hence, through this variegated range of information, we are able to reveal a much wider picture of past societies and their individuals. This study aims to examine textile tools under many of these aspects. This will require a particular methodological approach, which combines various disciplines, sources and theoretical perspectives.

Textile culture in Sicily

This work is intended to be the first systematic attempt at reconstructing textile activity in ancient Sicily. The first step towards this is to understand what type of textiles the communities in Sicily preferred and produced; in other words, their textile culture must first be defined.7 Clothing is an essential part of material culture in each society not only as a form of body protection from environmental conditions (garments, swaddling for babies, funerary shrouds, etc.), but also as house equipment and wall decorations (blankets, cushions, curtains, etc.). Furthermore, cloth and dress play a crucial role in

Introductory framework

xxi

communicating various aspects of social and personal identity, including gender.8 To approach the investigation of textile culture, it is important to understand that it is the result of a variety of factors that go beyond simply the technology (i.e. loom types) and technique (tabbies, twill, etc.) used. The choice of raw materials, colours, patterns, spinning and weaving techniques, and various decorative elements are the means through which people expressed their own specific culture and identity. Moreover, textile culture involves the way in which textiles are folded, shaped, and wrapped to cover the body. The ways in which all these aspects are combined express personal and individual choices, from the desire to be seen in a particular way to the conveyance of status and social position. Every society favours specific textiles, techniques, raw materials or colours, because they are perceived as more appropriate to convey certain social messages; thus the value of textiles and raw materials differs across societies. Our understanding of all these factors and choices is often limited by the nature of the archaeological record and the investigation often extrapolates a limited percentage of the variables within each textile culture. In this sense, research in Sicily is hampered by a dearth of textile remains as the Sicilian climate is not favourable to preservation of organic material. In contrast, textile tools are abundant and ubiquitous in Sicily and their investigation is crucial for revealing certain cultural aspects. In particular, textile tools can be used as a means to explore social identity. Studies on identity in culturally mixed contexts demonstrate how it can be expressed, shaped and negotiated through material culture and how the latter can be deliberately used by individuals to self-ascribe to a social or cultural group.9 Changes in material culture and social practices imply the active role of society and individuals in their own self-identification and self-representation. The desire to be associated with a certain social group and/ or to be seen in a certain way is therefore a possible motivation for groups to adopt foreign costumes as well as new technologies and tools.10 Specifically, in the study of Late Bronze-Iron Age and Archaic Sicily – which was characterised by the movement of peoples and foreign settlers – the investigation of textile tools aims to explore the response of indigenous communities to cultural interactions with peoples coming from the Italian Peninsula and Greece. Traditionally, pottery, architecture and social practices have been employed by post-colonial studies to investigate identities or to answer specific questions related to migrations or cultural impacts. Here, textile tools are seen both as technological and cultural indicators.

Women and textile craft within cultural encounters

Dealing with textile production in Sicily raises the following questions: who was involved in it? Where and to what extent was it practised? Traditionally, textile work has been associated with women because it was considered a suitable practice alongside childcare and other domestic tasks.11 Beyond that, the evidence of women practising textile activity is abundant. Particularly in Italy, this association is supported by iconographic evidence, which is attested from the 1st millennium BC onwards, as

xxii

Introductory framework

Fig. 0.1: Throne of Verucchio (Tomba del Trono, Rocca Malatestiana, 8th century BC) with two scenes in the top register of women weaving at their looms (after Kossack 1999, fig. 44).

seen on the Verucchio throne and the tintinnabulum from Bologna12 (Figs  0.1 and 0.2). During the Archaic and Classical periods, scenes of textile work become more abundant on Greek vase-paintings from both Greece and Italy, such as the famous scene of eleven women working together as seen on the lekythos of the Amasis painter13 (Fig.  0.3). Fibre preparation and spinning are the most Fig. 0.2: Tintinnabulum from Bologna (Arsenale Militare, Tomba degli Ori, late 7th century BC) with commonly depicted activities, while scenes of textile production. Side A (a), spinning weaving scenes are less frequent. In (top) and dressing the distaffs (bottom); side B (b), Classical Greece, women are often porweaving (top) and warping (bottom) (after Lipkin trayed while practising textile work at home, holding or being next to textile 2012, fig. 31). tools, and it has been suggested that these representations express the economic contribution of women to the household and – by extension – to the polis.14 Literary sources provide further information on female labour inside the domestic space. Wool-working was considered one of the qualities required in a bride, along with the ability to provide offspring and manage a household,15 while women are also described as handling different technical stages of production.16 Women and textile work were so closely associated that wool came to serve as a symbol of the birth of a girl: in Classical Athens a tuft of the fibre was suspended over the entrance door.17 This association was even more clearly shown in

Introductory framework

xxiii

Fig. 0.3: Lekythos of the Amasis painter (c. 550–530 BC) with scenes of fibre production (a) and weaving process (b). Photo: © Metropolitan Museum of Art.

the afterlife. Women are depicted holding spindles and distaffs on funerary stelae18 (Fig. 0.4) and spinning and weaving tools are commonly found in female graves in Iron Age burials.19 Beyond domestic spaces, the role of women in textile production is also well documented in sanctuaries in connection with ceremonial activities.20 This is not to say that textile production was exclusive to women.21 Men involved in textile manufacture are known to have existed in the ancient world: Egyptian men are depicted at workshops performing tasks such as washing cloth, spinning cord and weaving on the vertical loom,22 and male workers were involved in the Mesopotamia23 and Mycenaean textile industry.24 In Classical Greece, Plato tells us about the existence of two systems of clothing production, one practised by women for domestic use, and the other conducted by men for profit.25 Additionally, free men are referred to as owners of small workshops,26 while male slaves were sometimes employed in them.27 In Italy, epigraphic sources inform us that in Pompeii both women and men worked as weavers in workshops28 and 4th- to 5th-century AD funeral epigraphy documents

xxiv

Introductory framework

male textile workers at Syracuse. 29 Nevertheless, there is no evidence of male textile workers for the chronological and the geographical framework under investigation here. What emerges from the evidence presented above is that men were mainly involved in making textiles in workshops and selling them for profit, whereas women mainly worked in domestic contexts producing textiles for home. Yet, not all clothing made by women was reserved for household use, some could be purchased. Greek literary sources refer to women producing yarns and fabrics at home and selling their surplus at the market for supplementary income. 30 This practice was commonly attested in southern Italy.31 In Sicily, texts mention a woman in Segesta weaving at home and working under the governor of Sicily Verres.32 The number of women selling their products may have been substantial, but the sources primarily refer to such transactions being an emergency measure for poor women during times of economic need. Although many modes of production coexisted and textile making cannot be easily associated with one gender or the other, this evidence strengthens the traditional association between women Fig. 0.4: Stele from Prinias (Crete) (Drawing by and textile production at least when author, after Lebessi 1976, pl. 3). production was related to the domestic or ritual sphere in the Mediterranean world. By studying textile production in Sicily, therefore, this work will add a novel focus on the roles played by ancient women. For centuries, archaeology has maintained an androcentric perspective, ‘secluding’ women away from the main history. Traditionally, women have been (merely) considered as a means to create relationships between indigenous and Greek communities in Sicily through the practice of intermarriage.33 In more recent Sicilian studies,34 female roles have been investigated more closely and it has been observed that, contrary to what was believed for a long

Introductory framework

xxv

time, women participated in communal ceremonies and took part in drinking and feasting in some indigenous communities along with men. Their presence in communal and ritual activities is attested in the archaeological record through material culture typically associated with the female sphere (e.g. loom weights and cooking wares), highlighting their role in interlinking domestic activity and public and ritual spheres. Although this research has represented a breakthrough in the study of Sicilian communities, much scholarly research continues to consider women as merely participants of communal ceremonies, with the men being the dominant figures. In response to this, this work intends to acknowledge and integrate the role of women in society.35 Among the questions that it seeks to answer are: what was the impact of women and their choices of technologies, tools and techniques for spinning and weaving? What was their social and economic role in their own society? The study of the impact of women on textile culture is based on archaeological, literary and ethnographic evidence. Each source contributes different perspectives. Texts and ethnographic survey inform us that learning how to spin and weave was a fundamental part of the education of a girl in Classical Greece36 as well as in other cultures.37 It was a long-term and gradual process,38 which implied interaction between novices and more expert practitioners,39 via vertical transmission from one generation to the next within the same family.40 Greek vase paintings give the impression that textile-related activities – mainly weaving – were practised in groups, which is confirmed by ethnographic studies.41 Through this ongoing engagement with textile practice, women share knowledge and tools with others and learn how to work together through bodily gestures, so that the learning and practice of textile processing become embodied.42 Moreover, through practice each weaver can create her own identity as a weaver and as a woman of the community, and learn a specific means to communicate and express herself.43 As Naji says,44 weaving is one of the techniques by which women endow the self with the specific female qualities prescribed by their society. Bodily gestures and tools tell us about the weaver’s skills and through them a woman can display her own value within her own community, shaping her own role in the society and collective identity. Emotional ties could emerge from this steady and physical contact with fellow weavers and their personal tools. This study intends not to overlook the emotional aspect involved in relationships between individuals and things. Theoretical notions of materiality and entanglement45 have stressed the way in which objects become charged with emotions as well being manifestations of emotionally significant relationships linking individuals and groups. It has been convincingly highlighted that these notions might allow us to see emotions in the past through archaeological evidence.46 Emotions can come to be imprinted on textile tools. Customising textile tools was a well-known practice in Archaic Italy and Greece.47 Particularly, loom weights often bear stamps of personal seals, finger rings or other personal objects. Although there might be a practical reason behind this use of marking loom weights, it is notable that this practice is not common to other personal items. This strongly supports the

xxvi

Introductory framework

idea that textile tools and their daily use were so embedded in women’s lives that they became charged with values, which go beyond the mere practical function of tools. In this ongoing engagement with tools, raw materials, final products and fellow weavers, emotions emerge and become entwined with the moral values and ideas of textile activity. Thus, the habit of customising textile equipment may well emerge from these conscious and unconscious ties. This may explain why women seem to bring with them their own textile tools when they left home. A clear example of this is the case of two loom weights with identical stamps found in two different sites at a short distance from each other in Metaponto’s chora. Foxhall48 suggested that the women in these two households were related and one of them left one home to move into another. In addition, ties with textile tools sometimes go beyond personal possession and memories and may also involve family identity and emotional relationships. An example of this may be the case of three loom weights bearing identical stamps coming from two adjacent sites, which may therefore have belonged to women of the same family. However, as one site is later than the other, it seems possible that the stamp itself had been passed down the generations through the female line.49 As Cutler50 has pointed out, loom weights were not generally perceived as having economic value, as they could be locally produced with relative ease using local clay and inclusions. The presence of non-local loom weights or stamps can therefore provide insight into women’s mobility and separation from their home and emotional ties. Hence, loom weights can be seen as the product of an ‘affective field’ – borrowing an expression coined by Harris and Flohr Sørensen51 – namely the networks of people and practices through which emotions are generated. They can evoke emotional attachment and socially constructed practices.

Methodological criteria and structure of the book

This work is based on the examination of seven case studies from across Sicily, ranging chronologically from the Late Bronze Age to the Archaic period (13th–5th centuries BC). This adds new information to our knowledge on textile production in ancient Sicily, which is still far from being complete. The selected sites are historically and geographically crucial to the study of Sicilian archaeology. Many of them have already been the subjects of previous studies focused on cultural interactions, primarily through pottery, architecture and metallurgy analyses. The study of textile production will contribute new data on social and economic aspects at each site. The number of the chosen sites and assemblages have been heavily conditioned by the quality of available published information. It has been decided to restrict the analysis to settlements and sacred areas. The material has been analysed in context, relying as much as possible on the published information. However, because of the limited number of well-published excavations, a thorough contextual analysis has been impossible at some sites. Contextual information and the quantity of analysed tools varies considerably from site to site, which results in a different level of information. The material has been

Introductory framework

xxvii

collected between 2016 and 2018 during extensive visits to museums and often to their storerooms, which allowed the author to supplement the already published material with new assemblages. However, for some sites, assemblages cannot be considered as representative of the evidence for textile production. This book is organised on the basis of the stated aims of this study. Chapter  1 provides a background on chronology and cultural scenario in Sicily, while Chapter 2 offers an overview of the main sources and archaeological evidence of textile activity in Sicily, with a particular focus on textile tools. Chapters 3 and 4 examine the case studies, describing the settlements and the cult contexts respectively where the textile tools have been found. The discussion of the main characteristics and changes of textile production and technology within the chronological timeframe is at the core of Chapter 5. Chapter 6 places the discussion of textile tradition in Sicily into a wider Mediterranean context. The annexes (A–K) contain the methodology applied and the analyses of the textile tool assemblages from each site.

Notes

1. E.g. Andersson 1999; 2003; 2007; Andersson Strand 2011; Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015. 2. E.g. Ingold 1990; Dobres and Hoffmann 1994; Dobres 2000; 2010. 3. E.g. Hodder 2012; 2016. 4. Namely entities connect to each other and to humans (Hodder 2012, 7–9). 5. Cf. Foxhall 2012; Quercia and Foxhall 2014a; 2015. 6. Gleba 2009a, 69–70. 7. Gleba 2017a, 1206. 8. Cf. Wobst 1977; Schneider 1987; Eicher 1995; Roach-Higgins et al. 1995; Wagner-Hasel 2000; 2006; Harlow et al. 2020. 9. E.g. Dietler 1998; 2005; Van Dommelen 2005, 2006a; 2006b. 10. Cutler 2016, 177. 11. Brown 1970; Barber 1991, 289; 1994, especially 29–30. 12. Gleba 2008, 28–30. 13. Gleba 2008, 30–31; Spantidaki 2016, 2. 14. Bundrick 2008, 286; Ekroth 2011, 11. 15. Xen. Oec. 7.21; Mem. 3.9.11. 16. Ar. Lys. 729; Pl. Ly. 206d. 17. Hsch. Lex. S. 1791.2. 18. Pautasso 2011, 98. 19. Cf. Bietti Sestieri 1992; Strömberg 1993; Toms 1998. 20. Paus. 3.16.2; 5.16.2–3; 6.24.10. 21. Men as well as children and elders were involved in the complex chaîne opératoire of textile manufacturing (e.g. Barber 2007; Costin 2013). 22. Barber 1991, 285–286. 23. Waetzoldt 1972; Breniquet 2010. 24. Killen 2007, 55–56. 25. Pl. Resp. 369d–370c; cf. Thompson 1982. 26. Xen. Mem. 2.7.6.6. 27. D. Ol. 12–13; Pl. Plt. 308d.6–309d.11. However, Reuthner 2006, 256–260 has suggested that the masculine should be interpreted as a generic term.

xxviii 2 8. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Introductory framework

Moeller 1976, 39–40. Brugnone 2008, 60. Ar. Ran. 1347; Xen. Mem. 2.7–9. Leon. Ant. Pal. VI 286, 288; VII 726. See also Mele 1997; Meo 2015, 39–40. Cic. Verr. IV 26, 58–59. Cf. Albanese Procelli 2003, 142–145; 2010. Cf. Antonaccio 1997; Ferrer 2016. A few studies have started to recognise that women have played a particularly important role in shaping identity, cf. Lyons 2000; Shepherd 2012. 36. Xen. Oec. 7.5–6. 37. Cf. Crowfoot 1931; Chantréaux 1941–42; Codex Mendoza 1964; Greenfield 2004; Portisch 2009. 38. Bender Jørgensen 2012, 129. 39. Xen. Oec. 7.41. 40. Cutler 2016, 174. 41. Wide looms in Scandinavia were operated by more weavers (cf. Hoffmann 1964). Also, experimental tests suggest that some stages of weaving process can be faster and easier if performed by more than one worker (see, for example, Ulanowska 2020). 42. Also, experimental tests show that the cooperation and the social interaction make the work easier to learn and perform (cf. Ulanowska 2016). 43. E.g. Nosch 2014, 96–97. 44. Naji 2009, 69. 45. Cf. Tilley 2004; Miller 2005; Hodder 2012; 2016. 46. Foxhall 2012. 47. See e.g. Davidson and Burr Thompson 1943, 73–94; Davidson 1952, 153–155; Quercia and Foxhall 2015, 566. 48. Foxhall 2012, 201–202. 49. Foxhall 2012, 202–203. 50. Cutler 2016, 175. 51. Harris and Flohr Sørensen 2010, 150–151.

Chapter 1 Geographical, chronological and cultural framework Despite its proximity to the Italian Peninsula, Sicily, culturally and chronologically, developed distinctively from the mainland. However, Sicilian prehistory and history cannot be understood without taking into account its links with continental Italy and the Central Mediterranean. Before starting the discussion on textile production in Sicily, a short introduction into Sicilian chronology and archaeological cultures is in order. The following pages do not mean to provide a comprehensive overview, but instead set out the chronological and cultural stages for investigating textile production. The cultural horizons (facies in Italian terminology) will be briefly described and the emphasis will be placed on two crucial periods of Sicilian archaeology characterised by intense movement of peoples. Finally, a brief overview of the most recent theories on cultural encounters will be provided to set out an appropriate theoretical framework for approaching the analysis of textile tools within the wider scenario of cultural contacts.

Geographical context

Sicily is the largest Mediterranean island, separated from the Italian mainland by only the 3 km Strait of Messina. Not far from both the north-eastern tip of Sicily and the west coast of Calabria, the Aeolian archipelago lies off the north-eastern end of the Tyrrhenian Sea (Map 1.1). The position and resources of Sicily and the Aeolian islands had an important impact on their socio-cultural development over the centuries. During the 15th–13th centuries BC, they were part of a wider network of maritime connections, which tied them to the rest of the Mediterranean. In the Sicilian Middle Bronze Age (c. 1490/1460–1270 BC1), Sicily and the Aeolian islands were characterised by a largely homogeneous culture, known as the Thapsos-Milazzese culture, which differed from the one on the Italian Peninsula. This cultural horizon has also been documented at Ustica, Pantelleria and on the Poro promontory of the Calabrian coast.2 This period also bore witness to the height of Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean interaction with local Sicilian and Aeolian communities.3 During the 13th century BC, this internal cultural homogeneity was broken into local territorial entities with distinct types of material culture and different social and political organisational structures. As a result, the islands lost their function as key players in the wider spectrum of Bronze

2

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Map 1.1: Map of Sicily with main sites mentioned in Chapter. 1: Lipari; 2: Milazzo; 3: Punta Castelluzzo; 4: Metapiccola – Leontinoi; 5: Thapsos; 6: Pantalica; 7: Cozzo del Pantano; 8: Cassibile; 9: Finocchito; 10: Molino della Badia-Madonna del Piano; 11: Caltagirone; 12: The Cittadella hill; 13: Dessueri; 14: Sabucina; 15: Cannatello; 16: Sant’Angelo Muxaro; 17: Scirinda; 18: Mokarta; 19: Motya; 20: Panormos; 21: Solunto; 22: Himera; 23: Zancle; 24: Naxos; 25: Katane; 26: Megara Hyblaea; 27: Syracuse; 28: Akrai; 29: Casmene; 30: Camarina; 31: Gela; 32: Akragas; 33: Selinous; 34: Paternò; 35: Centuripe; 36: Cozzo della Tignusa; 37: Pozzo di Gotto; 38: Calascibetta; 39: Noto Antica; 40: Avola.

Age Mediterranean interactions. The end of the Bronze Age represented a change in the direction of contacts and a shift from the Eastern to the Western Mediterranean, in which the link with the Italian Peninsula was most relevant.4

Chronological and cultural context

The chronological framework for this study encompasses the period between the 13th and the 5th centuries BC. The chronology of Sicilian cultures is mostly based on relative dating, as the application of dendrochronological and radiometric methods is still rare. The massive work of summarising Sicilian chronology by Bernabò Brea5 still remains essentially valid, even though the updating through new discoveries and debates on chronological sequences is still under way.6 The chronology followed here is presented in Table 1.1. The Sicilian chronological sequences for the end of the Bronze Age and Iron Age are mainly based on Pantalica culture, while the Aeolian islands’ sequences are based

1. Geographical, chronological and cultural framework

3

Table 1.1: A simplified comparative chronology and period terminology for Italian Peninsula and Sicily between the 13th to 5th centuries BC (elaborated after Leighton 2019, tab. 7.1). Years BC

Italian terminology

Sicilian terminology

1450–1270

Middle Bronze Age

Middle Bronze Age (Thapsos/Milazzese)

1270–1150

Recent Bronze Age

Late Bronze Age: Pantalica I (or Pantalica North) & Ausonian I

1150–1100

Final Bronze Age 1

1100–1050

Final Bronze Age 2

Final Bronze Age: Pantalica II (or Cassibile) & Ausonian II

1050–950/900

Final Bronze Age 3

950/900–850

Early Iron Age 1

850–750

Early Iron Age 2

750–650

Second Iron Age

Finocchito

650–600

Orientalising or proto-Archaic period

Licodia Eubea

600–475/450

Pantalica III (or Pantalica South)

Archaic

on Ausonian culture and both differ from the Italian subdivision.7 More recently, the tendency of adopting the Italian peninsular terminology has grown, especially for those sites that appear to show many features in common with the Italian counterparts in the same periods, even though the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age terminology in the Italian Peninsula is not consistent.8 In this work, the period terminology refers to the Sicilian one. This situation is made more confusing as for a long time much of the scholarship sought correspondence between written sources and archaeological evidence.9 This practice has had a major impact on the archaeological debate and in some cases has distracted some archaeologists from their aims. In particular, it was common for scholars to explain the change in material culture and practices by accepting the references to invasions and migrations recorded by much later ancient authors.10 However, many scholars have highlighted the difficulties inherent in the attempt to match early archaeological evidence with ethnic or tribal labels/epithets provided by later Greek authors, since this almost certainly produces misleading results.11 In particular, Albanese Procelli12 has pointed out that, while the term Ausonian might be used to indicate the abrupt change of material culture at Lipari and in north-eastern Sicily, it cannot indicate the later periodic arrival of groups in Sicily, whose ethnicities are blurry in the archaeological record. As a whole, the distinction between the inhabitants of Sicily before the Greek colonisation – as recorded by ancient authors – should be considered fluid as the material culture does not show distinct ethnic differentiations.13 Thus, the traditional cultural designations will only be used throughout the book conventionally to indicate common material culture backgrounds (mainly pottery, metals and architecture), broadly shared among a number of sites.

4

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

In Italian chronology, the Iron Age succeeds the Final Bronze Age. It is dated between 950/900 BC to 650 BC14 and is further divided into two sub-phases, the Early (I–II) and the Second Iron Age (prima e seconda età del Ferro). This term is merely conventional since there is not a clear or precise break coinciding with the spread of iron-working. In Sicilian terminology, the Iron Age follows the Pantalica culture sequence. In this work, the term ‘Archaic’ is used to refer to the period between the 7th and the 5th centuries BC, which in Sicily is approximately equivalent to the Finocchito and Licodia Eubea cultural horizons. In general, this term appears to refer to quite an open period; it has been used by some scholars as a chronological indicator for the period between the 8th and the 6th centuries BC, which coincides with Greek colonisation and expansion on the island. Some Italian scholars use the term proto-Archaic (protoarcaico) or second Iron Age for the late 8th and 7th centuries BC.

Cultural horizons and mobility in Sicily during the Late Bronze-Iron Age and Archaic period

This work will focus on two crucial periods of Sicilian archaeology, which display intense mobility and cultural exchange. The first is the period between the Late and Final Bronze Age, which coincides with the spread of a new material culture in Sicily traditionally associated with the arrival of peoples from continental Italy. This period is referred to as Ausonian I and II in Sicilian terminology. It was characterised by periodic movements of peoples, perhaps in small groups, which resulted in a gradual mixing of traditions as well as rising of distinct features in local material culture. However, this was not necessarily the result of migrations or invasions of new settlers entering Sicily, but the outcome of long-lasting links and trade from and to the Italian Peninsula.15 Ausonian material culture has been mainly investigated through pottery, architecture and burial practices, with little focus on other areas of material culture, including textile workings. The analysis of textile production will aim to investigate whether and to what extent textile production changed at the sites impacted by the arrival of this new cultural ingredient. Additionally, whether a common textile tradition was practised across the sites characterised by a similar material culture will be investigated. The label Ausonian I was first coined by Bernabò Brea16 to indicate the new cultural horizon that replaced the previous Milazzese culture around 1270 BC17 in the Aeolian islands and northern-eastern tip of Sicily. Lipari remained inhabited, while the settlements on the other Aeolian islands were either destroyed or abandoned.18 The Ausonian I settlement at Lipari was destroyed and replaced by another one belonging to the Ausonian II culture.19 The final destruction of the site is dated to approximately 850 BC. After Bernabò Brea’s excavations, scholars have attempted to interpret these new cultural phenomena. Bietti Sestieri20 suggested that the Ausonian I originated from the Italian Peninsula, while Ausonian II was a local development of the peninsular cultural features.21

1. Geographical, chronological and cultural framework

5

In Sicily, the Thapsos-Milazzese culture was replaced by the Pantalica I (or North) culture, which continued the long-established tradition of interaction with Aegean groups.22 The sites belonging to this cultural horizon were located in eastern, central and southern Sicily in naturally defended positions and controlled relatively small territories. The main centres were Pantalica, Caltagirone, Dessueri, Sabucina, Mokarta, Sant’Angelo Muxaro, Scirinda and Anguilla.23 The succeeding period, the so-called Pantalica II (or Cassibile),24 was a time when small groups from the Italian Peninsula seem to have arrived in Sicily, bringing and spreading their own material culture and cremation burial custom on the island. According to Bietti Sestieri’s interpretation, Pantalica II developed as a mixture of local and peninsular features.25 New settlements (e.g. the Cittadella hill, Punta Castelluzzo, Metapiccola) and cemeteries (e.g. Molino della Badia-Madonna del Piano) were established,26 while some of the main Pantalica I sites were impacted by these groups. Some sites, such as Caltagirone, came to an end, while others, such as Cassibile, Thapsos and Cozzo del Pantano, where local pottery tradition coexists with Ausonian metal industry, exchanged culturally with the people from the Italian Peninsula. This cultural interaction was most intense and evident in eastern and central Sicily, but is more difficult to identify in the west. According to Leighton,27 a general decrease in social complexity and the transition from chiefdom to tribe occurred during this period. This was also a time when other foreign influences arrived, as witnessed by Iberian metal objects found in several sites and Nuragic pottery found at Cannatello and Monte Maio.28 Pantalica III (or South) succeeded the Pantalica II and is primarily attested in cemeteries located in south-eastern, central and north-eastern Sicily.29 Little is known about the settlements that are mainly located on the summits of naturally defended inland hills. Many of them appear to be newly established sites that were uninhabited in the previous period, although other sites, such as Pantalica and Cassibile, show evidence of intense reoccupation. During the following Finocchito phase (or Pantalica IV) dating approximately to 750 BC, indigenous communities began initiating contact with Phoenicians and Greek incomers. The former established settlements along the western shores of Sicily, such as at Motya as early as the beginning of the 8th century BC, and later on founded cities at Panormos and Solunto.30 Greeks, instead, initially reached the east coast. The Euboeans were among the first to establish overseas settlements (apoikiai),31 such as at Naxos, which was the first according to Thucydides,32 and then at Leontinoi, Katane and Zancle. Communities were also settled by Megara and Corinth, which founded Megara Hyblaea and Syracuse, respectively. However, most Greek overseas settlements included people from different parts of Greece. Greeks continued to arrive during the 7th century BC, spreading west along the south and north coasts and founding a number of settlements, such as Gela, Akrai, Casmene, Selinous and Himera; while Camarina and Akragas were founded in the 6th century BC.33 This phenomenon, traditionally known as Greek colonisation, is the second focus of the present study. This

6

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

work will investigate the consequences of the interactions between the indigenous and Greek cultures and the effects of these on textile cultures.

Studies of cultural contacts in Sicily

Through the millennia, Sicily and the Aeolian islands have acted as a crossroads because of their proximity to the Italian Peninsula and their central position within the Mediterranean Sea. Despite more restricted exchanges during the end of the Bronze and Early Iron Age, contacts and mobility continued until the arrival of the Phoenicians and Greeks in the 8th century BC, who set into motion new cultural processes. For a long time, studies dealing with Greek colonisation have been focused on the presumed adoption by others of Greek practices, namely what has been defined as Hellenisation. This concept, as well as acculturation,34 implies a transformation of indigenous cultures into Greek culture through passive acceptance. With the assumption of Greek superiority, cultural exchange has previously been seen as a simple and inevitable movement of borrowing elements from one space of fullness (Greek) to a space of emptiness (indigenous people).35 A striking example of this perspective can be found in what Sjöqvist36 expressed regarding the nature of the site at the Cittadella hill at Morgantina. He claimed that the site was Greek and the indigenous people rapidly absorbed habits and customs from the incomers. This perception of colonisation shaped around the concept of terra nullius (borrowing a term coined by Gosden37), where Greeks physically occupied, destroyed and conquered natives, has also been encouraged by the modern interpretation of the ancient Greek literature, which has often depicted colonisation in violent terms.38 Since the mid-1980s post-colonial approaches have grown based on the awareness that natives did not play a passive role within cultural interaction and could not be labelled as primitive, as had been previously interpreted. From this perspective, awareness has grown that colonial situations cannot be reduced to a neat dualist representation of colonisers versus colonised. This way of looking at colonial situations has introduced the concepts of hybridisation and creolisation.39 The former concept and the parallel notion of ‘middle ground’40 are regularly used for investigating cultural interactions. The middle ground model subverts the earlier adoption of the binaries of structuralist thought and has much in common with the post-colonial theory’s concept of the ‘third space’, which is both a physical location and a virtual place of creativity and innovation.41 In Sicilian archaeology, these new concepts have laid the groundwork for a re-evaluation of the history and the social dynamics at many sites, such as the Cittadella hill. As a result, recent re-examinations42 have highlighted the agency of the inhabitants of this site in constructing their identity through the choice of material culture, which was distinctively mixed at the site. Within this reassessment, dissatisfaction has emerged of the term ‘colonisation’, which is not suitable for defining 8th and 7th centuries BC Greek settlements in the West.43 Moreover, the adjective ‘Greek’ has recently been regarded as inadequate for describing the settlers.

1. Geographical, chronological and cultural framework

7

In fact, a Greek ethnic consciousness may not have formed until the 6th century BC.44 The term Greek colonisation is conventionally applied here to distinguish the 8th–7th centuries BC phenomenon from previous contacts and the term settlers is preferred to colonisers because of the overtones of colonialism. Similarly, the terms indigenous, native and local are equally used here to indicate the pre-existing communities and to distinguish them from the incoming people.45 There is a common trend in post-colonial theories to move away from the idea of homogeneous cultures and groups and instead point to the heterogeneity and complexity of social groups. This was the case with both indigenous and settler communities at the time of the colonisation in Sicily. Archaeological research has shown differences in cultural practices among those who are collectively identified as Greek. Shepherd46 has demonstrated that Greeks in Sicily made active decisions about burial forms, as these are not the same as those at the mother-cities. She also observed a similar sense of distinct identity in the architecture of the sanctuaries at Greek colonies. Overseas activities of Greeks diverge from the colonial model and were influenced by other colonies and by local contexts of rivalry and competition. This perspective means that colonisation should not be considered as a standardised event that uniformly occurred across the whole of the Mediterranean. Concerning Sicily, individual communities should also be viewed as having responded in different ways to colonisation.

Conclusions

Within a cultural encounter, both participants are forced to negotiate their own identities and the resulting identities are neither one nor the other but a new third one. Both communities behave as active cultural and social agents with distinctive identities that choose to acquire, adapt or refuse specific elements and these choices are mirrored in the material culture through hybrid forms. The adoption and/or the rejection of foreign elements are the expressions of complex social processes. Sicily offers a great opportunity to investigate the hybridisation process, which might be the result of both practical and cultural reasons. This study on textile tools aims to show how communities shaped their identity through their choices on textile tradition.

