The Textile Revolution in Bronze Age Europe: Production, Specialisation, Consumption 1108493599, 9781108493598

Table of contents :
Cover
Half-title
Title page
Copyright information
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Contributors
Preface and Acknowledgements
One Textile Production and Specialisation in Bronze Age Europe
Introduction
Bronze Age Textile Production
Textile Tools
Textile Fragments
Mobility, Sheep, Wool and Textiles
Textiles, Ancient DNA and Protein Residues
Wrapping Up
Concluding Remarks
Note
References
Two The Wool Zone in Prehistory and Protohistory
Introduction
Surveying 8,700 Textile Tools
Testing Bronze Age Textile Tools
Analysing Bronze Age Textile Tools
Invisible or Absent Textile Tools in the Bronze Age
Textile Time
Further Reflections on Textile Tools
Invisible Textile Production: Identifying Gaps in Knowledge
The Appearance of Wool: When, Where, Why and How to Find it?
Discussion and Perspectives on the Impact of Wool
Is Wool Connected to the Warp-Weighted Loom or to Certain Weaves?
Note
References
Three Weaving in Bronze Age Italy: the Case of the Terramare settlement at Montale
Terramare and Textile Production in the Po Plain
Ancient Textiles and Community of Practice
Montale and the Local Evidence for Textile Production
Archaeozoological Evidence for Wool Production
Archaeobotanical Evidence for Vegetable Fibres
The Taxonomical Analyses of Montale Loom Weights
Cylindrical Loom Weights
Bun-shaped Loom Weights
Ring-shaped Loom Weights
Bell-shaped Loom Weights
Truncated Pyramidal Loom Weights
Montale Loom Weights: Summing Up
Bronze Age Weaving at Montale and in the Po Plain: Comparative Evidence
Montale Phase IIC Loom Weights
The Middle Bronze Age 2 Looms from Poviglio’s ‘Small Village’
The Middle Bronze Age 3 Loom Weights from Mulino Giarella
The Recent Bronze Age 1 Loom Weights from Beneceto
The Recent Bronze Age 2 Loom Weights from Poviglio
Recent Bronze Age 2 Loom Weights from Custoza and Beneceto
Comparative Evidence: Summing Up
Weaving and Communities of Practice at Montale and in the Po Plain
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Appendix 3.1 Montale’s Loom Weights
Notes
References
Four Loom Weights in Bronze Age Central Europe
Introduction
Selection of Material
Research History
Types of Loom Weights (Shape)
Shapes of Loom Weights
Chronology of Loom Weights
Distribution of Loom Weights
Contexts of Loom Weights
Supra-regional
The Context of Loom Weights on Sites
Source Criticism
Summary
Acknowledgements
Appendix 4.1. Classification of the Loom Weights
1 Cylindrical-shaped Weights
2 Pyramidal-shaped Weights
3 Spherical-shaped Weights
4 Ring-shaped Weights
5 Triangular Weights
6 Disc-shaped Weights
7 Others
Appendix 4.2. Loom Weights on Site: Case Studies
Kastanas: Bronze Age Tell Settlement in Greece
Biskupin: Iron Age Fortified Settlement in Poland
Zug-Sumpf: Late Bronze Age Pile-Dwelling in Switzerland
Bundesstraße B6n, Quedlinburg: Route Excavation with Sites from Various Periods in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
Stillfried an der March: Iron Age Fortified Settlement in Austria
Győr-Ménfőcsanak: Early Iron Age Settlement in Hungary
Notes
References
Five Textiles Remains in Polish Iron Age BI-RITUAL Cemeteries
Introduction
Archaeological Evidence
Lasowice Male, Olesno District, Opole Voivodeship (Klein Lassowitz, Kr. Losenberg)
Labedy-Przyszówka, Gliwice District, Silesian Voivodeship, Site 4 (Woldenau, Kr. Gleiwitz)
Swibie, Gliwice District, Silesian Voivodeship (Schwieben, Kr. Gleiwitz)
Pawelki, Lubliniec District, Silesian Voivodeship, Site 7
Opatów, Klobuck District, Silesian Voivodshop, Site 1
Textile Finds and their Function
Headwear
Shrouds, Headscarves or Clothing
Plaited Braids and Strips as Elements of Clothing
Discussion
Conclusion
Notes
References
Six To Let Textiles Talk: Fibre Identification and Technological Analyses of Prehistoric Textiles from Denmark
Introduction
Seeing Prehistoric Textiles
Fibre Identification
Fibre Preservation and Environment
Fibre Fineness Analysis
Parameters for the Analysis of Spinning
Identifying Colours, Fibre Patterns and Dyeing
Parameters for the Analyses of Weaving
Investigating Sewing
Conclusion
References
Seven The Challenge of Textiles in Early Bronze Age Burials: Fragments of Magnificence
Introduction
The Lost Textile of Mold, Flintshire
Textiles: Recent Finds and Legacy Data
Glimpsing Textiles: Parts of the Whole
What Kind of Textiles were Put in Burials in Britain 2000–1600 bc?
Textiles, the Preparation and Presentation of the Body and its Objects
Inhumation
Cremation
Fragments of Magnificence: Textiles and Visual Appeal
Networks, Gender and Social Relationships
Conclusion: Fragments of Magnificence
Acknowledgements
Appendix 7.1. Early Bronze Age Inhumations and Cremation in England, Wales and Scotland with Textile Evidence and other Sites Mentioned in the Text
References
Eight Textile Ceramics as a Complement to Textile Research
Introduction
The Bruszczewo Site, Koscian District, Greater Poland
The Archaeological Material
Textile Tools in Bruszczewo
The Textile Ceramics
Methods
Results
Imprints of Textiles
Placement of the Imprints
Manufacturing the Imprints
Used Raw Material
Textile Ceramics in a Supra-regional Perspective
Concluding Remarks
Note
References
Nine Prehistoric Transhumance in the Northern Mediterranean
Transhumance and Pastoralism
Pastoralism and Mobility
The Origin of Pastoral Mobility
The Spread of Transhumance in the Mediterranean
The Eastern Mediterranean
The Western Mediterranean
Case study: Bronze Age Transhumance between the Southern Alps, the Central Po Plain and the Northern Apennines
Early Bronze Age: Pile-Dwellings in the Alpine Lakes
Middle and Late Bronze Age
Final Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Notes
References
Ten Wool Production and the Evidence of Strontium Isotope Analyses
Introduction
The Strontium Isotope Tracing System
Strontium Isotope Analyses of Wool Textiles from Danish Bronze Age Oak Coffin Graves
Discussion: What do the Strontium Isotopes Analyses of Wool Reveal about Production and Trade in the Nordic Early Bronze Age
Concluding Remarks
Acknowledgements
Appendix 10.1. Analytical Methods
Pre-cleaning/Decontamination
Dissolution and Ion Chromatographic Procedures
Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry
Notes
References
Eleven Wool Textiles in the Early Nordic Bronze Age: Local or Traded?
Introduction
The Woollen Textiles
Local Textile Production versus Trade/Exchange of Textiles in the Nordic Bronze Age
The Nordic Bronze Age Archaeological Evidence for Textile Tools
The Archaeological Evidence for Wool Production in the Nordic Bronze Age
The Scandinavian Evidence Seen in the Light of the Contemporary Bronze Age World
Discussion: Locally Produced or Traded?
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Notes
References
Twelve Archaeological Wool Textiles: A Window into Ancient Sheep Genetics?
Introduction
Preservation of Archaeological Textiles and the DNA Potential
The Effects of the Textile Chaîne Opératoire and Deposition on DNA
Sampling Archaeological Textiles for Genetic Research
DNA Experiments on Archaeological Textiles: an Overview
DNA and Textiles from Bogs and Burials
Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA: Pros and Cons
Conclusion
Appendix 12.1. The DNA Code and the Genome
Appendix 12.2. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Appendix 12.3. Extraction and Amplification of DNA from Archaeological Textiles Made of Animal Fibres
Appendix 12.4. DNA Damage
Notes
References
Thirteen Skin, Furs, and Textiles: Mass Spectrometry-based Analysis of Ancient Protein Residues
Introduction
Analytical Methods for Ancient Protein Characterisation
MS-Based Analysis of Ancient Protein Residues
Sample Features and Protein Degradation
Applications
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
Fourteen Wool in the Bronze Age: Concluding Reflections
Wool and Subsistence Practices
Trade in Wool, Yarn and/or Textiles
The Wider Context: Demographic and Economic Trends
Approaching a Quantification of the Wool Trade
The Role of Long-Distance Trade and Contacts
The New Body Culture of Wool and Metal
Conclusion
Notes
References
Index

Citation preview

i

THE TEXTILE REVOLUTION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

Textile production and the introduction of wool and woollen textiles represented a great revolution in Bronze Age Europe at the dawn of the second millennium bc. The available contemporary written sources from the Mediterranean and Near East suggest that textile production had a strong impact on cultural, social and economic life. In most parts of continental Europe, however, archaeological material alone can help us understand the details relating to textile production and its wider importance to early societies. This book provides new insights on patterns of production, specialisation and consumption of textiles in Europe throughout the Bronze Age. Assembling a diverse array of studies on various aspects of textile production and the economy, the chapters, specially written for this volume, provide a wide range of scientific data as well as archaeological evidence. They also show the great potential of examining early textile production through the use of innovative methodologies and diverse perspectives. Serena Sabatini is Associate Professor in Archaeology at the University of Gothenburg and a scholar of Bronze Age trade and exchange networks in Europe and in the Mediterranean area. Her current research focuses on Bronze Age textile production and wool economy. Sophie Bergerbrant is Associate Professor in Archaeology at the University of Gothenburg. Her main areas of research are the Early and Middle Bronze Age in northern and central Europe relating to textile archaeology, costume, mobility, gender and embodiment.

ii

iii

THE TEXTILE REVOLUTION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE PRODUCTION, SPECIALISATION, CONSUMPTION

Edited by SERENA SABATINI University of Gothenburg

SOPHIE BERGERBRANT University of Gothenburg

iv

University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, ny 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06-04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108493598 DOI: 10.1017/9781108656405 © Cambridge University Press 2020 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2020 Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd, Padstow Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. ISBN 978-1-108-49359-8 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

v

CONTENTS

List of Figures 

page vii

List of Tables 

x

List of Contributors 

xi

Preface and Acknowledgements  1 TEXTILE PRODUCTION AND SPECIALISATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE 

xiii

1

Serena Sabatini and Sophie Bergerbrant 2 THE WOOL ZONE IN PREHISTORY AND PROTOHISTORY 

15

Eva Andersson Strand and Marie-Louise Nosch 3 WEAVING IN BRONZE AGE ITALY: THE CASE OF THE TERRAMARE SETTLEMENT AT MONTALE 

39

Serena Sabatini 4 LOOM WEIGHTS IN BRONZE AGE CENTRAL EUROPE 

80

Jutta Kneisel and Stefanie Schaefer-Di Maida 5 TEXTILES REMAINS IN POLISH IRON AGE BI-RITUAL CEMETERIES 

117

Joanna Słomska and Łukasz Antosik 6 TO LET TEXTILES TALK: FIBRE IDENTIFICATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF PREHISTORIC TEXTILES FROM DENMARK 

134

Irene Skals

v

vi

vi

Contents

7 THE CHALLENGE OF TEXTILES IN EARLY BRONZE AGE BURIALS: FRAGMENTS OF MAGNIFICENCE 

154

Susanna Harris 8 TEXTILE CERAMICS AS A COMPLEMENT TO TEXTILE RESEARCH 

197

Stefanie Schaefer-Di Maida and Jutta Kneisel 9 PREHISTORIC TRANSHUMANCE IN THE NORTHERN MEDITERRANEAN 

217

Francesco Carrer and Mara Migliavacca 1 0 WOOL PRODUCTION AND THE EVIDENCE OF STRONTIUM ISOTOPE ANALYSES 

239

Karin M. Frei 1 1 WOOL TEXTILES IN THE EARLY NORDIC BRONZE AGE: LOCAL OR TRADED? 

255

Sophie Bergerbrant 1 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL WOOL TEXTILES: A WINDOW INTO ANCIENT SHEEP GENETICS? 

274

Luise Ørsted Brandt and Morten Allentoft 1 3 SKIN, FURS, AND TEXTILES: MASS SPECTROMETRY-​ BASED ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT PROTEIN RESIDUES 

304

Fabiana Di Gianvincenzo, Clara Granzotto and Enrico Cappellini 1 4 WOOL IN THE BRONZE AGE: CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS 

317

Kristian Kristiansen and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen Index 

333

vii

FIGURES

2 .1 Warp-​weighted loom with a tabby set-​up  page 22 2.2 Vertical loom with two-​beams, tabby set-​up  23 3.1 Schematic representations of the types of loom weight identified among the material from Montale  46 3.2 The relation between the height and the weight of the cylindrical loom weights  48 3.3 The relation between the height and the weight of the bun-​shaped loom weights  53 3.4 Locations of loom weights excavated in collapsed structures of Phase II  61 4.1 Types of loom weights and their English and German names  84 4.2 The different shapes of loom weights and their occurrence in time according to the dated sites  86 4.3 The distribution of cylindrical and pyramidal loom weights in central Europe  89 4.4 The distribution of spherical and ring-​shaped loom weights in central Europe  90 4.5 The distribution of loom weight types according to the find contexts  92 4.6 The chronological distribution of loom weights according to the find contexts  92 4.7 The distribution of loom weights in different contexts  93 4.8 The range of the pyramidal loom weight heights according to their context  97 5.1 Map of the sites with textile artefacts mentioned in the chapter  119 5.2 Headband and 2-​ply threads from Łabędy-​Przyszówka, Gliwice district  121 5.3 Tabby fabrics and plaited braids from Świbie, Gliwice district  122 5.4 Woven fabrics from Świbie, Gliwice district  125 5.5 Reconstruction of a complete headband that encircled the entire head  125 6.1 A chequer-​patterned Early Iron Age textile  141 6.2 The twist of the yarns as either s or z  142 6.3 A sewing yarn plied z2s used for Early Bronze Age decorative embroideries  143 6.4 A slight colour difference in the weaving and sewing yarns is noticeable in this Early Iron Age textile  144

vii

viii

viii

List of Figures

6 .5 A balanced tabby weave  6.6 A 2/​2 twill  7.1 Artist’s representation of the discovery of the Mold burial in Flintshire, Wales, 1833  7.2 The gold cape from the inhumation burial of Mold, Flintshire, Wales  7.3 Small, charred fragments of textile from the pit pyre burial, Over Barrow 2, Cambridgeshire  7.4 Reconstruction of textile use in a woman’s inhumation burial at Manton Barrow (Preshute 1a), near Marlborough, Wiltshire  7.5 Textiles used to bind a body for cremation  7.6 The relative fineness of 23 balanced plain weave (tabby) textiles from Early Bronze Age burials in Britain  7.7 Outline for object biography of bast fibre textiles excavated from the central cremation, Site 3659, Weasenham Lyngs, Norfolk  8.1 Bone pin, antler ‘textile tool’ and possible wooden weaving sword from Bruszczewo  8.2 The distribution of ceramics with textile impressions at Bruszczewo  8.3 Variability of the thickness of impressions of yarn and threads on the burnt ceramic sherds, Bruszczewo  8.4 Imprints of transverse threads and tabby weave and impression spared out the plastic strip, Bruszczewo  8.5 Distribution of textile ceramic-​types from Bruszczewo  8.6 Textile impressions and fingernail ornamentation on ceramics from Bruszczewo  8.7 Age distribution of sheep slaughtered at Bruszczewo.  9.1 The Mediterranean Sea and the regions mentioned in the text  9.2 The Middle and Late Bronze Age sites of northern Italy mentioned in the text  10.1 The Early Bronze Age clothing and grave goods from the oak coffin, grave C, Borum Eshøj  10.2 The Early Bronze Age clothing and grave goods from the oak coffin, Trindhøj  10.3 The strontium isotope results from wool samples from Danish oak-​coffin burials  10.4 Map showing the closest areas to Denmark with bio-​available 87 Sr /​86Sr values that potentially overlap with the Danish baselines  12.1 Luise Ørsted Brandt analyses DNA from archaeological textiles  12.2 Embroidery from the garment found in Bjerringhøj, Mammen  12.3 Representation of the DNA code  12.4 Schematic representation of the Polymerase Chain Reaction  12.5 The location of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA in the cell  13.1 Alignment of homologous peptides of collagen alpha 2 (I) from sheep and goat 

146 147 156 156 162 165 166 167 169 200 202 203 205 206 208 210 222 226 246 246 247 249 281 287 293 294 295 307

ix

L ist of Figures

13.2 Schematic representation of the mass spectrum generated during MS analysis of the polymorphic peptide from sheep collagen  13.3 Experimental mass spectra of the homologous sheep and goat collagen peptides  13.4 Tandem mass spectra obtained from isolation and fragmentation of peptides 

308 308 309

ix

x

TABLES

1 .1 European Bronze Age chronology  page 5 2.1 Calculations and reconstruction of time, fibre and labour consumption based on a textile fragment from Mallia, Crete  24 3.1 The stratigraphic phases at Montale and contemporary European and Mediterranean Bronze Age chronologies  43 3.2 Animal population at Montale  45 3.3 Cylindrical loom weights from Montale  49 3.4 Bun-​shaped loom weights from Montale  54 3.5 Bell-​shaped loom weights from Montale  57 3.6 Truncated pyramidal loom weights from Montale  58 4.1 Articles with regional and chronological overviews on loom weights  82 4.2 Sites with cylindrical loom weights in special features  94 4.3 Sites with pyramidal loom weights in the context of a loom where reconstruction is possible  95 4.4 Overview of the loom weights and the sites along the b6n roadway  109 7.1 Comparison of finds from the inhumation burial at Mold, Flintshire and the cremation burial at Whitehorse Hill cist, Dartmoor  160 8.1 The textile tools according to their stratigraphic and chronological order  199 8.2 The textile ceramics according to their stratigraphic order  207 10.1 Strontium isotope results of wool samples from the Danish Bronze Age oak coffins burials  244 11.1 Approximate number of wool textile fragments found in the Nordic Early Bronze Age region  256 12.1 Summary of aDNA research on ancient wool textiles and sheep hair  282

x

xi

CONTRIBUTORS

Morten Allentoft, Lundbeck Foundation GeoGenetics Centre, The Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen Eva Andersson Strand, SAXO Institute of Archaeology, Ethnology, Greek and Latin, History, University of Copenhagen Łukasz Antosik, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Science, Centre for Research on Ancient Technologies in Łódź Sophie Bergerbrant, Department of Historical Studies, University of Gothenburg Luise Ørsted Brandt, The Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen Enrico Cappellini, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen Francesco Carrer, McCord Centre for Landscape, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University Fabiana Di Gianvincenzo, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen Karin M. Frei, National Museum of Denmark Clara Granzotto, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen Susanna Harris, Archaeology, School of Humanities, University of Glasgow Jutta Kneisel, Institute of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology, Christian-​Albrechts-​University  Kiel