Notes

1. Cf. Alberti 2012. 2. Bietti Sestieri 2014, 84. 3. Cf. La Rosa 2000; 2005; Castellana 2002; Militello 2004; Tomasello 2004; Tanasi 2009; Tanasi and Vella 2014. 4. Bietti Sestieri 2005; 2014. 5. Bernabò Brea 1957. 6. More recently, Tusa S. (1999), Leighton (1999), Castellana (2002; 2014) and Albanese Procelli (2003) have published syntheses of Prehistoric Sicily. Moreover, other chronological

8

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

reassessments have been carried out by Bietti Sestieri (1979); Leighton (2000; 2019); Turco (2000); Albanese Procelli (2004); Frasca (2015). 7. Yet, the difference in terminology between Sicily and the Aeolian islands depends on the almost cultural autonomy which both Sicily and the Aeolian islands developed for many centuries. 8. Indeed, the end of the Bronze Age in the mainland is divided into various units, the first of which is referred to as the Recent Bronze Age, by some authors labelled as Late (e.g. Kleibrink 2004, 43), followed by a longer Final Bronze Age (1–3), while others refer to both periods together as the Late Bronze Age. 9. This practice goes back to Bernabò Brea’s synthesis and was later adopted and amplified by others (cf. La Rosa 1989; Anello 1997). 10. Ancient authors (cf. Thuc. VI, 2; Dion. Hal. I, 22; Diod. Sic. V, 6, 7) refer to movements of peoples from the Italian Peninsula to Lipari and Sicily before the Greek colonisation. In particular, they mention three groups (Ausoni, Sikeloi and Morgetes) and place their migrations or invasions at various times during the Prehistoric period (Bernabò Brea 1957). 11. Cf. Leighton 1999, 215–217; 2000, 15–21; Tusa S. 1999, 553–554; Albanese Procelli 2003; Hodos 2005; Castellana 2014, 10. 12. Albanese Procelli 2003, 23. 13. Antonaccio 2015, 58–60. 14. In Italian chronology, the Iron Age falls within the wider designation of Protohistory (Protostoria). This work will avoid the term Protohistoric because it suffers from evolutionistic preconceptions. 15. Leighton 1999, 216; Albanese Procelli 2003, 23. 16. Bernabò Brea 1957, 132–134. 17. For references on the Ausonian features, cf. Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980; Bietti Sestieri 1979; 2014; Leighton 1999; Albanese Procelli 2003. 18. The archaeological evidence indicates that on the Aeolian islands this replacement was the result of a planned hostile action that originated on the Calabrian coast (Bietti Sestieri 2014, 89). The same catastrophe extended to the Milazzese settlements in northeast Sicily (cf. Albanese Procelli 2003, 31; Cavalier 2004). 19. Bernabò Brea 1957, 134–141. The date of the destruction has been shifted from 1150 BC (Bernabò Brea 1957, 135), 1125 BC (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1977, 66) to 1050 BC (Bietti Sestieri 1979). Also, Bietti Sestieri (1979, 606) suggested dating the urnfield cemetery at Milazzo to the Ausonian I period, and the Piazza Monfalcone cemetery at Lipari to the Ausonian II period. 20. Bietti Sestieri 1979. 21. According to Albanese Procelli (2003, 30), both the Ausonian I and II derived from the Italian ‘Sub-Apennine’ culture. 22. The archaeological evidence at Pantalica documents Mycenaean influences in many aspects of local material culture and architecture (i.e. potter’s wheel, new shapes of swords and daggers that clearly recall Mycenaean models and luxury goods) (Bietti Sestieri 2014, 92). 23. Cf. Tusa S. 1999, 567–592; Castellana 2014, 123–145. 24. Pantalica II is usually dated to 1000–850 BC, although it could shift from 925–750 BC (Leighton 1993; 2000), to 1000–800 BC (Frasca 2001, 53–54) or to 1000–850 BC (Turco 2000, 6), or even to 1050–850 BC (Tusa S. 2004, 43). 25. Cf. Bietti Sestieri 1979. Differently, Albanese Procelli (2003, 30) argued for a local origin of Pantalica I and II, and for a mixed culture of Molino della Badia. 26. Cf. Leighton 1996, 101–115; Albanese Procelli 2003, 66–76; Frasca 2015, 15–25. 27. Leighton 1996, 101. 28. Cf. Voza 1973; Panvini 1997; Cultraro 2005.

1. Geographical, chronological and cultural framework

9

29. Pantalica III (or South) is traditionally dated to 850–750/730 BC (cf. Frasca 1996). The main cemeteries associated with this phase are Pantalica south, Cavetta and Filiporto, Finocchito, Noto, Avola Antica, Cassibile, Lentini-S.Aloe and Cozzo della Tignusa, Calascibetta, the Cittadella hill, Caltagirone, Pozzo di Gotto, Paternò and Centuripe. 30. For general reference to Phoenician settlements in Sicily, see e.g. Tusa S. 1999, Hodos 2006 and Nigro 2013 with previous bibliography. 31. This term meaning ‘away from home’ is used by Thucydides, e.g. ἡ Ἑλλάς … ἀπουκίας ἐξέπεμψε (Thuc. I, 12, 4). 32. Thuc. VI, 3, 1. 33. For a discussion on the foundation of Greek settlements in Sicily, see e.g. De Angelis 2016, 66–73. 34. In general, acculturation can be defined as the result of first-hand contacts between different cultural groups. The result of these interactions is a change of the original culture-patterns of either or both groups. However, in most cases, the phenomenon is used to highlight the processes by which the pre-existing cultures adopted and adapted the material and social cultures of the foreign settlers (Hodos 1999, 15). 35. Cf. Dunbabin 1948; Boardman 1964; Finley 1968. 36. Sjöqvist 1973, 68. 37. Gosden 2004, 27–28. 38. Thucydides (VI, 4) tells us that the natives were forced to leave the land when Syracuse, Leontinoi and perhaps Katane were founded. However, more recently, the hostile relationships between Greeks and locals described by literary sources have been partially rejected for some sites in Sicily, such as at Syracuse, where it seems that there may have been a preliminary co-presence of Greeks and indigenous people, suggesting a more fluid scenario of relationships between incomers and native people (e.g. Leighton 1999, 232–237). 39. Cf. Dietler 1998; 2005; Bhabha 2004; Van Dommelen 2005; 2006a–b. 40. White 1991. 41. Bhabha 2004, 28–56. 42. Cf. Antonaccio 2009; 2015. 43. Osborne 1998, 251–269; Snodgrass 2005, 48. For a general discussion on the origin of the term ‘colony’ and its applications, see e.g. Hodos 1999, 14; Osborne 1998, 215–252. 44. Hall 2016, 51–59. 45. Hodos (1999, 14–15) has noticed that dissatisfaction can be found in the terms ‘indigenous’, ‘native’ and ‘local’ as well. She pointed out that ‘native’ is still imbued with the 19th-century notion of the inequality of races, while ‘indigenous’ and ‘local’ are not fully applicable as the former implies permanent habitation since the beginning of time, while the latter includes also colonists who have remained in the colonial context for some time. 46. Shepherd 1995.

Chapter 2 Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence Research on textile activity in ancient Sicily is based on limited sources and evidence. This chapter offers an overview of the information provided by texts, iconography and archaeological material, with a focus on the types of textile tools frequently found in archaeological contexts.

Written sources

Ancient literary texts and inscriptions contain a wide array of indirect information on textiles in Sicily. These mention the quality of raw materials used, types of textiles and garments and how they were perceived in antiquity. Due to the nature of the ancient sources, modern readers need to treat them with caution in order to interpret them. Brugnone1 has made a fundamental collection of textual evidence from Greek and Latin authors. Yet, much more remains to be revealed. Information is abundant for Classical, Hellenistic and Roman times, although some traditions may have been rooted in earlier periods. The XIII letter of Plato2 mentions a production of good-quality linen tunics from Sicily, which appear to have been of an inferior quality to similar items from Amorgos. However, it is unclear whether the good quality of the items from Sicily depended on the local raw material or the manufacturing process of the fabric.3 Also, Cicero4 refers to precious fabrics embellished by golden yarns, although they might have been imported. Ancient written sources also mention some textile characteristics such as decorative patterns and weaving techniques. It seems that the expression pictura in textili as referred to by Cicero5 indicated tapestry, a tradition that may have been developed earlier than Roman times.6 Coloured garments were worn by tyrants and elites in Greek settlements as a way to express social roles and self-identification with a certain social group. In addition, such garments were donated to the gods and held in sanctuaries.7 Beyond clothes, Archaic-Hellenistic Sicily was well known in ancient times for the production of cloth furnishings, such as bedcovers, cushions and wall decorations.8

2. Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence

11

Iconography

Fig. 2.1: Lekythos from Akrai showing Omphale standing in front of Herakles and holding a spindle and a distaff. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archaeologico di Siracusa, Eloro, Villa del Tellaro e Akrai, no. 4556, 17-12-2020).

Unlike the Italian Peninsula, Sicily does not have a large collection of iconographic evidence, and it provides us with little additional information. A lekythos from Akrai shows a woman, likely Omphale, standing in front of Herakles and holding a suspended low-whorl spindle and a distaff9 (Fig.  2.1). Sculptures, on the other hand, inform us of fabrics and decorations. Female shoulder busts, dated between the Late Archaic and Hellenistic periods, preserve traces of their original red-purple decoration of large panels and complex scenes. Four of these busts found at Syracuse and Morgantina have some scenes of women dancing, while one shows a mythological scene of the rape of Persephone (Fig.  2.2). These decorated panels have been regarded as realistic reproductions of real pieces of textiles, which potentially point to tapestry.10 Further insights come from pottery decoration. Lukesh11 has suggested that the Early Bronze Age (c. 2400–1490/1460 BC12) pottery decorations of the Sicilian Castelluccio cultural horizon imitated or were inspired by basketry and weaving motifs (Fig. 2.3).

Fig. 2.2: (a) 3rd century BC female fictile shoulder bust from Morgantina, (b) with decoration of a mythological scene of the rape of Persephone. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico di Morgantina e della Villa Romana del Casale di Piazza Armerina, no. 1426, 14-11-20); (Drawing after Bell 1981, 140–141, no. 106c, Pl. 28).

12

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Fig. 2.3: Drawing of decorations on a Castelluccian cup (after Lukesh 1999, fig. 39).

Archaeological evidence

Textile studies in Sicily, especially for the earlier period, are based on archaeological evidence that primarily consists of ceramic textile tools, while evidence of textiles and raw materials is meagre.

Fibres and textiles

Textiles are subject to rapid decomposition and their preservation requires specific environmental conditions (e.g. dry climate, wet environment, temperature below 0 °C, exposure to fire, etc.13). In Sicily, fragments of archaeological textiles and/or threads are rare. They are mainly preserved in mineralised form on metal objects in which metal corrosion produces form casts around fibres, keeping their external morphology and size almost intact.14 This evidence comes mainly from burials, with the only exceptions being ropes, strings, mats and baskets recovered from a 5th-century BC Greek shipwreck15 and a 3rd-century BC Punic shipwreck,16 although the available documentation is far from being exhaustive. Alongside this lack of documentation, studies on archaeological textiles are further compromised by the methods carried out during past excavations, which have often affected preservation. The partial archaeological investigation carried out so far has attested to the use of linen17 and hemp18 fibres and the production of balanced tabby weaves.19 Moreover, specific studies on the raw materials used and the yarn produced are rare and analysed animal bone assemblages are only available for a few sites.20 As a whole, locally produced wool is assumed to be the most likely raw material for textile production in Sicily, as it was in the Italian mainland.21 Linen was also used for textiles from the Neolithic in the Apennine Peninsula and the evidence suggests local production.22 It appears that northern and central (Latium and Campania) Italy were the two main areas of flax cultivation.23 This requires, among other things, relatively large areas of good quality soil, as well as an ample supply of water.24 In Sicily, some areas might have met these requirements, for example the Catania Plain. However, to date, there is no evidence for flax cultivation, which may be partly due to the scarcity

2. Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence

13

of palaeobotanical data analysis from past excavations. The Sicilian linen tunics mentioned by Plato could have been produced either with locally cultivated flax or with flax imported in a half-finished or finished state. Hemp fibres appear to be mainly used for making ropes for ships. According to Athenaeus,25 Hieron II of Syracuse imported cordage and hemp fibres (κάνναβιν) from Spain and the Rhône River area in Gaul to make sailcloth and ropes for his ship.

Textile implements

Discoveries of ancient looms are extremely rare as they were wooden structures and organic preservation is poor on the island. The few archaeological remains consist mostly of imprints of carbonised wood or postholes where the beams of the warp-weighted loom were inserted. In Sicily, carbonised remains of a loom along with loom weights were found at Motya in a building dated to the end of the 5th century BC26 and at Entella in a 4th-century BC building.27 The surviving textile implements for Prehistoric and Archaic Sicily are predominantly spindle whorls, loom weights and spools. Fig. 2.4: Example These objects are primarily made out of clay; however, other mateof a low-whorl drop rials include wood, bone and stone. A spindle whorl is a pierced spindle (Drawing object, which when positioned on a spindle shaft works as a flywheel to maintain the twirling motion of the spindle (Fig  2.4). A by author). loom weight is used to keep the warp threads taut while weaving on a warpweighted loom, and could technically be anything of sufficient weight; even simple stones or pebbles can be used, as long as there is a hole or some other feature allowing the warp threads to be attached to it securely (Fig. 2.5). Spools are usually oblong and cylindrical objects, which according to the widely accepted interpretation28 could provide tension to the warp threads while weaving on a warp-weighted loom or with tablet-weaving technique. The latter is a weaving technique where thin tablets with two or more holes are employed to create bands, such as the starting borders, and is used to set Fig. 2.5: Example of a warp-weighted loom (Drawing up the warp on a warp-weighted loom, and edge borders29 (Fig.  2.6). These by author).

14

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Fig. 2.6: Tablet weaving with spools (Drawing by author).

Fig. 2.7: Drawing of the distaff from the 8th–7th BC cemetery of Molino delle Badia, Grammichele (after Orsi 1905, 129, 132, fig. 36).

textile implements are widely present in almost every archaeological site and thus constitute the most important evidence for the assessment of the textile technology and the scale of textile production at each site. Bone pointed artefacts and combs, potentially being used for the preparation of fibres and sorting threads, as well as needles are sometimes recovered from excavations. Other textile tool categories, such as spindles, distaffs and tablet-weaving cards, are missing in the archaeological record, as they were usually made of perishable materials.30 Yet a metal distaff was discovered in the 8th- to 7th-century BC cemetery of Molino della Badia31 (Fig. 2.7). Textile tools from Sicily come in a variety of shapes and weights and, in past studies, this diversity has often been explained in terms of ethnic and cultural factors, especially as regards loom weights.32 Also, loom weights have often attracted attention for their shapes and decorations, while spindle whorls have received little interest due to the fact that they do not change dramatically in shape and decoration throughout the centuries and are rarely found during the Archaic period. Chronological classification of textile tools developed on sequences of archaeological contexts is not always possible because of the poor status of archaeological

2. Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence

15

records at many sites and the lack of systematic studies. Specific shapes are more common in some periods and cultural horizons. For instance, multifaceted biconical spindle whorls are particularly attested in southern Italy in the Late-Final Bronze Age and Iron Age. Morphology on its own, however, is not a chronological indicator (except when it comes with a well-documented context), as some shapes extend across multiple cultural horizons. Functional studies of spinning and weaving tools have started to appear in Sicily33 after the groundbreaking studies of textile tools developed in Northern Europe.34 The major problem in the investigation of textile tools in Sicily is often the lack of or inadequacy of publications, due to the fact that textile tools have rarely been given any particular attention. Investigation is further hampered by the extent to which a site has been excavated. Although the shape is not a critical factor in spinning and weaving, it does have an impact on specific functional parameters. In particular, the ratio of diameter to height might affect the speed with which the spindle rotates and as a result the whole process of spinning. As noted above, some shapes are more common in certain periods, possibly due to their functional parameters being more suitable for working with certain raw materials or producing certain types of yarn. For example, the ratio of diameter to height of discoid spindle whorls might have been more suitable for vegetal fibres than the ratio of other shapes.35 Similarly, the need to use heavy but thin loom weights determined the specific shape of disc/discoid forms.36 Thus, classifying textile tools on the basis of shape can add information about functionality. The typological classification used in this work is based on the physical parameters. Specifically, spindle whorls have been divided on the basis of their diameter and their ratio to height. Types of loom weights have been established based on their base and thickness. Also, thickness has been recognised as the main functional parameter for spool shape. This typological approach is a crucial tool for understanding how a particular textile tool works and what it can produce. It can also give information regarding changes in production as well as social behaviour. Furthermore, this typological approach has taken into account other morphological aspects of textile tools, such as variations in the profile of spindle whorls, the upper and lower bases of loom weights and the presence and position of perforations in spools. These variations can provide further information on site specificities and chronological distribution of tools. The identified textile tool types found in Sicily are illustrated in Figures  2.8, 2.9(a–c) and 2.10. Please note that these types are mentioned throughout the book.

Textile tool typologies

What follows is the description of each type of spindle whorl, loom weight and spool identified in Sicilian contexts dated approximately between the 13th and 5th centuries BC. Table 2.1 summarises the shapes recovered in various Sicilian sites dated to the period under investigation. It is important to note that this list is not meant to be exhaustive but is based on the data available from the studied sites and other

16

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Fig. 2.8: Spindle whorl types (Drawings by author).

published sites. The sites are listed in the chronological order. The chronology relies on the information in relevant publications. When dating was not specified or certain, the author has chosen to indicate a general chronological range or framework.

Spindle whorl types A. Biconical

Biconical spindle whorls are attested as early as the Eneolithic37 (c. 4th to 3rd millennium BC) and become the most common type between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. They are also common in peninsular Italy during the same period.38 This shape is sometimes still in use during the Archaic period. Their maximum diameter is often slightly greater than their height. Biconical spindle whorls display variations in carination, which do not seem to affect spinning but might be related to site specificities and/or manufacturing processes. There are biconical spindle whorls with a carination at the middle of the tool body (A.1) and with a carination below the middle (A.2). Both are likely to have been made by hand, resulting in profile variations. In some items, the carination is clearly evident, while in others the outline is more curved, resembling that of spherical spindle whorls. Among the biconical specimens, some display multifaceted sides, usually five or six faces (A.3).39 On the biconical type, incised decorations, such as lines, triangles or dots, are sometimes present.

2. Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence

Fig. 2.9a: Loom weight types A–C (Drawings by author).

17

18

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Fig. 2.9b: Loom weight types D–E (Drawings by author).

2. Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence

19

B. Globular

Fig. 2.9c: Loom weight types F–G (Drawings by author).

This group is attested but in limited numbers in comparison to the biconical group. They are usually handmade with irregular profiles (B.1). They can be considered a variation of the most common biconical type. Globular spindle whorls can sometimes have a shorter height and a slightly larger diameter, and the ratio of height to diameter similar to the discoid form (B.2). This spindle whorl shape is widely attested in southern Italy.40

C. Truncated conical

Along with the biconical shape, this type is very common during the Final Bronze-Iron Age in southern Italy.41 It is Fig. 2.10: Spool types (Drawings by author). characterised by having the top usually considerably wider than the bottom. They are most likely handmade, resulting in profile variations (C.1–2–3). Incised decorations, such as lines or dots, are sometimes present.

D. Discoid

Discoid spindle whorls have a diameter larger than their height and can have either flat or rounded sides. The majority display irregular profiles, as they are handmade. This type is less common than the others and mostly found at Prehistoric sites,42 while flat spindle whorls obtained from potsherds are sometimes found at Archaic sites.

E. Cylindrical

This type has a height larger than the diameter. In Sicily, it is rarely attested as early as the Neolithic43 and continues to sometimes appear during the Early Bronze Age in the Aeolian islands44 and during the Final Bronze-Iron Age in eastern Sicily (e.g. Metapiccola).

Loom weight types A. Truncated pyramidal with square base

The most common loom weights are truncated pyramidal in shape with approximately square bases (A.1). They might be placed on looms either with their perforated sides (width) or with their non-perforated sides (thickness) facing the weavers. They can have

20

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily Table 2.1: Textile tool shapes from Sicily between the 13th to 5th centuries BC.

Sites

Lipari The Cittadella hill Metapiccola Sabucina

Spindle whorl types

Loom weight types

Spool types

Chronology

Sources

C, A, B, D

F, A, D, E

/

LBA-FBA

Bernabò Brea et al. 1980; Annex B

/

A, C, D, E

/

6th–5th c.

Bernabò Brea et al. 1998; Annex C

A, C, B

A

/

FBA-IA

Leighton 1993; 2012; Annex E

A, D

/

6th–5th c.

Annex F

A, C, B, E

/

A

FBA-IA

Annex D

D

D

FBA-IA

Annexes G and H

A, D, E

6th–5th c.

Pantalica

A

B1

/

FBA-IA

Orsi 1899; 1912; pers. obs. Syracuse Museum 2016

Monte Finocchito

A, B

/

/

IA

Orsi 1894; 1897; Frasca 1979; 1981; Steures 1980; pers. obs. Syracuse Museum 2016

Molino della BadiaMadonna del Piano

A, C

/

/

IA

Orsi 1905; Bernabò Brea et al. 1969; Albanese Procelli 1992; pers. obs. Syracuse Museum 2016

Cugno Carrube

A

/

/

IA

Frasca 1991; pers. obs. Syracuse Museum 2016

Monte Polizo

A

C4, A, G

A

7th–6th c.

Mühlenbock 2008; Balco and Kolb 2009; Annex K

Segesta

/

B2, A

7th–6th c.

Landenius Enegren 2015; 2017

Selinous

/

A

A

7th–6th c.

Quercia 2018

Polizzello

/

A, D

/

6th c.

Perna 2009, 117–246

Monte Saraceno

/

A

/

6th c.

Calderone 1980–81

Monte Castellazzo di Poggioreale

/

A, B1–2

/

6th c.

Falsone et al. 1980–81; Giglio Cerniglia et al. 2012, fig. 427

Colle Madore

A, B

A

/

6th–5th c.

Tardo 1999

A, B, D

A, B1–2

/

6th–5th c.

De Simone 2003; Annex J

C, A

A

6th–5th c.

Pers. obs. Enna Museum 2018; Patanè 2015

D, A, C

A, C1–2–3, E, D

6th–5th c.

Allegro 1976; Annex I

Monte Maranfusa Cozzo Matrice Himera

A

(Continued)

2. Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence

21

Table 2.1: (Continued) Sites

Spindle whorl types

Loom weight types

Spool types

Chronology

Sources

Motya

/

A, B, D, E

/

6th–4th c.

Rossoni 2002; Landenius Enegren 2015; Oliveri and Lo Porto 2018

Gela

/

E

A

Archaic

Orsi 1906; Orlandini 1956; Ismaelli 2011; Verger 2011

Megara Hyblaea

/

A

A

Archaic

Gras, Treziny & Broise 2004; pers. obs. Syracuse Museum 2016

B, C, A

D, E

/

Archaic

Grasso 2008

Monte Iato

/

A, D, E

/

5th c.

Landenius Enegren 2015, 136–139, fig. 19

Ramacca

/

E

/

5th c.

Procelli and Albanese 1988–89

Leontinoi

either sharp or rounded edges, which is likely dependent on the manufacturing process. They usually have a single suspension hole close to the top. Examples of loom weights with two perforations have been excavated, but they are much less common. Impressions of gems, seals, or incisions are common during the Archaic period, usually found on the top or on one or more sides of these loom weights. A sub-typology is represented by truncated pyramids with tops much smaller than the bottom (A.2). This sub-type was likely the dominant shape until the mid-6th century BC. It looks to have been fully replaced by A.1 after the mid-5th century BC,45 although the reason for this preference in shape remains uncertain. Truncated pyramids are known from the Final Bronze Age, although size, weight and manufacturing processes have changed throughout the centuries. In continental Italy, truncated pyramidal-shaped loom weights are attested as early as the Bronze Age and became the most prevalent type in the 1st millennium BC.46

B. Rectangular prism and cubic

Rectangular prism loom weights (elsewhere referred to as Punic block47 or parallelepiped loom weights48) display parallel sides and approximately square bases (B.1). However, the majority have irregular sides, resembling more closely the truncated pyramidal shape. Here, they are regarded as a variation of the pyramidal truncated type and referred to as pseudo-rectangular prisms. It is important to note, however, that this variation does not appear to affect the weaving process and is most likely a consequence of its manufacturing by hand. A second sub-group is represented by cubic or pseudo-cubic loom weights (B.2) having height, thickness and width almost similar in size, but sometimes with sides slightly tapering towards the top (pseudo-cubic). They are usually small in size, ranging between 2 and 4  cm. Impressions or incisions are sometimes present on the rectangular prism and cubic types.49 A distinctive painted

22

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

cross-shaped mark is common on cubic and pseudo-cubic loom weights, and is attested in many indigenous and Punic sites of western Sicily (Monte Maranfusa,50 Segesta,51 Motya,52 Monte Iato, Erice,53 Monte Castellazzo di Poggioreale,54 Salemi,55 Entella56). The crosses are painted in brown or in red and are usually displayed on the non-perforated sides and the top surface; only exceptionally does this mark occur on the base. The origin of these two types is still debated, but it might derive from the indigenous or the Punic tradition based on their predominance in the sites of Motya.57 However, as regards painted cubic loom weights, the cross-shaped mark resembles a geometric motif recurrent on indigenous pottery.58 As Landenius Enegren59 has noted, painted crosses occur on indigenous jug handles or the interiors of vases and the painting shares a similar technical rendering of brushstrokes found on indigenous pottery. Therefore, an indigenous origin for these decorated loom weights could be inferred.

C. Truncated pyramidal with rectangular base

These loom weights have trapezoidal perforated sides and rectangular bases (C.1). Their thickness is generally much smaller than their width (around 1 cm less). They might be used either with their perforated sides or with the non-perforated sides facing the weavers and the choice would affect the density of the fabric. Hence, this might lead us to suppose that either they were used to produce a particular fabric density or that they were multifunctional. Rectangular-based truncated pyramids might have been complementary to the square-based truncated pyramids. Thus, their appearance might be regarded as a development or a shift in technology. They generally have two perforations close to the top, which could have reduced the oscillation of the weight, as a consequence of a wider width due to the rectangular bases. Sometimes their top can be significantly thinner than the bottom (C.2), while some loom weights can be particularly squat (C.3). All of these sub-types could be either handmade or mould-made. Truncated pyramids with rectangular bases coexisted in some sites with truncated pyramids with square bases (A.1). The appearance of C.1–2–3 seems to occur in Sicily after the mid-5th century BC.60 A further sub-category (C.4) has been recognised so far only at Monte Polizo.61 This consists of truncated pyramidal loom weights with rectangular bases and a single hole drilled down through the thinner side. This shape is usually tapered, although sometimes the taper is hardly evident and in some instances is absent, resulting in a more rectangular or fully rectangular shape.62 The non-perforated sides are remarkably larger (approximately double) than the perforated sides.

D. Truncated conical

Truncated conical loom weights have a circular and flat top and usually a single suspension hole. They are likely handmade. Some of them display incisions on the top, such as crosses or lines. Conical loom weights became common during the 6th century BC in the southern area of the Italian Peninsula,63 while in Sicily they were already attested from the Early Bronze Age.64

2. Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence

23

E. Disc, discoid and lenticular

Loom weights belonging to this group have similar width and height. Perforated and non-perforated sides are flat and this loom weight type is likely to have been mouldmade (E.1). This work refers to them as discs in order to distinguish them from the discoid loom weights,65 which have more rounded sides and are instead likely handmade (E.2). A third sub-group comprises lenticular loom weights with a small flat top (E.3). All of them display a single perforation close to the top, except for a few with two holes. A fourth sub-type (E.4) comprises loom weights with a flat top and a V-shaped profile. Their width usually exceeds their height. All of them have two suspension holes. Another sub-type comprises loom weights with a nearly biconical profile and two suspension holes (E.5). Discoid loom weights also include pebbles and stones, generally with one perforation drilled down close to the top or in the middle (E.6.1) or notches around the longer sides (E.6.2). While discoid and lenticular shapes were already known in the Aegean during the Bronze Age,66 discs seem to be a later development, appearing in Mediterranean sites after the 5th century BC.67 In southern Italy, disc/discoid loom weights appeared during the 4th century BC.68 In Greek Sicily, discoid/disc and lenticular loom weights are attested from at least the second half of the 5th century BC (Himera69). Some indigenous communities in eastern Sicily appear to have adopted them almost contemporaneously (Ramacca70), while the evidence for western Sicily is more abundant from the 4th century BC onwards.71

F. Ring

Ring loom weights have a rounded and usually irregular shape. The diameter of the hole is usually around 1–2  cm. Ring-shaped loom weights (also known as donut, ciambella and tarallo) appear in northern Italy in the Bronze Age and in some regions they continue to be used well into the 1st millennium BC.72 In Sicily, they are rare and usually fashioned by hand.

G. Rectangular prism with two holes through the long side

Only a few examples of this type are so far known from Sicily. The function of these artefacts is not quite clear, but they are usually associated with weaving.73

Spool types A. Concave body

Spools appear in Sicily as early as the Eneolithic, then are used throughout the Bronze Age74 and the Archaic period. Their presence is not ubiquitous on the island.75 In the Aeolian archipelago, evidence of spools is scarce, if there is any at all,76 and disappears by the end of the Eneolithic. A recent experiment carried out by Żebrowska77 with an Early Bronze Age perforated spool from Monte Grande shows that some of these spools might have been used on warp-weighted looms.

24

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

For the period under investigation, spools have a concave body with flat (A.1) or domed ends (A.2). Sometimes spools have a transverse central perforation. Incised decorations can occur on the ends.

Conclusions

Surviving evidence affords a glimpse of the variety of textile products in Sicily, ranging from garments, to furnishings to ropes. The archaeological evidence is the richest source of information and shows the great variety of tool types used for spinning and weaving. By comparison, other implements, which are often non-specialised (shears, combs, knives, beaters), are less well preserved or have completely disappeared from view as they were made of perishable materials. To understand the organisation of textile production and how it changed throughout the centuries, the following chapters will analyse the different contexts in which spindle whorls, loom weights and spools were used and found.

Notes

1. Brugnone 2008. 2. Pl. Epist. 13.363a. 3. Brugnone 2008, 56. 4. Cic. Verr. IV 27–28. 5. Cic. Verr. IV 1,1. 6. Brugnone 2008, 58. 7. Brugnone 2008, 61–79. 8. Brugnone 2008, 58. 9. Judica 1819, pl. XVII. 10. Pautasso 2007, 215–219. 11. Lukesh 1999. 12. Cf. Alberti 2012. 13. Cf. Gleba 2008, 37–38. 14. Gillard et al. 1994; Chen et al. 1998; see also Margariti 2019, 2 with previous bibliography. 15. Panvini 2001, 26–27, 32–33. 16. Frost 1981. 17. Costantini 1983, 52–53. 18. Terranova and Lo Campo 1999; Di Sclafani et al. 2005. 19. Gleba 2008, 62–63. 20. E.g. Di Rosa 1999; Bartosiewicz 2012. 21. See Gleba 2008, 72–75; 2012; 2017b, 12. 22. Gleba 2008, 65–67; Bazzanella et al. 2003. 23. Gleba 2008, 69. 24. Gleba 2008, 70. 25. Ath. Deipn. V, 206 f. 26. Nigro 2007, 45–46, fig. 2.41. 27. Parra 1995, 18–19. 28. Their function has been widely debated. For the most recent discussion, see Gleba 2008, 140–141; Olofsson et al. 2015, 92–94; Siennicka and Ulanowska 2016.

2. Textile activity in Sicily: sources and evidence

25

29. For the discussion on how to set up a warp-weighted loom and on the technique of weaving with tablets, cf. Andersson Strand 2015, 50–54, 57. 30. For the discussion on the several stages of textile production and their tools, see e.g. Andersson Strand 2015, 39–60 with previous bibliography. 31. Orsi 1905, 129, 132, fig. 36. 32. E.g. Balco and Kolb 2009. 33. Militello et al. 2015; Landenius Enegren 2015; 2017; Quercia 2018. 34. Study of textile tools from Swedish Viking Age sites by Andersson (1999). More recently, the large-scale investigation carried out at the Centre of Textile Research of Copenhagen, based on experimental tests using replicas of archaeological items, providing guidelines for the study of textile tools (Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015). 35. Gleba 2008, 106. 36. See Annex A for the discussion on textile tool parameters and functionality. 37. Militello 2018. 38. E.g. Pacciarelli 1999; Gleba 2008, 107, tab. 4; Cerzoso and Vanzetti 2014; Kleibrink 2016. 39. For similar finds in the southern area of the Italian Peninsula, see e.g. Gastaldi and Agostino 1988; Kleibrink 2016. 40. E.g. Pacciarelli 1999; Kleibrink 2016. 41. See e.g. Kilian 1970; Pacciarelli 1999; Kleibrink 2016. 42. This shape almost disappeared at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC in the Italian mainland, cf. Gleba 2008, 104. 43. Militello 2018, 227. 44. Żebrowska 2018, fig. 2c. 45. This is attested at Himera, see Chapter 3. 46. Gleba 2008, 131. 47. Balco and Kolb 2009, fig. 2. 48. Quercia and Foxhall 2014b, 97, fig. 7b. 49. Some rectangular prism and cubic loom weights recovered at Motya bear gem impressions. See Rossoni 2002, fig. 199; Landenius Enegren 2015, 145, fig. 30. 50. De Simone 2003, 356, no. 66, fig. 288. See also Annex J. 51. Landenius Enegren 2017. 52. Nigro 2007, 120; 150. 53. Landenius Enegren 2017, 108. 54. Giglio Cerniglia et al. 2012, fig. 427. 55. Pers. obs. Salemi Museum, 2018. 56. Nenci 1992. 57. Rossoni 2002; Nigro 2004; 2005; 2007. However, the rectangular prism shape was already known in eastern Sicily during the Iron Age (Pantalica, tomb 43, Crispino and Cultraro 2016, 76, fig. 5). 58. Spatafora 2003, 215, fig. 201, 313. 59. Landenius Enegren 2017, 108. 60. This type coexisted in Himera with the square-based truncated pyramids in destruction layers dated to 409 BC (cf. Annex I). A limited quantity is also attested in a small number at Lipari (cf. Annex C), while it does not appear at the Cittadella hill. 61. Outside Sicily, loom weights with a similar shape come from e.g. Timpone della Motta (Kleibrink 2017) and Ardea (Latium) (Piergrossi 2005). 62. They have been referred to as ‘Elymi tapered’ and ‘Elymi rectangular’ respectively in Balco and Kolb 2009, fig. 2. 63. Gleba 2008, 131–132. 64. Castellana 1998, 220–221, fig. 123; Żebrowska n.d..

26

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

65. In Italian archaeology, disc and discoid loom weights are commonly called oscilla. Meo (2017) has suggested not referring to disc/discoid loom weights as oscilla, as their function does not correspond to what the word originally indicated. 66. E.g. Militello 2012; Cutler 2016. 67. Marseilles (McDonald et al. 1975, 120); Athens (Davidson and Burr Thompson 1943, 79, 93–94; Robinson 1959, 89, 111); Corinth (Davidson 1952, 122, 162–163, 171–172); Delos (Deonna 1938); Olynthus (Wilson 1930); Perachora (Dunbabin 1962; Tomlinson 1969); Phaistos (Levi 1965–66); Ephesus (Hogarth 1908); see also Lawall 2014, 161–166. 68. Gleba 2008, 132; Quercia and Foxhall 2014b; Meo 2015. 69. Allegro 1976, 83, 218, 462, 558. 70. Procelli and Albanese 1988–89. 71. Segesta (Biagini 2008), Entella (Bove 1995), Montagnola near Marineo (Spatafora and De Simone 2007, 38–40), Motya (Rossoni 2002; Nigro 2004; 2005; 2007). For bibliographical references on discoid loom weights in southern Italy, see Meo 2015, 44–51. 72. Gleba 2008, 130. 73. These items find parallels in Italian Peninsula and in the 4th century layers at Morgantina (Gleba 2008, 132; Quercia 2017, 246, fig. 3b). 74. Castellana 1998, 57, 220–221; Militello 2018, 225; Żebrowska n.d.; in press; pers. obs. Museum of Aidone. 75. Żebrowska n.d.; in press. 76. Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980, 328, pl. CI 1a. 77. Żebrowska in press.

Chapter 3 Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts Textile tools are mainly found in domestic and workshop areas. A study of the number, types and distribution of textile tools in context provides information about the technology, raw materials, final products and scale of production. This adds new data on aspects of subsistence and economy of the communities that practised textile production. This chapter gives a description of studied sites (Map 3.1), which have been chosen based on the selection criteria stated in the Introductory framework. Unfortunately, not all contexts have been fully published. Thus, the following descriptions are based on those contexts that are well documented. Furthermore, the textile tools recovered during excavations were mainly scattered at the sites, while others were residual and came from fills or outdoor spaces where the stratigraphy was unclear. Annexes

Map 3.1: Map of Sicily with the seven case-study sites.

28

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

are provided at the end of this book with detailed descriptions of functional and ­manufacturing aspects of the textile tools from each site. The study of sites that display long-term occupation will enable a comparison of the data from the Late Bronze-Iron Age with the Archaic period. To conclude, there will be a discussion on whether cultural interactions affected textile production at each site, and if so, to what extent.

Late Bronze-Iron Age settlements Lipari

The Acropolis of Lipari has been continuously occupied from the Neolithic to the present day. The investigations in the 1950s brought to light two overlapping settlements, dated respectively to the Ausonian I and II cultural horizons (c. 1270–850 BC).1 Both settlements were destroyed by fire and lying under thick layers of ash. Several huts were uncovered, some of them well preserved2 (Fig. 3.1). Textile tools were recovered scattered across the whole site and in all layers. They consist of spindle whorls, loom weights and pointed artefacts (potentially used for the preparation of fibres and sorting threads).3 However, the chronological sequence is compromised by the post-depositional disturbance, exacerbated by the overlay of settlements throughout the centuries. Since many textile tools were found in secondary contexts, it has not been possible to make a chronological division between the finds of the two settlements. The recovered textile tools were mostly spindle

Fig. 3.1: The Acropolis of Lipari. Part of the overlapping settlements on the Acropolis of Lipari with α II hut, which yielded one of the largest concentrations of textile tools (after Bernabò Brea et al. 1980, modified by author).

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

29

whorls, mainly comprising the truncated conical and biconical types (Annex B). The substantial homogeneity in shape, size and the limited range of weight suggests a rather standardised textile production. Animal fibres were likely used, although plant fibres could have been spun with the heavier spindle whorls. The comparison with spindle whorls from the previous cultural horizon (i.e. Milazzese) suggests that changes in textile production and raw material likely occurred between the Middle and the end of the Bronze Age. Indeed, the Middle Bronze Age spindle whorls were heavier than the Late/Final Bronze Age ones, making them ideal for working with plant fibres.4 Some FBA spindle whorls are decorated with rows of incised dots or vertical incisions. These motifs were also attested on spindle whorls from southern Italian Peninsula. During the previous cultural horizon, the evidence for weaving activity with the warp-weighted loom is scarce and ambiguous,5 but increases from the Ausonian I onwards. Clay loom weights are fewer in number and of very different types (ringshaped, truncated pyramidal and truncated conical) and weights. It is possible that notched pebbles were also used as weights, perhaps for making different fabrics. One might wonder whether new people brought new raw materials along with new weaving technology. Textile production was likely practised on a small scale, probably for domestic use, given the quantity and the relatively small clusters of tools found in each hut. However, in the Ausonian II hut α II balance weights, the remains of metalworking and hoarding might provide evidence of an incipient centralisation of several economic activities.6 It is possible that textile production was practised similarly in this context, given the concentration of spindle whorls, loom weights, notched pebbles and pointed tools found inside the hut.

Metapiccola

Metapiccola was the site of a settlement close to the modern town of Lentini and dated between the 11th and 9th centuries BC. Excavations brought to light nine huts (Fig. 3.2), whose material culture was associated with the Ausonian II cultural horizon.7 Our understanding of the site suffers from the lack of a fully complete publication.8 Only very limited evidence for textile activity is known. A small number of textile tools were found in huts A, D and F, although the exact find spots were not recorded. Spindle whorls are chiefly biconical and conical and show similarities in shape and manufacture with those from Lipari and the Cittadella hill. Their weight range is wide and suggests they were suited for producing different types of yarns, made from both animal and plant fibres (Annex D). No loom weights were recovered, which might suggest two scenarios. Either they were using other loom types rather than the warp-weighted loom, or poorly fired loom weights have just not been preserved. However, the presence of a spool is proof of weaving practice, although it is uncertain whether the spools replaced the most common loom weights or were used for tablet weaving only.

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

30

Fig. 3.2: Plan of the settlement of Metapiccola (after Frasca 2012, fig. 9, modified by author).

The Cittadella hill

The Cittadella hill was the site of Prehistoric and Archaic settlements before the Classical and Hellenistic city of Morgantina was founded on the nearby Serra Orlando hill. The Final Bronze-Iron Age settlement was associated with the Ausonian II culture by its excavators, based on its material culture.9 More recently, however, it has been noted that Ausonian II assemblages at the site show distinctive features, indicating the appearance of a local identity.10 The Cittadella hill is one of the best-excavated sites of this period, along with the settlement on the Acropolis of Lipari. The occupation at the hill probably began during the 10th century BC. By the 9th century BC, an extensive settlement was established, which is better represented by habitation layers at various locations on the site. Its duration is still uncertain, although it seems quite likely that it continued well into the early 8th century BC or even later.11 Remains of several huts, referred to as longhouses, have been unearthed at the site. They were similar to those found at Lipari, Metapiccola and other Final Bronze and Iron Age sites in Italy and western Sicily.12 The huts were destroyed by fire, which in some cases created

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

31

sealed contexts, albeit many contexts have been strongly affected by the subsequent reoccupation of the hill. Only the huts excavated in trenches 16W, 29 and 31 were preserved with some of their contexts intact (Fig. 3.3). Evidence of textile tools includes spindle whorls, loom weights and a few bone pointed tools13 (Annex E). The spindle whorls were found scattered across the settlement, retrieved from fills, outdoor spaces and occupation layers of huts. The majority of them are biconical in shape. Their weight range is wide, making it possible for them to spin a variety of yarns from thin to thick, from both animal and plant fibres. When compared to the Early Bronze Age spindle whorls, a substantial difference in weights, sizes, shapes and manufacture can be observed. The latter are coarser and heavier and best suited to spinning plant fibres.14 A few FBA-IA specimens are decorated with rows of impressed circles or lines shaping triangles or rhombuses, which resemble those known from the Final Bronze and Iron Age sites in southern Italy.

Fig. 3.3: Plan of the Cittadella hill with location of the principal trenches and Archaic buildings (courtesy of Carla Antonaccio and the American Excavations at Morgantina, modified by author on Erik Thorkildsen’s design).

32

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

A few loom weights come from huts 16W, 29 and 31, with four of them being found on a bench.15 The majority of them are fragmentary and very friable, made of coarse fabric, even of daub and probably weighing over 2 kg. A few smaller and lighter loom weights were also found in disturbed layers, which actually would have worked better with yarn spun by the spindle whorls from this site. Perhaps, as documented ethnographically,16 the smaller loom weights – many of which have not survived because of their poor-quality fabric – were used in the set-up and the large loom weights may have been attached to maintain a balance between the front and the back threads. Alternatively, the small loom weights may have been used to balance the large weights on the other half of the shed. The poor condition of the loom weights points to a non-professional production.17 It may be inferred that the inhabitants themselves were responsible for producing weaving equipment. They must have been involved in obtaining raw materials and making tools by drying them outside the hut or firing them on an oven or hearth.18

Sabucina

Sabucina is one of the best-known indigenous sites in the area of the Salso River, in the modern province of Caltanissetta. This was the site of a Final Bronze-Iron Age settlement before it was replaced by a new one during the Archaic period. The Prehistoric settlement was made up of at least 15 circular huts dotted over the southern slope of the hill, right beneath its summit. Its material culture was associated with the Pantalica I and II cultural horizons19 (Fig. 3.4). The evidence for textile production is scarce and strongly undermined by insufficiently detailed publications. A few coarse spindle whorls were found scattered across

Fig. 3.4: Plan of the settlement of Sabucina with the Prehistoric and Archaic buildings (after Panvini et al. 2008, 18, modified by author).

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

33

the settlement, although their dating, as well as their contexts, are uncertain. The presence of loom weights is even more limited, with only one loom weight recovered from the destruction layer of a rectangular building (room XXXIX) dating to the late 10th century BC (Annex G). As a result, little can be said about Sabucina’s textile production from this period.

Archaic settlements The Cittadella hill

In the third quarter of the 6th century BC, the indigenous community replaced the earlier structures at the Upper and Lower Cittadella with new ones following Greek urban and architectural models. This new settlement was partially destroyed and abandoned around the mid-5th century BC, probably due to the conquest by Douketios in 459 BC.20 Although the presence of a Greek community at the site appears to be generally accepted in present scholarly thought, the dynamics of interaction between Greek and indigenous people are still open to debate. The indigenous community appears to have selectively adopted and adapted chosen Greek practices and traditions.21 The Archaic textile tools consist of an abundance of loom weights and a few spindle whorls. Nearly 300 loom weights were found at the Cittadella hill, although the number might be higher, since finds recovered at the site have not been published. Loom weights were unearthed in many areas,22 but their contexts were poorly documented. The majority of loom weights are truncated pyramidal with square bases. They are made of fine fabric, well fired and standardised, likely made with the use of moulds. These loom weights are light and suitable for working with very thin threads (Annex F). By comparison with the FBA-IA loom weights, a change in the raw material used and final products made can be inferred. The shift towards a production of lighter and smaller loom weights fits into what occurs at other Archaic sites. The lack of textile tools for producing coarser qualities of fabrics, in turn, raises the question of whether other loom weights, similar to those of the earlier settlement, were still in use for coarser productions, such as sacks or furnishings (or perhaps the lack of them should be interpreted as a specific choice?). Loom weights do not bear any seal or gem impressions, while crosses and other marks sometimes appear. Thus, it seems that the Greek habit of personalising loom weights with personal decorations was not adopted at the site, and the practice of marking loom weights – probably for practical reasons – continued.

Sabucina

The Prehistoric settlement was replaced between the 8th–7th century BC by a new one consisting of rectangular dwellings, as the community came into contact with Greeks. Then a fortified centre (phrourion) was established during the 6th century BC and was in use until the end of the 5th century BC when the site was probably abandoned. Despite

34

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

the close contact with Greek culture, the adoption of Greek elements and habits was not uniform across all aspects of the site’s material culture.23 Unlike the Prehistoric settlement, the evidence for weaving during the Archaic period is abundant, while there is no evidence for spinning activity. Loom weights were recovered from across the site and close to the city walls. In particular, three assemblages of loom weights were unearthed dated to the period between the end of the 8th and 5th centuries BC. They were found in rooms 58, 59 and the so-called ‘Vano Ripostiglio’ (storage room) respectively and constituted different sets. The exact find spots were, unfortunately, not reported. The loom weights in each group are truncated conical, truncated pyramidal and disc respectively (Annex H). Unfortunately, it is impossible to say whether these different shapes were used at the same time, because of the inadequate publication. All of the loom weights are standardised, displaying good manufacturing and firing processes. They are light and suitable for producing very fine fabrics. Disc loom weights are thinner than the other types, enabling the production of fine and denser fabrics. Only a few truncated pyramids have decorative details such as incised crosses or seal impressions, while no decorated disc loom weights are present at the site. The presence of consistent and homogenous groups of loom weights in several rooms might imply the presence of at least a small loom in each, although the interpretation of the rooms’ functions is still uncertain. While the lack of spindle whorls in the same contexts might suggest that weaving and spinning were practised in different areas, it is also possible that whorls were made of perishable material, as occurs at other Archaic sites.

Himera

Himera is located on the northern coast of Sicily, close to the modern town of Termini Imerese. According to literary sources, it was founded by Zankle and exiles from Syracuse in 648 BC.24 The settlement extended along both the elongated and the narrow high plain of Himera (Città Alta, Upper City) and on Buonfornello plain up to the sea (Città Bassa, Lower City). Archaeological excavations carried out on the Upper City have demonstrated the presence of three urban phases. The final phase (II, a–b) (580–560/409 BC) was well preserved, as the city was abruptly destroyed by the Carthaginians and then abandoned. During this phase, the Upper City was arranged on a north–south running street (plateia) (6.2 m in width) intersected by at least 18 east–west streets (stenopoi) (5.5.–6 m in width) forming the city insulae. Each insula was divided into plots of c. 16 m for each side, which represents a single household unit. Excavations in the Upper City brought to light the Northern District (which consists of at least 18 insulae, of which Insulae I, II III are well preserved) and the Eastern District25 (Fig. 3.5). The entire investigated area was underneath a thick layer of destruction that has been connected with the 409 BC destruction. Unfortunately, archaeological layers have been affected by modern activities damaging the buildings lying below. Despite this, excavators were able to reach the floor level of many rooms.

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

35

Fig. 3.5: Plan of the Upper and Lower City of Himera (after Vassallo 2005, fig. 64, modified by author).

Himera offers abundant evidence of weaving activity consisting of thousands of loom weights and, sporadically, other tools, such as spindle whorls and spools.26 The total number of analysed textile tools exceeds 400, which were recovered from the Northern and Eastern Districts27 (Annex I). The loom weights are standardised and well fired. The most common types are truncated pyramids with square bases and one hole (types A.1 and A.2), and rectangular bases with two holes (types C.1 and C.2). They could have worked well with threads of low tension. The coexistence of types A and C during the final phase of the city might suggest that these two shapes were complementary and might have been used for producing fabrics with different thread density. Also, it seems that the sub-type A2 was particularly common in the earlier layers, while it is rarely found in the destruction layers.28

36

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Among the abundance of loom weights, a spool was also recorded.29 This indicates that perhaps tablet weaving was practised at the site. Like spools, spindle whorls are particularly limited. Some of them are discoid pierced pottery sherds, while the majority were likely made of perishable material. Loom weights were found in nearly every room of each excavated insula, either as single finds or in clusters.30 The majority of these clusters were mainly recovered from rooms that opened onto the streets, which are believed to constitute domestic spaces or workshops, where they were likely stored in bags. The discovery of clusters of 20–30 loom weights on the house floors suggests the presence of ideally one small loom per household (Map 3.2). Only two larger assemblages of approximately 50–60 loom weights were found, suggesting larger looms or perhaps a workshop. Room 25 (Insula III, plot 4) yielded the largest cluster consisting of 55 loom weights, found on the floor along the southern wall.31 It is not certain whether a loom was set there, as it has been suggested that the light in that room was not sufficient to weave.32 Also, 56 loom weights were recovered from room 12 (Insula I, plot 2).33 The recovered loom weights sometimes bear identical stamps of seals or gems. In many rooms, the uniformity of loom weights and decorations is notable, while in others the assemblages are of different types of loom weights. It is noteworthy that sets of uniform loom weights bearing identical stamps were recovered from a few rooms, which have been interpreted as having a particular function, such as room 33.34 This room

Map 3.2: Distribution map of loom weights at the Northern District at Himera (modified by author after Allegro 1972).

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

37

yielded abundant evidence of miniature lekanai, figurines and fine cooking ware, which suggests that this space was designated for female activities, as well as banqueting.35 This interpretation has been supported by a group of 21 loom weights with an identical seal impression, which were recovered in the NE corner of this room, while a few other loom weights were found scattered across the room. This cluster of loom weights was recovered from the 409 BC destruction layer, which was partially destroyed by modern ploughing. Because of its size (around 5.70 m × 5.80 m) and its central position within the house, this room can be interpreted as a domestic space designed for multiple activities likely taking place at different times and/or perhaps receiving and socialising with visitors.36 The presence of loom weights could suggest that weaving was practised here alongside other activities, although the possibility of these weights being simply stored here cannot be completely ruled out. Women could have gathered in this room and performed female activities, as well as socialising through collective tasks, such as weaving. The presence of this group of stamped loom weights in a space designed for female interaction would reinforce the concept that emotional ties between weavers and their loom weights were created through interaction and sharing with fellow weavers. A similar scenario might be suggested for room 23,37 where the variety of seal/gem impressions might be indicative of several weavers gathering and weaving together.

Monte Maranfusa

Monte Maranfusa was an indigenous site located on a hill overlooking the middle valley of the River Belice Destro, in the modern province of Palermo. The site developed significantly between the 7th and 6th centuries BC, entering into contact with Greek settlements, in particular with Selinous, via the natural access route of the Belice waterway until c. 480 BC when the site was abandoned. Social and urban organisation was significantly affected by contact with the Greeks, although other aspects of material culture remained strongly tied to local tradition. In particular, it appears that the local community adopted the rectangular-plan buildings with space for specific activities from Greek tradition, which likely reflect a more specialised social organisation at the site. However, the community appears not to have adopted the urban grid-plan, which was characteristic of Greek cities. The aggregation of small rooms around a courtyard suggests a social organisation based on household production rather than an urban economy.38 Excavations at Campo A revealed two main habitation phases.39 The first-phase buildings consist of rooms clustering around an open courtyard. This phase was mainly visible in building 1 (Edificio 1). Some of the dwellings of the first phase survived during the second phase, dated from the mid-6th to the first two decades of the 5th century BC. The settlement of the second phase was characterised by a more regularly organised urban space and the buildings had rectangular plans and paved floors. The central area of Campo A yielded an elongated building 2 (Edificio 2) of 23 m in length and consisting of five almost rectangular-shaped rooms placed along the longitudinal axis oriented E–W and alongside an open-air space (Fig. 3.6). Based on room size and

38

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

number of finds, it has been suggested that this building was used by two or three family units with a shared common space (room E) dedicated to storage.40 A final short-lived phase was evident in some wall reconstruction and in the construction of some rough rooms, which in some cases were built over the regular walls of the former phase. The spatial distribution of artefacts suggests that some rooms were dedicated to certain activities such as food preparation and consumption (rooms G and F), while more than one activity was practised in other rooms.41 In this respect, there is no evidence for the existence of a specialised space for weaving, indicating that it was practised alongside other domestic activities. This is also evident by the fact that loom weights were found as single finds or as small concentrations in many rooms (Map 3.3). Spindle whorls, however, were found in secondary contexts, with the only exception being a spindle whorl uncovered in room H (south), along with loom weights.42 The largest concentration of textile tools came from room H (south), where 11 loom weights ran parallel to the southern wall.43 However, it seems unlikely that a loom was in use there,44 as the light was not sufficient to weave in this part of the room and the quantity of weights is not sufficient enough proof for a loom. It is more likely that the loom weights were stored there. Another small concentration of seven loom weights45 and two bronze needles were found in room P.46 It has been suggested that weaving was also practised in room P,47 although there is no clear evidence for this given the small number of loom weights. Loom weights were also found in room D,48 although the interpretation of this room’s function is unclear because of its poor preservation.49 A few loom weights were recovered from room F,50 which has been interpreted as a space dedicated to the preparation and consumption of food, as indicated by the presence of a grindstone, as well as drinking and tableware. Generally, the wide distribution of stored loom weights in many rooms might support the presence of more than one family unit in the building. Nearly 80 textile tools were recovered at the site.51 Evidence suggests that loom weight production was basic and was likely a domestic activity. As such, this would explain the non-standardised shapes. The loom weight assemblage is very heterogeneous, including truncated pyramids with approximately square bases, pseudo-rectangular and pseudo-cubic examples (Annex J). The latter bear a common painted cross-shaped mark on the non-perforated sides. This mixed repertoire of shapes finds parallels with the situation observed on other sites of western Sicily, such as Motya52 and Monte Castellazzo di Poggioreale.53 The pseudo-cubic type shares similar features in terms of size and weights with those from Segesta54 and seem to constitute a homogenous group, which differs from the other loom weights found at the site. This distinctive shape was likely used for a relatively standardised type of fine-quality fabric, which was widespread across many sites of western Sicily.55 Its wide distribution suggests that the fabrics made using this loom weight type were widely valued and met a particular demand. The common and distinctively painted crosses on many of cubical loom weights might support the idea that it was a distinguishing mark of manufacture, rather than a personal or functional mark. Landenius Enegren56 has

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

Fig. 3.6: Occupation phases at Monte Maranfusa (after Spatafora 2003, modified by author).

39

40

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Map 3.3: Distribution map of textile tools at Monte Maranfusa, building 2 (modified by author after Spatafora 2003).

proposed that loom weights from Segesta were specially produced with a votive function in mind. Thus, it might be speculated that a common religious practice involved the production of a specific fabric made with the use of the cubic loom weight type. Due to the lack of other data, this interpretation remains hypothetical.

Monte Polizo

Monte Polizo was an indigenous settlement located in the hinterland of western Sicily, between the two competing settlements of Selinous and Motya, a Greek and a Punic centre respectively. The main settlement at Monte Polizo was established during the second half of the 7th century BC and abandoned around 550 BC, possibly as a result of conflicts. At the time of abandonment, the site covered approximately 20–25 hectares and housed a population of up to 3000 individuals.57 The settlement was constructed at the highest point of a hill and along its slopes, most extensively on the eastern and western ends. The town plan was irregular and the layout of the houses was often adapted to the undulating terrain, preventing any kind of unitary grid. Excavations were carried out intermittently between 1970 and 2006 and uncovered the highest area (the so-called Acropolis), the areas to the east (areas A and B) and those to the south of the Acropolis.58 The excavations in area A yielded three structures, referred to as Houses 1, 2 and 3, which were dated between 625 and 550 BC.59 All the houses in area A consisted of large rooms that were designed for several daily activities related to the production and consumption of food such as grinding, cooking and eating, as

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

41

well as weaving. Moreover, these houses yielded evidence of both local and imported drinking equipment, suggesting that wine drinking and feasting were practised at the site. Furthermore, all of them contained abundant evidence of cult practice intimately related to the individual houses. To the north of the Acropolis, in the area named Portella Sant’Anna, preliminary excavation in 2005 brought to light several multi-room buildings60 (Fig. 3.7). Traditionally, investigation of Monte Polizo has focused on exploring its connections to a particular ethnic group called the Elymians.61 This has been based on its geographical location and the nature of its material culture; however, this association has been challenged in recent years and is now severely questioned.62 As a whole,

Fig. 3.7: The main excavation areas at Monte Polizo (after Mühlenbock 2008, fig. 7, modified by author).

42

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Monte Polizo’s material culture was particularly conservative and appeared reluctant to adopt foreign traditions. More than 100 textile-related finds were recorded from Monte Polizo63 (Annex K). Of these, spindle whorls and spools account for only a small selection. Monte Polizo had a peculiar and distinctive loom weight tradition in terms of shape, with no parallels elsewhere in Sicily during the same period. The majority are truncated pyramids with rectangular bases and a single hole drilled down through the thinner side (type C.4). The C.4 type spans the lifetime of the site. The long-lived shape and standardised manufacturing point to a local textile tool tradition. The remarkably high number of fragmentary loom weights, often preserved as simple clay lumps, is probably the consequence of low firing temperatures. This points to a very basic and simple production process, which does not imply a high degree of specialisation. The production of loom weights seems to be within the household, similar perhaps to the production of handmade cooking pots.64 Besides type C.4, only a very small number of pyramidal truncated loom weights with square bases were recovered (type A.1), which differ substantially from the other loom weights in terms of size and manufacture. These were found scattered across the site but mainly concentrated on the Acropolis65 and in the area to the south (areas K, S, N, and P). These loom weights resemble those from Selinous during the same period,66 perhaps suggestive of the presence of foreign women at the site. Many C.4 loom weights bear geometrical incised or stamped decorations, which often occur on similar groups of loom weights, perhaps suggestive of certain loom weight sets. The majority of the loom weights were found as single finds from the abandonment or destruction layers of the investigated area, while only a limited number were recovered in clusters inside the households. Concentrations of no more than 30 loom weights were found in some rooms. These were likely stored in bags or other perished containers (e.g. baskets), so it is not possible to say whether each cluster constituted a single set. Twenty-five loom weights were uncovered on a small raised platform in House 1;67 18 and 20 loom weights were found in House 268 and in House 3, respectively69 (Map 3.4). Despite their homogeneity in shape, C.4 type loom weights are of different weight, although the majority are over 200 g. This wide range of weights might point to the use of both fine and coarser yarns. An intriguing cluster of 16 loom weights of different shapes, sizes and weights were found in one of the buildings at Portella Sant’Anna, possibly having fallen from a working loom at the time of the destruction of the site.70 This evidence might indicate the use of rather small looms and a peculiar tradition of setting up looms with loom weights of different weights and sizes,71 which might imply the use of yarns of different diameters, various raw materials (i.e. animal and plant fibres) and/or different techniques for tying weights to the loom. Weaving activity might have also been practised at the site on other types of looms and using other techniques. The presence of two spools could confirm the practice of tablet weaving.72 The limited evidence of spindle whorls might be an indication

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

43

Map 3.4: Distribution map of loom weights at Monte Polizo (modified by author after Mühlenbock 2008).

44

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

that spinning was practised in other areas or, more likely, that spindle whorls were also made of perishable materials as elsewhere in Archaic Sicily.

Textile traditions and cultural encounters

The study of spinning and weaving at each site facilitates the drawing of some considerations on the effects of cultural contacts on the indigenous communities. It is more difficult to estimate whether, and to what extent textile tradition of Greek settlements in Sicily differs from that of their mother-cities. Indeed, Himera was a sub-colony and information on the textile tradition at its mother-city Zankle (and Syracuse) is lacking. Within intense contacts with Greek incomers, local communities were forced to renegotiate their own cultural identity. Local communities actively behaved to construct their own identity through mechanisms of adopting, adapting and rejecting specific elements of Greek culture. Identity as self-representation constitutes only one choice among a variety of possibilities, through which an individual or a group responds to interactions with others. As regards textile tradition, Sicilian communities offer a variegated range of approaches towards Greek textile tradition. Before showing the different behaviours, it is important to define what textile tool tradition is. I argue that this consists of several factors ranging from textile tool shape to manufacturing process, firing and decoration. As a whole, the textile tool tradition at Greek settlements in Sicily (e.g. Himera, Selinous73) is characterised by particular shapes (truncated pyramidal, disc/discoid), good production/firing, standardisation and the common habit of impressing personal stamps/gems. Similarly, these features characterise the textile tool tradition in Greece, although loom weights from the Aegean area come in more variegated shapes.74 Within cultural contacts, communities might choose to adopt, adapt or reject all or some of the aspects of foreign textile tradition. This choice is made based on either cultural or practical reasons. Some indigenous communities appear more reluctant to assimilate foreign textile tool shapes or manufacturing processes, while others seem willing to be associated with the new tradition. Those sites with long occupation, such as the Cittadella hill and Sabucina, show significant changes in textile tool and textile manufacture. In the comparison between the Prehistoric and Archaic assemblages, a major increase in the number of implements can be observed along with an improvement in the manufacture of textile tools. The increase in numbers was also accompanied by a standardisation in shapes and sizes and a general decrease in the size of loom weights. This also suggests that a new weaving technique (i.e. a different way of setting up looms with larger sets of lighter loom weights) was in use during the Archaic period along with an emphasis on the production of finer textiles (cf. Chapter 6). If fine textiles were also produced during the Final Bronze-Iron Age this must have been done on different kinds of looms or with the use of unfired or poorly fired loom weights. An example of this is at the Cittadella hill, where small unfired or poorly fired loom weights might have not survived. Moreover, the introduction of disc/discoid loom weights represents a

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

45

remarkable change in textile production. This type of loom weight is suitable for producing fine and denser fabrics with a warp thread count of approximately 18–20 per cm, which have no parallels with what was produced before their appearance. This new shape was likely imported by Greek incomers, who used it in other settlements in southern Italy and Greece from the 5th century BC. However, the behaviour of the indigenous communities towards this new type of loom weight is not uniform. While the community at Sabucina adopted this new shape, the community at the Cittadella hill did not show any interest in using it, although discoid loom weights constituted the main type at the Classical site at Serra Orlando.75 This sort of resistance to the new type could result from cultural, technological or functional considerations. Despite cultural contacts, Monte Maranfusa and Monte Polizo display local weaving traditions with a rather distinctive loom weight repertoire. Monte Maranfusa, with a mixed repertoire of truncated pyramidal and cubic loom weights, shows parallels with other sites in western Sicily implying a common cultural background, which seems to stem back to indigenous culture and has no parallels in Greek communities. Similarly, the repertoire of loom weights at Monte Polizo is strongly distinctive in terms of shape, manufacture and weaving tradition. At least from the 6th century BC, the habit of decorating loom weights was widespread across Sicily. However, each site developed distinctive habits, probably as a consequence of local factors in terms of cultural influence or identity. Incisions, impressions of simple or combined circles, incised swastikas, zigzag lines and hourglasses are the most common motifs at the indigenous sites of Monte Maranfusa, Monte Polizo and Colle Madore76 and were probably derived from the indigenous pottery repertoire.77 Thus, this particular practice of decorating loom weights equates well with indigenous material culture and seems to derive closely from spindle whorl decorations of the Final Bronze and Iron Ages. The practice of decorating loom weights with geometric motifs was also present in the indigenous communities of southern Italian Peninsula (although with a different purpose, e.g. Francavilla Marittima78). In Greek contexts, loom weights sometimes bear impressions of personal gems or seals, suggesting that they were often perceived as personal tools. The earliest evidence of this comes from Himera (deposit 39 in the Eastern District dated between 575–550 to the end of 5th century BC79). The practice is similarly attested in the rest of the Greek world. The earliest evidence in the Greek mainland is dated to the mid-5th century BC.80 One might wonder where this habit originated from, but at the moment it is not possible to answer that question. However, evidence might point to an earlier start in the Western Mediterranean. Perhaps the peculiar nature of socio-cultural contexts in Sicily stimulated the practice of expressing identity on loom weights. Thus, could it be possible that the Greek practice of personalising loom weights was stimulated by the indigenous one?81 Unlike what is observed at Sabucina on a few truncated pyramidal loom weights, the inhabitants at the Cittadella hill do not appear to have adopted this specific element of Greek material culture. This might be regarded as a form of resistance by this mixed community, which instead

46

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

continued the Final Bronze-Iron Age practice of marking loom weights with simple incised crosses or lines, perhaps for practical reasons.

Conclusions

What has been observed through the study of textile tradition at each site has confirmed that the choice of textile technology and textile tool tradition was an element of self-representation. The mechanisms of transmission in cross-cultural situations were varied and complex. The results of cultural contact are most evident in those communities where the socio-economic relationship with the Greeks was intense. In contrast, numerous indigenous centres (mainly those of western Sicily where the communities were also exposed to the Phoenician culture) demonstrably maintained their local weaving traditions. A further consideration is the textile tool shape. The shape on its own is not an indicator of cultural affiliation. The adoption of a particular shape is dependent on several factors related to either practical or cultural concerns. However, they need not be mutually exclusive, although functionality is the main factor. For example, the introduction of the disc/discoid shape was strongly related to the desire to make particular kinds of fabrics, being most suitable for particularly heavy loom weights (around 100–300 g) that were exceptionally thin (c. 1–2  cm). A similar explanation can be suggested for the distinctive shape of the unusually thin loom weights from Monte Polizo. However, a practical aspect of the manufacturing process may also partially explain this shape: heavy but thin loom weights would dry out thoroughly and fire quickly. Common cultural tradition or cultural assimilation can be another factor in the choice of textile tool shape. The analysis of spindle whorls at the sites of the Cittadella hill, Lipari and Metapiccola showed that their inhabitants shared a common spinning tradition. This probably spread through contacts and movements of people – particularly craftspeople and women – which is evident in the shapes, manufacturing process and decorations of spindle whorls. On the contrary, Late Bronze-Iron Age loom weights display a strong site-specificity. The choice of materials, shapes and dimensions were likely determined by local circumstances specific to each site. It has been argued in past studies that textile tool shapes testify to specific ethnic influence (cf. Chapter 1). However, I argue that textile tool shapes cannot be used as markers of ethnicity. A striking example is the case of truncated pyramidal shape, which was already attested at the Cittadella hill before the arrival of the Greeks and was still used during the Archaic period. Similarly, the truncated conical shape was already known at the Prehistoric site of Sabucina and then continued to be used during the Archaic period. Likewise, cubical or rectangular prism loom weights were attested in both Punic and indigenous sites. At this point, it should be obvious that such basic shapes cannot be associated with a particular culture since they are easy to make and use. However, in the case of the cubical loom weights, it is extremely interesting how this type was standardised in size, manufacture and decoration and

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts

47

became widespread across many sites in western Sicily. All these factors make this painted type an indicator of a particular manufacturing process and of a commonly shared cultural tradition. Finally, we can use this study of textile tool tradition as a means to discuss the wider concept of cultural identity. In the past, a tendency has been to use a particular type of material culture to associate a community to a certain culture. The study of textile tool tradition has demonstrated that we cannot use a particular set of evidence (e.g. building plans, types of pottery, etc.) as the sole evidence to associate a community with a certain culture. For instance, Monte Maranfusa and Monte Polizo re-adopted square/rectilinear structures probably from Greek tradition, but they chose to practice their own textile traditions, showing that communities deliberately adopted an aspect of Greek culture while retaining parts of their own indigenous identities.