xi

xii

xii

List of Contributors

Kristian Kristiansen, Department of Historical Studies, University of Gothenburg Mara Migliavacca, Department of Cultures and Civilizations, University of Verona Marie-Louise Nosch, SAXO Institute of Archaeology, Ethnology, Greek and Latin, History, University of Copenhagen Serena Sabatini, Department of Historical Studies, University of Gothenburg Stefanie Schaefer-Di Maida, Institute of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology/​CRC1266, Christian-​Albrechts-​University  Kiel Irene Skals, National Museum of Denmark Joanna Słomska, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Science, Centre for Research on Ancient Technologies in Łódź Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge

xiii

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The collection of chapters presented in this volume is the result of a long process and intense discussions on the necessity of adopting an interdisciplinary approach for renewing our understanding of prehistoric textiles and wool textile production. The idea of the book was born in connection with the international workshop ‘Textile Production and Trade in Europe during the Second Millennium bc’ that was organised by the editors in Gothenburg on 12–​13 March 2015, funded by a grant from the Wenner-​Grens Foundations.The volume is a direct reflection not of the proceedings and papers presented at the workshop, but rather of the ideas this event inspired. Many scientific discussions began there, evolving into research projects in the months that followed. The contributions to this volume represent some of the new and ground-​ breaking scholarship that has emerged thanks to the networking opportunities and collaborations made possible through this unprecedented gathering of researchers. The contribution by the editors resulted from work within two research projects: European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/​ 2007–​ 2013)/​ ERC Grant Agreement n.  269442  –​ THE RISE; and the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences project ‘Bronze Age Wool Economy:  Production, Trade, Environment, Herding and Society’ (p15–​0591:1). A number of people have been involved in the production of this book, not least our families and friends. We are very grateful to all of them for their support, assistance, and at times great patience.We owe many thanks to Kristian Kristiansen and Helene Whittaker, who believed in this project from the start, and who have supported us in various ways throughout the whole process. We wish also to thank Kristian Kristiansen and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen for gladly accepting the invitation to co-​author the concluding chapter of the volume, thereby adding an important contribution to it. We also wish to recognise the work of two distinguished scholars whose work  was a source of inspiration for this volume:  Lise Bender Jørgensen’s pioneering work on European textiles, and Jo Cutler’s studies on Mediterranean textile tools. Jo actively contributed to the discussions during our workshop in Gothenburg. Her untimely death in 2018 marks a tragic loss, and we wish to honour her memory and contribution to textile research. xiii

xiv

newgenprepdf

xiv

Preface and A cknowledgements

Each chapter in the volume has been peer-​ reviewed by an external anonymous referee. We wish to thank all of the referees for their time and effort invested in this project. Their work helped to significantly improve the quality and content of the volume. We wish to express our gratitude to Kristin Bornholdt Collins for assisting with proofreading and language revision, which enhanced the readability of the text since English is not the first language for most of the authors. We would also like to thank Rich Potter, who provided help with the illustrations and graphic work. We also wish to thank Beatrice Rehl for believing in this project, and the staff at Cambridge University Press and Newgen Publishing UK for providing professional help throughout the publishing process. Finally, we wish to thank all the individual authors for their hard work and patience throughout the editing process.

1

ONE

TEXTILE PRODUCTION AND SPECIALISATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE Serena Sabatini and Sophie Bergerbrant

In recent years, numerous books and articles have been written about Bronze Age textiles, woollen textile production in particular, from the Mediterranean and the Near East. This volume encompasses a wide range of studies aiming to broaden the horizon, and, in the light of recent scientific advances, to shift the focus to continental and northern Europe. Iconographical and archaeological evidence shows that Bronze Age Europe was not only a dressed world, but also one that was open to innovation as far as fibres and textile technology are concerned. Since technological innovations necessarily affected economic and social frameworks, this whole work maintains that the study of textile production holds great potential for enhancing our understanding of the Bronze Age world. INTRODUCTION

In Bronze Age studies, research about textiles and textile production has gained increasing attention in recent years (e.g. Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015; Barber 1991; Bazzanella et al. 2003; Bender Jørgensen 1992; Bender Jørgensen et  al. 2016, 2018; Bergerbrant 2010; Breniquet and Michel 2014; Gillis and Nosch 2007; Gleba and Mannering 2012; Grömer et  al. 2013; Harlow et  al. 2014; Nosch 2011; Sofaer et al. 2014). Owing to the quality and characteristics of the available textual and archaeological sources, a significant part of the achieved results relates to three specific regions: the Aegean and the eastern 1

2

2

Textile Production in B ronze Age  Europe

Mediterranean area, northern Europe, and the Hallstatt salt mines in central Europe. However, the characteristics of the available records vary greatly across those areas (see below). In other words, rather than a comprehensive picture in any area, we have an exciting –​but incomplete –​puzzle, comprising many kinds of information, and numerous issues remain to be investigated. With an eye that is attentive to the rich comparative evidence from the Mediterranean and to a solid tradition of fibre analyses and technological issues, the main focus of this volume is upon the Bronze Age in continental Europe. A  diverse range of ideas, reflections and approaches covering more than a millennium of ‘fashion’, textile and textile production are offered through the coming pages.Yet, the primary aim of this collection of chapters is not to be exhaustive in terms of chronology or geography. Instead, it seeks to offer a broad range of what appears at the time of writing to be the most up-​ to-​date ways to approach Bronze Age textiles and textile production, fruitfully uniting the natural sciences and more traditional archaeological approaches. Our main goal is twofold: on the one hand, we wish to provide significant samples of assorted archaeological approaches to the study of both textile tools and textile fragments (see the chapters by Andersson Strand and Nosch, Bergerbrant, Harris, Kneisel and Schaefer-Di Maida, Sabatini, Schaefer-Di Maida and Kneisel, and Słomska and Antosik), showing at the same time both regional variability and supra-​regional similarities throughout the continent; on the other hand, we also present a series of chapters discussing relevant natural scientific and methodological approaches (see the chapters by Brandt and Allentoft, Carrer and Migliavacca, Di Gianvincenzo et al., Frei, and Skals), which significantly augment our understanding of specific aspects of textile production as well as reinforcing the overarching picture. All in all, the blend of contributions presented in this volume shows the potential that new interdisciplinary collaborations have for achieving a deeper understanding of ancient textile economies (see also Chapter 14 by Kristiansen and Sørensen). BRONZE AGE TEXTILE PRODUCTION

The earliest known Eurasian textile fragments date back to the seventh/​ sixth millennium bc and are made from vegetable fibres (Barber 1991, 10–​12; Bender Jørgensen 1992, 116; Breniquet and Michel 2014, 2; Rottoli 2003). Woollen textiles seem to be a later invention; the first likely evidence for wool production dates to the fourth millennium bc and is found in ancient written texts from Mesopotamia (Barber 1991, 24; see also Chapter  2 by Andersson Strand and Nosch). More abundant texts show that intense production and trade of woollen textiles were taking place in the Near East from the third

3

B ronze Age Textile Production

millennium bc and in the Aegean from the second millennium bc (Breniquet and Michel 2014; Burke 2010; Del Freo et al. 2010; Killen 2007; Michel and Nosch 2010; Nosch 2011, 2015;Waetzoldt 1972;Wisti Lassen 2010;Wright 2013; see also Chapter 2 by Andersson Strand and Nosch). Considering that there are hardly any preserved textiles from these areas, and that almost all of the known fragments are made of vegetable fibres (Skals et al. 2015), without the texts we would have very few or virtually no archaeological indications of wool production and its economic importance. This is a lesson worth remembering when studying other regions. The production of fibres has a considerable cost, in terms of both dedicated workforce and landscape management (e.g. Andersson Strand and Cybulska 2012; Biga 2014; McCorriston 1997; Nosch 2014). Both animals and plants need a vast portion of the landscape to grow and develop, territories that have to be managed to leave space for agriculture for food production. Calculations based on medieval documentation from Scandinavia (Bender Jørgensen 2012) suggest that the equation requires complex and locally specific strategies. As far as wool production is concerned, it is clear from the ancient sources that primitive sheep did not produce a large amount of wool per year (Barber 1991, 24–​30; Del Freo et al. 2010; Firth 2014; Killen 2007), thus large flocks were necessary in order to manage a consistent wool production. The study of any ancient wool economy therefore requires, among other things (see also Sabatini 2018), a thorough discussion of issues relating to sheep husbandry and of the environmental sustainability of large herds. In contrast to plants, animals can move, allowing a more integrated use of the surrounding landscapes; however, movement requires planning as well as social, cultural and economic infrastructures, not least the management of mobile human resources to follow and care for the herds (Becker et al 2016; McCorriston 1997; Ryder 1983; see also Chapter 9 by Carrer and Migliavacca). The chapters in this book not only highlight the sparse, but significant, evidence for the production and use of various textiles and fibres, but also clearly suggest that, in addition to some general trends, textile economies are contingent upon a wealth of regionally specific processes and constraints. This means that the study of Bronze Age textile production and specialisation necessarily requires close attention to be paid to the interplay between the local and the continental.

Textile Tools Textile tools such as spindle whorls and loom weights, which are generally produced in non-​perishable material such as clay and stone (see Chapter 2 by Andersson Strand and Nosch, Chapter  3 by Sabatini and Chapter  4 by

3

4

4

Textile Production in B ronze Age  Europe

Kneisel and Schaefer-Di Maida), represent very good evidence for textile production (see e.g. Barber 1991, 39–​125; Bender Jørgensen 2018; Burke 2010; Gleba 2008, 100–​153), although they do not inform about the type of fibres used, nor does their presence/​absence always match the information from the written sources, when those exist. In this respect, textile production in the Late Bronze Age Aegean (approximately 1600–​1200 bc; see Table 1.1) is an interesting case in point. According to the numerous archive documents from Mycenaean palaces, textile production is a fundamental component of the local economy, requiring a conspicuous and specialised workforce and the management of animal and landscape resources (Del Freo et al. 2010; Firth 2014; Killen 2007; Nosch 2011, 2015). However, the archaeological evidence for textile tools is scarce and does not reflect the prominent place occupied by this economic activity (e.g. Burke 2010, 437; Sabatini 2016, 230–​232; Siennicka 2014; Tournavitou et al. 2015, 262). Textile tools can also be used to discuss various aspects of quality and characteristics of production. Chapter 2 by Andersson Strand and Nosch summarises the ten years of intense work on the Mediterranean at the Danish Centre for Textile Research (CTR). They show how fruitful interdisciplinary work invariably proves to be. The work at CTR showed that significant achievements can be made when the study of archaeological artefacts and textual sources is combined with the evidence from experimental archaeology. Indeed, they argue that a multidisciplinary approach seems to provide enlightening insights into the many unsolved questions concerning archaeological textiles. Working on the sole archaeological evidence for textile tools, Sabatini’s contribution (Chapter  3) shows that the taxonomic and functional analyses of the archaeological material provide useful contributions for the understanding of the social and cultural organisation of production modes when interpreted using new theoretical models. Taking a community of practice model as a frame of reference, the careful analysis of differences and similarities between loom weights from Bronze Age sites of the Po plain in northern Italy has shown that local weaving was both site-​specific and responsive to wider regional developments. The work also suggests the validity of such a model for explaining variation and development through time and space of crafts and technologies. The systematic overview in Chapter 4 by Kneisel and Schaefer-Di Maida of the published loom weights from central European sites dated to the Bronze and Iron Age (c. 2200–​500 bc, Table 1.1) demonstrates the potential that accurate large-​scale investigations may have for a deeper understanding of the spread and development of specific crafts. On the basis of their investigation, the authors argue that loom weights in central Europe appear to increase at the dawn of the Late Bronze Age and after, suggesting that textile production in certain areas became more profitable with time.

5

B ronze Age Textile Production

5

Table 1.1 European Bronze Age chronology Greece

Italy

Central Europe

Northern Europe

British Bronze Age

Middle Bronze Age 2000–​1600 bc

Early Bronze Age 2300–​1700 bc

Early Bronze Age 2300–​1600 bc

Late Bronze Age 1600–​1100/​1050 bc

Middle Bronze Age 1700–​1325/​1300 bc Recent Bronze Age 1325/​1300–​1150 bc Final Bronze Age 1150–​1000 bc Early Iron Age 1000–​725 bc Orientalising period 725–​575 bc

Middle Bronze Age 1600–​1300 bc

Late Neolithic 2350/​2200–​ 1700 bc Early Bronze Age 1700–​1100 bc

Early Bronze Age 2400–​1800 bc Middle Bronze Age 1800–​1100 bc

Proto-​Geometric 1100/​1050–​900 bc Geometric period 900–​700 bc Archaic period 700–​480 bc

Late Bronze Age 1300–​800/​750 bc Late Bronze Age Late Bronze 1100–​500 bc Age 1100–​800 bc Early Iron Age/​ Hallstatt period 800/​750–​450 bc

Earliest Iron Age 800–​600 bc

Textile Fragments In continental Europe, where ancient textual sources are completely absent, specific environmental and climatic conditions have made possible the survival and preservation of a conspicuous number of Bronze Age textiles and clothing made of various fibres including wool (Bender Jørgensen and Rast-​ Eicher 2018; Gleba and Mannering 2012). Some of the most famous textiles come from the so-​called oak-​log coffins found in present-​day Denmark (Bergerbrant 2007; Broholm and Hald 1940; Frei et  al. 2017) and are generally dated between the end of the fifteenth and the thirteenth century bc (Holst et al. 2001). Another important collection of woollen textile has been retrieved from the Hallstatt salt mines in present-​day Austria (Grömer 2012, 2016; Grömer et al. 2013) covering a long period of time from the Bronze to the Iron Age, though with gaps. A number of textile fragments generally made of flax fibres come from Alpine lake dwellings dating from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (Bazzanella et al. 2003; Bazzanella and Mayr 2009) and a limited number of other European areas (CinBA Database; Bender Jørgensen and Rast-​Eicher 2018; Gleba and Mannering 2012; Grömer et al. 2018; Harding 1995; Marić Baković and Car 2014). Słomska and Antosik’s chapter (Chapter 5) adds a new and important piece of information to this corpus of continental textiles.Their contribution presents an overview of textile fragments found in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (c. 900–​450 bc, Table 1.1) burials

6

6

Textile Production in B ronze Age  Europe

from Upper Silesia–Lesser Poland, in present-​day Poland.Thanks to a detailed analysis of the preserved fragments, the authors are able to show that the Early Iron Age textiles included in their study were not only most likely produced locally, but also generally manufactured according to a fashion similar to the one that is known from the earlier Bronze Age textiles in the neighbouring Hallstatt cultures. Even when they are preserved, the actual state of conservation of most textile fragments might not always allow imagining their original appearance,1 or even magnificence. Chapter 6 by Skals shows in detail the painstaking work of fibre analysis. Standard terminology for analysing textiles was developed between the 1960s and 1980s by experts such as Irene Emery, Penelope Walton and Gillian Eastwood. However, contemporary work with the development of fibre analysis methods has lately expanded the heuristic possibilities of the methods and provided the opportunity to gain information not only regarding fibre identification, but also with respect to the technology of the textile craft applied in the manufacture of each piece. Fibre analyses may therefore provide information as to spinning and weaving techniques as much as to the colours, fibre patterns and possible dyeing. The recently conducted analyses of the famous Danish Bronze and Iron Age clothing are used to illustrate the points made in the chapter. Questions such as appearance and identity relating to clothing and textiles are approached by Harris (Chapter  7) in a unique and intriguing way. She discusses how archaeologists seem to feel almost uneasy when too many textile fragments are preserved. Given the lack of large comparative material, burial contexts with preserved textile remains are often isolated in the scientific literature. The chapter powerfully discusses issues of taphonomy, comparing contexts where organic material is preserved and those where only inorganic material has survived through time; it is argued that by focusing on organic materials, unexplored dynamics emerge, because through clothes and coverings the normally separated ‘usual’/​inorganic burial assemblages (e.g. axes, beads) were actually joined together as a whole. Indeed, despite costs and difficulties connected to textile production chaînes opératoires, textiles must have been all over the place! Clothing and coverings must have populated the materiality of the European Bronze Age and likely played a very consistent role in discourses of social and cultural identity. When textiles do not survive, other evidence can account for their existence, as demonstrated by the evidence for textile imprints on ceramics known from central and northern Europe. Chapter 8 by Schaefer-Di Maida and Kneisel uses the material from Bruszczewo, in present-​day Poland, to demonstrate that it is possible to gain insights into local textile production even at sites where very few textile tools and no textile fragments have been preserved. Textile imprints appear to be a relatively underestimated source of information as to the quality

7

B ronze Age Textile Production

and characteristics of the fabrics that were normally handled in the settlements. It is demonstrated that the information about textiles that can be gathered from the imprints is similar to that from textiles themselves, concerning, for example, spin direction, weave type, etc. Imprints therefore provide useful material for comparative studies with other areas where textiles may not have survived.

Mobility, Sheep,Wool and Textiles It is widely accepted that during the second millennium bc the Euro-​ Mediterranean region was an arena for large exchange networks meeting a high demand for metal  –​particularly copper and tin (e.g. Earle et  al. 2015; Kristiansen 2016; Rowlands and Ling 2013; Sabatini and Melheim 2017; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991; Vandkilde 2014). Recent research from Scandinavia (Ling et al. 2014; Melheim et al. 2018) has been at the forefront in showing that a significant percentage of the copper used to produce the Nordic types of bronze artefacts during the Bronze Age was brought to the north from unexpectedly faraway sources (including the Mediterranean basin). Therefore, several networks must have been at work at the same time over the whole continent. The picture is complex and challenges the idea that raw materials, technologies and popular ‘styles’ (e.g. specific forms and decorations) may have come along the same exchange routes as has been generally postulated, for example for the Early Bronze Age Scandinavian bronze artefacts showing strong stylistic links to the copper-​producing area of the Carpathian basin (e.g. Liversage 2000; Thrane 1975; Vandkilde 2014). Interdisciplinary investigations concerning the existence of a wide, although archaeologically barely visible, pastoral mobility and textile trade might provide invaluable support in explaining, among other things, stylistic similarities between regions that were likely not linked by other archaeologically recognisable forms of trade or networks. Chapter 9 by Carrer and Migliavacca provides an overview of prehistoric pastoral mobility in the northern Mediterranean area. It highlights the wider Bronze Age scholarship of the socio-​economic and cultural impact of distinct husbandry strategies. It is shown that the phenomenon of transhumance had taken root in parts of Europe already during the Neolithic and appears to have experienced a slow transition, from unspecialised short-​distance activity to a specialised long-​distance strategy, during the Bronze Age. The attentive examination of the available archaeological evidence suggests that the evolution of pastoral mobility is deeply related to the emergence of social and economic complexity, the development of political control of the territory and the expansion of trading networks. A considerable innovation in textile studies in general, and for the investigation of the early continental wool trading networks, has been introduced and developed in recent years with the application of strontium isotope tracing