Notes

1. See Chapter 1 with reference to the different hypotheses for the chronology of the settlements. 2. Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980. 3. The textile tools have been published with descriptions of the exact find spots and contexts in Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980. 4. Żebrowska 2018, 11–12. 5. Żebrowska 2018. 6. Ialongo 2019, 119. 7. Frasca 2009, 27–32. 8. Preliminary publications of the excavations and discussions on the site were given by Rizza 1955, 208; 1962; Bernabò Brea 1957, 167–168; Frasca 1996, 419; 2009, 27–32; 2012; Albanese Procelli 2003, 50–52. 9. The Cittadella hill was excavated between 1957 and 1970 by the Princeton University Archaeological Expedition and Illinois-Princeton Morgantina Expedition (Allen 1972–73, 150; 1976–77; Leighton 1993; 2012). 10. This is evident, for instance, in the ceramic production and to a lesser extent in metallurgical production, cf. Leighton 1993, particularly 157. 11. Allen 1972–73, 150; 1976–77; Leighton 1993, 120–125; 2012. 12. Leighton 1993, 145–146. 13. The textile tools have been published with descriptions of the exact find spots and contexts in Leighton 1993; 2012. 14. Pers. obs. Aidone Museum, 2018. 15. Trench 16W, zone I/12–25, C.23, Leighton 2012, 63, figs 1.18 and 1.36. 16. Hoffmann 1964, 42. 17. The domestic production of loom weights must not have required considerable skills, unlike wheel-made and fine wares that imply the work of potters and a higher degree of specialisation (Leighton 1993, 146–147). 18. See Fragnoli and Levi (2012, 103) concerning the relative abundance of natural clay outcrop on the Cittadella hill and Serra Orlando ridge. 19. The site was systematically investigated by Dinu Adamesteanu in 1955–56 and then by Piero Orlandini between 1962 and 1964. The excavations were also carried out between 1979 and 1990 by Ernesto De Miro, Graziella Fiorentini and Rosanna Mollo Mezzena and only recently by Rosalba Panvini between 1991 and 1996. A comprehensive study of the contexts and material

48

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

recovered has never been fully published. General reports of excavations and overviews have been published by Orlandini 1963; 1965; 1968; De Miro 1980–81; 1989–90; 1999; Sedita Migliore 1981; Mollo Mezzena 1993, 137–182; Panvini et al. 2008. 20. Cf. Antonaccio 2015 with previous bibliography. 21. Antonaccio 1997. 22. The loom weights were recovered as follows: 125 loom weights from trenches 6–12 (1958 excavation); 76 loom weights, of which 5 fragmentary, from the deposit 12B, which was dated to the 459 BC destruction level (1992 excavation); 80 loom weights from strata 1 to 4 in trench 29 (1967 excavation); 5 loom weights from strata 1–3 in trench 31 (1967 and 1968 excavations); 36 loom weights were found in the so-called Circular Area, trench 29. 23. Cf. Orlandini 1968; Hodos 2006, 110–112, 120–121, 125–128; Panvini et al. 2008. 24. Thuc. 6.6.1; Strab. 6.2.6. 25. Complete publication of the excavations and recovered material has been done by Adriani et al. 1970; Allegro 1976; Allegro et al. 2008. 26. The textile tools with their contexts have been published in Adriani et al. 1970, 310–311; Allegro et al. 1976, 81–83, 213–218, 357–360, 461–464, 557–559. 27. This assemblage comes from the Northern District: Insula I (31 loom weights), II (103 loom weights) and III (94 loom weights); Room 33 (21 loom weights); Room 19 (23 textile tools); Eastern District: room 23 (19 loom weights). In addition, 180 loom weights were recovered from the Urban Sanctuary in the Eastern District (see Chapter 4). 28. According to the stratigraphy, it seems that the A.2 type was mainly attested in the layers dated to the mid-6th century BC (Allegro 1976, 213). 29. It was recovered in room 19, Insula II, plot 9, likely a storeroom (Allegro 1976, 113–118). 30. Insula I, total number of 196 loom weights: 9 loom weights from room 10 (plot 1); 56 loom weights from room 12 (plot 2); 16 loom weights from room 29 and 22 loom weights from the north-eastern area (plot 3) (Allegro 1976, 81–83). Insula II, total number of 371 loom weights: 22 loom weights from room 33 (plot 1); 14 loom weights room 49 (plot 4); 22 loom weights from room 19 (plot 9); 22 loom weights from room 23 (plot 10); around 20 loom weights from the area of the urban sanctuary (plot 11) (Allegro 1976, 213–215). Insula III, total number of 291 loom weights: 55 loom weights from room 25 (plot 4); 29 loom weights from room 28 (plot 5) (Allegro 1976, 357–360). Eastern District: 19 loom weights from room 23; 180 loom weights from the urban sanctuary (Allegro 1976, 557–558). 31. Allegro 1976, 357. 32. Portale 2014, 113. 33. Allegro 1976, 81. 34. Insula II, plot 1 (Allegro 1976, 216–217). 35. Danile 2008, 34; Portale 2008, 243–246. 36. With reference to multiple uses of domestic spaces, cf. Foxhall 2000, in particular 491–495. 37. Eastern District. This room has been interpreted as a workshop for different activities (Allegro 1976, 493–494). 38. Spatafora 1997. 39. Spatafora 2003, 33–82. 40. Spatafora 2003, 69. 41. Spatafora 2003, 76–77. 42. Spindle whorl T77, ma85, area 20, locus 2015 (De Simone 2003, 357). 43. T5–7, T31–34, T58–59, T55, T5 (De Simone 2003, 349). The same room also yielded a bronze needle (M16, De Simone 2003, 374). 44. Spatafora 2003, 77. 45. Locus 3402, T11–15, T48–49 (De Simone 2003, 349). 46. Ma21–22, locus 3403 (De Simone 2003, 375). 47. De Simone 2003, 350.

3. Textile tools in domestic and workshop contexts 4 8. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

49

T60, locus 2424C (De Simone 2003, 356). Spatafora 2003, 76. T35–36, T62, T66, locus 2015 and 2016 (De Simone 2003, 353, 356). The textile tools and their contexts have been published in De Simone 2003, 347–357. Rossoni 2002, fig. 199. Giglio Cerniglia et al. 2012, fig. 427. Landenius Enegren 2017. See Chapter 2, loom weight type B2. Landenius Enegren 2017, 109. Morris and Tusa 2004, 79. The settlement was investigated by an international team: the Scandinavian Sicilian Archaeological project (SSAP) (Prescott, Mühlenbock and Englund 1998; Mühlenbock 2004; Mühlenbock and Prescott 2004); the University of Stanford (preliminary reports have been published online https://web.stanford.edu/group/mountpolizzo/index.htm and in Morris et al. 2001; 2003); the Soprintendenza of Trapani (Tusa V. 1972; Lentini 2004). A comprehensive publication of the excavations is still lacking. The major contribution has been made by Mühlenbock 2008. 59. Mühlenbock 2008, 39–61. 60. The results of the excavation in this area have not been published yet. I warmly thank Dr Assia Ingoglia for sharing with me the details of the archaeological research. 61. E.g. Tusa V. 1988–89; Tusa S. 2000; 2004. 62. E.g. Albanese Procelli 2003, 18–25. 63. Textile tools have been partially published in Mühlenbock 2008. 64. Mühlenbock 2008, 86. 65. Mp022 was unearthed in trench M98 (see Annex K, Fig. K.3). 66. Quercia 2018. 67. Prescott et al. 1998; Mühlenbock 2008, 139. 68. Mühlenbock 2008, 105. 69. Mühlenbock 2008, 157. 70. Recovered in trench 20005, layer 142. A pair of tweezers was also found close to the loom weights. It should be observed that no posts in the floor or traces of carbonised wood were found. Stratigraphic information has been derived from the documentation available at the storeroom of the museum of Salemi, where the loom weights are stored and from personal communication with Dr Ingoglia in 2018. 71. Similarly, the practice of using loom weights of different weight on a warp-weighted loom was documented by Hoffmann (1964) in 20th-century Scandinavia. 72. Mp086 was recovered in zone C, layer 17 (excavation 2001-Stanford University); mp100 in zone B, trench 108, layer 6 (excavation 2006-Stanford University). Cf. Annex K. 73. Quercia 2018. 74. Cf. e.g. Davidson and Burr Thompson 1943; Davidson 1952. 75. Trovato 2016. 76. Tardo 1999. 77. Earlier evidence of decoration on weaving implements is attested on two loom weights recovered from the Ausonian I urnfield cemetery at Milazzo (Tomb 104). The incisions have been interpreted as stylised human bodies (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1959, 69). 78. Kleibrink 2017. 79. Allegro 1976, 481–482. 80. Davidson 1952. 81. Similarly, Quercia and Foxhall (2014a, 74–75) wondered whether the practice of personalising loom weights with impressions of fibulae and tweezers in southern Italian Peninsula was indigenous in origin and then spread to Greek communities.

Chapter 4 Textile tools in votive and sacred contexts Beyond domestic spaces and workshops, textile tools are often found in votive and sacred contexts. It is commonly accepted in archaeology that the value of objects is not universal. Objects may be produced as mundane items but they may through time come to be charged with new values.1 The meaning of the objects thus resides within the human network and the relationships in which they are steeped.2 Dedicating textile implements to gods marks their passage to a new status as sacred objects. The concepts of object biography and life cycle3 help understand how things can move from the status of ordinary objects into the sacred object category. Although their interpretation in sanctuaries is not always straightforward, their presence in votive contexts adds another dimension to the relationship between these implements and their society and sheds light on our understanding of the social significance of textile manufacture. Sicily represents a particularly appropriate setting to investigate the significance of textile tools in sacred contexts because of their frequent presence in sanctuary deposits. This chapter will offer an overview of practices related to textile implements in sacred contexts. The following discussion is divided into two parts: the presence of actual votive offerings and the evidence for textile production in connection with rituals or cults. A case-study for each part will be described. The detailed analysis of the assemblages analysed is provided in the Annexes.

Textile tools, women and the sacred sphere

Although textiles are not often preserved in the archaeological record, their dedication to gods is a well-known Greek practice attested through iconographic and written sources.4 Women appear to be the main donors of textiles from the iconographic evidence and sanctuary inventories,5 and the practice has been interpreted as a way to mark a stage of the female ritual cycle.6 Only in a few cases are masculine names recorded.7 Conversely, there is little information on the dedication of textile tools in sanctuary inventories,8 while the archaeological record is rich in evidence. Spindle whorls, spools, needles, and especially loom weights become common dedications in Italian sanctuaries and votive deposits from the 1st millennium BC in Etruscan, Greek and indigenous contexts,9 although it may be a practice that developed independently.

4. Textile tools in votive and sacred contexts

51

The function of these implements has been misunderstood at times in past studies,10 but their presence has been traditionally connected with those cults where divinity was regarded as a protector of activities related to textile production and women. Given the strong association between the practice of dedicating textiles and the female sphere, it seems reasonable that textile tools were mainly female votive offerings. Loom weights in sacred contexts have been variously interpreted as symbols of the work of wedded women or connected to rites of passage into adulthood or marriage.11 Artemis, Hera and Athena were most often the recipients of dedication, but so too were Demeter and Kore, Herakles and local divinities. In Sicily, the cult to Athena Ergane was particularly popular and the iconography attests the strong connection between the goddess and the textile activity.12 Athena Ergane is often depicted holding a distaff in terracotta fragments from Scornavacche (4th century BC) and Camarina (5th–4th centuries BC) or with a kalathos in a terracotta from the Urban sanctuary at the Eastern District of Himera13 (Fig. 4.1). Occasionally, loom weights bear dedications to the recipient deity or have decorations connected with the deity, such as the owl with human hands in the act of spinning or holding a distaff.14 Sometimes, the gorgoneion motif is attested and it has been suggested that it acted as having an apotropaic purpose.15 Loom weights can also be inscribed with the name of the gods.16 Graffiti such as single letters or abbreviated words are also quite common, although are more ambiguous to interpret. An

Fig. 4.1: (a) Statue of Athena Ergane (a) from Provide kiln of Camarina (after Pisani 2008, pl. XVIII, a); (b) from the Quartiere Ceramico of Scornavacche (after Di Vita 1952–54, fig. 1); (c) from the Eastern District at Himera (after Allegro et al. 1972, pl. XIV, no. 2).

52

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

emblematic example is the inscription ΘΕΟΤΙΜΟΣ written on a group of loom weights from the sanctuary of Bitalemi at Gela. The inscription has been variously interpreted as meaning ‘worthy of god’17 or as the name of the donor.18 More commonly, dedicated loom weights bear simple decorations (crosses, rosettes, dots, etc.) or impressions of personal seals or objects, which do not differ from those on loom weights found in household contexts. In the case of commissioned votive offerings, the customer could have requested a particular mark or impression perhaps made by a personal item.19 However, some loom weights bear stamps placed very eccentrically, which might indicate that sometimes customers did the stamping themselves. Textile tools might have been purchased at the sanctuary as votive offerings.20 Additionally, another scenario could be possible. Leonidas of Tarantum informs us that girls offered the goddess one-tenth of their earnings from weaving done at home along with their personal work implements.21 It is thus possible that votive loom weights were actual tools used for making textiles.22 In this case, decorations or personal impressions were already there. It has been suggested that dedicated textiles were mainly homemade rather than purchased at shops, although the latter scenario cannot be completely excluded.23 This is an important point in connection with the dedication of textile tools. In this scenario, textile tools used for making textiles to be dedicated formed a particular type of votive offering, strongly connected with their owners and their domestic sphere. The analysis of use-wear marks is sometimes a helpful means to identify previous use, although often the state of preservation can undermine the analysis.

Loom weights as votive offerings

In Sicily, textile tools, which are almost exclusively represented by loom weights, are frequently found in sanctuaries of both Greek and indigenous settlements.24 In approaching the investigation of textile tools in sacred contexts in Sicily, the main problem is the lack of adequate publications mentioning the precise number of textile tools recovered. Table 4.1 summarises the textile tool information from various votive deposits in Sicily, primarily dated between the 7th and 5th centuries BC. While it is far from exhaustive, it lists sacred areas at which textile tools have been reported, even when the precise number of tools has not been published. The bibliographical investigation has massively benefited from the work of Parisi,25 who collected the available data regarding all categories of votive offerings from sanctuaries in Sicily. Textile tools are found in pits or deposits, which were used occasionally for specific rituals or periodically to contain implements that might have been previously deposited in a sanctuary. Textile implements are often present in deposits that display a wide chronological range, thus dating is uncertain. For this reason, the dating in the table refers to the chronology of the context. The table illustrates that textile implements are rarely numerous and they are often single depositions. When they come in larger quantities, they often belong to contexts frequented for many centuries.

4. Textile tools in votive and sacred contexts

Site

Area

53

Table 4.1: Textile tools from votive deposits in Sicily. Context

Textile tools

Divinity

Date

Bibliography

Chthonic cult

6th–5th c.

De Miro, Cali 2006, 258–249

Akragas

Terrazzo dei donari

Deposit n. 12

8 LW

Butera

Fontana Calda

Deposit

2 LW

Cozzo Matrice

Santuary of Demeter

‘Sacello’

LW; SW

Demeter

Archaic

Patanè 2015

Gela

Via FiumeScalo Ferroviario

Beneath ‘sacello A’

40 LW; 1 SW

Chthonic cult

6th c.

Orlandini and Adamestaenu 1956, 253, 261

Molino a Vento

‘Deposit of the Athenaion’

3 LW; 3 SW

Athena

Deposit in trench 15

LW

7th–6th c.

Ferrara 2009, 175–178

Deposit in a pithos

1 LW

575–500

Orlandini 1962, 371

Deposit beneath building 2

1 LW

6th–5th c. Parisi 2017, 83

Deposit beneath building 12

1 LW

6th–4th c. Parisi 2017, 84

Bitalemi

Thesmophorion

LW; S; SW

Feudo Nobile

Deposits

LW; S; SW

Predio Sola

Deposit (layer I)

5 LW; 1 SW

Deposit (layer II)

3 LW

Eastern District

Urban sanctuary, rooms no. 39 and 25

32+148 LW

Athena?

6th–5th c.

Allegro 1976, 557–559

Insula II, plot 11

Urban sanctuary

22 LW

Demeter?

6th–5th c.

Allegro 1976, 125, 213–218

Acropolis

Bothros of Aeolus

198 LW

Aphrodite?

6th–5th c. Bernabò Brea et al. 1998, 50

Votive pits (V, VI)

4 LW

?

6th–5th c. Bernabò Brea et al. 1998, 87–93, 95–96 (Continued)

Himera

Lipari

Arthemis – ? 5th–3th c. Parisi 2017, 120

Demeter

7th– Parisi 2017, 74 beginning 5th c.

640–540

Parisi 2017, 105–113

Demeter 6th–4th c. Parisi 2017, 118 and/or Kore Athena, Aphrodite or Kore

7th–6th c. Ismaelli 2011; 2013 6th–5th c.

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

54

Site Leontinoi

Table 4.1: Textile tools from votive deposits in Sicily. (Continued)

Area

Context

Textile tools

Alaimo

Deposits

Scala Portazza Monte Iato

Divinity

Date

Bibliography

8 LW; 9 SW

Arthemis?

7th–6th c.

Grasso 2009

Inside the ‘monumental altar’

LW; SW

Hera (and Demeter?)

mid6th–5th c.

Sudano 2009

Late Archaic House

65 LW

Aphrodite

500

Landenius Enegren 2015, 136–139

Monte Saraceno

Upper and lower terraces

Deposits

c. 20 LW

Likely a 6th–4th c. Calderone and female deity Tramontana 2009

Polizzello

Southernwestern area

Area to the north of building C

9 LW

?

6th c.

Perna 2009, 184, 239–240

Selinous

Sanctuary of Demeter Malophoros

Area of ‘altare primitivo’ and temenos

LW

Demeter

625– 590/580

Gabrici 1927; Dewailly 1992

‘Rogo’ 4

7 LW

625 BC– beginning 6th c.

Area of ‘temenos primitivo’

LW; 1 SW

590/580– 550–540

‘Monumental altar’ – layer C

4 LW

mid-6th c.

‘Monumental altar’ – layer B

2 LW

end of 6th c.

Temenos – 3rd phase

29 LW (east, excav.1889); 59 LW (south, excav. 1915); 24 LW (south, excav. 1915); 11 LW (north, excav. 1915); 1 LW (north, excav. 1918)

mid-6th– end of 5th c.

Santuary of Zeus Meilichios

Deposits in ‘campo di stele’

LW

Zeus

Syracuse

Ortigia

Athenaion

26 LW

Athena

7th–6th c.

Orsi 1918

Valle Ruscello

Thesmophorion

Room G, building 3

LW

Demeter and Kore

6th– 4th/3rd c.

Gentili 1969; Cottonaro 2010, 150–151

end 7th– Parisi 2017, 64 beginning 6th and 5th c.

4. Textile tools in votive and sacred contexts

The case study of the so-called Bothros of Aeolus at Lipari

55

An extremely intriguing case of loom weights deposited in sets is the so-called Bothros of Aeolus, uncovered in 1964 on the Acropolis of Lipari.26 It is supposedly related to a cult area, although architectural remains that could be related to a sanctuary have not been preserved. The bothros is a pear-shaped structure, partially excavated into the rock, potentially dated from before the foundation of the Greek settlement of Lipara27 (Fig. 4.2). It is 6.50 m high and has a maximum diameter of 3.15 m. Its opening is 1.70 m wide and was probably closed by a cover made of lava rock upon which there is a statue of a recumbent lion with two holes each on one side of the lion, through which votive offerings were thrown inside. The deposit has no consistent stratigraphy with the material resulting from consecutive dumping, probably at various points in time. The excavation was carried out through 27 layers (tagli) each approximately 0.25 m in depth. The deposit was dated between the 6th and the end of 5th century BC, although a few ceramic items and clay figurines were dated to the end of the 4th century BC.28 The excavators suggested that the structure was first used as a votive deposit and then as a dump after the beginning of the 4th century BC. Its function as a dump was identified in tagli 3–13. The recovered finds mainly include decorated and undecorated containers of liquids (krateres, oinochoi, olpai, hydriai, deinoi and amphorai), cooking and domestic vessels (pots, lekanai, lekanides, pixydes), both of which point to ritual consumptions and preparation of food. The majority of the pottery was produced locally, while the remainder were imports from Corinth, Athens and eastern Greece.29 A small number of perfume vessels, votive wares and sitting female figurines were also found (miniature vessels, arulae, pinakes, louteria, aryballoi, phiales and lamps). The excavators suggested Aeolus as a likely candidate for the deity worshipped based on an inscription on a vessel found inside the bothros.30 However, more recently Mastelloni31 has observed that the material from the bothros points to cults related to water and women, based on the abundance of vessels designed for liquids and of female figurines. She Fig. 4.2: The so-called Bothros of Aeolus (after Bernabò has suggested the bothros should be Brea et al. 1998, fig. 9, modified by author). interpreted as a place dedicated to

56

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

a female god, perhaps Aphrodite, as an inscription on a hewn block found close to the bothros seems to confirm. If so, the presence of loom weights could fit well into a goddess cult. Nearly 200 loom weights were found in tagli 16–19 and 20–23 (Annex C). A number of these loom weights bear distinctive gem impressions, which are rarely found on more than one loom weight. Motifs represented include a satyr, a flying Nike (Fig. 4.3), a standing Nike, a frog and a stylised lamp. Notably, a golden ring with the same motif of flying Nike has been found in an infant burial from Lipari dated to the beginning of the 5th century BC,32 which might have been impressed on the loom weight. These loom weights with customised decorations likely constitute single votive gifts. A votive purpose could also be inferred for the lightest single loom weights, which are interpreted as possible miniature votive offerings. More rarely, identical marks (K, asterisks or scratches) are present on restricted groups of weights. However, whether these marks identified makers or owners is not possible to say. Several large groups of identical loom weights were also identified in the bothros. It is not unreasonable to suggest that some of these groups represent parts of sets or complete small sets of loom weights. Specifically, those groups weighing more than 100 g (Groups b and c) appear optimal for working on a tabby system, which would

Fig. 4.3: Stamp of a flying Nike on a loom weight from the Bothros of Aeolus. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019).

4. Textile tools in votive and sacred contexts

57

have resulted in fine quality and rather open fabrics. These calculations are also supported by the analysis of use-wear marks, which are visible on all the examples. However, their actual use as loom weights is not necessarily suggestive of weaving in a sacred context. There might be other explanations. For instance, these sets might have been used in domestic contexts and ultimately deposited as votive offerings. Resulting fabrics might have been dedicated to the goddess and deposited along with the loom weights. Groups of identical loom weights weighing ≤ 40 g might have been used to produce fabrics with a very low warp thread count – a practice that seems common in southern Italy (cf. Chapter 6) – before being deposited as votive offerings. However, as they do not display use-wear marks, they might have been miniatures made solely as offerings. Alternatively, these light loom weights might be associated with the practice of tablet weaving, whereby narrow bands, ribbons or starting bands for warps were produced.33 Notably, all the possibilities would corroborate a specific practice of depositing complete or partially complete sets of either miniature or actual loom weights along with single offerings.

Evidence of textile production in sanctuaries

As noted before, the number of textile tools in votive contexts is often small. However, in those instances where there is a high concentration, it is possible that what is on display is the result of production activities at the sanctuary rather than deposition in connection with rituals or cults. The weaving of garments and textiles for cult statues is a well-documented Greece practice, according to the ancient literature. The best known is the ritual production of peplos for Athena Poliàs in Athens.34 A similar tradition is also attested in Olympia,35 Argos36 and Sparta.37 However, archaeological evidence of textile production in sanctuaries is often ambiguous, therefore caution is needed. In the case of production, loom weights are usually concentrated in small areas, often in buildings assigned for this task, according to ancient texts.38 The discovery of loom weights in rows, as they might have fallen from a working loom, provides certain evidence of the presence of actual textile activity, although this is a rare case. Also, another element that underpins the argument for actual textile practice is the presence of similar loom weights, which might have been part of the same set. It is believed that sets of loom weights, especially those in sacred contexts, were made of loom weights identical in shape, size and manufacture. This is the reason why the more than 400 loom weights of different weights and shapes from the Pantanello sanctuary were interpreted as votive offerings.39 A recent reappraisal of the material from the Square Building at the Heraion near the Sele River40 has confirmed the hypothesis of sacred textile production,41 concluding that the majority of the 300 loom weights were parts of sets used for weaving inside the sanctuary.42 A similar interpretation has been made for the large number of loom weights found at the building Vb at Francavilla Marittima,43 the sanctuaries of Santa Venera a Paestum, Pratica di Mare44 and Reitia at Este.45

58

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

The case study of the Urban sanctuary at Himera

Himera offers an exceptionally large assemblage of sanctuary located loom weights, which probably indicates a connection between textile production and cult. The assemblage comes from a small sanctuary in the Eastern District, located close to the road connecting the lower plateau to the Upper City. The area was investigated in 1971 and has been only partially excavated.46 It is the best-preserved example of a sanctuary in the inhabited area and was associated with domestic religious activity (Fig.  4.4). Its ground plan is well constructed, consisting of two main centres: the cult building with a wealthy votive hoard and a large courtyard with annexes. The first phase is dated from 575–550 BC and consists of an eschara, a votive deposit in room no. 39 and traces of walls in areas 32 and 21. The second phase is dated between the end of the 6th century and the beginning of the 5th century BC. This new plan comprises several rooms and probably an L-shaped portico, while room no. 39 continued to be used as a votive deposit. The last phase dates to the second half of the 5th century BC and shows a more developed plan with a wide yard and a building consisting of three connected rooms, nos 12, 13 and 25. Room no. 25 was a votive deposit and was connected to the yard through a paved path. The deposit also yielded the small statue of Athena with

Fig. 4.4: Plan of the sanctuary of the Eastern District at Himera (after Allegro 1976, modified by author).

4. Textile tools in votive and sacred contexts

59

polos and a probable kalathos for wool, thus suggesting that the sanctuary was dedicated to Athena Ergane, perhaps associated with the cult of Demeter and Kore. More recently, Portale47 has argued the sanctuary should be interpreted as being dedicated to Nymphs. Generally, it has been suggested that the votives point to cults related to marriage and fertility. The deposit in room no. 39 was located in a wide hollow, which was sealed by a layer of gravel at the end of 5th century BC. This deposit consisted mainly of a large number of Greek ware and female figurines. Moreover, a group of 32 identical loom weights was found, all of which bore an identical stamp on the top (Annex I). Room no.  25 showed a similar deposit of material dated from the second half of the 5th century. These offerings were found in situ under a layer of destruction. Among a large amount of pottery and figurines concentrated along the western wall and in the south-west corner, 148 loom weights were recovered, of which 74 were pierced pebbles. The discovery of nails in this room during its excavation may indicate that these votive offerings were originally stored on shelves supported by the nails, or suspended on cords. Possibly three complete sets were recognised: one of discoid-lenticular loom weights, one of pierced pebbles and one of biconical. A further set of partially preserved weights consists of fourteen truncated pyramids. These various groups of loom weights appear to have been suitable for producing different kinds of fabrics. Specifically, the thickness of the discoid/lenticular and pebbles would imply the production of rather dense fabrics with yarn tension of 10–30 g, which points to a relatively heavy cloth. It is notable that discoid/lenticular, pebbles and biconical loom weights are rarely attested elsewhere at Himera;48 thus they appear to be distinctive shapes exclusively associated with this urban sanctuary. Therefore, these unique shapes and the resulting fabrics might indicate that these loom weights were not offerings. A production of particular fabrics might have taken place at the sanctuary at least from the second half of the 5th century BC. The majority of the loom weights might have been used as functional elements on the loom(s), while the lower percentage of truncated pyramidal loom weights might have acted as offerings, unless they constitute parts of unpreserved sets. There is no secure evidence for an actual use of loom weights from deposit 39, although fractures and cracks are visible on all of them. Although it is not possible to say whether this group of loom weights can be dated earlier than the loom weights from deposit no. 25, the presence of discoid/lenticular and biconical shapes in the later deposit might indicate that a technological change or improvement occurred. These new shapes may have replaced the truncated pyramids as they enabled the production of denser fabrics in a tabby system. However, this suggestion remains purely speculative at this stage given the lack of chronological evidence. In general, it is notable that textile tools were rarely found in temples at Himera.49 Thus, the presence of loom weights and the probable practice of weaving at the sanctuary in the Eastern District corroborates the unusual nature of this sanctuary and its strong connection with its inhabitants and particularly with the women of the district.

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

60

This association with women is also inferred by the other offerings found inside the deposits, which point to rituals related to fertility and marriage. Ultimately, accepting the suggestion of Athena Ergane as the worshipped deity, it might be possible that a specific textile production – perhaps connected to a certain economic activity of the district – was taking place at the sanctuary under the protection of Athena Ergane, the patron deity of skilful craftsmanship and art.

Conclusions

The case studies presented in the previous chapter and in this chapter allow me to draw some considerations on textile activity and its social and economic implications. The concentration of textile implements, their physical parameters and decorations can shed light on social organisation, economy and cultural beliefs. Weaving and its implements were a meaningful part of the sacred sphere and their occurrence in sanctuaries emphasises the social and religious implications of textile activity. In contrast, spindle whorls are rarely found in sacred deposits. This is not surprising as spindle whorls are not commonly found in contemporary Sicilian settlements either. Their absence in the archaeological record is almost certainly due to the fact that they were made of wood. Thus, it is not possible to completely rule out the possibility that spinning implements were votive offerings as well.

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 1 2. 13. 14.

15.

Knappett 2005, 138. Knappett 2005, 166. Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986. For an overview of the evidence, see Brøns 2016, 21–144. Brøns 2016, 145–166. Brøns 2016, 130. Brøns 2016, 157. Brøns 2016, 129. Buschor 1930, 3; Baumbach 2004, 34–35, 92; Gleba 2009b, 71–72, table 1; Sofroniew 2011; Lipkin 2012, 98–99; Surtees 2014; Longhitano 2020. Loom weights have been interpreted as balance weights (e.g. Zancari Montuoro 1965–66, 73–82), attached to dedicated garments or to curtains inside the sanctuary (Mingazzini 1974, 382), used to close bags containing food to be eaten during the ritual (Mingazzini 1974, 204–206), or hung on trees during religious festivals (Pace 1945, 460). Bouma 1996, 392. See also Gleba 2008, 181–182; 2009, 70–74 with previous bibliography; Sofroniew 2011. On the cult of Athena Ergane in Sicily, see Pautasso 2009, 836–837; Consoli 2010. On these finds, see Consoli 2010, 19–23. Loom weights with this motif have been found at Taranto and Athens (Wuilleumier 1932, 47; Di Vita 1956, 43; Gleba 2009b, 73, n. 7; Meo 2015, 132). Also, loom weights with depiction of the owl from the Acropolis of Athens (Spantidaki 2016, 69, fig. 5.32). Occasionally, gem impressions representing Herakles, who was protector of transhumance and pastoral activities, appear on loom weights (Ferrandini Troisi 1986, 97; Di Giuseppe 1995, 141–149, figs 112.4 and 112.7). Meo 2015, 110–111.

4. Textile tools in votive and sacred contexts 1 6. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 2 2. 23. 24. 2 5. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3 4. 35. 36. 37. 38. 3 9. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

61

Gleba 2008, 182. Orlandini 1966, 20, fig. pl. X, 3. Mingazzini 1974, 382. Mingazzini 1974, 202; Bonanno 2008, 57, 61; Meo 2015, 108–109, 343. This hypothesis has been questioned by scholars (e.g. Turfa 2006, 108, n. 37). The evidence for metalworking and pottery production within and/or close to some sanctuaries seems to point out to a local production of votives by local or itinerant workers (e.g. Nijboer 1998, 180–181 with reference to Etruscan/Latin sanctuaries; Di Giuseppe 2012b). Leon. Ant. Pal. VI, 288. Similarly, Mingazzini 1974, 206. Brøns 2016, 148. In Sicily, loom weights have also been found in foundation deposits of both sacred and non-sacred structures and city walls. For an overview of the evidence, see Gleba 2008, 182–183 with previous bibliography. Parisi 2017. It was unearthed in trench CG, beneath 0.90 cm of topsoil and Greek layers (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1998, 41–77). It was founded by Cnidians in 628 BC according to Euseb. Chron., or in 580–576 BC according to Diod. Sic. V, 9. Bernabò Brea et al. 1998, 43. Bernabò Brea et al. 1998, 49–52, 221–245. Bernabò Brea et al. 1998, 44. Mastelloni 2015, 17–19. Bernabò Brea et al. 2001, 718. Landenius Enegren has experimentally tested the possible use of tablet-weaving technique for 39 g loom weights from Monte Iato (2015, 138) and 18–25 g loom weights from Segesta (2017, 107–108). See Mansfield 1985; Gleba 2009b, 77–78; Brøns 2016, 323–347. Paus. 5.16.2–3. Mansfield 1985, 465–466; Schied and Svenbro 1996, 23. Paus. 3.16.2. A special building located in the agora of Elis was assigned for weaving a robe every four years for Hera (Paus. 6.24.10). Also, Pausanias (3.16.2) claims that in Sparta a chiton for Apollo was made every year in a building called Chiton. Foxhall 2018, 1027–1086. Ferrara and Meo 2017. Greco 1997, 192–197. See also Di Giuseppe 2012a, 482–483 for a different interpretation of this building as a workshop where textiles were made by itinerant workers. Kleibrink 2018. Gleba 2015, 379. Gambacurta 2017; Cipriano 2018, 325–331. Allegro 1976, 473–550. Portale 2014, 111–112. A few samples of discoid, lenticular and biconical loom weights as well as pebbles were found elsewhere (Allegro 1976, 83, nos  197–198, 199–200, 201–204; 217–218, nos  372–373, 374–381, 382–398; 360, nos 172–177, 178–203, 204–220; 463, nos 128–130). A number of loom weights were recovered also from the urban sanctuary in Insula II, where a goddess was likely worshipped (Allegro 1976, 121–128).