7

8

8

Textile Production in B ronze Age  Europe

analyses on woollen thread samples (Frei et al. 2015, 2017). The experiments carried out so far have shown that it is possible to measure the strontium signature of the wool that was used to make textiles and thus to provide information on whether the wool is local or non-​local (Frei et  al. 2009). After introducing the reader to the strontium isotope tracing method, in Chapter 10 Frei presents a series of recent results from Danish Bronze Age textiles, showing that the majority of the samples were manufactured with fibres from a variety of geological environments. Frei’s work represents a great advance for the study of ancient textiles. It provides the scientific proof that Bronze Age textile production in general, and wool textile production in particular, rested (at least during the mid-​second millennium bc) on a wide-​ranging and complex system of production and exchange that probably linked various parts of the continent. Combining the results of strontium isotope analyses with a careful examination of the available archaeological records from northern Europe, the contribution by Bergerbrant (Chapter  11) takes a step forward and seeks to demonstrate that not only was a large proportion of the wool used to produce Scandinavian woollen textiles (or at least those preserved in the Danish oak-​ log coffins) not produced locally, but that most likely also the large pieces of textiles and clothing found in Nordic Bronze Age graves were traded from somewhere in Europe and not manufactured in Scandinavia. On the other hand, several technical details of the preserved fragments suggest that a local textile production was not totally lacking, and that items like the corded skirts and other smaller garments were probably made locally in northern Europe.

Textiles, Ancient DNA and Protein Residues In recent years, the idea that archaeological studies are undergoing a scientific paradigm shift implying necessary collaboration with a variety of natural sciences to produce new knowledge about the past has entered the general scientific debate (e.g. Kristiansen 2014, 2017; Sabatini and Melheim 2017; Vandkilde et  al. 2015). As widely acknowledged throughout this volume, interdisciplinary approaches to the study of textiles are the key issue in modern textile research. However, we wish to suggest that we may be far from having explored all the possible angles from which textiles could be studied. Two methods, yet to be fully explored and exploited, have been chosen for this volume: the study of ancient DNA and that of ancient protein residues. Both appear at the moment to hold great potential for future investigations. Chapter 12 by Brandt and Allentoft provides an overview of recent research history and the current methodologies available for analysing ancient DNA, including possible limitations. The authors show in the first place that it is

9

B ronze Age Textile Production

fully possible today to recover genetic data (in particular from mitochondrial DNA) from historical and archaeological woollen textiles. Nonetheless, they also discuss how preservation conditions of ancient DNA depend on a variety of factors, including ancient wool treatment processes and the characteristics of the environment in which textiles were buried. When available, ancient DNA represents an invaluable source of information as to the species that have been used to produce the samples and regarding their selection and domestication processes. Chapter  13 by Di Gianvincenzo, Granzotto and Cappellini discusses the possibility offered by mass spectrometry-​based ancient protein analysis. The method has been successfully used to investigate garments produced from proteinaceous sources, obtaining results as to the used species and some of their characteristics, as, for example, the slaughtering age.The use of ancient protein residues for the investigation of animal fibres and skins has so far been limited by the availability of public reference proteome databases. However, proteins have a very resistent molecular structure and appear to be preserved even when other conditions have eliminated any possibility of carrying out genetic studies. Thus, they represent a powerful tool for possibly providing new information about archaeological textiles and garments. Both these contributions show that there are still many aspects of textiles to investigate and that there is great potential for enhancing the knowledge provided by the archaeological and textual evidence.

Wrapping Up The concluding reflections by Kristiansen and Sørensen in Chapter  14 underscore the importance of wool not only as a new material, but as a new technology that substantially affected societies from, e.g., a social, economic and political point of view. They stress that this book brings the study of wool and textile production to the forefront of current Bronze Age research, intersecting with the major themes of the discipline. Prior to this, the possibility that wool production may have been as important as metallurgy had never been seriously entertained, but there is a new appreciation for its significance now. Kristiansen and Sørensen describe how our knowledge has changed in recent decades and provide useful suggestions for further research. We are just starting to understand the importance of wool and textile production, and how it must relate, for example, to the development of new subsistence strategies or to new trade ventures throughout the continent. They go a step further and attempt to contextualise the new understanding of wool and textile production within continental and demographic trends, and above all they attempt for the first time to quantify trade, providing an idea of the number of pieces of cloth that may have

9

10

10

Textile Production in B ronze Age  Europe

been needed in the specific case of Denmark during the Early Bronze Age. Their approach is challenging and wide-​ranging, providing a demonstration of how one should look at the whole picture and not forget that different large-​scale trade networks, such as those for copper, tin, salt and textiles, must have been active at the same time, affecting and shaping Bronze Age societies. CONCLUDING REMARKS

We are confident that every contribution to this volume brings new material and/​or theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of Bronze Age wool and textiles. In light of the growing amount of data and of the opportunities for combining results from geo-​chemical and bio-​genetic analyses with those from the study of the archaeological evidence from the small-​scale studies to the broad overarching perspective, we share optimism about the future of textile research and the exciting new results waiting to be obtained. In conclusion, we hope the volume will engage readers in the study of the prehistoric textile economy and inspire future interdisciplinary collaborations to deepen and extend our understanding of this tremendous human endeavour. NOTE

1 Indeed, sometimes it is not even possible to discern the fibres with which they were produced (see Skals, Chapter 6 and Słomska and Antosik, Chapter 5). REFERENCES

Andersson Strand, E. and M. Cybulska (2012) Visualising ancient textiles: how to make a textile visible on the basis of an interpretation of an Ur III text, in Textile Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East: Archaeology, Epigraphy, Iconography (Ancient Textiles Series 12), ed. M.-L. Nosch, H. Koefoed and E. Andersson Strand, Oxford, 113–​127. Andersson Strand, E. and M.-L. Nosch eds. (2015) Tools, Textiles and Contexts:  Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), Oxford. Barber, E. J. W. (1991) Prehistoric Textiles: the Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean, Princeton. Bazzanella, M. and A. Mayr (2009) I reperti tessili, le fusaiole e i pesi da telaio dalla palafitta di Molina di Ledro, Trento. Bazzanella, M., Mayr, A., Moser, L. and A. Rast-​Eicher (2003) Textiles: intrecci e tessuti dalla preistoria europea, Trento. Becker, C., Benecke, N., Grabundžija, A., Küchelmann, H.-​C., Pollock, S., Schier, W., Schoch, C., Schrakamp, I., Schütt, B. and M. Schumacher (2016) The textile revolution: research into the origin and spread of wool production between the Near East and central Europe, Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 6: Space and Knowledge, Topoi Research Group Articles, ed. G. Graßhoff and M. Meyer, 102–​151. Bender Jørgensen, L. (1992) North European Textiles until AD 1000, Aarhus.

11

R eferences

Bender Jørgensen, L. (2012) The introduction of sails to Scandinavia: raw materials, labour and land, in N-​TAG TEN: Proceedings of the 10th Nordic TAG Conference at Stiklestad, Norway 2009 (BAR International Series 2399), ed. R. Berge, M. E. Jasinski and K. Sognnes, Oxford, 173–​181. Bender Jørgensen, L. (2018) Textile production, in Creativity in the Bronze Age: Understanding Innovation in Pottery,Textile, and Metalwork Production, ed. L. Bender Jørgensen, J. Sofaer and M. L. S. Sørensen, Cambridge, 67–​73. Bender Jørgensen, L. and A. Rast-​Eicher (2018) Fibres for Bronze Age textiles, in Creativity in the Bronze Age: Understanding Innovation in Pottery, Textile, and Metalwork Production, ed. L. Bender Jørgensen, J. Sofaer and M. L. S. Sørensen, Cambridge, 25–​36. Bender Jørgensen, L., Rast-​Eicher, A., Ehlers, S. K. and S. H. Fossøy (2016) Innovations in European Bronze Age textiles, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 91(1), 68–102. Bender Jørgensen, L., Sofaer, J. and M. L. S. Sørensen eds. (2018) Creativity in the Bronze Age: Understanding Innovation in Pottery,Textile, and Metalwork Production, Cambridge. Bergerbrant, S. (2007) Bronze Age Identities: Costume, Conflict and Contact in Northern Europe, 1600–​1300 BC (Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 43), Lindome. Bergerbrant, S. (2010) Difference in elaboration of dress in northern Europe during the Middle Bronze Age, in North European Symposium for Archaeological Textiles X (Ancient Textile Series 5), ed. E. Andersson Strand, M. Gleba, U. Mannering, C. Munkholt and M. Ringgaard, Oxford, 21–​25. Biga, M. G. (2014) Some aspects of the wool economy at Ebla (Syria, 24th century bc), in Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean, ed. C. Breniquet and C. Michel, Oxford, 139–​150. Breniquet, C. and C. Michel eds. (2014) Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry (Ancient Textiles Series 17), Oxford. Broholm, H. C. and M. Hald (1940) Costumes of the Bronze Age in Denmark: Contributions to the Archaeology and Textile-​History of the Bronze Age, Copenhagen. Burke, B. (2010) Textiles, in The Oxford Handbook of the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. E. H. Cline, Oxford, 430–​442. CinBA Database. CinBA Database of Bronze Age Textiles in Europe, http://​cinba.net/​ outputs/​databases/​textiles/​ [2016.12.10]. Del Freo, M., Nosch, M.-L. and F. Rougemont (2010) The terminology of textiles in the Linear B tablets, including some considerations on Linear A  logograms and abbreviations, in Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC (Ancient Textiles Series 8), ed. C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 338–​373. Earle, T., Ling, J., Uhnér, C., Stos-​Gale, Z. and L. Melheim (2015) The political economy and metal trade in Bronze Age Europe: understanding regional variability in terms of comparative advantage and articulations, European Journal of Archaeology 18(4), 633–​657. Firth, R. (2014) Considering the population statistics of the sheep listed in the east–​west corridor archive at Knossos, in KE-​RA-​ME-​JA Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, ed. D. Nakassis, J. Gulizio and S. A. James, Philadelphia, 293–​304. Frei, K. M., Frei, R., Mannering, U., Gleba, M., Nosch, M.-L. and H. Lyngstrøm (2009) Provenance of ancient textiles:  a pilot study evaluating the Sr isotope system, Archaeometry 51(2), 252–​276. Frei, K. M., Mannering, U., Kristiansen, K., Allentoft, M. E., Wilson, A. S., Skals, I., Tridico, S., Nosch, M.-L., Willerslev, E., Clarke, L. and R. Frei (2015) Tracing the dynamic life story of a Bronze Age female, Scientific Reports 5 (art. n. 10431).

11

12

12

Textile Production in B ronze Age  Europe

Frei, K. M., Mannering, U., Vanden Berghe, I. and K. Kristiansen (2017) Bronze Age wool: provenance and dye investigations of Danish textiles, Antiquity 91, 640–​654. Gillis, C. and M.-L. Nosch eds. (2007) Ancient Textiles, Production, Craft and Society (Ancient Textiles Series 1), Oxford. Gleba, M. (2008) Textile Production in Pre-​Roman Italy (Ancient Textiles Series 4), Oxford. Gleba, M. and U. Mannering, eds. (2012) Textiles and Textile Production in Europe from Prehistory to AD 400 (Ancient Textiles Series 11), Oxford. Grömer, K. (2012) Austria: Bronze and Iron Age, in Textiles and Textile Production in Europe from Prehistory to AD 400 (Ancient Textiles Series 11), eds. M. Gleba and U. Mannering, Oxford,  27–​88. Grömer K. (2016) The Art of Prehistoric Textile Making: The Development of Craft Traditions and Clothing in Central Europe,Vienna. Grömer, K., Bender Jørgensen, L. and M. Marić Baković (2018) Missing link: an early wool textile from Pustopolje in Bosnien Herzegovina, Antiquity 93(362), 351–​367. Grömer, K., Kern, A., Reschreiter, H. and H. Rösel-​Mautendorfer eds. (2013) Textiles from Hallstatt Weaving Culture in Bronze Age and Iron Age Salt Mines, Budapest. Harding, A. (1995) The finds from Pustopolje Tumulus 16 and their European context, Eirene 31, 112–​119. Harlow, S., Michel, C. and M.-L. Nosch eds. (2014) Prehistoric, Ancient Near Eastern and Aegean Textiles and Dress (Ancient Textiles Series 18), Oxford. Holst, M. K., Breunning-​Madsen, H. and M. Rasmussen (2001) The south Scandinavian barrows with well-​preserved oak-​log coffins, Antiquity 75(287), 126–​136. Killen, J. T. (2007) Cloth production in Late Bronze Age Greece: the documentary evidence, in Ancient Textiles, Production, Crafts and Society (Ancient Textiles Series 1), ed. C. Gillis and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 50–​59. Kristiansen, K. (2014) Towards a new paradigm? The third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology 22, 11–​34. Kristiansen, K. (2016) Interpreting Bronze Age trade and migration, in Human Mobility and Technological Transfer in the Prehistoric Mediterranean, ed. E. Kiriatzi and C. Knappet, Cambridge, 128–​153. Kristiansen, K. (2017) The nature of archaeological knowledge and its ontological turns, Norwegian Archaeological Review 50(2), 120–​123. Ling, J., Stos-​Gale, Z., Grandin, L., Billström, K., Hjärthner-​Holdar, E. and P.-​O. Persson (2014) Moving metals II: provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age artefacts by lead isotope and elemental analyses, Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 106–​132. Liversage, D. (2000) Interpreting Impurity Patterns in Ancient Bronze, Copenhagen. McCorriston J. (1997) The fiber revolution:  textile extensification, alienation and social stratification in ancient Mesopotamia, Current Anthropology 38(4), 517–​549. Marić Baković, M. and G. Car (2014) Konzervatorsko-​restauratorski radovi I  rezultati najnovijih analiza na tekstilnome plaštu is prapovijesnoga zemljanog tumula Br. 16, Pustopolje, Kupres, Cleuna 1, 30–​47. Melheim, L., Grandin, L., Persson, P.-​O., Billström, K., Stos-​Gale, Z., Ling, J., Williams, A., Angelini, I., Canovaro, C., Hjärthner-​Holdar, E. and K. Kristiansen (2018) Moving metals III: possible origins for copper in Bronze Age Denmark based on lead isotopes and geochemistry, Journal of Archaeological Science 96, 85–​105. Michel, C. and M.-L. Nosch, eds. (2010) Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC (Ancient Textiles Series 8), Oxford.

13

R eferences

Nosch, M.-L. (2011) The Mycenaean administration of textile production in the palace of Knossos: observations on the Lc(1) textile targets, American Journal of Archaeology 115(4), 495–​505. Nosch, M.-L. (2014) Mycenaean wool economies in the latter part of the 2nd millennium bc Aegean, in Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean (Ancient Textiles Series 17), eds. C. Breniquet and C. Michel, Oxford, 371–​400. Nosch, M.-L. (2015) The wool age:  traditions and innovations in textile production, consumption and administration, in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, in Tradition and Innovation in the Mycenaean Palatial Polities, ed. J. Weilhartner and F. Ruppenstein, Vienna, 167–​201. Ryder, M. L. (1983) Sheep and Man, London. Rottoli, M. (2003) Il lino, in Textiles: intrecci e tessuti dalla preistoria europea, ed. M. Bazzanella, A. Mayr, L. Moser and A. Rast-​Eicher, Trento, 65–​72. Rowlands, M. and J. Ling (2013) Boundaries, flows and connectivities: mobility and stasis in the Bronze Age, in Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen (BAR International Series 2508), ed. S. Bergerbrant and S. Sabatini, Oxford, 517–​529. Sabatini S. (2016) Textile tools from the East Gate at Mycenaean Midea, Argolis, Greece, Opuscula. Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 9, 217–​247 Sabatini, S. (2018) Wool economy during the European Bronze Age, Światowit 56, 43–​55. Sabatini, S. and L. Melheim (2017) Nordic–​Mediterranean relations in the second millennium bc, in New Perspectives on the Bronze Age: Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Bronze Age Symposium Held in Gothenburg 9th to 13th June 2015, ed. S. Bergerbrant and A.Wessman, Oxford, 355–​362. Sherratt, A. and S. Sherratt (1991) From luxuries to commodities, in Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, ed. N. H. Gale, Gothenburg, 351–​386. Siennicka, M. (2014) Changes in textile production in Late Bronze Age Tiryns, Greece, in Textile Trade and Distribution in Antiquity/​Textilhandel und -​distribution in der Antike, ed. K. Droβ-​Krüpe, Wiesbaden, 161–​176. Skals, I., Möller-​ Wiering, S. and M.-L. Nosch (2015) Survey of archaeological textile remains from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean area, in Tools, Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 61–​74. Sofaer, J., Bender Jørgensen, L. and A. Choyke (2014) Craft production: ceramics, textiles and bone, in The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, ed. A. Harding and H. Fokkens, Oxford, 469–​491. Thrane, H. (1975) Europæiske forbindelser Bidrag til studiet af fremmede forbindelser i Danmarks yngre broncealder (periode IV–​V) (Nationalmuseets skrifter Arkeologisk-​historiske række Bind XVI), Copenhagen. Tournavitou, I., Andersson Strand, E., Nosch, M.-L. and J. Cutler (2015) Textile tools at Mycenae, mainland Greece, in Tools, Textiles and Contexts:  Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 253–​265. Vandkilde, H. (2014) Breakthrough of the Nordic Bronze Age: transcultural warriorhood and a Carpathian crossroad in the sixteenth century bc, European Journal of Archaeology 17 (4), 602–​633. Vandkilde, H., Hansen, S., Kotsakis, K., Kristiansen, K., Müller, J., Sofaer, J. and M. L. S. Sørensen (2015) Cultural mobility in Bronze Age Europe, in Forging Identities:  the

13

14

14

Textile Production in B ronze Age  Europe

Mobility of Culture in Bronze Age Europe (BAR International Series 2771), ed. P. Suchowska-​Ducke, S. Scott Reiter and H.Vandkilde, Oxford, 5–​37. Waetzoldt, H. (1972) Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie, Rome. Wisti Lassen, A. (2010) The trade in wool in old Assyrian Anatolia, Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 42, 159–​179. Wright, R. P. (2013) Sumerian and Akkadian industries: crafting textiles, in The Sumerian World, ed. H. Crawford, London, 395–​418.