Chapter 5 Technology and production Each craft involves specific technological processes, techniques and tools. Unlike other activities, textile technology was conservative and required very simple tools, which remained fundamentally unchanged for centuries until the Industrial Revolution. In Iron Age and Archaic Sicily, improvements, intensification of resource exploitation and specialisation occurred in many craft activities from metallurgy to agricultural practice1 and textile production and consumption were significantly affected by social dynamics and changes. This chapter offers an overview of the characteristics of textile tool and textile production and explores the main changes that occurred in these fields between the 13th and 5th centuries BC.

Textile tool production

Because ceramic and mundane textile tools had no intrinsic economic value and were relatively easy to make, they were usually locally produced from local raw materials. The manufacturing process is dependent on either the degree of technological knowledge acquired by craftspeople or the final intended purpose. Hence, it is important to understand the technical skills and competence that each society held. A limited number of studies have been focused on the chaîne opératoire of textile tool production,2 and chemical and petrographical analyses of textile implements are still rare.3 Before we can proceed with a discussion of changes in textile tool production, a brief overview of our knowledge of the different stages involved in the production process of clay textile tools is provided. Clay textile tools were either hand- or mould-made. Handmade textile tools often display irregularities in shape and are not completely identical in shape or weight. A spindle whorl can be easily moulded by hand from a small lump of clay. Fashioning basic geometric shapes can take only a couple of minutes after some basic practice and the time consumption depends upon how carefully tools are shaped.4 A recent experiment carried out by Dimova5 has demonstrated that it is possible to shape truncated pyramidal loom weights by pushing rectangular lumps between two flat surfaces, although she has observed that the use of a mould would make the process faster. The use of a mould might leave grooves or marks on the surface of loom weights,

5. Technology and production

63

such as those found on loom weights from Pnix in Athens,6 Adelfia,7 Pontecagnano8 and Selinous.9 Clay is tempered with different inclusions, such as organic matter (e.g. straw, grass or grog) or smashed volcanic rocks, and the choice is often made based on which raw material is readily available or the technological knowledge acquired. Loom weights are sometimes made of daub. Daub was commonly used to plaster walls in prehistoric buildings in Italy and it also occurs in the form of baked clay coatings on hearths, ovens, stoves and loom weights.10 Perforations and any impressions or decorations are usually made before firing. Then, textile tools must be dried. An incomplete drying or inadequate firing cause fractures and cracks. Firing can be practised in an open fire (e.g. bonfires or pits),11 which generally does not reach temperatures higher than 600–900 °C. Because of uneven firing and contact with ash or fuel, clay objects can exhibit blotchy surfaces caused by the deposition of carbon and poorly fired or burnt surfaces, depending on the degree of their exposure to the fire. During the firing, organic materials burn away leaving tiny voids visible on the surface. Their interior, especially when the finds are particularly large, usually exhibits a black central zone caused by incomplete combustion of carbonaceous material, and this is indicative of a short firing time. During a shortened firing period, loom weights might be too large to have time to go through the complete change from clay to ceramic,12 thus resulting in friable items. Examples of poorly fired or unfired loom weights are attested in the archaeological record, although unfired artefacts rarely survive or are difficult to detect during excavations. In kilns, the fuel is separated from the pottery by a raised oven floor and this enables control of the temperature, which is higher than in an open fire (around between 700 °C to 1000 °C), so complete oxidation is possible. Black coring, which is sometimes visible inside textile tools, is caused by the reduction of iron oxides, which can only occur in kilns. The employment of pottery kilns is one indication of a more complex pottery production system and the emergence of specialised workshop production.13 Evidence for textile tool production in Italy using kilns begins in the Archaic period.14

Changes in textile tool production

The development of larger centres during the Archaic period and the foundation of Greek settlements in Sicily caused an increase in demand and changes in textile production. Sites with long-term occupation show a major shift in production, similar to what has been observed in other areas of Italy.15 These changes reflect social and economic organisation as well as a new social value of textiles.

Late Bronze-Iron Age

Late Bronze-Iron Age spindle whorls were likely handmade, although often carefully fashioned. Generally, production was basic, with fabrics coarse and rich in inclusions.

64

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

This simple manufacture points to a non-professional production. Inhabitants of the households were potentially involved in their production, perhaps the work of someone particularly skilled and expert. Decorative motifs were widely shared on spindle whorls and commonly appeared at different sites. Decorations included incised lines, circles and dots, which recall similar decorative patterns attested in the southern Italian Peninsula (Fig. 5.1). These kinds of geometric motifs were probably developed from the pottery repertoire widely spread in the southern regions of Italy, suggesting that spindle whorl production was fully rooted in a similar cultural background. Notably, these decorative motifs do not seem to be personalised elements, as occurred later on loom weights in the Archaic period. However, decorations on spindle whorls suggest that they have been regarded as personal tools. Spindles were handy implements and could be carried around. Unlike heavy and stationary warp-weighted looms, spindles allowed women to perform the task practically anywhere and at any time. Therefore, spindles and spindle whorls were likely considered as personal belongings. In this

Fig. 5.1: Examples of Late Bronze-Iron Age spindle whorls. Photo by author (with permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019 and Parco Archeologico di Morgantina e della Villa Romana del Casale di Piazza Armerina no. 554, 15-11-2019).

5. Technology and production

65

Fig. 5.2: Examples of Late Bronze-Iron Age loom weights. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea-Lipari, no. 1138, 18-11-2019).

sense, decorations might be regarded as a spinners’ desire to make their tools more attractive or easily identifiable. As personal tools, spindle whorls moved with women and this might have been behind the spread of a common spinning tradition across communities. The Late Bronze-Iron Age loom weights were made of coarse fabric or daub, poorly fired and handmade. This simple manufacture points to a non-professional production. The production technique often appears to be considerably more simplistic than the Iron Age pottery and even spindle whorls16 (Fig.  5.2). Loom weights were probably regarded as essential items for daily domestic life, and as such would be produced along with other domestic equipment. They were used to meet domestic needs; thus, despite the lack of precision and refinement in the manufacture, their production highlights the importance of weaving within daily household life and its economy. Marks are rarely present on them, and when present they might have functioned as markers for practical reasons, perhaps to indicate a certain class of weight or a particular function in the loom set-up.17

Archaic period

In Archaic Sicily, spindle whorls are much less common in the archaeological record, unlike the contemporary evidence from central Italy.18 It is a strong possibility that ceramic spindle whorls were replaced by whorls of perishable material or even by spindles operated without a spindle whorl, which would account for their decrease

66

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

in the archaeological record.19 This shift in spindle whorl production might indicate a technological choice of manufacturing process, as well as a cultural one, which are not mutually exclusive. It is also possible that wooden spindle whorls were already in use in the Late Bronze-Iron Age and the habit became more common in the Archaic period. Likely, the use of wooden spindle whorls (or spindles with no whorls but with a larger part in the shaft) has some advantages. They are more resistant to breakage when dropped, which during the spinning process might occur several times. Additionally, wooden spindle whorls could stick more effectively into the spindle. Also, this shift might have been the result of an improvement in woodworking, although little evidence is available from Sicily. Improved woodturning may have made it easier and faster to produce high quality and symmetrically turned spindle whorls, especially if the spindle whorls were discoid. Discoid spindle whorls made from pottery sherds (Fig. 5.3) are sometimes attested in Archaic settlements (cf. Annex I), while they are generally absent in Prehistoric contexts. The possibility that the discoid shape was common and pottery sherds were replicas of wooden spindle whorls cannot be dismissed. A further factor in the shift from ceramic to wooden spindle whorls might be the choice of a looser yarn twist, which may have needed lighter spindle whorls.20 It is highly doubtful that this shift in spindle whorl production was related to any change in raw materials used for spinning. Although it has been demonstrated that a major change in sheep fleece occurred in Italian Peninsula around the Bronze and Early Iron Age,21 so far there is no evidence for such a change in Sicily. Moreover, it is unlikely that finer wool fibres would need different kinds of spindle whorls. Indeed, the majority of Late Bronze-Iron Age ceramic spindle whorls were light enough to be used with fine fibres and experimental tests have demonstrated that, with extra effort and skill, it is possible to spin finer fibres with a range of spindle whorls.22

Fig. 5.3: Discoid spindle whorls made from pottery sherds from Himera. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019).

5. Technology and production

67

In relation to the weaving process, the Archaic period sees a significant increase in the number of well-fired loom weights. This was the result of an improvement in loom weight production, perhaps alongside the decrease in the use of perishable or poorly surviving materials for textile tools. A similar improvement and change in loom weight production can be observed in central and southern Italy during the same period.23 Evidence for loom weights in Sicily is abundant from the late 7th century BC (the site of Selinous has yielded the earliest concentration of standardised loom weights so far24) onwards. Unfortunately, the meagre data available for the 8th–7th centuries BC provides very little information on loom weights during the foundation of the first Greek settlements in Sicily. The Archaic loom weights are better fired and made of finer clay, closely resembling the clay used for pottery at each site. The increase in number is accompanied by standardisation in shape and size, and perhaps in the use of moulds.25 However, some of the loom weights may have been handmade by skilled or even specialised potters or weavers.26 The uniformity is not essential for weaving itself27 but it is likely due to a general standardisation of loom weight production. Moreover, standardisation may also indicate that they were produced on a much larger scale than before, which may correspond to the intensification of textile activity and/or the use of larger sets of lighter loom weights. The increase in the number of loom weights may also indicate the appearance of twill weave, which requires more loom weights in a set and a decrease of their size, although this assumption cannot be confirmed with finds of surviving textiles. The uptake of this technique may have caused a more intensive spinning activity, as twill requires more yarn.28 Standardisation is largely visible at the Cittadella hill and Sabucina, where the small numbers of Prehistoric non-uniform loom weights were overtaken by sets of a larger number of loom weights with a high level of standardisation (Fig.  5.4).

Fig. 5.4: Final Bronze-Iron Age (a) and Archaic (b) loom weights from the Cittadella hill. Photo by author (with the permission of Parco Archeologico di Morgantina e della Villa Romana del Casale di Piazza Armerina, no. 554, 15-11-2019).

68

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

The choice of clay tempers and the surface treatments enabled the production of high-quality tools, more resistant to firing and breaks. Archaic loom weights rarely present marks, while decorated patterns or impressions of personal gems or seals are more common.

Trade and exchange of goods and technology

Finished textiles, raw materials and tools were produced and sold locally, but they were also often objects of trade or exchange, especially when considered of high quality or high value.29 We know very little concerning textile and raw material trades and exchange in Sicily. Wool must have been one of the main local raw materials used for textiles and Athenaeus30 informs us that wool was also exported in the mid-3rd century BC. Hemp appears – at least in some cases – to have been imported. Linen also may have been imported, perhaps in a half-finished or finished state. Written sources contain information about textiles donated as gifts. The already-mentioned letter XIII of Plato (cf. Chapter  2) refers to three Sicilian linen tunics as a gift for the daughters of Cebel.31 Similarly, textile tools could have been given as gifts along with textiles. The elite members of communities more than likely practised this mode of exchange, where luxury objects or items holding symbolic value were given and received.32 The presence of a bronze distaff at the cemetery at Molino della Badia (cf. Chapter 2) may indicate such an exchange. Technology also travelled through movements of people and goods. An emblematic example is the case of purple cloth brought to Sicily in the early 1st millennium BC by Phoenicians, together with other luxury items.33 Social practice could have been a means through which technology was spread. An intriguing case is archaeologically represented by the wide distribution of the cubical and painted loom weights throughout many communities in western Sicily. As previously noted (cf. Chapter 3), the presence of this distinctive type of loom weight might be regarded as related to the manufacture of specific fabrics or products, perhaps associated with a specific cult (Fig. 5.5). Although it is not possible to detect where this

Fig. 5.5: Cubic loom weights decorated by painted crosses from Monte Maranfusa. Photo by author (with the permission of Polo Regionale di Palermo per i Parchi e i Musei Archeologici, no. 2726, 6-6-2019).

5. Technology and production

69

tradition originated from, the widespread use of painted cubic loom weights and their associated technology was probably the result of the movement and/or interaction of particular groups of weavers who specialised in the production of particular fabrics, sharing technology and perhaps religious practices. As women were the principal agents of textile activity, it is possible that the network of women was instrumental in the transfer of textile-related skills, the movement of loom weights and even other aspects of textile style. Traditionally, women are portrayed as objects of exchange, usually forced to move away from their home as a consequence of marriage, slavery, etc.,34 while the movement of craftspeople is usually associated with male potters or metalworkers. Furthermore, the circulation of textiles and textile tools is usually regarded as the result of trade, gift exchange, dowries, ransoms, etc.35. However, the case of painted cubic loom weights demonstrates that textiles can also be the reason for the movement of people instead of the other way around and women can be seen as economic and social actors. As both producers and consumers, women must have played a crucial role in adopting new styles, either inspired by or imitating Greek ones. This can be inferred from the sites of the Cittadella hill and Sabucina, both of which adopted Greek textile technology. The adoption of a new technology would necessitate a period of interaction between indigenous and Greek women. The length time required to master the new technology was dependent on the competence of the indigenous women in weaving.36 Working together with Greek women, they could have become familiar with new traditions and learned how to set up a loom with smaller and lighter loom weights. The apprenticeship could have been short, thus forcing independent experimentation and leading deviation from standard models. Alternatively, the contact between women of the two communities could have been longer, thus letting indigenous women fully learn the new technology.37 This aspect of technology transmission leads us to draw a further consideration: Although many scholars believe that the only Greek incomers were men,38 in this case, the presence of Greek women could reasonably explain how the transfer of knowledge occurred.

Organisation of textile production

No written sources on how textile production was organised in ancient Sicily are known. In the absence of these, information can be inferred from a tool-based approach, which takes into account concentration and spatial distribution of textile implements in a context, along with their association with other material. These data can enhance our understanding of the nature of contexts and social organisation and help estimate to what extent textile production played an economic role at a site. In the last decades, different theoretical approaches have been applied to the study of the organisation of textile production in antiquity.39 These theories distinguish between categories of modes of production and have been elaborated borrowing models from pottery studies.

70

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

To facilitate the discussion on the organisation and scale of textile production in ancient Sicily, this work will follow a typological approach, which has already been applied by Mediterranean textile scholars. Particularly, this model has been used by Gleba40 for the study of textile production in Pre-Roman Italy. Hence, this will accommodate the comparison with the Apennine Peninsula and help to set the Sicilian textile production in a wider context. Before briefly describing the different categories of modes of production, it is important to note that in the study of textile production in Italy other scholars41 have applied a slightly different theoretical approach, following that suggested by Andersson Strand.42 Both models envisage four modes of production. The first and second modes of Gleba’s and Andersson Strand’s models coincide. The two others are described using different terms to refer to similar organisation phenomena. It should be stressed that these models empirically derive from limited data collections and were developed for societies differing geographically and chronologically. Thus, further research is needed to extend the discussion on textile production at Sicilian sites. The simplest and the main form of textile production in many Prehistoric societies was the one developed on a household level. In Italy, it was never completely supplanted by other, more advanced modes of production. Members of households would produce goods for domestic requirements along with other domestic activities, using raw materials collected locally or obtained through trade with nearby neighbours. In this setting, craft knowledge and skills are widespread within the community. This is different from household industry, where surplus is produced for exchange, trade, tax or supplementary income (which matches with what is illustrated by ancient written sources, cf. Introductory framework), although production is not yet a fulltime activity. Based on ethnographic examples,43 this mode of production is organised around the agricultural cycle and in a way that fits with other domestic activities. It could also imply certain forms of specialised production made on commission along with the manufacture of cloth for household’s needs. Workshop industry is the next level of textile production. The work is done for sale and people involved have specialised knowledge and skills so that they can create high-quality textiles. Unlike the ceramic workshops, ancient textiles workshops are archaeologically less identifiable because they did not require durable materials and installations. Also, discarded cloth and wooden tools do not survive.44 Archaeologically, only large workshops can be recognised on the basis of unusually large concentrations of textile implements found in small areas or specific structures. Finally, in a large-scale industry the production is practised outside the domestic space and is organised on a full-time basis. The manufacture is exclusively intended for sale. Goods are mass-produced, standardised and coupled with a level of financial capital investment and extensive product distribution. This four-mode model is an idealistic representation, as the reality can be more complex and variable. Archaeological evidence shows that the modes described above

5. Technology and production

71

often coexisted at a settlement, as seen, for example, at the 5th-century BC Olynthus, where textile production was practised on both domestic and more specialised scales.45

Evidence of textile production

Given the number of textile tools found, it seems that textile production was confined to the domestic level in the Late Bronze-Iron Age communities in Sicily. Each household produced textiles for its consumption, which could have also included textiles for gifts, dowries and other kinds of exchanges. However, it is likely that the sparse evidence of loom weights from Prehistoric sites is also the result of their poor-quality production (and perhaps the use of perishable materials and/or other weaving techniques), so it might be possible that other loom weights were used but have not been preserved and thus the production could have been larger. The social dynamics and changes that the Archaic communities in Sicily went through led to a development of high-quality production. However, there is no evidence for a major shift in the scale, organisation and/or specialisation of production, unlike that observed in other areas of Italian Peninsula during the same period. By the 7th century BC, enormous quantities of standardised textile tools concentrated in small areas appear at some sites, such as at Poggio Civitate in Etruria. This evidence indicates that the production of very fine yarns and textiles with fine patterned strips was large and spanned about a quarter to half a century.46 Specialised textile production focused on the manufacture of fine fabrics is also documented in the Basilicata region among the indigenous communities who came into contact with Greeks.47 However, the scenario in Sicily is different. Almost 400 loom weights have been documented from the so-called Pastas House at Selinous. These cover the four distinct occupation phases spanning almost a century of its history and portray an intense domestic weaving production scene, along with evidence of other domestic activities. According to Quercia,48 the Pastas House may represent a case of household industry, where the surplus was used for trade, exchange or tax. This example, though, does not find parallels at Himera, where the average number of loom weights found in every block from the destruction layer is less than 100. The discovery of clusters of approximately 50–60 loom weights in two rooms at Himera (cf. Chapter 3) suggests several possibilities, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive: larger looms; more than one loom, perhaps indicating households with larger numbers of women (which might point to a change in household structure, although it is not possible to clarify the status of these women); a small workshop; twill weave, which needed more loom weights. Generally, the evidence at the site seems to point to a production that was still organised on a household level. One may wonder whether the surplus goes beyond subsistence. A possible answer is provided by references from written sources, which document women working at home under a patron or selling what they made at the market for supplementary income. Literary references mentioning such situations in Sicily are dated to the Roman period (cf. Introductory framework). However, it cannot

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

72

be completely ruled out that this organisation of labour was rooted in earlier times and might also be descriptive of textile production in Archaic Sicily. Household production can be inferred for the indigenous sites of Monte Maranfusa and Monte Polizo. The small number of loom weights discovered in each household means estimating the surplus for exchange and trade is not possible, although such a surplus cannot be completely ruled out as the area investigated and its descriptions were limited. Weaving activity was also intensively practised at Sabucina and the Cittadella hill, although the lack of detail for primary contexts does not allow us to fully understand the scale of production.

Conclusions

The data presented allows some preliminary conclusions to be drawn about the development of textile production in Sicily over time. From the end of the 7th century BC, the evidence for textile production is more abundant and attests to a significant change in production and manufacture. However, the picture for textile production and labour is not as forthcoming. The archaeological evidence suggests that textile manufacture was carried out in domestic spaces, which could go beyond household consumptions. The boundaries between household production and textiles intended for sale might have been blurred. The archaeological data are not sufficient to answer all the questions related to the scale of textile production. In this sense, ancient texts might offer some plausible scenarios.

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

1 2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Leighton 1999, 203–210. Lipkin 2012. Di Pierro 2002; Saracino and Maritan 2012. Lipkin 2012, 64–65. Dimova 2019. Davidson and Burr Thompson 1943, 71–72. Tunzi Sisto 1988, 63, no. 97, pl. 21a. Tang 2007, 135–137, fig. 112, GG-9. Quercia 2018, 148, fig. 5. Moffa 2002, 19; Leighton 2012, 119–125. For an overview on drying and firing in open fires and kilns, see e.g. Rice 1987, 152–163; Gibson and Wood 1997; Cuomo di Caprio 2007, 483–567. Gibson and Woods 1997, 53–54. Nijboer 1988, 74. Lipkin 2012, 65–66. Gleba 2008, 161–171, 189–197; Quercia 2017. This is also attested elsewhere in southern Italy (e.g. Moffa 2002). Also, chemical and petrographical analyses of Neolithic loom weights in western Switzerland have pointed to the same result (Di Pierro 2002, 26). Cf. e.g. Landenius Enegren 2015, 131 and Lipink 2012, 53–54 with previous bibliography.

5. Technology and production

73

1 8. Gleba 2008, 169–170; Lipkin 2012, 24–26. 19. Similarly, spindle whorls are comparatively rare in the Greek mainland (e.g. Cahill 2002; Davidson 1952, 94–99) and southern Italian Peninsula (e.g. Quercia 2018). 20. For instance, weft yarns with barely any twist seem to be a common characteristic of many textile remains in Archaic Italian Peninsula (Gleba 2017b, 20). 21. Gleba 2012, 3660. 22. See e.g. the experiments carried out at the Centre for Textile Research with a 5 g spindle whorl spinning both wool and flax fibres (Andersson Strand 2015, 48). 23. Gleba 2008; 2009a; Quercia 2018. 24. Quercia 2018. 25. A similar situation was observed in central Italy, cf. Lipkin 2012, 66. 26. Gleba 2008, 134. 27. Different loom weights used in a same set are ethnographically attested in domestic spaces. For example, Hoffmann (1964, 42) refers to the use of stones of different weight and size for setting up looms in the communities of Northern Europe. 28. Gleba 2008, 191. 29. See Gleba 2008, 194–196. 30. Ath. Deipn 5.44.3. 31. Brugnone 2008, 53. 32. Gleba 2008, 195; 2014. 33. Gleba 2008, 195; see also Marín-Aguilera et al. 2018. 34. Iancu 2018. 35. Gleba 2014. 36. On the apprenticeship methods, cf. Hosfeld 2009, 46; Cutler 2016, 174–175. 37. Fossøy 2018, 116. 38. E.g. Goegebeur 1987; Coldstream 1993. For literary and archaeological evidence on and against the participation of Greek women to foundations of abroad settlements, see Shepherd 1999; Saltini Seminari 2016, 78–81. 39. For the discussion on different approaches to craft production, see Costin 1991; 2005, 1036–1038. 40. Gleba 2008, 192–193 citing Arnold 1985, 225–231, originally defined by van der Leeuw 1977. 41. E.g. Quercia 2017; 2018. 42. Andersson 2003, 46–47. Her theoretical model has been developed following Costin 1991 and Olausson 2000. More recently, this method has been applied to textile production by Grömer 2016 for Central Europe. 43. Particularly interesting is the example illustrated by Dimova 2016, 654. 44. Dimova 2016, 654–654. 45. Cahill 2002. 46. Gleba 2007, 75; 2008, 169–171. 47. Quercia 2017. 48. Quercia 2018, 154.

Chapter 6 Tracing textile culture in Sicily After investigating the features of textile technology in Sicily between the 13th and 5th centuries BC, this chapter aims to build a picture of textile culture(s) on the island. The concept of textile culture (cf. Introductory framework) is anchored in the way in which each society uses raw materials, colours, techniques, textiles and clothing, as determined by specific traditions, values and aesthetics. Questioning why textile culture in Sicilian communities exists in the form it does provides a platform to investigate social preferences and detect cultural trajectories. Despite being distinct and separate, Sicily was closely linked to the Italian Peninsula, which contributed to the movements of people, goods and ideas. Similarly, Sicily was connected to the Aegean area in earlier times by widespread networks of craftspeople, trade and exchange, while later on this manifested itself directly through the arrival of Greek incomers. By taking a broad geographical view, this chapter questions the relationships between textile culture in Sicily, the Italian Peninsula and Greece. Textile studies have flourished in Italy and Greece and have produced relevant results. Greece appears to be closely related to the Near Eastern textile tradition. Greek textiles are predominantly represented by balanced (Fig. 6.1) and weft-faced tabbies (Fig. 6.2), while twill1 (Fig. 6.3) is not attested until the Roman period.2 On the Italian mainland, the textile tradition

Fig. 6.1: Drawing of balanced tabby weave (Drawing by author).

Fig. 6.2: Drawing of weft-faced tabby weave (Drawing by author).

6. Tracing textile culture in Sicily

75

Fig. 6.3: Drawing of different types of twill weave: 2/2 twill (a) and 2/1 twill (b) (Drawing by author).

was technically, aesthetically and conceptually very different from that of Greece, even though the two countries shared similar technologies, such as the low-whorl drop spindle and the warp-weighted loom.3 Central Italian culture in the 1st millennium BC shares features with the Central European tradition. Twill- and tablet-weaving traditions appear well established and settled technologies spread throughout northern and central Tyrrhenian and southern Italy, possibly indicating an earlier development during the Bronze Age.4 Tabby and warp-faced tabbies are commonly found, while weft-faced tabby is only present (with a few exceptions) in the central Adriatic region and southern Italy.5 Gleba6 has suggested that, during the establishment of Greek settlements in southern Italy, twill tradition was supplanted by the Greek weft-faced tabby, which was also the most common weave in the Roman period. In light of this information, what was the textile culture of the communities on the island of Sicily? Does Sicily fit into the Italian peninsular tradition or the Greek one? This chapter will provide new insights into the technical aspects of production in an attempt to answer these questions.

Textile tradition of Bronze and Iron Age Sicily

The picture of the Bronze Age textile tradition in Sicily is blurry, with textile tools providing the only evidence. According to Żebrowska,7 the Early Bronze Age spinning tradition (c. 2400–1490/1460 BC8) continues the local Eneolithic craft tradition9 and shows a typological diversity at macro-regional level. In the EBA, spindle whorls are heavier than their Aegean counterparts and suitable for making mainly medium to thick yarns. In the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1490/1460–1270 BC10), a decrease in weight of the spindle whorls occurs, pointing to a gradual shift towards finer products. During

76

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

the Late/Final Bronze Age, spindle whorls shape and weight are much more akin to those from the Italian Peninsula, as the result of exchange and movements of groups of people, ideas and goods from and to continental Italy. Weaving tradition seems to have been developed independently from the Aegean tradition as well. The presence of loom weights from the earlier period, although meagre, tells us that weaving was practised on the warp-weighted loom at least from the EBA.11 Loom weights do not show the variety of shapes of Aegean weaving tools.12 No loom weights are currently known from the MBA, although heavy spools, which are a feature of the MBA, might have been used as loom weights on the warp-weighted loom. Later on, loom weights appeared again, but in different shapes and weights, varying from site to site. Calculations made for potential loom set-ups suggest that the textile tradition was dominated by tabby weave. Specifically, the particular openness of fabrics points to the production of weft-faced tabby. More data on the pre-colonial period is needed to firmly establish the presence of a well-developed weft-faced tabby tradition in Sicily before the Greeks, although this preliminary evidence might suggest that it was already produced in earlier times. It may be possible that weft-faced tabby became the most widespread tradition because it was already part of the indigenous culture, and later on was further developed, perhaps by adopting Greek standards. Besides weaving on the warp-weighted loom, it might be possible that other loom types or techniques were in use, such as the horizontal ground loom or tablet weaving, especially given the presence of spools and the lack of loom weights in the archaeological material. Despite the prolonged contacts with Aegean cultures and the impact of these on diverse aspects of local material culture, it appears that the Sicilian Bronze Age textile tradition was not influenced by these foreign cultures.13 This lends weight to the idea that the introduction of new technologies necessitates prolonged and intense interactions with craftspeople bringing new practices (cf. Chapter  5). The contact with Aegean people, mostly seasonal visitors and craftsmen deeply affected some aspects of indigenous material culture and architecture, while it did not penetrate the textile tradition, which was intrinsically related to the domestic sphere and thus more reluctant to changes. Only later on, with the arrival of people who established their own settlements in Sicily, were new techniques circulated and learned through engagement in practice and contact with experienced artisans. This also might suggest a difference in the demographic composition of the groups of incomers during these two episodes of cultural contact. The earlier visitors were probably men, who were involved mainly in trade, while the groups of settlers during the Greek colonisation were a mix of men and women.

Textile tradition of Archaic Sicily

A small number of textile remains14 show that tabby weave textiles were being produced in the Archaic period, perhaps following the Bronze and Iron Age tradition. The analyses of the loom weights at a number of Archaic sites15 point to the production of fine-quality

6. Tracing textile culture in Sicily

77

Table 6.1: Table summarising results of the analyses at the select sites. Site

Type of yarn (from spindle whorls’ analyses)

Range of warp thread tensions (g) and fabric quality evaluation

Range of warp thread count in a tabby

L/FBA Lipari

medium-thick

5–20 g fine fabrics

6–12 low thread count

Archaic Lipari

/

5–10 g fine fabrics

4–12 low thread count

Metapiccola

medium-thick

/

/

The FBA-IA Cittadella hill

thin-medium

10–70 g (?) coarse fabrics

5–10 low thread count

The Archaic Cittadella hill

/

5 g fine fabrics

5–9 low thread count

FBA-IA Sabucina

thick

20 g coarse fabrics (?)

5 low thread count

Archaic Sabucina

/

5–20 g fine fabrics

5–21 low and high thread count

Himera

/

5–30 g fine-coarse fabrics

5–20 low and high thread count

Monte Maranfusa

/

5–10 g fine fabrics

4–11 low thread count

Monte Polizo

/

5–30 g fine-coarse fabrics

6–13 low and high thread count

fabrics with low warp thread count, which seems to fit into what has emerged in other parts of southern Italy for the same period. Indeed, discoveries of a few fragments of mineralised textiles from several sites16 display predominantly weft-faced tabby with a very low density of around 4–10 warp threads per cm. This density is consistent with the potential loom set-ups of the loom weights found at the Sicilian sites (Table 6.1), which have been found suitable for working with low tension and producing low warp density. It has been observed17 that although the technique is the same, Greeks both at home and in their western settlements in southern Italy produced finer cloth in terms of thread diameter and thread count than any of the fabrics found at indigenous sites. This difference has been explained as the result of a different raw material availability, as well as a different level of skill. Notably, this difference does not occur in Sicily. Calculations at the majority of the sites point to a rather homogenous production of fine fabrics with thin yarns requiring 5–10 g tension and a low thread count of 4–13

78

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

threads per cm. There is no difference in the textile quality between the settlements of Himera, Lipari, the Cittadella hill and Sabucina. Also, Monte Maranfusa seems to fit into this textile tradition. One explanation for this common tradition might be the use of a common raw material and a shared weaving technology. Monte Polizo is the sole exception, where it seems that a wider range of tension was used (5–30 g or more tension), which might point to the use of both fine and coarser yarns. Loom weights found in primary contexts do not constitute evidence for twill weave. Only the larger number of similar loom weights stored at the urban sanctuary of Himera (cf. Chapter 4) and room no. 59 at Sabucina (cf. Chapter 3) might point to the use of more than two rows for producing textiles of less than 1 m wide, which are not consistent with the manufacture of clothing. They might have been narrow cloth strips to be sewn onto a broader cloth to create particular decorative patterns, belts folded two or more times, or other kinds of bands. Despite the lack of iconographic evidence, late written sources document the use of tunics with belts, corsets (θωvραξ) and garments decorated with purple bands, and colourful cloaks among other fine quality clothing.18 Domestic furnishings, such as bedcovers, cushions and decorations for house walls might have been consistent with narrow cloth bands. However, given the lack of other evidence, this remains purely speculative. Finally, both Greek and indigenous sites adopting Greek textile tool tradition also show the use of light loom weights of 20–30  g, which might be suggestive of their use in tablet weaving,19 This has already been suggested for some light loom weights at Monte Iato20 and Segesta,21 although further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. Possibly they were used for making starting borders or decorative bands.

Conclusions

Despite the almost total lack of textile remains, the study of spindle whorls, spools and loom weights enables the partial reconstruction of textile culture in Sicily. Spinning is best represented during the 2nd millennium BC by a large number of ceramic spindle whorls. The technology of making threads equates with the data from the Central Mediterranean and the Aegean region, which used the suspended low-whorl drop spindle, as evidenced by the use-wear marks on spindle whorls. Ceramic spindle whorls were used for most ancient times, until probably replaced by wooden spindle whorls during the Archaic period. In the absence of extant textiles, it is difficult to explore in detail the production of yarns. However, the evidence suggests a general and progressive shift to the production of thinner yarn diameter. For weaving, the warp-weighted loom was used, perhaps among other looms, from the Late/Final Bronze Age, which is documented by loom weights discovered all over Sicily and the Aeolian islands. The research has demonstrated that, although twill might have also been used, tabby was the prevalent weave type during the chronological time frame under consideration in this study. Further research will help to estimate whether other techniques, such as tapestry (?), were used, or what colours and which raw materials were preferred, or how textiles were wrapped and used to cover the body or to decorate houses.