15

TWO

THE WOOL ZONE IN PREHISTORY AND PROTOHISTORY Eva Andersson Strand and Marie-​Louise Nosch

INTRODUCTION

With the Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research celebrating its tenth anniversary in 2015, we wished to assess our goals and objectives in relation to the results we have achieved together with our many valuable, international collaborators, and to consider the general developments in scholarship on Bronze Age Greece over the previous decade. It all began with the seminal works of John Killen (1984, 2015) on the textiles recorded in the Linear B tablets and Elizabeth Barber’s pioneering scholarship in textile archaeology with the monograph Prehistoric Textiles (Barber 1991). They were followed by two further monographs by distinguished colleagues: Iris Tzachili, Yphantiki kai hyphantes sto proistoriko Aigaio (Textiles and Weavers in the Prehistoric Aegean) (Tzachili 1997) and Brendan Burke, From Minos to Midas: Ancient Cloth Production in the Aegean and in Anatolia (Burke 2010). These scholars appreciated that only a multidisciplinary approach can be used in describing the broad scope of ancient textile cultures. Neither texts nor images nor archaeological artefacts nor textiles alone can provide a full picture of this technology, or the complete understanding of the practicalities and symbolic value of clothing. Each in his/​her own way, these scholars have shown the impact and ramifications of textiles in other parts of society, while at the same time emphasising what a huge endeavour it is to delve into this rather overlooked area with its millions of artefacts. Thus, 15

16

16

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

there has been a need to gather much more material, but also to develop new ways to analyse it. SURVEYING 8,700 TEXTILE TOOLS

By 2005, we had already contacted many Aegean and prehistoric archaeologists and asked them to join our team by recording their textile tools in our joint database and by delivering an analysis of textile production at their sites. This knowledge base gave us access to some 8,700 textile tools from 29 sites in the Aegean, Anatolia and the Levant. The database was primarily designed to record the function of textile tools and the parameters of the tools, such as weight, diameter and height, as well as shape and material. Information on context and storage was also included, as were photographs (Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015, 145–​151).We decided from the outset to focus on textile tools from settlements and habitation areas and to exclude textile tools from graves, since their shape and size may have been determined by decorative or symbolic purposes rather than functional ones. The tools were primarily spindle whorls and loom weights, with a smaller number of needles and pierced sherds, a find category for which the interpretation as a textile tool is still uncertain and debated (Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015, 149). The textile tools derive from all periods of the Bronze Age, and from quite different contexts. Thus, in the interpretative phase, it would be possible, in theory, to compare textile tools from, e.g., palaces and households, mainland Greece and Crete, in both the Early and Late Bronze Age. The random character of the archaeological data, however, made us cautious about such a comparative approach. Instead, we restricted the comparisons to smaller clusters of tools found together in closed and dated contexts at the same site.This resulted in the unique opportunity to reveal which textile tools were potentially used together, e.g. a set of loom weights on the same loom, or spindle whorls in a tool kit with associated loom weights, and this can illustrate the types of tools used together in a specific private household. Since so few archaeological textiles survive in the Aegean and the Levant, the main link to textiles is textile tools, but only if paired with an understanding of their production potential as tools. In order to understand the primary purpose of textile tools, i.e. as implements to produce textiles, the first step is to be aware of the function, technical possibilities and limitations, and the type of textile production for which the tool could have been used. Therefore, a series of tests on the suitability of spindle whorls and loom weights was conducted by two textile technicians, Anne Batzer and Linda Olofsson, who are experts in their field. By using experimental archaeology in combination with knowledge from traditional textile craft and textile techniques, we were able to

17

T esting B ronze Age Textile  T ools

explain the parameters that define and influence textile production (Olofsson et al. 2015). TESTING BRONZE AGE TEXTILE TOOLS

In the experimental tests, different types of spindle whorls and loom weights were tested and their functional parameters, i.e. the parameters of the tool that affect production, were identified. One of the challenges was to choose the right wool fibres. After discussions with fibre experts, a fleece from a Shetland sheep, containing both underwool and hairs, was chosen (Olofsson et al. 2015). First, the wool was cleaned and combed meticulously because the preparation of the fibres strongly affects the quality of the spun yarn and one cannot spin an even thread with badly prepared wool. The wool preparation process was very time-​consuming and this highlighted the skill and time required for textile production. Each spinner was able to prepare 114 g of wool per day in an eight-​hour working day. The spinning tests were made with replicas of spindle whorls from Late Bronze Age Nichoria and the weaving test with loom weights from Troia, period VII. All the tests were conducted by textile technicians Anne Batzer and Linda Olofsson. Most tests were conducted with wool, and only a few tests with spinning and weaving flax fibres. The spun yarn samples and the woven fabrics from all the tests were then sent for external analysis to textile archaeo­ logist Susan Möller-​Wiering, who analysed them as if they were archaeological textiles (Möller-​Wiering 2015). The purpose of this was to contribute to the methodologies of textile analysis; with this controlled production sequence, we could test and examine the extent to which traditional textile analysis can identify different spinners and weavers through the differences in spin angles and the density of the weave. It transpired that, in the yarn samples, different spinners could easily be identified via the range of spin angles, but the difference became less evident when the yarn was woven into a fabric. It is the fibre, the size of the spindle, the weight of the whorl and the spinner that together determine the spun yarn. With a light spindle whorl (10 g or less), the spinners spun a very thin thread, while they spun a thicker thread with heavier spindle whorls (Olofsson et al. 2015). By recording the size and weight of a spindle whorl, one can thus deduce the type of thread produced in the past. Moreover, another important observation was that when the spinners worked with the same spinning tool and the same prepared wool fibres, the yarn became homogeneous and could be woven into the same fabric. This suggests that it is mainly the tools and the fibres, and less the spinners, which define the yarn quality. When spinning with a 4 g spindle whorl, the spinner spun 35 m an hour; when spinning with an 8 g whorl, they spun 40 m an hour; and with an 18

17

18

18

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

g whorl, 50 m an hour. The time measurement only includes spinning and not winding off the thread on to a reel when the spindle was full. It became evident that the thinner the thread, the longer the time it took to spin. The spinning experiments strongly demonstrate that when spinning with a light spindle whorl, the raw material has to be very well cleaned and prepared in order to be able to spin a thread that would be strong enough to function as a warp thread on a loom. Indeed, before spinning a thin wool thread on a 4 g spindle whorl, the textile technicians washed the wool in lukewarm water to clean it and make it soft. In the calculations of the amounts of yarn and time needed in prehistory, one also has to take into account that much more yarn is necessary when weaving with a thinner thread than with a thicker one, and much more yarn is needed when weaving a dense fabric instead of an open fabric: if producing 1 m2 of fabric of a balanced tabby with 20 threads per centimetre, one would need to spin at least 4,000 m of yarn; if producing a balanced tabby with thicker threads, for e­ xample 5 threads per centimetre, only 1,000 m of yarn would be needed. Thus, not only would it take much longer to prepare the fine fibres and spin a thin thread, dense fabrics produced with these threads would have taken a considerably longer time to weave. In our weaving tests, the parameters that affect a fabric woven on a warp-​ weighted loom were identified. The weight of a loom weight dictates how many threads requiring a particular tension can be fastened to it. The thickness of a loom weight controls how closely the warp threads will be spaced in the finished fabric. By recording these parameters, it becomes possible to calculate and suggest the types of fabric a specific loom weight could have produced (Firth 2015). Even if it is theoretically possible to use different types and sizes of loom weights in a loom set-​up, it is preferable to use weights of a similar size, since loom weights of varying sizes potentially influence the weaving process negatively. This conclusion is also supported by iconography: when a warp-​ weighted loom is depicted, the loom weights are of a similar type and size. ANALYSING BRONZE AGE TEXTILE TOOLS

We used the results from the spinning and weaving tests as standards for all the tools recorded in the database. Thus, for every textile tool, spindle whorl and loom weight, we can propose a model of how to assess the tool’s yields in terms of yarn or fabric. This strengthened our mission of making textile production visible, even when the textiles themselves were absent. The material from the sites is scattered over time and space. Nevertheless, it is striking that when several spindle whorls are found at the same site, and in the same context, many vary in size and weight. For example, 1,360 spindle

19

I nvisible / Absent Textile Tools in the B ronze  Age

whorls from Troia dated to all periods (I–​VII, c. 3000–​950 bc) were recorded and analysed, and led to the significant discovery that the distribution of the whorls in certain weight groups did not change dramatically during a period of more than 2,000 years. With the exception of those from period IV, the largest number of Troia spindle whorls weigh between 20 and 29 g. This enabled the following interpretations of textile production in Bronze Age Troia. 1 Medium-​quality yarn of the type spun on 20–​29 g whorls was produced throughout the Bronze Age, thus indicating a constant demand for textiles of a certain range. 2 The array and distribution of spindle whorls demonstrate a varied yarn production, ranging from very thin to thick threads. 3 Accordingly, fabrics ranging from very fine to coarse were produced and used in Troia throughout the Bronze Age. 4 In period I in Troia, spindle whorls weighing less than 10 g constituted 15 per cent of the total number of spindle whorls, thus illustrating how the spinning technique was already fully developed at the beginning of the Bronze Age.