6. Tracing textile culture in Sicily

Notes

79

1. Tabby weave is the simplest weaving technique. The warp threads are divided in two layers, so that the weft runs alternately over one warp thread and under the next. In a balanced tabby, the number of the warp and weft threads are approximately the same. In a weft-faced tabby, the number of the weft threads are higher than the warp threads. Conversely, warp-faced tabby is characterised by a higher number of warp threads than weft threads. Twill weaving implies the use of more than two layers of warp threads (see e.g. Andersson Strand 2015, 48–49). 2. Spantidaki 2016, 55–57; Gleba 2017b. However, twill might have been known and used in Greece as depictions of twill occur in Archaic and Classical vase-paintings (Spantidaki 2016, 61). 3. Gleba 2017a, 1219. 4. Gleba 2017a, 1214. Thus far, twill has been found in an 8th-century burial at the indigenous site of Incoronata-San Teodoro (Gleba 2017b), San Marzano sul Sarno (Gleba 2008, 57, no. 65, 59, fig. 46), Sala Consilina (Gleba 2008, 61, no. 70) and Torre Galli (Pacciarelli 1999, pl. 189 e–i). A complex tablet-woven textile was discovered in an 11th-century tomb at Santa Palomba (Rome), which shows strict similarities with the Iron Age Hallstatt textiles (Gleba 2017a, 1214). See also Grömer et al. 2013; Grömer 2014. 5. Gleba 2017a, 1208–1214. 6. Gleba 2017b, 1220. 7. Żebrowska n.d. 8. Cf. Alberti 2012. 9. The evidence dated to the Eneolithic period has been published by Militello (2018). Overall, it is scarce and limited to spindle whorls and a few spools. 10. Cf. Alberti 2012. 11. Żebrowska n.d. 12. Cf. e.g. Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015; Cutler 2016. 13. Żebrowska n.d. 14. Gleba 2008, 62–63. 15. Cf. Annexes; see also Landenius Enegren 2015. 16. E.g. Cumae (Gleba et al. 2017); Ripacandida, Chiaromonte, Ascoli Satriano (Gleba et al. 2018); Tomba Spina 418 at Paestum (Gleba and Meo 2017). 17. Gleba et al. 2018, 43. 18. Brugnone 2008, 53–54. 19. Tablet weaving tradition is attested at Ripacandida in the southern Italian Peninsula (Gleba et al. 2018). 20. Landenius Enegren 2015, 136–138. 21. Landenius Enegren 2015, 139–143.

Annex A Analysis of textile tools in Sicily: the case studies Before showing the result of the analysis, a discussion on the methodology is in order. I largely applied the quantitative methodology established by the Centre for Textile Research of Copenhagen (CTR) for analysing spindle whorls, loom weights and spools.1 The CTR methodology is based on experimental tests undertaken by craftspeople in collaboration with archaeologists using replicas of tools found in archaeological contexts.2 This methodology currently offers the best approach for reconstructing the range of textiles that the tools investigated in this study could have produced. It has already been used to analyse textile tools from other sites in the Mediterranean area.3 By applying a common methodology, it thus will be possible to compare the Sicilian data with contemporary evidence from other Mediterranean societies. Through the analysis of textile tools in their contexts, it will be possible to obtain new knowledge about textiles produced, technology and time taken to produce them. Through this, we can gain a greater understanding of the nature and scale of textile production, craft specialisation, economy and textile culture. In spindle whorl analysis, the method is largely based on the fact that different weights of spindle whorl can produce different thicknesses of yarn. Spinning tests at CTR have demonstrated that it is possible to estimate the likely diameter range of a yarn spun with a spindle whorl of a specific weight. Tests using 4 g, 8 g, 18 g and 44 g spindle whorls have yielded yarns of ≤ 3 mm, 3–4 mm, 4–6 mm and 8–10 mm, respectively.4 However, as it is not possible to determine exactly what type of yarn was produced with a specific spindle whorl, as the result can be affected by other variables,5 the thread range will be referred to as ‘very thin’, ‘thin’, ‘medium’, ‘thick and ‘very thick’ (Tab. A.1). On the one hand, research has demonstrated that a context containing only very light spindle whorls might suggest the production of thin yarn, while a context with heavy spindle whorls might suggest the production of thicker yarn. On the other hand, a context containing many different sizes of spindle whorls indicates the production of various types of yarn, while a concentration of spindle whorls of the same size and weight can indicate a more standardised production. For loom weights, the method is largely based on the fact that different thicknesses of yarn require a different tension for weaving. When yarn is used on a warp-weighted loom, the set-up must take into account the specific tension of the thread and the weight of the loom weights attached to them. However, as Spantidaki6 has argued, the tension applied to the warp threads does not always need to be the highest possible

Annex A. Analysis of textile tools in Sicily: the case studies

81

and weavers may vary the tension to create fabrics Table A.1: Range of yarn diameters with different appearances. Thus, it is not possible (after Andersson Strand and Nosch to calculate precisely the tension applied to each 2015, 192). thread and the CTR’s methodology offers only a Categories Yarn diameter (mm) limited perspective. However, possible loom set-ups c. 1–2 can be calculated by applying this methodology. Very thin c. 2–4 First, the optimum number of warp threads tied to Thin a loom weight is calculated by dividing the weight Medium c. 4–8 of loom weight (measured in g) by the tension of Thick c. 8–11 the thread (measured in g). For example, if a warp Very thick c. 11–15 yarn requires 10 g tension, a weaver can attach 15 threads to a 150 g loom weight. The optimal range of warp threads attached to a single loom weight is between 10 and 30, with possibly 20–25 being the ideal.7 Although ranges of  30 warp threads per loom weight are considered possible, tests have shown that they create problems during the set-up and weaving and hence they are not optimal. Indeed, more than 30 warp threads per loom weight makes it difficult to distribute the warp thread evenly in the fabric, while 4 warp threads per loom weight requires an increasingly large number of loom weights. The experiment carried out by Dimova8 has demonstrated that it is possible to weave with 40 g loom weights, but it is hard to identify what they would be best suited for. During the experiments, the weaver observed that such loom weights increase the weaving time, while the same cloth could be produced by using heavier loom weights. These guidelines allow me to assess whether a given set-up is optimal, possible or unlikely for any specific loom weight. However, these ranges should not be taken as sharp divisions, since the limits can fluctuate around the outer edges. Since this calculation can only estimate a potential range of possibilities, I will use thread tensions of 5 g, 10 g and further 5 g intervals. However, occasionally 7.5 and 12.5 g thread tensions can also be included to demonstrate the functional range of a particular loom weight group. Specifically, it seems that loom weights from southern Italy were particularly light and were suitable for working with 5 or 7.5 g tension. In this study, the parameters for assessing thread diameter and corresponding tension are set out in Table A.2. The diameter and the tension of the warp threads affect the quality of the resulting fabric. This is assessed as ‘fine’ if woven with very thin/thin warp threads; while the fabric woven with medium/thick warp threads is referred to as ‘coarse’. Consequently, it is possible to count the warp threads per cm across the loom. This is calculated by dividing the number of warp threads for each of the two sheds of loom weights (i.e. the front and back ‘rows’ in a tabby weave), by the thickness of the loom weight measured in cm. For example, 30 warp threads (15 per layer or shed) is divided by 2 cm thickness of loom weight, which results in a fabric with 15 warp threads per cm. Tests carried out at the CTR for tabby weave suggest that the optimal number of warp threads per cm is between 5 and 30 with 10–20 g warp

82

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

tension, 5–20 with 20–30 g warp Table A.2: Required warp tension per thread diameter tension and 5–10 with more than based on the results from CTR’s experiments (after 30 g warp tension (Tab. A.3). This Mårtensson et al. 2009). is because the thinner the warp Thread diameter (mm) Required warp tension (g) per thread thread, the higher the number < 3 c. 5–10 of warp threads per cm to make 3–4 c. 15–20 a denser fabric. However, in this c. 25–30 study 3/4 warp threads per cm 4–6 are taken as possible in Sicily, and 8–10 c. 40 this very low thread count might be suggestive of weft-faced tabby. This assumption is based on the data from the Italian Peninsula during the same period, where a large group of the textile fragments consists of weft-faced tabbies, having at least twice as many wefts as warp threads per cm. The weft yarns are usually tightly packed, thus the warp becomes invisible.9 As observed by others,10 the CTR methodology may have a high thread count for light loom weights of 20–50 g, which are widely attested in southern Italy and Greece.11 With an identical number of warp threads per cm, a fabric woven with very thin warp threads would be much more open than a fabric with thick warp threads. In this work, a fabric with thin warp threads between 4 and 12 per cm is considered very open/open, while fabrics with more than 12 warp threads per cm are considered dense. Furthermore, experiments undertaken by Landenius Enegren12 with light loom weights weighing between c. 20 and 40 g have shown that they might be suitable for working on tablet weaving. Thus, my analysis will take into account these results and attempt to investigate whether documented loom weights could have been used on a warp-weighted loom or with other techniques.

Table A.3: Summarised CTR’s guidelines to estimate the tension, loom weight count and specific limit values for loom weights from Sicily. Tabby

Warp threads/loom weight Thread count/cm

Optimal

Possible

Unlikely

10–30

30–40 or 4 (although the latter is mostly impractical) 30–40 (with 10–20 g warp tension) 3 (with 40 g warp tension)

> 40 or < 4

≤ 5 (with 5–7.5 g warp tension) 5–30 (with 5–20 g warp tension) 5–20 (with 20–30 g warp tension) 5–10 (with more than 30 g warp tension)

> 40 or ≤ 4 (with 5–20 g warp tension) > 20 or < 3 (with more than 30 g warp tension)

Annex A. Analysis of textile tools in Sicily: the case studies

83

It is important to note that although these calculations help to visualise the final fabric, as soon as the fabric is cut down from the loom, the texture changes because the warp threads are not stretched anymore. Moreover, other variables can affect the final product, such as shrinkage or fulling. Tests have confirmed that a suitable set-up should have an identical or slightly wider width than the fabric to be produced. This enables us to estimate the width of the fabric produced by a particular set of loom weights. Hence, the width of the textile is calculated by multiplying the width of the loom weights by the number of loom weights in one row. Calculations can also be made for twill weave, where the number of rows of loom weights are more than two.13 With identical widths of fabric, the set of loom weights used for twill weave would be much larger than a set-up of loom weights used for tabby weave. Thus, particularly large sets of loom weights might have been used for producing twill fabrics. The annexes present the analyses of textile tools assemblages from seven case studies. They are organised into sections (B–K), one for each context. The results are intentionally presented in a similar manner to the models offered by the CTR publications, so as to facilitate comparative analysis. Textile tools are described in terms of shape, physical parameters, manufacture, decorations and use-wear marks, if they exist. Every textile tool shape is referred to is in the typology described in Chapter 2. In the analysis of spindle whorls, the possible range of thread diameters will be postulated, as it is impossible to determine exactly what types of yarn were produced with a particular spindle whorl. Concerning loom weights, a range of the possible fabric types that could have been produced by their weights is also provided. The kind of fabric (i.e. open or closed) depends on the set-up and the thickness of the loom weights. Four main types of fabric can be estimated:14 • • • •

Coarse open fabric: medium/thick yarn and heavy, thick loom weights. Coarse dense fabric: medium/thick yarn and heavy, thin loom weights. Fine open fabric: very thin or thin yarn and thick loom weights. Fine dense fabric: very thin or thin yarn and thin loom weights.

Possible loom set-ups for balanced tabby weave are presented in tables for representative typologies of loom weight. Thread tension of 5 g up to 90 g for specific loom weights were used when evaluating an individual loom weight’s suitability for working with a specific thread. It is important to note that these tensions have been chosen only on a theoretical basis, as stated above. All the calculations are rounded up (if ≥ 0.5) and down (if 7 mm.

Loom weights

Ninety-three complete loom weights were found at the site. However, the actual number recovered is much higher as many of them were fragmentary (c. 60 examples). It has been possible to detect two different groups of loom weights – referred to as Groups I and II – which differ in terms of shape, size and manufacture. Each will be discussed in turn. Also, the description and analysis of the clusters found in Portella Sant’Anna and House I are given separately.

Group I: type C.4

Loom weights of Group I represent a substantially homogenous group in terms of shape. They are truncated pyramidal with rectangular bases and a single hole drilled down through their thinner sides (type C.4). Such loom weights might have been used either with their perforated side or with the non-perforated sides facing the weavers, resulting in a notable difference in fabric density. However, it seems very unlikely that they were used with the larger sides facing the weavers, as this usually reaches 6–7 cm and would produce a very open fabric. Therefore, I have chosen to calculate the possible set-ups assuming thickness as represented on the perforated sides was used. This usually ranges between 3 and 4 cm. Despite the homogeneity in shape, their weight varies from 200 to 300 g, although sometimes it is less than 200 g and at other times greater than 400–500 g (Fig. K.1).

Annex K. Analysis of textile tools from Monte Polizo

135

Fig. K.1: Weight and thickness of the loom weights from Monte Polizo Table K.1: Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a weight of less than 300 g (Monte Polizo). Truncated pyramidal (C.4): weight 265 g, thickness 4.4 cm Warp thread tension

No. of warp threads per loom weight

No. of warp threads per two loom weights

Threads per cm

Evaluation

10 g

27

54

12

optimal

20 g

13

26

6

possible

Table K.2: Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a weight of more than 400 g (Monte Polizo). Truncated pyramidal (C.4): weight 432 g, thickness 3.4 cm Warp thread tension

No. of warp threads per loom weight

No. of warp threads per two loom weights

Threads per cm

Evaluation

20 g

22

44

13

optimal

30 g

14

28

8

possible

The calculation for potential loom set-ups (Tabs K.1 and K.2) suggests that loom weights of around 200–400 g and c. 3–4 cm would function well with thread requiring c. 10–30 g tension, with thin to medium yarn diameter of c. ≤ 3–6 mm. In a balanced

136

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Table K.3: Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a light pyramidal truncated loom weight (type C.4) from Monte Polizo. Truncated pyramidal (C.4): weight 70 g, thickness 3.4 cm Warp thread tension

No. of warp threads per loom weight

No. of warp threads per two loom weights

Threads per cm

Evaluation

5 g

14

28

8

optimal

10 g

7

14

4

unlikely

weave system, the thread count would be c. 8–13 per cm, resulting in a relatively dense fabric, or even denser in a weft-faced weave. Calculation of potential loom set-ups with loom weights weighing 70–90 g shows that those would work better with a warp thread tension of c. 5 g (Tab. K.3). C.4 loom weights are predominantly made of grey clay, identical to that of locally produced pottery fabrics, which was the dominant type at Monte Polizo.2 Sometimes, loom weights are also made of reddish clay.3 In both cases, the fabric is particularly coarse, granular and rich in mixed medium and large inclusions. They are probably handmade but they do not show traces of the hole production, so, likely, any irregularities were carefully removed. They are poorly fired, probably at a low temperature, resulting in a darker core and their poor condition. It is possible that the particular shape was chosen in part to accommodate the firing process since heavier objects with a thinner core dry faster, which prevents cracking. Notably, the fabric resembles that of one of the cooking pot fabrics, which is made of coarse fabric rich in coarsegrained inclusions.4 C.4 loom weights show incised or impressed decorations or marks. They resemble the decorations of local incised/impressed ware. The most common marks are single or concentric circles, usually placed on the top.5 Sometimes circles are combined in a more elaborate pattern. Swastikas are sometimes attested on the top. Crosses on the top are less common among the corpus (Fig. K.2). Use-wear marks were observed on all examples, although the poor state of preservation often prevented detailed analysis.

Group II: types A.1–2

Monte Polizo yielded a small number of truncated pyramidal loom weights with square bases (types A.1 and A.2). This group differs substantially from the other loom weights in terms of shape and manufacture. They weigh between 40 and 70 g, with a thickness of c. 3–4 cm and a height of 5–6 cm. The calculation of possible loom set-ups indicates the manufacture of fabrics with a thread requiring c. 5 g. The low thread count per cm in Table K.4 could point to a weft-faced fabric. Irregularities and variation in shape indicate that these loom weights were handmade. All of them are made of reddish clay in a coarse fabric, except for the one

Annex K. Analysis of textile tools from Monte Polizo

137

Fig. K.2: Common decorations on the top of the C.4 loom weight type from Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). Table K.4: Calculations for potential loom set-ups – A.1–2 loom weights from Monte Polizo. Truncated pyramidal (A.1): weight 64 g, thickness 3.5 cm Warp thread tension 5 g

No. of warp threads per loom weight

No. of warp threads per two loom weights

Threads per cm

Evaluation

13

26

7

possible

Fig. K.3: Decorations on a truncated pyramidal loom weight from Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019).

yellowish clay example, which appears to be uncommon at the site. However, some appear to have been carefully fired and made of a finer fabric. In general, these loom weights are better fashioned and fired than the C.4 ones. Loom weights belonging to this group have no decoration, except for mp022 (Fig.  K.3), which bears incised waves on two sides. This pattern is common on pottery from the site.6 Use-wear marks were observed on all samples, although the poor state of preservation often prevented a detailed analysis.

138

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

• Loom weights from Portella Sant’Anna Sixteen loom weights of different shapes and weight were recovered from a building at Portella Sant’Anna (Fig. K.4). Of these, 10 (of which two fragmentary) are similar in shape, size, weight, and manufacture. They are truncated pyramidal in shape (type C.4), with weights ranging between 256 and 280 (only one exceeds 300 g), with a thickness of 4.5–5.4 cm. One (psa3683) (Fig. K.5) bears an incised sign on the top, resembling a Σ, which might have been a manufacturing or potter’s mark. This would imply either a Greek presence at the site or a non-local loom weight.7 However, both hypotheses are purely speculative as they are not supported by other archaeological evidence. On the other hand, this sign could be interpreted as a decorative motif like those commonly attested on indigenous pottery of western Sicily.8 Additionally, three heavier truncated pyramidal loom weights with no tapered sides (rectangular) were also recovered. They weigh c. 840–870 g, except for a slightly lighter one, which has been holed after firing in the middle of one of the largest sides. This might have originally weighed as much as the others. All of them are 6.4  cm thick. Both groups are made of reddish clay that has a coarse fabric, which is rich in coarse-grained inclusions. There are three more loom weights, two of C.4 type (psa3671 and psa3676), but different in weight and size (369 and 279 g, respectively) and thinner than the

Fig. K.4: The loom weight assemblage from Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019).

Annex K. Analysis of textile tools from Monte Polizo

Fig. K.5: Incised decoration on the top of a truncated pyramidal loom weight from Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019).

139

Fig. K.6: Decoration on one side of a C.4 loom weight from Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019).

Table K.5: Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a loom weights of c. 270 g – Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Truncated pyramidal (C.4): weight 268 g, width 4.6 cm Warp thread tension

No. of warp threads per loom weight

No. of warp threads per two loom weights

Threads per cm

Evaluation

10 g

27

54

12

optimal

20 g

13

26

6

possible

30 g

9

18

4

possible?

first group of loom weights. Psa3671 bears an incised hourglass-shaped decoration (Fig. K.6), common in the indigenous local pottery.9 The final example is a rectangular prism-shaped loom weight with two holes through the long side (type G), weighing 160 g. These three loom weights are made of grey clay. If we accept the working hypothesis that a functional loom existed in this room during its destruction, this discovery poses the question of whether the heavier loom weights would work along with the lighter ones. Calculations of potential loom setups with loom weights of c. 260–280 g, with a thickness of c. 4.5–5 cm, show that they would work better with a warp tension of c. 10–20 g per thread, thereby producing balanced weave fabrics of 6–12 threads per cm, or even more in a weft-faced weave (Tab. K.5). Would they be suitable for working with 30 g tension? Four warp threads

140

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Table K.6: Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a loom weight of over 800 g – Portella Sant’Anna (Monte Polizo). Truncated pyramidal (rectangular): weight 840 g, width 6.6 cm Warp thread tension

No. of warp threads per loom weight

No. of warp threads per two loom weights

Threads per cm

Evaluation

30 g

28

56

8

optimal

40 g

21

42

6

possible

per cm is a limit value in the CTR, thus it cannot be taken as a sharp division and assessment can be made only through experiment. If these loom weights were used with a 30 g tension yarn, they would produce a very open tabby, unless weft-faced was preferred. The calculations with loom weights of over 800  g demonstrate that they would work with a tension of 30 g or more, producing a fabric of c. 8 threads per cm in a balanced weave or more in a weft-faced (Tab. K.6). Some observations can be made by comparing the calculations of the lightest loom weights with those of the heaviest loom weights. It appears that the overlapping 30 g tension might be a commonly used option if all the loom weights worked in the same set-up. Skilled weavers might have worked out the warp to get a balanced distribution of threads. Also, weavers might have even varied the level of tension to create textiles with different appearances. Alternatively, might the difference in tension point to the use of different twist or different thread diameters in the warp? Indeed, would the latter imply the use of a different raw material (i.e. animal and plant fibres)? So far, however, the example of the simultaneous use of animal and plant fibres is attested only in the weft (e.g. goat hair and supplementary threads of nettle fibre), while warp is made using only one type of fibre (e.g. linen).10 The insertion of different thread diameters to create decorative patterns is sometimes attested. Interestingly, in the example of a textile fragment from Cape Zoster,11 the decorative pattern is created by inserting thicker threads at regular intervals in both systems of the weave. However, these hypotheses remain speculative as they need to be verified and supported by experimental tests. As the determination of the exact find spots is not possible, it is difficult to reconstruct the combination of loom weights in the set. However, it is possible that a particular combination of heavier and lighter loom weights could create certain decorative effects within the fabric, through the natural colour of the plant and animal fibres. In this scenario, incisions on the loom weights might have functioned as markers for a particular pattern in a weave, thus facilitating the work for weavers. The two remaining loom weights (psa3671 and psa3676) might have worked with the others with a similar tension, although it is not possible to say why they differ in shape from the others. Hypothetically, placing all the truncated pyramidal loom weights in two rows and measuring their average width would produce a cloth of c. 40 cm wide, which might be consistent with a narrow band.

Annex K. Analysis of textile tools from Monte Polizo

141

Finally, the rectangular prism-shaped with two holes, along with the truncated pyramidal in the same context, might confirm the use of this kind of artefact12 in weaving activity (Fig. K.7). However, how and whether this would have worked along with the other loom weights remains uncertain. • Loom weights from House 1 The cluster of 25 loom weights found in room I at House 1 were probably stored Fig. K.7: Rectangular prism with two holes from there and might have belonged to differHouse 3, Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the ent sets for different loom set-ups. The permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e most common shape is C.4, although a Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). few have a rectangular shape as they have no tapered sides. Their weights predominantly range between 100 and 300 g. Despite the wide range, it seems possible to distinguish different groups of similar loom weights within the cluster, based on distinguishable decorations, weight classes, and size. Notably, an identical stamp of concentric circles on the top is found on a group of six similar loom weights (Fig. K.8a), which are 100–200 g and c. 3.5 cm thick. Three others weighing 250–300 g, and 7–8 cm in thickness, display no tapered sides (rectangular) and display a motif of a dot inside a circle (Fig. K.8b). It is impossible to say whether these impressions are marks created by the maker or the owner (perhaps made by using a personal object), although they resemble common geometric motifs on indigenous pottery13 and on metal objects.14 Interestingly, the remaining loom weights of the cluster from room I belong to both of these weight and size ranges but have no stamps. While it is doubtful that the loom weights with stamps constituted a complete set, as it would have been particularly small, one might wonder whether there is a specific reason for using distinctive groups of weight and marks. Loom weights of 100–200 g might have worked well with 5–10  g tension, while, similarly, loom weights of 250–300  g with a 10–20 g tension were preferable (Tabs K.7 and K.8). Thus, it is possible that all the loom weights worked together in the same loom set-up. Indeed, the overlapping 10 g tension might have been common. Notably, the combination of lighter truncated pyramidal and heavier rectangular weights and the presence of some decorated loom weights resembles the situation found at Portella Sant’Anna. Like Portella Sant’Anna, would this set work using different types of thread diameter or twist, or different raw materials? This hypothesis, though, remains speculative, as it needs to be verified and supported by experimental tests.

142

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

Fig. K.8a–b: Groups of loom weights with identical stamps on the top found at House 1, Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019). Table K.7: Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a 121 g loom weight from House 1, room I (Monte Polizo). Truncated pyramidal (C.4): weight 121 g, thickness 3.7 cm Warp thread tension

No. of warp threads per loom weight

No. of warp threads per two loom weights

Threads per cm

Evaluation

5 g

24

48

13

optimal

10 g

12

24

6

possible

Table K.8: Calculations for potential loom set-ups with a 288 g loom weight from House 1, room I (Monte Polizo). Truncated pyramidal (C.4): weight 288 g, thickness 4.4 cm Warp thread tension

No. of warp threads per loom weight

No. of warp threads per two loom weights

Threads per cm

Evaluation

10 g

29

58

13

possible

20 g

14

28

6

optimal

Annex K. Analysis of textile tools from Monte Polizo

143

Spools

Two spools were recovered from Monte Polizo. Mp086 has a concave body 7.8 cm long, with domed ends (type A.2) (Fig. K.9a). Made of grey clay in a fine fabric, it weighs 100 g and is perforated in the middle through the short side. Incised lines occur on the ends. Spool mp100 has a concave body of c. 4.3 cm with flat ends (type A.1) and is made of a reddish clay in a fine fabric (Fig. K.9b). It is partially preserved and weighs c. 40 g. It is perforated closer to one end transversally through the short side.

Fig. K.9a–b: Types of spools found at Monte Polizo. Photo by author (with the permission of Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, no. 4000, 14-08-2019).

144

Notes

Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily

1. Authorisation from the Soprintendenza per I Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani no. 1397 (2018) and no. 4000 (2019). 2. For reference to archaeometric analysis on pottery, see Montana et al. 2012. 3. According to Cooper (2007), red matt-painted ware was dominant at the site among the domestic table ware during the first phase of occupation (650–600 BC). Then, it was completely replaced by the grey ware, which remained the dominant ware until the abandonment of the site. The limited number of loom weights made of reddish clay might be interpreted as a consequence of a shift in the production process, which seems to follow what happens with pottery after 600 BC. 4. Mühlenbock 2008, 49. 5. Mühlenbock 2008, 105, fig. 47, no. 18. 6. Mühlenbock 2008, 105, fig. 47, no. 12.4. 7. Loom weights bearing a Σ are attested at Himera (Allegro 1976, 676, cat. nos 90, 143). 8. Cf. Spatafora 2003, 150–151; 132, fig. 143, no. 87; 147, fig. 155, no. 24; Mühlenbock 2008, 105, fig. 47, no. 11.5. 9. Cf. Spatafora 2003, 149–150; see also Mühlenbock 2008, 105, fig. 47, no. 11.4. 10. This is the case of a carbonised band from Bronze Age Chania (Crete) (Spantidaki and Moulherat 2012, 189). The use of different raw material in the weft and warp is also attested from the Kerameikos in Classical Attica (Spantidaki 2016, 111–112, cat. nos 8, 10, 12). 11. Spantidaki, 2016, 110, cat. no. 4. 12. A similar item was found also in House 3. mp40923 is 276 g in weight, and 5.4 cm long × 3 cm high. 13. Spatafora 2003, 147; fig. 155, no. 37; 150, fig. 159, no. 84; Mühlenbock 2009, 105, fig. 47, no. 18. 14. Vassallo 1999, 96, fig. 106.

Afterword This work sought to build a picture of textile material culture of communities in Sicily between the 13th and the 5th centuries BC. The purpose was not without challenges as textiles have all but disappeared from the archaeological record. Therefore, textiles have been explored indirectly through other available archaeological material and literary sources. Textile implements have been the main source of information, providing a wide spectrum of knowledge on diverse aspects related to textile culture. They have informed us about technical aspects of textile tool and textile manufacturing, changes in technology, as well as economic and social aspects of textile production. The investigation has confirmed that textile production was one of the most practised activities in ancient Sicily and formed an integral part of local economies. The existing archaeological evidence does show that textile production was intensively practised within domestic spaces. However, it is difficult to determine whether textiles were made exclusively for household consumptions, or trade and exchange as well. Although there is no clear evidence of larger-scale production up until the 5th century BC, textile craft became more and more specialised, involving many skilled craftspeople. Similar to what can be observed in other crafts such as metallurgy, pottery and agriculture, changes in textile tool production and the introduction of new types of textile implements educate us about the acquisition of new skills and the transfer of knowledge. This study of textile tools has greatly expanded our current understanding of textile production traditions in the Mediterranean area and enabled further exploration of the dynamics of knowledge transfer and people. Bronze Age Sicily had its own textile tradition, which changed throughout the centuries. Sicilian communities became familiar with new technologies and acquired technical expertise, which were passed on through apprenticeship and direct contact with expert craftspeople. What has emerged is that a similar Archaic weaving tradition characterised southern Italy and was focused on the production of fine quality textiles, although it showed local features at each site. It is difficult to establish whether differences were dependent on local raw materials, a particular level of knowledge or cultural choices. Fabrics for garments and furnishings were praised for their quality, while decorations and colours must have played a crucial role in their appearance and aesthetic value. Iconography affords a glimpse of the level reached in textile craft, such as we can see on the bands decorated with complex scenes adorning the female statues found at Morgantina. Also, textiles were common products for trade and exchange. Certain types of textiles were possibly connected with social and religious activities,

146

Afterword

with production involving specific tools and technological know-how, alongside beliefs and tradition. In this study, textile culture has been explored as an essential and dynamic aspect of everyday life. As ancient texts document, textiles and clothing were a means of self-expression and one of the main cultural and social indicators of ancient societies of Mediterranean Europe. Textiles could convey political, cultural or religious messages and were used as symbols of status, identity and cultural membership. Dealing with textile tools within the culturally mixed Sicilian environment, this work has demonstrated that changes in textile tools and technology could correspond to changes in social or cultural behaviour and choices were actively made by their users. Drawing upon a variegated background of theories and approaches, this work has revealed the extraordinary uniqueness of textile tools, which were entangled with technology, cultural aspects, individuals and society. Textiles had a strong symbolism. The investigation of textile tools in sanctuaries has stressed to what extent textile production played a significant role within the religious and ritual sphere. At the same time, the inclusion of textile tools among votive offerings shows how intertwined textile activity was with society. Furthermore, there was an intimate relationship between textile craft and weavers, which remains literally impressed on textile implements in the form of personal stamps. Despite the challenges that this work has presented, it has shown the enormous potential of the investigation of textile tools to increase our understanding of ancient Sicilian culture. The hope is that this work will contribute to the opening of future investigations of other sources of evidence and aspects of textile archaeology in Sicily. Further studies are needed to collect new data from other crucial sites, including funerary contexts. Also, an in-depth search of textile remains preserved in burials in the form of mineralised traces on metal objects is needed to supplement the data supplied by the analysis of textile tools. Moreover, archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological analyses would improve our knowledge of domesticated animal and plant species and the first stages of textile production. Finally, it is my hope that this work will draw the attention not only of textile specialists but also all researchers of ancient Sicily and lead towards an alternative, more integrated way to approach ancient textile activity as well as cultural interaction studies in Sicily.

Bibliography Adriani, A. et al. (eds) (1970) Himera 1: Campagne di scavo 1963–1965. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Albanese Procelli, R.M. (1992) La necropoli di Madonna del Piano presso Grammichele: osservazioni sul rituale funerario. Kokalos 38, 33–68. Albanese Procelli, R.M. (2003) Sicani, Siculi, Elimi: Forme di identità, modi di contatto e processi di trasformazione. Milano, Longanesi. Albanese Procelli, R.M. (2004) Fasi e facies dell’età del Ferro della protostoria recente in Sicilia: dati e problemi interpretativi. Mediterranea. Quaderni annuali dell’Istituto di studi sulle civiltà italiche e del Mediterraneo antico del consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, 517–526. Pisa-Roma, Istituto editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. Albanese Procelli, R.M. (2010) Presenze indigene in contesti coloniali sicelioti: sul problema degli indicatori cronologici. In H. Tréziny (ed.) Grecs et Indigènes de la Catalogne à la mer Noire. Actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses (2006–2008), 501–508. Paris. Alberti, G. (2013) A Bayesian 14C chronology of Early and Middle Bronze Age in Sicily. Towards an independent absolute dating. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (5), 2502–2514. Allegro, N. (ed.) (1976) Himera, 2. Campagne di scavo 1966–1973. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Allegro, N. (ed.) (2008) L’abitato. Isolato II. I blocchi 1–4 della zona I, Himera 5. Palermo, Dipartimento di Beni Culturali, Università di Palermo. Allegro, N., Belvedere, O., Bonacasa, N., Bonacasa-Carra, R.M., Epifanio, E., Di Stefano, C., Joly, E.A., Manni-Piraino, M.T., Schmiedt, G., Tullio, A. and Tusa Cutroni, A. (eds) (1972) Himera, 2. Campagne di scavo 1966–1973. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Allen, H.L. (1972–73) Per una definizione della facies preistorica di Morgantina: l’etá del Ferro. Kokalos 18–19, 146–60. Allen, H.L. (1976–77) The effect of the population movements and diffusion on Iron Age Morgantina. Kokalos 22–23, 479–509. Andersson, E. (1999) The Common Thread, Textile Production during the Late Iron Age – Viking Age. Lund, Institute of Archaeology, University of Lund. Andersson, E. (2003) Tools for Textile Production from Birka and Hedeby: Excavations in the Black Earth 1990–1995. Stockholm. Birka Project, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Andersson, E. (2007) Textile tools and production during the Viking Age. In C. Gillis and M.-L. Nosch (eds) Ancient Textiles. Production, Craft and Society: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, 17–25. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Andersson Strand, E. (2011) Tools and textiles – production and organisation in Birka and Hedeby. In S. Sigmundsson (ed.) Viking Settlements and Viking Society. Papers from the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Viking Congress, Reykjavík and Reykholt, 16th–23rd August 2009, 1–17. Reykjavik, Hid Islenzka Fornleifafelag & University of Iceland Press. Andersson Strand, E. (2015) The basics of textile tools and textile technology – from fibre to fabric. In E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch (eds) Tools, Textiles and Contexts. Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age, 39–60. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 21. Andersson Strand, E. and Nosch, M.-L. (eds) (2015) Tools, Textiles and Contexts. Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 21.

148

Bibliography

Anello, P. (1997) Le popolazioni epicorie della Sicilia nella tradizione letteraria. In S. Tusa (ed.) Prima Sicilia. Alle origini della società siciliana, 539–557. Palermo, Ediprint. Antonaccio, C. (1997) Urbanism at Archaic Morgantina. In H. Damgaard Andersen, H.W. Horsnaes, S. Houby-Nielsen and A. Rathje (eds) Urbanisation in the Mediterranean in the 9th to 6th Centuries BC. Acta Hyperborea 7, 167–93. Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen. Antonaccio, C. (2009) (Re)Defining Ethinicity: Culture, Material Culture, and Identity. In T. Hodos and S. Hales (eds) Visual Culture and Social Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, 32–53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Antonaccio, C. (2015) Re-excavating Morgantina. In C. Antonaccio and D. Haggis (eds) Classical Archaeology in Context. Theory and Practice in Excavation in the Greek World, 51–69. Berlin, De Gruyter. Appadurai, A. (ed.) (1986) The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Arnold, D. (1985) Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Balco, W. and Kolb, M. (2009) Loomweights as material culture indicators: a western Sicilian case study. In H. Oniz (ed.) SOMA 2008. Proceedings of the XII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Eastern Mediterranean, University Famagusta, North Cyprus, 5–8 March, 177–182. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1909. Barber, E.J.W. (1991) Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Barber, E.J.W. (1994) Women’s Work: The First 20,000 Years. Women, Cloth and Society in Early Times. New York, Norton. Barber, E.J.W. (2007) Weaving the social fabric. In C. Gillis and M.-L.B. Nosch (eds) Ancient Textiles, Production, Craft and Society, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, held at Lund Sweden and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19–23, 2003, 173–178. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Bartosiewicz, L. (2012) Faunal remains. In R. Leighton (ed.) Prehistoric Houses at Morgantina: Excavations on the Cittadella of Morgantina in Sicily, 1989–2004, 154–171. London, Accordia Research Institute. Baumbach, J.D. (2004) The Significance of Votive Offerings in Selected Hera Sanctuaries in the Peloponnese, Ionia and Western Greece. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1249. Bazzanella, M., Mayr, A., Moser, L. and Rast-Eicher, A. (2003) Textiles: intrecci e tessuti dalla preistoria europea. Catalogo della mostra tenutasi a Riva del Garda dal 24 maggio al 19 ottobre 2003. Riva del Garda, Trento, Esperia. Bell, M. (1981) Morgantina Studies: Results of the Princeton University Archaeological Expedition to Sicily. 1. The Terracottas. Princeton, University Press. Bender Jørgensen, L. (2012) Spinning faith. In M.L.S. Sørensen and K. Rebay-Salisbury (eds) Embodied Knowledge: Historical Perspectives on Belief and Technology, 128–136. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Bernabò Brea, L. (1957) Sicily before the Greeks. London, Thames and Hudson. Bernabò Brea, L. and Cavalier, M. (1959) Mylai. Novara, De Agostini. Bernabò Brea, L. and Cavalier, M. (1977) Il castello di Lipari e il Museo archeologico eoliano. Palermo, Flaccovio Editore. Bernabò Brea, L. and Cavalier, M. (1980) Meligunìs Lipàra. IV. L’acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria. Palermo, Flaccovio Editore. Bernabò Brea, L., Cavalier, M. and Villard, F. (1998) Meligunìs Lipàra IX, Topografia di Lipari in età greca e romana, Parte I, L’acropoli. Palermo, Accademia Nazionale di Scienze, Lettere e Arti di Palermo. Bernabò Brea, L., Cavalier, M. and Villard, F. (2001) Meligunìs Lipàra XI, Gli scavi nella necropoli greca e romana di Lipari nell’area del terreno vescovile Parte I e Parte II, Palermo, Regione Siciliana. Bernabò Brea, L., Militello, E. and La Piana, S. (1969) La necropoli detta del Molino della Badia: nuove tombe in contrada Madonna del Piano. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 8, 23, 210–276. Bhabha, H.K. (2004) The Location of Culture. London, Routledge. Biagini, C. (2008) Pesi da telaio e oscilla. In R. Camerata-Scovazzo (ed.) Segesta, 3. Il sistema difensivo di Porta di Valle. Scavi 1990–1993, 645–670. Mantova.

Bibliography

149

Bietti Sestieri, A.M. (1979) I processi storici nella Sicilia orientale fra la tarda etá del bronzo e gli inizi dell’etá del ferro sulla base dei dati archeologici. Atti della XXI Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze 1977, 599–629. Florence, Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. (1992) La necropoli laziale dell’Osteria dell’Osa. Roma, Quasar. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. (2005) A reconstruction of historical process in Bronze and Early Iron Age Italy based on recent archaeological research. In P.A. Attama, A. Nijboer and A. Zifferero (eds) Paper in Italian Archaeology VI, Communities and Settlements from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval Period, 9–24. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1457. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. (2014) Sicily in Mediterranean history in the second millennium BC. In B.A. Knapp and P. van Dommelen (eds) The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean, 74–95. New York, Cambridge University Press. Boardman, J. (1964) The Greeks Overseas. London, Penguin. Bonanno, C. (2008) Gli oscilla discoidali. In C. Bonanno (ed.) Apollonia. Indagini archeologiche sul Monte di San Fratello-Messina 2003–2005, 57–61. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Bouma, J.M. (1996) Religio Votiva. The Archaeology of Latial Votive Religion. Groningen, Institute of Archaeology. Bove, A. (1995) Rocca d’Entella: gli oscilla (1985–1989). In G. Nenci (ed.) Entella I, 163–168. Pisa, Stamperia della Scuola normale superiore. Breniquet, C. (2010) Weaving in Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age: archaeology, techniques, iconography. In C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch (eds) Textile Terminologiesin the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean from the 3rd to the 1st Millennia BC, 52–67. Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 8. Brøns, C. (2016) Gods and Garments: Textiles in Greek Sanctuaries in the 7th to the 1st Centuries BC. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 28. Brown, J. (1970) A note on the division of labor by sex. American Anthropologist 72 (5), 1073–1078. Brugnone, A. (2008) Tessuti, costumi e mode nella Sicilia antica. Kokalos 49, 51–86. Bundrick, S.D. (2008) The fabric of the city: imaging textile production in Classical Athens. Hesperia 77, 2, 283–334. Buschor, E. (1930) Heraion von Samos. Frühe Bauten. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 55, 1–99. Cahill, N. (2002) Household and City Organization at Olynthus. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press. Calderone, A. (1980–81) Monte Saraceno. Scavo dell’abitato nel biennio 1978–79. Kokalos 26–27, 601–612. Calderone, A. and Tramontana, E. (2009) La ceramica attica figurata nei contesti sacri di Monte Saraceno di Ravanusa. In S. Fortunelli and C. Masseria (eds) Ceramica attica da santuari della Grecia, della Ionia e dell’Italia, 587–614. Venosa, Osanna. Castellana, G. (1998) Il santuario castelluciano di Monte Grande e l’approvvigionamento dello zolfo nel Mediterraneo nell’Età del Bronzo. Palermo, Regione Sicilia. Castellana, G. (2002) La Sicilia nel II millennio a.C. Palermo, Sciacca Editore. Castellana, G. (2014) La Sicilia nel Tardo Bronzo. Genti culture risorse e commerci. Agrigento, Proprietà letteraria riservata. Cavalier, M. (2004) L’Ausonio I a Lipari. In D. Cocchi Genick (ed.) L’età del Bronzo Recente in Italia, 185–190. Viareggio and Lucca, Mauro Baroni Editore. Cerzoso, M. and Vanzetti, A. (eds) (2014) Museo civico dei Bretti e degli Enotri. Catalogo dell’esposizione. Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino Editore. Chantréaux, G. (1941–42) Le Tissage sur Métier de haute lisse à Aït-Hichem et dans le Haut-Sebaou. Revue Africaine 85, 78–115; 86, 212–229. Chen, H.L., Jakes, K.A. and Foreman, D.W. (1998) Preservation of archaeological textiles through fibre mineralization. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 1015–21.

150

Bibliography

Cipriano, S. (2018) Spinning and weaving at the sanctuary of Reitia in Este (Italy) during Roman Times. In M.S. Busana, M. Gleba and F. Meo (eds) Textiles and Dyes in the Mediterranean Economy and Society Proceedings of the VIth International Symposium on Textiles and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Padova – Este – Altino, Italy 17–20 October 2016). Purpureae vestes: Textiles and Dyes in Antiquity 6, 325–331. Libros Pórtico, Valencia. Codex Mendoza (1964) Bodleian Library, Oxford. In J. Corona Nuñez (ed.) Antigüedades de México basadas en la recopilación de Lord Kingsborough. México, D.F., Secretarìa de Hacienda y Crédito Pùblico. Coldstream, N.J. (1993) Mixed marriages at the frontiers of the early Greek world. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12 (1), 89–107. Consoli, V. (2010) Elmo, fuso e conocchia. Per un’iconografia di Atena Ergane. EIDOLA International Journal of Classical History 7, 9–28. Cooper, J.M. (2007) Traditions in Profile: A Chronological Sequence of Western Sicilian Ceramics (7th–6th c. BC). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo. Costantini, L. (1983) Analisi paleoetnobotaniche nel comprensorio di Camarina. Bollettino d’Arte 68, 49–56. Costin, C.L. (1991) Craft Specialization: issues in defining, documenting and expaining the organization of production. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Archaeological Method and Theory, 1–56. Tuscon, Springer. Costin, C.L. (2005) Craft production. In H. Maschner (ed.) Handbook of Archaeological Methods, 1032–1105. Walnut Creek, CA, AltaMira. Costin, C.L. (2013) Gender and textile production in Prehistory. In D. Bolger (ed.) A Companion to Gender Prehistory, 180–202. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Cottonaro, M. (2010) Il Thesmophorion di Valle Ruscello nel territorio di Piazza Armerina. Dati archeologici dai vani F, G, i dell’edificio 3. In M. Frasca (ed.) Nelle terre di Ducezio, Monte Catalfaro – Terravecchia di Grammichele, Valle Ruscello – Contrada Favarotta, 125–164. Acireale, Bonanno Editore. Crispino, A. and Cultraro, M. (2016) Il dolio e il fuso. Per una ricostruzione del ruolo e della sfera di azione della donna nella Sicilia orientale alle soglie della colonizzazione greca. In R. Berg (ed.) The Material Sides of Marriage. Women and Domestic Economies in Antiquity, 69–80. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 43, Roma, Edizioni Quasar. Crowfoot, G.M. (1931) Methods of Hand Spinning in Egypt and the Sudan. Halifax, Bankfield Museum. Cultraro, M. (2005) Le relazioni tra Sicilia e penisola Iberica in età postmicenea: una nota. In C. Perèz and J. Avila (eds), El periodo orientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueloquìa de Mèrida: Protohistoria del Medirerràneo Occidental, vol.  1, 97–106. Mèrida, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientìficas, Istituto de Arquelogìa. Cuomo Di Caprio, N. (2007) Ceramica in Archeologia 2. Antiche tecniche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di indagine. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Cutler, J. (2016) Fashioning identity: weaving technology, dress and cultural change in the Middle and Late Bronze Age southern Aegean. In E. Gorogianni, P. Pavúk and L. Girella (eds) Beyond Thalassocracies: Understanding Processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean, 172–185. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Danile, L. (2008) Il Blocco 1. In N. Allegro (ed.) L’abitato. Isolato II. I blocchi 1–4 della zona I, Himera 5, 17–74. Palermo, Dipartimento di Beni Culturali Università di Palermo. Davidson, G.R and Burr Thompson, D. (1943) Small objects from the Pnyx, 1. Hesperia, Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Supplement VII. Davidson, G.R. (1952) The Minor Object. Corinth XII. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. De Angelis, F. (2016) Archaic and Classical Greek Sicily: A Social and Economic History. Oxford, Oxford University Press. De Miro, E. (1980–81) Ricerche archeologiche nella Sicilia centro-meridionale. Kokalos 26–27, 561–580. De Miro, E. (1988–89) Gli ‘indigeni’ della Sicilia centro-meridionale. Kokalos 34–35, 24–34.

Bibliography

151

De Miro, E. (1999) L’organizzazione abitativa e dello spazio nei centri indigeni delle valli del Salso e del Platani. In M. Barra Bagnasco, E. De Miro and A. Pinzone (eds) Magna Grecia e Sicilia: stato degli studi e prospettive di ricerca, 187–93. Messina, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità dell’Università degli Studi di Messina. De Miro, E. and Cali, V. (2006) Agrigento III. I santuari urbani. Il settore occidentale della collina dei Templi. Il terrazzo dei donari. Palermo, Regione Sicilia. De Simone, R. (2003) Oggetti fittili, terrecotte, metalli, oggetti in pietra, astragali in osso. In F. Spatafora (ed.) Monte Maranfusa. Un insediamento nella media valle del Belice. L’abitato indigeno, 347–378. Palermo, Assessorato regionale dei beni culturali ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. Deonna, W. (1938) Le mobilier délien. Exploration archéologique de Délos 18. Paris, Editions de Boccard. Dewailly, M. (1992) Les statuettes mix parures du sanctuaire de la Molophoros à Selinonte: context, typologie et interorètation d’une catègorie d’offrandes. Napoli, Publications du Centre Jean Bérard. Di Giuseppe, H. (1995) I pesi da telaio. In A. Russo Tagliente (ed.) Armento. Archeologia di un centro indigeno. Bollettino di Archeologia 35–36, 141–149. Di Giuseppe, H. (2012a) Lanifici e strumenti della produzione nell’Italia centro-meridionale. In M.S. Busana and P. Basso (eds) La lana nella Cisalpina Romana. Economia e società. Studi in onore Stefania Pesavento Mattioli, Atti del Convegno (Padova-Verona 18–20 maggio 2011), 477–494. Padova, Padova University Press. Di Giuseppe, H. (2012b) Black-Gloss Ware in Italy. Production Management and Local Histories. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 2335. Di Pierro, S. (2002) Domestic Production Versus Pottery Exchange during the Final Neolithic: Characterization of the Auvernier-cordé Ceramics from the Portalban and St Blaise Settlements, Western Switzerland. Unpublished PhD thesis, Institut de Minéralogie et de Pétrographie Université de Fribourg. Di Rosa, V. (1999) Studio archeozoologico dei resti faunistici rinvenuti a Colla Madora. In S. Vassallo (ed.), Colle Madore. Un caso di ellenizzazione in terra sicula, 255–266. Entella, Giuseppe Nenci Editore. Di Sclafani, A.M. et al. (2005) Necropoli di Himera: analisi di un frammento di tessuto. Intrecci vegetali e fibre tessili. Analisi Conservazione e Restauro. Atti Trento 28–30 maggio 2003. Incontri di Restauro 4, 352–355. Trento, Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Provincia autonoma di Trento. Di Vita, A. (1952–54) Athena Ergane in una terracotta della Sicilia e il culto della dea in Atene. Annuario della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 30–32, 141–154. Di Vita, A. (1956) Sui pesi da telaio: una nota. Archeologia Classica 8, 40–44. Dietler, M. (1998) Consumption, agency, and cultural entanglement: theoretical implications of a Mediterranean colonial encounter. In J.G. Cusick (ed.) Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change and Archaeology. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 25, 288–315. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University. Dietler, M. (2005) The archaeology of colonization and the colonization of archaeology: theoretical challenges from an ancient Mediterranean colonial encounter. In G. Stein (ed.) The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives. School of American Research Advanced Seminars Series, 33–68. Santa Fe and Oxford, School of American Research and James Currey. Dimova, B. (2016) Textile production in Iron Age Thrace. European Journal of Archaeology 19 (4), 652–680. Dimova, B. (2019) https://www.bsa.ac.uk/2019/02/06/experimenting-with-textile-tools-at-thefitch-lab/. Dobres, M.A. (2000) Technology and Social Agency. Oxford, Blackwell. Dobres, M.A. (2010) Archaeologies of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34, 103–114. Dobres, M.A. and Hoffmann, C.R. (1994) Social agency and the dynamics of Prehistoric technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 211–258.

152

Bibliography

Domínguez, A.J. (2011) The origin of Greek colonisation and the Greek polis. Some observations. Ancient West and East 10, 195–207. Dunbabin, T.J. (1948) The Western Greeks. The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Dunbabin, T.J. (1962) Monochrome vases and coarse pottery. In T.J. Dumbabin (ed.) Perachora II: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia: The Pottery, Ivories, Scarabs and Other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia, 315–333. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Eicher, J.B. (ed.) (1995) Dress and Ethnicity. Change across Space and Time. Oxford and Washington D.C., Berg. Ekroth, G. (2011) Ull, pengar och sex: Tolkningar av ett attiskt, rödfigurigt vasmotiv. Medusa. Svensk tidsskrift för antiken, Stockholm, Föreningen för en svensk antiktidskrift 32, 1–12. Falsone, G. et al. (1980–1981) Quattro campagne di scavo a Castellazzo di Poggioreale. Kokalos 26–27, 931–972. Ferrandini Troisi, F. (1986) Pesi da telaio. Segni e interpretazioni. Decima Miscellanea Greca e Romana, 91–114. Roma, Istituto Romano per la Storia Antica. Ferrara, B. (2009) I pozzi votive nel santuario di Heraall foce del Sele. Pozzuoli, Naus editoria. Ferrara, B. and Meo, F. (2017) Loom weights in sacred context: the Square Building of the Heraion near the Sele. In C. Brøns and M.-L. Nosch (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop Textiles and Cult in the Mediterranean Area in the First Millennium BC, 112–125. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 31. Ferrer, M. (2016) Feeding the community: women’s participation in communal celebrations, western Sicily (8th–6th centuries BC). Journal of Archaeology Method and Theory 23 (3), 900–920. Finley, M.I. (1968) A History of Sicily: Ancient Sicily to the Arab Conquest. London, Chatto & Windus. Forte, V. and Lemorini, C. (2017) Traceological analysis applied to textile implements: an assessment of the method through the case study of the 1st millennium BCE ceramic tools in central Italy. In M. Gleba and R. Laurito (eds) Preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche – Prehistory and Protohistory of Ancient Civilizations, 165–182. Roma, Gangemi Editore. Fossøy, S.H. (2018) The production of Scandinavian Bronze Age textiles: skill and creativity. In L. Bender Jørgensen, J.R. Sofaer and M.L. Stig Sørensen (eds), Creativity in the Bronze Age: Understanding Innovation in Pottery, Textile, and Metalwork Production, 115–126. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Foxhall, L. (2000) The running sands of time: archaeology and short-term timescales. World Archaeology 31 (3), 484–498. Foxhall, L. (2012) Family time: temporality, gender and materiality in ancient Greece. In J. Marincola, L. Llewellyn-Jones and C. Maciver (eds) Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History without Historians, 183–206. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Foxhall, L. (2018) Loom weights. In J. Coleman Carter and K. Swift (eds) The Chora of Metaponto 7. The Greek Sanctuary at Pantanello, 1027–1086. Institute of Classical Archaeology Series on the Rural Settlements in the Chora of Metaponto 7. Fragnoli, P. and Levi, S. (2012) Finds reports and analyses. In R. Leighton (ed.) Prehistoric Houses at Morgantina, 89–118. London, Accordia Research Institute. Frasca, M. (1979) Nuovi rinvenimenti nella necropoli del Monte Finocchito. Sicilia Archeologia 12, 79–92. Frasca, M. (1981) La necropoli di Monte Finocchito. In M. Frasca and D. Palermo (eds) Contributi alla conoscenza dell’età del Ferro in Sicilia: Monte Finocchito e Polizzello. Cronache di Archeologia 20, 13–102. Catania, Università degli Studi di Catania. Frasca, M. (1991) Scavi nelle necropoli di Lentini (1977–1982). Cronache di Archeologica, 11–35. Catania, Università degli Studi di Catania. Frasca, M. (1996) Iron Age settlements and cemeteries in southeastern Sicily: an introduction survey. In R. Leighton (ed.) Early Societies in Sicily. New Developments in Archaeological Research, 139–145. London, Accordia Research Institute.

Bibliography

153

Frasca, M. (2001) L’agro netino nella protostoria. Insediamenti e distribuzione territoriale. In F. Balsamo, F. and V. La Rosa (eds) Contributi alla geografia storica dell’agro netino. Atti delle giornate di studio, 29–21 maggio Noto 1998, 47–54. Rosolini, I.S.V.N.A. Frasca, M. (2009) Lentinoi. Archeologia di una colonia greca. Roma, Bretschneider Editore. Frasca, M. (2012) Siculi e Greci sui colli di Leontini: un’aggiornamento. Convivenze etniche, scontri e contatti di culture in Sicilia e Magna Grecia. Aristonothos. Scritti per il Mediterraneo antico 7, 175–193. Trento, Tangram Edizione Scientifiche. Frasca, M. (2015) Archeologia degli Iblei. Indigeni e Greci nell’altopiano ibleo tra la prima e la seconda età del Ferro. Scicli, Edizioni di storia e studi sociali. Frost, H. (1981) Cordage. In H. Frost et al. (eds) Lilybaeum. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 30 (Supp.), 93–97. Gabrici, E. (1927) Il santuario della Malophoros a Selinunte. Monumenti Antichi 32. Gambacurta, G. (2017) A loom for the goddess – tools for spinning and weaving from the sanctuary of the Goddess Reitia in Este (Padua). In M. Gleba and R. Laurito (eds) Preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche – Prehistory and Protohistory of Ancient Civilizations, 217–232. Roma, Gangemi Editore. Gastaldi, P. and D’Agostino, B. (eds) (1988) Pontecagnano II. La necropoli del Picentino. 1 Le tombe della Prima Età del Ferro. Annali. Dipartimento di Studi del mondo classico e del Mediterraneo antico, Quaderno N. 5, Napoli, L’Orientale Università degli Studi. Gentili, G.V. (1969) Piazza Armerina (Enna). Le anonime città di Montagna di Marzo e Monte Navone. Testimonianze archeologiche. Notizie degli scavi di antichità, vol. 94, Suppl. II. Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Gibson, A.M. and Wood, A. (1997) Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist. Leicester, Leicester University Press. Giglio Cerniglia, R., Falsone, G. and Sconzo, P. (2012) Nuove ricerche a Castellazzo di Poggioreale. Campagne 2008–2009. In C. Ampolo (ed.), Sicilia occidentale. Studi, rassegne, ricerche. Atti delle settime giornate internazionali di studi sull’area elima e la Sicilia occidentale nel contesto mediterraneo Erice, 12–15 ottobre 2009 Workshop «G. Nenci», Vol. II, 239–250. Pisa, Edizioni della Normale. Gillard, E., Hardman, S., Thomas, R. and Watkinson, D. (1994) The mineralization of fibres in burial environments. Studies in Conservation 39 (2), 132–140. Gleba, M. (2007) Textile production in proto-historic Italy: from specialists to workshops. In C. Gillis and M.-L. Nosch (eds) Ancient Textiles: Production, Craft and Society. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, Held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19–23, 2003, 71–76. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Gleba, M. (2008) Textile Production in Pre-Roman Italy. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 4. Gleba, M. (2009a) Textile tools and specialisation in Early Iron Age female burials. In E. Herring and K. Lomas (eds) Gender Identities in Italy in the First Millenium BC, 69–78. Oxford, Archaeopress. Gleba, M. (2009b) Textile tools in ancient Italian votive contexts: evidence of dedication or production? In M. Gleba and H.W. Becker (eds) Votive Places and Rituals in Etruscan Religion. Studies in Honour of Jean MacIntosh Turfa, 69–84. Leiden, Brill. Gleba, M. (2012) From textiles to sheep: investigating wool fibre development in pre-Roman Italy using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Journal Archaeological Science 39, 3643–3661. Gleba, M. (2014) Cloth worth a king’s ransom. Textile circulation and transmission of textile craft in the ancient Mediterranean. In K. Rebay-Salisbury, A. Brysbaert and L. Foxhall (eds) Knowledge Networks and Craft Traditions in the Ancient World Material Crossovers, 83–103. New York, Taylor & Francis. Gleba, M. (2015) Sacred cloth: consumption and production of textiles in sanctuaries and the power of elites in archaic western Mediterranean world. In E. Kistler, B. Öhlinger, M. Mohr and M. Hoernes (eds), Sanctuaries and the Power of Consumption. Networking and the Formation of Elites in the Archaic Western Mediterranean World. Proceedings of the International Conference in Innsbruck, 20th–23rd March 2012, Wiesbaden 2015, 373–383. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Gleba, M. (2017a) Tracing textile cultures of Italy and Greece in the early first millennium BC. Antiquity 144, 1205–1222.

154

Bibliography

Gleba, M. (2017b) Textiles in Pre-Roman Italy: from qualitative to quantitative approach. In M. Gleba and R. Laurito (eds) Contextualising Textile Production in Italy in the 1st Millennium BC, Origini 40, 9–28. Roma, Gangemi Editore. Gleba, M. and Meo, F. (2017) L’abbigliamento funerario. In M. Niola and G. Zuchtriegel (eds) Action Painting. Rito & arte nelle tombe di Paestum, 141–191. Napoli, Editrice politecnica. Gleba, M., Heitz, C., Landenius Enegren, H. and Meo, F. (2018) At the crossroads of textile cultures: textile production and use at the south Italian archaic site of Ripacandida. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 31 (1), 27–51. Gleba, M., Menale, I. and Rescigno, C. (2017) Textiles and rituals in Cumaean cremation burials. In M. Gleba and R. Laurito (eds) Contextualising textile production in Italy in the 1st millennium BC, Origini 40, 45–63. Roma, Gangemi Editore. Goegebeur, W. (1987) Des problemes liés à l’interculturation et l’intermariage en Grand-Grèce. Studia Varia Bruxellensia, 55–64. Gosden, C. (2004) Archaeology and Colonialism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Gras, M., Tréziny, H. and Broise, H. (2004) Mégara Hyblaea 5, La ville archaïque. Roma, EFR. Grasso, L. (2008) La stipe del santuario di Aliamo a Lentini. Un’area sacra tra chora e il mare. Catania, Monografie dell’Istituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali C.N.R. Greco, G. (1997) Des étoffes pour Héra. In J. de La Genière (ed.) Héra. Images, espaces, cultes, Actes du Colloque International du Centre de Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Lille III et de l´Association P.R.A.C. Lille, 29–30 novembre 1993, 186–199. Naples, Centre Jean Bérard. Greenfield, P.M. (2004) Weaving Generations Together. Santa Fe, School of American Research Press. Grömer, K. (2005) Efficiency and technique – experiments with original spindle whorls. In P. Bichler, K. Grömer, R. Hofman-de Keijzer, A. Kern and H. Reschreiter (eds) Hallstatt Textiles. Technical Analysis, Scientific Investigation and Experiment on Iron Age Textiles, 107–116. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1351. Grömer, K. (2010) Prähistorische Textilkunst in Mitteleuropa. Geschichte des Handwerkes und der Kleidung vor den Römern. Vienna, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien. Grömer, K. (2014) Römische Textilien in Noricum und Westpannonien im Kontext der archäologischen Gewebefunde 2000 v. Chr. 500 n. Chr.in Österreich. Austria Antiqua 5. Graz, Uni Press Graz Verlag. Grömer, K. (2016) The Art of Prehistoric Textile Making. The Development of Craft Traditions and Clothing in Central Europe. Vienna, Natural History Museum Vienna. Grömer, K., Kern, A., Reschreiter, H. and Rösel-Mautendorfer, H. (eds) (2013) Textiles from Hallstatt. Weaving Culture in Bronze and Iron Age Salt Mines. Textilien aus Hallstatt. Gewebte Kulturaus dem bronze- und eisenzeitlichen Salzbergwerk. Budapest, Archaeolingua. Hall, J. (2016) Quanto c’è di ‘greco’ nella ‘colonizzazione greca? In V. Nizzo, L. Donnellan and G.J. Burgers (eds) Conceptualising Early Colonisation, 51–59. Brepols, Istitut Historique Belge de Rome Artes 6. Harlow, M., Michel, C. and Quillien, L. (eds) (2020) Textiles and Gender in Antiquity. From the Orient to the Mediterranean. Bloomsbury Academic. Harris, O. and Flohr Sørensen, T.F. (2010) Rethinking emotion and material culture. Dialogues 17 (2), 145–163. Hodder, I. (2012) Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Hodder, I. (2016) Studies in Human-Thing Entanglement. Open access. Hodos, T. (1999) Intermarriage in the western Greek colonies. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 61–78. Hodos, T. (2005) Changing communities in Iron Age Sicily. In P.A. Attama, A. Nijboer and A. Zifferero (eds) Paper in Italian Archaeology VI, Communities and Settlements from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval Period, 103–108. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1457. Hodos, T. (2006) Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean. New York, Routledge. Hoffmann, M. (1964) The Warp-Weighted Loom. Studies in the History and Technology of an Ancient Implements. Studia Norvergica 14, Oslo. Hogarth, D.G. (1908) Excavations at Ephesus. The Archaic Artemisia. London, British Museum.

Bibliography

155

Hosfeld, R. (2009) Modes of transmission and material culture patterns in craft skills. In S. Shennan (ed.) Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution, 45–60. Berkeley, University of California Press. Ialongo, N. (2019) The earliest balance weights in the West: towards an independent metrology for Bronze Age Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29 (1), 103–124. Iancu, I. (2018) Weaving in a foreign land: transmission of textile skills through enslaved women and through intermarriages in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean and pontus. In M. Siennicka, A. Ulanowska and M. Grupa (eds) Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae 31, 69–79. Ingold, T. (1990) Society, nature and the concept of technology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9 (1), 5–17. Ismaelli, T. (2011) Archeologia del culto a Gela. Il santuario del Predio Sola. Bari, Edipuglia. Ismaelli, T. (2013) Pratiche votive e comunicazione rituale nel santuario del Predio Sola a Gela. In L. Giardino and G. Tagliamonte (eds) Archeologia dei luoghi e delle pratiche di culto. Atti del Convegno (Cavallino, 26–27 gennaio 2012), 119–142. Bari, Edilpuglia. Judica, G. (1819) Le Antichita di Acre scoperte, descritte, ed illustrate. Messina, Pappalardo Editore. Kania, K. (2013) The spinning experiment: influences on yarn in spinning with a hand-spindle. In H. Hopkins (ed.) Ancient Textiles, Modern Science. Recreating Techniques through Experiment. Proceedings of the First and Second European Textile Forum 2009 and 2010, 1–29. Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books. Kania, K. (2015) Soft yarns, hard facts? Evaluating the results of a large-scale hand-spinning experiment. Journal of Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7, 113–130. Kilian, K. (1970) Frueheisenzeitliche Funde aus der Suedostnekropole von Sala Consilina (Provinz Salerno). Heidelberg, F.M. Kerle Verlag. Killen, J.T. (2007) Cloth production in Late Bronze Age Greece: the documentary evidence. In C. Gillis and M.-L. Nosch (eds) Ancient Textiles, Production, Crafts and Society, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, Held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19–23, 2003, 50–59. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 1. Kleibrink, M. (2004) Towards an archaeology of Oinotria. Observations on indigenous patterns of religion and settlement in the coastal plain of Sybaris (Calabria). In P. Attema (ed.) Centralisation, Early Urbanisation and Colonisation in First Millennium BC Italy and Greece. Bulletin antieke beschaving Supplement 9, part 1, 29–96. Leuven, Peeters. Kleibrink, M. (2016) Excavations at Francavilla Marittima 1991–2004. Finds Related to Textile Production from the Timpone della Motta. Vol. 5. Spindle Whorls. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 2806. Kleibrink, M. (2017) Excavations at Francavilla Marittima 1991–2004. Finds Related to Textile Production from the Timpone della Motta, Vol. 6: Loom Weights. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 2848. Knappett, C. (2005) Thinking Through Material Culture. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Kopytoff, I. (1986) The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In A. Appadurai (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, 64–91. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kossack, G. (1999) Religiöses Denken in dinglicher und bildlicher Űberlieferung Alteuropas aus der Späthrone – und frühen Eisenzeit (9–6 Jahrhundert v. Chr. Geb.). Bayerische Akedemie der Wissenschaften. Phil.Hist. Klasse. Abhandlungen N.F., Heft 116. München. La Rosa, V. (1989) Le popolazioni della Sicilia: Sicani, Siculi e Elimi. In G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.) Italia omnium terrarum parens: la civiltá degli Enotri, Choni, Ausoni, Sanniti, Lucani, Brettii, Sicani, Siculi, Elimi, 3–110. Milano, Libri Scheiwiller. La Rosa, V. (2000) Riconsiderazioni sulla media e tarda età del Bronzo nella media valle del Platani. Quaderni di Messina, Università di Messina 1, 125–138. La Rosa, V. (2005) Pour une réflexion sur le problème de la première présence égéenne en Sicile. In R. Laffineur and E. Greco (eds), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference. Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), 571–583. Liège, Université de Liège. Landenius Enegren, H. (2015) Loom weights in Archaic South Italy and Sicily: five case studies. Opuscula. Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 8, 123–155. Stockholm.

156

Bibliography

Landenius Enegren, H. (2017) The loom weights from the Scarico di Grotta Vanella. Evidence for a sanctuary on the North Acropolis of Segesta? In C. Brøns and M.-L. Nosch (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop Textiles and Cult in the Mediterranean Area in the First Millennium BC, 104–111. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 31. Lawall, M.L. (2014) Transport amphoras and loomweights: integrating elements of ancient Greek economies? In M.-L. Nosch and M. Harlow (eds) Greek and Roman Textiles and Dress. An Interdisciplinary Anthology, 150–189. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 19. Lebessi, A. (1976) Οι ςτήλε του Πρινιά. Athens, Publication of Archaiologikon Deltion, 22. Leighton, R. (1993) Morgantina IV: The Protohistoric Settlement on the Cittadella. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Leighton, R. (1996) From chiefdom to tribe. Social organisation and change in later prehistory. In R. Leighton (ed.) Early Societies in Sicily. New Developments in Archaeological Research, 101–116. London, Accordia Research Institute. Leighton, R. (1999) Sicily before History: An Archaeological Survey from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. London, Duckworth. Leighton, R. (2000) Indigenous society between the ninth and sixth centuries BC. In C.J. Smith and J. Serrati (eds) Territorial, Urban and Social Evolution, 15–40. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Leighton, R. (2012) Prehistoric Houses at Morgantina: Excavations on the Cittadella of Morgantina in Sicily, 1989–2004. London, Accordia Research Institute. Leighton, R. (2019) Pantalica in the Sicilian Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Excavations of the Rock-Cut Chamber Tombs by Paolo Orsi from 1895 to 1910. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Lentini, F. (2004) Saggi di scavo archeologico presso l’acropoli di Monte Polizzo. Unpublished excavation report, Soprintendenza di Trapani. Levi, D. (1965–66) Bolli d’anfora e pesi fittili da Festos. Annuario della Scuola archeologica Italiana di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 27–28, 569–588. Lipkin, S. (2012) Textile-Making in Central Tyrrhenian Italy from the Final Bronze Age to the Republican Period. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Longhitano, G. (2020) Gli strumenti per l’attività tessile in contesti sacri e rituali: il caso della Sicilia in età arcaica. Thiasos 9 (1), 261–278. Lukesh, S.S. (1999) Early Bronze Age Sicilian geometric decoration: its origin and relationship to vessel form. In S.S. Lukesh (ed.) Interpretatio Rerum. Archeologica Transatlantica XVII, 1–13. Providence, Brown University. Lyons, C. (2000) Gender and burial in early colonial Sicily: the case of Morgantina. In M. Donald and L. Hurcombe (eds) Representations of Gender from Prehistory to the Present. Studies in Gender and Material Culture, 87–103. London Palgrave, Macmillan. Mansfield, J.M. (1985) The Robe of Athena and the Parathenaic Peplos. Ph.D. diss., University of Berkeley. Margariti, C. (2019) The application of FTIR microspectroscopy in a non‑invasive and non‑destructive way to the study and conservation of mineralised excavated textiles. Heritage Science 7, 63. Marín-Aguilera, B., Iacono, F. and Gleba, M. (2018) Colouring the Mediterranean: production and consumption of purple-dyed textiles in Pre-Roman Times. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 31 (2), 127–154. Mårtensson, L., Andersson Strand, E., Nosch, M.-L. and Batzer, A. (2006a) Technical Report. Experimental Archaeology. Part 1: Tools and Textiles, Texts and Contexts. Centre for Textile Research, University of Copenhagen. Available at: http://ctr.hum.ku.dk/tools/Technical_report_1_experimental archaeology.pdf [accessed 21 April 2014]. Mårtensson, L., Andersson, E., Nosch, M.-L. and Batzer, A. (2006b) Technical Report. Experimental Archaeology. Part 2:2: Whorl or Bead? Centre for Textile Research, University of Copenhagen. Available at: http://ctr.hum. ku.dk/tools/Technical_report 2-2__experimental_arcaheology.pdf [accessed 21 April 2014]. Mårtensson, L., Andersson, E., Nosch, M.-L. and Batzer, A. (2007) Technical Report. Experimental Archaeology. Part 3: Loom-Weights. Centre for Textile Research, University of Copenhagen. Available at:

Bibliography

157

http://ctr.hum.ku.dk/tools/ Technical_report_3__experimental_archaeology.pdf [accessed 21 April 2014]. Mårtensson, L., Nosch, M.-L. and Andersson Strand, E. (2009) Shape of things: understanding a loom weight. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28 (4), 373–398. Mastelloni, M.A. (2015) Volti divini e figure umane a Lipára. In M.A. Mastelloni (ed.) Lipara ed il Teatro in età tardoclassica ed ellenistica, 13–28. Palermo, Regione siciliana. McDonald, W.A., Shay, C.T., Wilkie, N., Hope Simpon, R., Coulson, W.D.W., Donovan, W.P., Blitzer, H., Rosser, J., Aschenbrenner, S., Howell, R.J., Dickinson, O.T.P.K, Hughes-Brock, H., Wade, W.D., Wolberg, D.L., Grady. F.V., Sloan, R.E., Shay, J., Rapp, Jr. G. and Cooke, S.R.B. (1975) Excavations at Nichoria in Messenia: 1972–1973. Hesperia 44 (1), 69–141. Mele, A. (1997) Allevamento ovino nell’antica Apulia e lavorazione della lana a Taranto. In M. Moggi and G. Cordiano (eds) Schiavi e dipendenti nell’ambito dell’oikos e della famiglia. Atti del XXII Colloquio GIREA (Pontignano-Siena, 18–19 novembre 1995), 97–104. Pisa, Edizioni ETS. Meo, F. (2015) L’attività tessile a Herakleia di Lucania tra III e I secolo a.C. Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Meo, F. (2017) The oscillum misunderstanding. In S. Gaspa, C. Michel and M.-L., Nosch (eds) Textile Terminologies from the Orient to the Mediterranean and Europe, 1000 BC to 1000 AD, 492–499. Lincoln, Zea Books. Militello, P. (2004) Commercianti, architetti ed artigiani: riflessioni sulla presenza micenea nell’area iblea. In V. La Rosa (ed.) Le presenze micenee nel territorio siracusano. Atti del Primo simposio siracusano di preistoria siciliana (Siracusa 15–16 dicembre 2003), 293–334. Padua, Aldo Ausilio Editore. Militello, P. (2012) Festòs e Haghia Triada. Rinvenimenti minori I. Materiale per la tessitura. Studi di archeologia cretese XI. Padova, Bottega dell’Erasmo, Aldo Ausilio Editore. Militello, P. (2018) Textile production in Copper Age Sicily: preliminary considerations. In N.C. Vella, A.J. Frendo and H.C.R. Vella (eds) The Lure of the Antique Essays on Malta and Mediterranean Archaeology in Honour of Anthony Bonanno, 219–233. Leuven, Peeters Publishers. Militello, P., Longhitano, G. and Messina, T. (2015) Tra Indigeni e Greci: la filatura e la tessitura in area nissena. In R. Panvini and M. Congiu (eds) Indigeni e Greci tra le valli dell’Himera e dell’Halykos. Atti del Convengo Internazionale di Studi, 64–85. Palermo, Regione Siciliana. Miller, D. (2005) Materiality: an introduction. In D. Miller (ed.) Materiality, 182–205. Durham, NC and London, Duke University Press. Mingazzini, P. (1974) Sull’uso e sullo scopo dei pesi da telaio. Rendiconti di Academia Nazionale dei Lincei 29 (8), 201–220. Moeller, W.O. (1976) The Wool Trade of Ancient Pompeii. Leiden, Brill. Moffa, C. (2002) L’organizzazione dello spazio sull’acropoli di Broglio Trebisacce. Dallo studio delle strutture e dei manufatti in impasto di fango all’analisi della distribuzione dei reperti. Firenze, All’Insegna del Giglio. Mollo Mezzana, R. (1993) Sabucina. Recenti scavi nell’area fuori le mura. Risultati e problematiche. In S.N. Consolo Langher and G. Manganaro (eds) Atti del Convegno Storia e Archeologia della media e bassa Valle dell’Himera, Licata-Caltanissetta 1987, 137–181. Caltanissetta and Licata, Associazione Archeologica Licatese and Associazione Archeologia Nissena. Montana, G., Heinze, C.E., Polito, A.M., and Randazzo, L. (2012) Archaeometric evidence attesting production of indigenous archaic pottery at Monte Polizzo (western Sicily). Periodico di Mineralogia 81 (1), 107–130. Morris, I. and Tusa, S. (2004) Scavi sull’acropoli di Monte Polizzo 2000–2003. Sicilia Archeologica 37, 35–84. Morris, I., Jackman, T., Blake, E. and Tusa, S. (2001) Stanford University excavations on the Acropolis of Monte Polizzo, Sicily, I: preliminary report on the 2000 season. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 46, 253–271. Morris, I., Jackman, T., Blake, E., Garnand, B., Tusa, S., Hnatiuk, T., Matthews, W. and Stika, H.-P. (2003) Stanford University excavations on the Acropolis of Monte Polizzo, Sicily, III: preliminary report on the 2002 season. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 48, 243–315.

158

Bibliography

Mühlenbock, C. (2004) (ed.). The Scandinavian Sicilian Archaeological Project. Excavations at Monte Polizzo Sicily. Reports 2002–2003. Gotarc serie C, 57. Göteborg. Mühlenbock, C. (2008) Fragments from a Mountain Society. Tradition, Innovation and Interaction at Archaic Monte Polizzo, Sicily. PhD thesis, University of Gothenburg. Mühlenbock, C. and Prescott, C. (2004) (eds) The Scandinavian Sicilian Archaeological Project Archaeological excavations at Monte Polizzo Sicily. Reports 1998–2001. Gotarc serie C, 56, Göteborg. Muller, S. (2014) Women and textile manufacture in Classical Athens. In J. Zapasnik and A. Hogan (eds) The ANU Undergraduate Research Journal, 6, 23–36. Canberra, ANU eView. Naji, M. (2009) Gender and materiality in the making: the manufacture of Siwan femininities through weaving in southern Morocco. Journal of Material Culture 14, 47–73. Nenci, G. (1992) Entella. Relazione preliminare della campagna di scavo 1989. Annali della Scuola Normale 22, 617–759. Nigro, L. (ed.) (2004) Mozia- X. Zona C: il Kothon. Zona D: Le pendici occidentali dell’Acropoli. Zona F: La Porta Ovest. Rapporto preliminare della XXII campagna di scavi-2002 condotta congiuntamente con il Servizio Beni Archeologici della Soprintendenza Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani. Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica 1, Roma, Missione Archeologica a Mozia. Nigro, L. (ed.) (2005) Mozia- XI. Zona C. il Tempio di Kothon. Rapporto preliminare delle campagne di scavi XXIII–XXIV (2003–2004) condotte congiuntamente con il Servizio Beni Archeologici della Soprintendenza Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani. Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica 2, Roma, Missione Archeologica a Mozia. Nigro, L. (ed.) (2007) Mozia- XII. Zona D. La ‘Casa del Sacello domestico’, il ‘Basamento meridionale’ e il Sondaggio stratigrafico I. Rapporto preliminare delle campagne di scavi XXIII e XXIV (2003–2004) condotte congiuntamente con il Servizio Beni Archeologici della Soprintendenza Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani. Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica 3, Roma, Missione Archeologica a Mozia. Nigro, L. (2013) Before the Greeks: the earliest Phoenician settlement in Motya. Recent discoveries by Rome «La Sapienza» expedition. Vicino Oriente 17, 39–74. Nijboer, A.J. (1988) From Househols Production to Workshops. Groningen, Rijksuniversiteit. Nosch, M.-L. (2014) Voicing the loom: women, weaving and plotting. In D. Nakassis, J. Gulizio and S.A. James (eds) KE-RA-ME-JA. Studies presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, 91–102. Philadelphia, Instap Academic Press. Olausson, D. (2000) Talking axes, social digger. In D. Olausson and H. Vandkilde (eds) Form, Function and Context, Material Culture Studies in Scandinavian Archaeology, 121–133. Stockholm, Almkvist & Wiksell Intl. Oliveri, F. and Lo Porto, A. (2018) Piccoli oggetti del lavoro quotidiano: i pesi da telaio, testimoni della tessitura a Mozia. In V. Caminneci, M.C. Parello and M.S. Rizzo (eds) La città che produce. Archeologia della produzione negli spazi urbani. Atti delle Giornate Gregoriane X Edizione (10–11 dicembre 2016), 161–167. Bari, Edipuglia. Olofsson, L., Andersson Strand, E. and Nosch, M.-L. (2015) Experimental testing of Bronze Age textile tools. In E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch (eds) Tools, Textiles and Contexts. Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age, 74–100. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 21. Orlandini, P. (1956) Gela. Ritrovamenti vari. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 10, 203–401. Orlandini, P. (1962) L’espansione di Gela nella Sicilia centro-meridionale. Kokalos 8, 69–121. Orlandini, P. (1963) Sabucina. Scoperte varie. Prima campagna di scavi (1962). Rapporto preliminare. Archeologia Classica 15, 86–96. Orlandini, P. (1965) Sabucina. La seconda campagna di scavo (1964). Rapporto preliminare. Archeologia Classica 17, 133–140.

Bibliography

159

Orlandini, P. (1966) Lo scavo del thesmophorion di Bitalemi e il culto delle divinità ctonie a Gela. Kokalos 12, 8–35. Orlandini, P. (1968) Sabucina. La terza campagna di scavo (1966). Rapporto preliminare. Archeologia Classica 20, 151–156. Orlandini, P. and Adamesteanu, D. (1956) Gela. Ritrovamenti vari. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 10, 203–401. Orsi, P. (1894) La necropoli sicula del terzo periodo al Finocchito presso Noto (Siracusa). Bullettino Paletnologia Italiana 20, 23–26, 37–71. Orsi, P. (1897) Nuove esplorazioni nella necropoli sicula del Monte Finocchito presso Noto (Siracusa). Bullettino Paletnologia Italiana 23, 157–197. Orsi, P. (1899) Pantalica. Monumenti Antichi 9, 33–116. Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Orsi, P. (1905) Necropoli e stazioni sicule di transizione. Necropoli di Molino della Badia presso Grammichele. Catania. Bullettino Paletnologia Italiana 31, 96–133. Orsi, P. (1906) Santuario suburbano a Bitalemi in Gela. Scavi del 1900–1905. Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei 17. Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Orsi, P. (1912) La necropoli sicula di Pantalica. Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei 21, 301–346. Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Orsi, P. (1918) Gli scavi intorno all’Athenaion di Siracusa negli anni 1912–1917. Monumenti Antichi 25, 353–754. Osborne, R. (1998) Early Greek colonization? The nature of Greek settlement in the West. In N. Fisher and H. van Wees (eds) Archaic Greece. New Approaches and New Evidence, 251–269. London, Duckworth with the Classical Press of Wales. Pacciarelli, M. (1999) Torre Galli. La necropoli della prima età del ferro (Scavi Paolo Orsi 1922–23). Soveria Manelli, Rubbettino Editore. Pace, B. (1945) Arte e civiltà della Sicilia antica, III. Roma, Società editrice Dante Alighieri. Panvini, R. (1997) Osservazioni sulle dinamiche socio-culturali a Dessueri. In M. Marazzi and S. Tusa (eds) Prima Sicilia, 492–501. Palermo, Ediprint. Panvini, R. (2001) La nave greca arcaica di Gela. Caltanissetta, Sciacca Editore. Panvini, R., Guzzone, C. and Congiu, M. (2008) Sabucina. Cinquant’anni anni di ricerche archeologiche. Palermo, Regione siciliana. Parisi, V. (2017) I depositi votivi negli spazi del rito. Analisi dei contesti per un’archeologia della pratica cultuale nel mondo siceliota e magnogreco. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Parra, M.C. (1995) L’edificio ellenistico nella conca orientale. In G. Nenci (ed.) Entella. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 22, 9–76. Patané, R. (2015) Il paesaggio virtuale nel museo archeologico. In V. Caminneci, M.C. Parello and M.S. Rizzo (eds) La persistenza della memoria. Vivere il paesaggio storico, IX Giornate Gregoriane, 93–99. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Pautasso, A. (2007) Picturae in textili on the shoulder busts in Hellenistic Sicily. In C. Gillis and M.-L. Nosch (eds) Ancient Textiles. Production, Craft and Society, 215–219. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Pautasso, A. (2009) Osservazioni sulla coroplastica dionigiana. A proposito di due recenti pubblicazioni. Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene 87 (9), 833–841. Pautasso, A. (2011) Immagini e identità, osservazioni sulle sculture di Priniàs. In G. Rizza (ed.) Identità culturale, etnicità, processi di trasformazione a Creta fra Dark Age e Arcaicismo, per i cento anni di scavo a Priniàs 1906–2006, Convegno di studi (Atene 9–12 Novembre 2006), 97–106. Catania, Università di Catania. Perna, K. (2009) Il settore sud-occidentale. In R. Panvini, C. Guzzone and D. Palermo (eds) Polizzello. Scavi del 2004 nell’area del santuario arcaico dell’Acropoli, 177–246. Viterbo, BetaGamma Editoria. Piergrossi, A. (2005) Pesi da telaio: Ceramica a decorazione lineare. In F. Di Mario (ed.) Ardea. Il deposito votivo di Casarinaccio, 289–298. Roma, Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Lazio.

160

Bibliography

Pisani, M. (2008) Camarina. Le terrecotte figurate e la ceramica da una fornace di V e IV secolo a.C. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Portale, E.C. (2008) Cultura materiale e organizzazione degli spazi domestici. In N. Allegro (ed.) L’abitato. Isolato II. I blocchi 1–4 della zona I, Himera 5, 221–254. Palermo, Dipartimento di Beni Culturali Università di Palermo. Portale, E.C. (2014) Himera: pratiche cultuali nell’abitato. In A. Haug, A. and D. Steuernagel (eds) Hellenistische Häuser und ihre Funktionen, 103–122. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH Verlag. Portisch, A. (2009) Techniques as a window onto learning. Kazakh women’s domestic textile production in western Mongolia. Journal of Material Culture 14, 471–493. Prescott, C. and Mühlenbock, C. (2003) Mt. Polizzo, Sicily: preliminary views on Elymians and ethnicity, landscape and identity. In J. Bergstøl (ed.) Scandinavian Archaeological Practice – in Theory: Proceedings from the 6th Nordic TAG, Oslo 2001, 26–37. Oslo, Institutt for arkeologi, kunsthistorie og konservering, Universitetet i Oslo. Prescott, C., Mühlenbock, C. and Englund, E. (1998) Sicilian-Scandinavian Archaeological Project. Unpublished annual report, Soprintendenza di Trapani. Procelli, E. and Albanese, R.M. (1988–1989) Ramacca (Catania). Saggi di scavo nelle contrade Castellito e Montagna negli anni 1978, 1981 e 1982. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 42–43 (8), suppl., 7–148. Quercia, A. (2017) Textile production and technological changes in the Archaic societies in Magna Graecia: the case of Torre di Satriano (Lucania, Italy). In M. Gleba and R. Laurito (eds) Contextualising Textile Production in Italy in the 1st Millennium BC, Origini 40, 243–258. Roma, Gangemi Editore. Quercia, A. (2018) Weaving during the Archaic period in south Italy: two key studies. In M.S. Busana, M. Gleba, F. Meo and A.R. Tricomi (eds) Purpureae Vestes. VI Textiles and Dyes in the Mediterranean Economy and Society, 145–156. Zaragoza, Libros Portico. Quercia, A. and Foxhall, L. (2014a) Temporality, materiality and women’s networks: the production and manufacture of loom weights in the Greek and indigenous communities of southern Italy. In K. Rebay-Salisbury, A. Brysbaert and L. Foxhall (eds) Knowledge Networks and Craft Traditions in the Ancient World: Material Crossovers, 62–82. New York, Routledge. Quercia, A. and Foxhall, L. (2014b) Weaving relationships in areas of cultural contacts: production, use and consumption of loom weights in pre-Roman Sicily. In S. Lipkin and K. Vaianto (eds) Focus on Archaeological Textiles: Multidisclipinary Approaches. Monographs of the Archaeological Society of Finland 3, 88–101. Quercia, A. and Foxhall, L. (2015) Material culture as an indicator of adoption and resistance in the cross-craft and cultural interactions among Greeks and Indigenous communities in southern Italy: loom weights and cooking ware in Pre-Roman Lucania. In P. Militello and H. Oniz (eds) SOMA. Acts of the 15th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Catania 2011, 563–573. Oxford, Archaeopress. Quercia, A. and Foxhall. L. (2012) Tracing Networks project: craft traditions in ancient Mediterranean. I pesi da telaio come indicatori di dinamiche produttive e culturali nelle attività tessili del Sud Italia in età preromana. In P. Basso and M.S. Busana (eds) La lana nella Cisalpina Romana: economia e società. Studi in onore di Stefania Pesavento Mattioli. Atti del convegno, Padova-Verona, 18–20 maggio 2011, 367–381. Padova, Quasar Edizioni. Reuthner, R (2006) Wer webte Athenes Gewänder? Die Arbeit von Frauen im antiken Griechenland. Frankfurt, Campus Verlag. Rice, P.M. (1987) Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Rizza, G. (1955) Leontini. Campagne di scavi 1950–1951 e 1951–1952: la necropoli della Valle S. Mauro; le fortificazioni meridionali della città e la Porta di Siracusa. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 8 (9), 281–376. Rizza, G. (1962) Siculi e Greci sui colli di Leontini. Cronache di Archeologia 1, 3–27.

Bibliography

161

Roach-Higgins, M.E., Eicher, J.B. and Johnson, K.K.P. (eds) (1995) Dress and Identity. New York, Fairchild. Robinson, K.S. (1959) Pottery of the Roman Period: Chronology. The Athenian Agora 5. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Rossoni, G. (2002) Pesi da telaio. In M.L. Famà (ed.) Mozia, gli scavi nella ‘Zona A’ dell’abitato, 315–320. Bari, Edipuglia. Saltini Seminari, G. (2016) Greek-Indigenous intermarriage: a gendered perspective. In V. Nizzo, L. Donnellan and G.J. Burgers (eds) Conceptualising Early Colonisation, 77–87. Brussels, Belgisch Historisch Instituut te Rome. Saracino, S. and Maritan, L. (2012) Indagini archeometriche su alcuni pesi da telaio dalla ‘Cisalpina’ protostorica. In P. Basso and M.S. Busana (eds) La lana nella Cisalpina Romana. Economia e società. Studi in onore di Stefania Pesavento Mattioli, Atti del convegno Padova-Verona 18–20 maggio 2011, 534–550. Padova, Padova University Press. Schied, J. and Svenbro, J. (1966) The Craft of Zeus Mythos of Weaving and Fabric. Trans. C. Volk. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Schneider, J. (1987) The anthropology of cloth. Annual Review of Anthropology 16, 409–448. Sedita Migliore, M. (1981) Sabucina. Studio sulla zona archeologica di Caltanissetta. Roma, Sciacca Editore. Shepherd, G. (1995) The pride of most colonials: burial and religion in the Sicilian colonies. Acta Hyperborea 6, 51–82. Shepherd, G. (1999) Fibulae and females: intermarriage in the western Greek colonies and the evidence from the cemeteries. In G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.) Ancient Greeks West and East, 267–300. Leiden, Brill. Shepherd, G. (2012) Women in Magna Grecia. In S.L. James and S. Dillon (eds) A Companion to Women in the Ancient World, 215–228. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Siennicka, M. and Ulanowska, A. (2016) So simple yet universal. Contextual and experimental approach to clay ‘spools’ from Bronze Age Greece. In J. Ortiz, C. Alfaro, L. Turell and M.ª J. Martínez (eds) Textiles, Basketry and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World Textiles, Cestería y Tintes en el mundo mediterráneo antiguo. Proceedings of the Vth International Symposium on Textiles and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Montserrat, 19–22 March, 2014), 25–35. Universitat de València. Sjöqvist, E. (1973) Sicily and the Greeks. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press. Snodgrass, A. (2005) Lesser breeds: the history of a false analogy. In H. Hurst and S. Owen (eds) Ancient Colonizations. Analogy, Similarity and Difference, 45–58. London, Bloomsbury. Sofroniew, A. (2011) Women’s work: the dedication of loom weights in the sanctuaries of southern Italy. Pallas 86, 191–209. Spantidaki, S. (2016) Textile Production in Classical Athens. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Ancient Textiles Series 27. Spatafora, F. (1997) Tipologie abitative arcaiche nei centri indigeni occidentali: il caso di Monte Maranfusa. In H.P. Isler and D. Käch (eds) Wohnbauforschung in Zentral und Westsizilien, 151–164. Zurich, Archäologisches Institut der Universität Zürich. Spatafora, F. (ed.) (2003) Monte Maranfusa. Un insediamento nella media valle del Belice. L’abitato indigeno. Palermo, Assessorato regionale dei beni culturali ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. Spatafora, F. and De Simone, R. (2007) Makella. La Montagna di Marineo. Guida Breve. Palermo, Regione siciliana. Steures, D.C. (1980) Monte Finocchito Revisited, part 1: The Evidence. Amsterdam, Allard Pierson. Strömberg, A. (1993) Male or Female? A Methodological Study of Grave Gifts as Sex-Indicators in Iron Age Burials from Athens. Jonsered, P. Åströms Förlag. Sudano, F. (2009) Leontini. Lo spazio sacrificale dell’Heraion di Scala Portazza. FastiOnline. superiore di Pisa 22, 617–759. Surtees, L. (2014) Loomweights. In G.P. Schaus (ed.) Stymphalos. The Acropolis Sanctuary, vol. 1, 236–247. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

162

Bibliography

Tanasi, D. (2009) A Mediterranean connection: nuovi dati sulle relazioni tra Malta e Creta agli inizi dell’Età del Ferro. Creta Antica 10, 519–538. Tanasi, D. and Vella, N.C. (2014) Islands and mobility: exploring Bronze Age Connectivity in the South-Central Mediterranean. In B.A. Knapp and P. van Dommelen (eds) The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean, 57–73. New York, Cambridge University Press. Tang, B. (2007) Hellenistic and Roman Pontecagnano. The Danish Excavations in Proprietà Avallone, 1986–1990. Napoli, Publications du Centre Jean Bérard. Tardo, V. (1999) Pesi da telaio. In S. Vassallo (ed.) Colle Madore. Un caso di ellenizzazione in terra sicana, 242–246. Palermo, Assessorato regionale dei beni culturali ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. Terranova, F. and Lo Campo, P. (1999) Indagini bioarcheologiche sui reperti di Colle Madore. In S. Vassallo (ed.) Colle Madore. Un caso di ellenizzazione in terra sicula, 283–284. Entella, Giuseppe Nenci. Thompson, W. (1982) Weaving: a man’s work. The Classical World 75 (4), 217–222. Tilley, C. (2004) The Materiality of Stone. Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology. Oxford, Berg. Tomasello, F. (2004) L’architettura ‘micenea’ nel siracusano. TO-KO-DO-MO A-PE-O o DE-ME-O-TE? In V. La Rosa (ed.) Le presenze micenee nel territorio siracusano. Atti del Primo simposio siracusano di preistoria siciliana (Siracusa 15–16 dicembre 2003), 187–215. Padua, Aldo Ausilio Editore. Tomlinson, R.A. (1969) Perachora: the remains outside the two sanctuaries. Annual of the British School at Athens 64, 155–258. Toms, J. (1998) The construction of gender in Early Iron Age Etruria. In R.D. Whitehouse (ed.) Gender and Italian Archaeology: Challenging the Stereotypes, 157–179. London, Accordia Research Centre and Institute of Archaeology. Trovato, E. (2016) Morgantina: The Loom Weights from Serra Orlando. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Catania,. Tunzi Sisto, A.M. (1988) Pesi Fittili da Adelfia. Dalla Protostoria all’età̀ Classica: tipologia di forme e decorazioni. Manduria, Pietro Lacaita Editore. Turco, P. (2000) La necropoli di Cassibile (scavi Paolo Orsi 1897 e 1923). Naples, Cahiers du Centre Jean Bèrard. Turfa, J.M. (2006) Votive offerings in Etruscan Religion. In N.T. De Grummond and E. Simon (eds) The Religion of the Etruscan, 90–115. Austin, The University of Texas Press. Tusa, S. (1999) La Sicilia nella Preistoria. Palermo, Sellerio Editore. Tusa, S. (2000) Ethnic dynamics during pre- and proto-history of Sicily. Journal of Cultural Heritage 1, 17–28. Tusa, S. (2004) Historical reference frame in western Sicily since the end of II to the beginning of I millenium BC. In C. Mühlenbock and C. Prescott (eds) The Scandinavian Sicilian Archaeological Project: Archaeological Excavations at Monte Polizzo Sicily, Reports 1998–2001, 17–26. Göteborg, Göteborg University. Tusa, V. (1972) Monte Polizzo – Scavi 1970. Sicilia Archeologica 5, 119–121. Tusa, V. (1988–89) Sicani ed Elimi. Kokalos 34–35, 47–73. Ulanowska, A. (2016) Experimental approach to the ergonomics of textile production in Bronze Age Greece. Archaeological Textiles Review 58, 43–56. Ulanowska, A. (2020) Looms in spaces. The warp-weighted loom in the Aegean Bronze Age and the modern experience of weaving. Bulletin de l’Association pour la Promotion des Rescherches sur l’Âge du Bronze 18, 146–152. van der Leeuw, S. (1977) Towards a study of the economics of pottery making. In B.L. van Beek, R.W. Brandt and W. Groenman-van Waateringe (eds) Ex Horreo, 68–76. Amsterdam, Institute of Pre- and Proto-History, University of Amsterdam. Van Dommelen, P. (2005) Colonial interactions and hybrid practices: Phoenician and Carthaginian settlement in the ancient Mediterranean. In G. Stein (ed.) The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives, 109–141. Santa Fe and Oxford, School of American Research Advanced Seminars Series.

Bibliography

163

Van Dommelen, P. (2006a) Colonial matters. Material culture and postcolonial theory in colonial situations. In J.G. Cusick (ed.) Studies in Culture Contact. Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, 267–308. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University. Van Dommelen, P. (2006b) The orientalizing phenomenon: hybridity and material culture in the western Mediterranean. In C. Riva and N. Vella (eds) Debating Orientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean, 135–152. London, Equinox Press. Vassallo, S. (1999) Colle Madore: Un caso di ellenizzazione in terra sicana. Palermo, Regione siciliana, Assessorato dei beni culturali e ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. Vassallo, S. (2005) Himera – città greca.Guida alla storia e ai monumenti. Palermo, Regione Sicilia. Verger, S. (2011) Dévotions féminines et bronzes de l’extrême Nord dans le thesmophorion de Gela. Archéologie des religions antiques, 15–76. Université de Pau et des pays de l’Adour. Voza, G. (1973) Thapsos. In P. Pelegatti and G. Voza (eds) Archeologia della Sicilia sud-orientale, 30–52. Naples, Centre Jean Bérard. Voza, G. (1980–81) L’attività della soprintendenza alle antichità della Sicilia orientale. Kokalos 26–27, 674–693. Waetzoldt, H. (1972) Untersuchungen zur neusurnerischen Textilindustrie. Studi Economicie Tecnologici I. Rome. Wagner-Hasel, B. (2000) Der Stoff der Gaben: Kultur und Politik des Schenkens und Taudchens in archaishen Griechenland. Frankfurt am Main, Campus Verlag. Wagner-Hasel, B. (2006) Textus und texere, hýpnos und hyphaínein: Zu metaphorischen Bedeutung des Webens in der griechisch-römischen Antike. In U. Kleine and L. Kuchenbuck (eds) Textus in Mittelalter: Komponenten und Situationen des Wprtgebrauchs im schriftsemantischen Feld (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planch-Institus für Geschichte 216), 15–43. White, R. (1991) The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Wilson, L. (1930) Loom weights. In D.M. Robinson (ed.) Excavations at Olynthus. Part II. Architecture and Sculpture: Houses and Other Buildings, 118–128. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press. Wobst, H. (1977) Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In C.E. Cleland (ed.) For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, 317–342. Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wuilleumier, P. (1932) Les disques de Tarente. Revue Archéologique 35, 26–64. Zancani Montuoro, P. (1966) L’edificio quadrato nello Heraion alla foce del Sele. Atti e memorie della società Magna Grecia, 23–63, Roma. Żebrowska, K. (2018) The Early and Middle Bronze Age textile tools from the Aeolian Islands (Italy). Fasciculi Archeologiae Historicae 31, 12–23. Żebrowska, K. (2020) The application of use-wear analysis to the study of function of prehistoric Sicilian textile tools. In J.L. Fernández-Marchena, L. Asryan, A. Pedergnana, A. Ollé (eds) Quaternary International 569–570, 128–134. Żebrowska, K. (n.d.) Between Sicily and the Aegean: craftsmen, craftswomen, and the processes of textile knowledge transmission. In S. Aulsebrook, K. Żebrowska, A. Ulanowska and K. Lewartowski (eds), Sympozjum Egejskie. Papers in Aegean Archaeology 3. Warsaw, The Warsaw University Press. Żebrowska K. (in press) Weaving in Early Bronze Age Sicily: testing and comparing the functionality of potential weaving tools. In G. Albertazzi, G. Muti and A. Saggio (eds) Islands in Dialogue (Islandia). Proceedings of the First Conference in the Prehistory and Protohistory of the Mediterranean Islands. Rome, Artemide.