However, such very light Early Bronze Age spindle whorls are by no means unique in the Aegean or Anatolia, and demonstrate how fine yarns and fabrics were well known and used. For example, spindle whorls weighing less than 9 g are found in Arslantepe, Turkey and have been dated to 3000–​2750 bc. At the same site and period, textiles woven of very thin threads (0.1 mm in diameter) were also found (Frangipane et al. 2009). A spindle whorl weighing only 8 g is another example from Early Bronze Age Sitagroi in northern Greece (Elster et al. 2015). It would, therefore, be erroneous to assume that yarns and fabrics become increasingly fine as the Bronze Age progressed. Excellent spinning skills and fine yarns were probably in place at the outset of the Bronze Age, wherever the stratified society would need differentiation in cloth types and where resources would allow for people to spend vast amounts of time producing fine yarns and fabrics. Bronze Age spinners were able to produce different types of yarn, and thereby different types of textiles, from very fine to very coarse. INVISIBLE OR ABSENT TEXTILE TOOLS IN THE BRONZE AGE

Another observation when analysing and comparing Bronze Age spindle whorls is that in certain regions, in certain periods, the number of whorls is markedly low. It has also long been observed that loom weights were highly abundant in Crete and the southern Aegean, while spindle whorls were often absent in these areas yet abundant in central and northern Greece (Burke 1997; Poursat et al. 2015). Thus, we have to accept that Bronze Age sites do not consistently and concurrently yield spindle whorls and loom weights.This

19

20

20

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

could certainly be due to many factors and biases, for example that the spindle whorls in some periods and places were made of perishable material like wood. Moreover, it is likely that craftspeople used various tools and spinning methods, such as spinning on a spinning hook, which could have been used concurrently with drop spinning with spindle whorls at the same site, region and period. Likewise, looms may have been simply subjected to tension using stones, which can be difficult to identify as textile tools in the archaeological record, but the terminology of loom weights, in Greek sometimes termed ‘stones’, laes, may suggest this as a possible explanation (Del Freo et al. 2010, 358). Regarding spinning tools, we observed from the outset that, according to various academic traditions, small, round, pierced items were, in some publications, classified as buttons, in others as beads, in others as conuli, and in others again as spindle whorls (Iakovidis 1977). This random classification naturally creates a bias in our data. When comparing type, material, weight and diameter of the three object categories (spindle whorls, conuli and beads), it is not always possible from a typological or a functional perspective to distinguish any specific difference. It is important, though, to note that all three object categories could have been used as spindle whorls; it is not the chosen find category that defines whether or not a whorl is functionally fit to be used as a spindle whorl. Likewise, it cannot be excluded that some spindle whorls may have had another function, for example, as beads for decoration. Furthermore, if these small bead-​size whorls were used as spindle whorls, this indicates both the use of well-​prepared raw fibre materials and that the spinner had the necessary knowledge, skill and time to use this tiny tool. The resulting fabric would be of a fine quality, and a large amount of yarn was needed if it was woven densely. At some sites, conuli are found with other textiles tools, but they are also frequently found in burials. Sometimes, many conuli are found together. This concentration of conuli could suggest that conuli were used for something other than spinning, for example as dress adornments (Iakovidis 1977). However, from a technical perspective, it makes sense to accumulate many similar spindle whorls in a workshop, as they would direct the yarn quality towards a similar standardised thread that could be used for weaving many similar textiles. Some 4,000 loom weights of different types and sizes were recorded from 29 Bronze Age sites in the eastern Mediterranean (Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015, 145–​151). Based on our experiments, it became evident that the size of a loom weight, i.e. its weight and thickness, affects the final product, the woven fabric, more than the type of loom weight as an element of a stylistic typology. In particular, the experiments enabled us to propose a calculation model based on the dimensions and weight of a single loom weight, which can give an estimate of what fabrics were produced with the loom weight.To be more precise,

21

I nvisible / Absent Textile Tools in the B ronze  Age

the analyses of loom weights can yield an estimate of the potential range of textiles that could be manufactured with the tool, but it remains difficult to pinpoint the specific type of fabric. A single loom weight has no purpose, since loom weights are always used in groups on a loom; regrettably, archaeological finds of groups of loom weights are rather rare. In a few cases, such as in Troia, loom weights had fallen from the loom and remained in situ (Guzowska et al. 2012, 2015).These are, however, exceptional finds; in other instances, when loom weights are found together, it does not necessarily mean that they had fallen from a loom or belonged to the same loom set-​up. They could also simply have been stored together and the weaver would have known which loom weights to choose for a specific set-​up. Another challenge is that even when it is plausible that loom weights had fallen straight from a loom and were found in situ, some loom weights may still be missing and the set is thus not complete. An example of this is the find of loom weights in Building 1 in Khania, which had most likely fallen from a warp-​weighted loom, but were scattered on the floor, indicating that some weights may be missing (Bruun Lundgren et al. 2015). Finally, loom weights, which may visually appear very different, could potentially still work well together if they are of similar thickness and weight, or if a skilled weaver knew how to balance out the differences when setting up the loom. A discovery of such heterogeneous groups of loom weights in Mallia clearly illustrates this situation since our analyses demonstrated that they could work together very well, despite their differences (Poursat et al. 2015). The analysis of the loom weights further demonstrates that weaving on a warp-​weighted loom was well developed in the Aegean and Anatolian Bronze Age, with the possibility of producing a wide range of fabrics needed in daily life. Nevertheless, as observed above, it is evident that, in some regions and periods, the number of loom weights is rather low.This could certainly be due to different biases in the archaeological record, such as the use of stones or unfired clay for loom weights, or the lack of interest in the material resulting in incomplete recordings by the excavators. However, it is also relevant to take into consideration another explanation, i.e. that weavers used different types of looms simultaneously, both the warp-​weighted loom and the vertical two-​ beam loom, which is made entirely of wood and therefore leaves no archaeological traces in the Aegean (Figs. 2.1 and 2.2). It is therefore likely, as stated above, that different looms and weaving techniques were used simultaneously at the same site, region and period. The analysis of Bronze Age textile tools clearly demonstrates that textile production was diverse and well developed in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. This is substantiated by the scattered, yet increasingly more numerous, archaeological textile finds in the region (Barber 1991; Breniquet 2008; Skals et al. 2015).

21

22

22

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

2.1 Warp-​weighted loom with a tabby set-​up (with all details): (A) tying the starting border; (B) heddling; (C) fastening the loom weights; (D) changing shed. (Drawing: Annika Jeppsson © Annika Jeppsson and CTR.)

TEXTILE TIME

A crucial impact of textile production on Bronze Age societies is the time consumption. A  time calculation will always be approximate and subjective, and can never be considered exact. Nevertheless, a time calculation provides an idea of the minimum amount of time needed for the production of textiles, a factor confirmed by texts (Michel and Nosch 2010). The calculation model in Table 2.1 is based on various types of sources. 1 Archaeological data: measurements taken on a piece of archaeological textile from Mallia, a mineralised textile fragment from Quartier Mu, Mallia dated to MM II. The fabric is plausibly made of wool and has c. 20 threads per centimetre in warp and weft, and a thread diameter of c. 0.3 mm (Cutler et al. 2013).

23

Textile  Time

2.2 Vertical loom with two-​beams, tabby set-​up. (Drawing: Annika Jeppsson © Annika Jeppsson and CTR.)

2 Time measurements taken during our spinning and weaving experiments (Olofsson et al. 2015). 3 Texts:  information on time consumption from Bronze Age administrative texts, especially from Ur III texts of the late twenty-​first century bc (Andersson Strand and Cybulska 2013; Firth and Nosch 2012; Michel and Nosch 2010). 4 Craft knowledge:  we rely on oral information provided by experienced craftspeople.

The calculations show that it would take 390 hours to produce a tabby 1 m wide and 2.5 m long in this Mallia fabric quality with yarn spun on an 8 g spindle whorl. This is a simple tabby fabric and is easy to produce. If more elaborate textiles such as those seen on the frescoes from Akrotiri were to be made (Shaw and Chapin 2015), much more time and labour would need to be added. Likewise, more time and labour would be necessary if the yarn had to be dyed in different colours.

23

24

24

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

Table 2.1  Calculations and reconstruction of time, fibre and labour consumption based on a textile fragment from Mallia, Crete Task

Quantities

Time (hours)

Tools

Space

Plucking

1.5 kg wool from 2 sheep

2 h to pluck

Outside in the field or in courtyard

Sorting

1.5 kg wool for first sorting

Combing

1 kg clean wool

2 h to clean and sort the wool in different fibre qualities. About 30% was lost in this process. 80 h to comb and/​or tease the wool

Basket or sack to store the wool Basket or sack to store the wool

Combs

Spinning

1 kg wool = 10,310 m

In courtyard or indoors, with ample light and not too windy, and with places to sit Outside, in courtyard, indoors, with ample light

Warping, heddling

20 threads per cm = c. 4,125 m2 in a balanced tabby.  Set-​up 1 x 2.5 m = 10,312.5 m.

Weaving

1 x 2.5 m weaving 50 cm a day

258 h to spin with an 8 g spindle whorl (40 m/​h) 8 h for warping and heddling

40 h

Spindle, reel to wind up the yarn, baskets for storing the yarn Warping board, needle to sew the starting border to the starting border rod, loom, strong yarn to make the heddles Loom, pin beater, weaving sword

In courtyard or indoors, with ample light and not too windy, and places to sit

In courtyard or indoors, with ample light

In courtyard or indoors, with ample light

25

I nvisible T extile P roduction

FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON TEXTILE TOOLS

Textile technology in the Aegean is primarily interpreted within the frame of technology history, of sequences of technical innovations and of functionality. When a tool is shaped in a particular way and found in a specific place, we interpret this as related to its function and the logistics of production. This functional interpretative framework is corroborated in our research by the experimental testing of textile tools, stipulating yields and speed of production. It rests upon a perception of humans as Homo faber, the ingenious and practical individuals, who will optimise tools and choose practical and functional solutions, which in addition economise on time. However, given our perspective after ten years of research into textile tools, this same framework also represents an interpretative challenge, or even boundary, when we identify tools with apparent low functionality. This is exemplified by spindle whorls with an off-​centred hole, which would make spinning irregular. Pierced sherds also represent apparent paradoxes: why go to all the trouble of piercing a hole in a sherd that mostly is of irregular shape, and with a hole off-​centre? Does this signify that the producer/​user of the tool made less practical decisions throughout the process, was less skilled, or was careless in terms of the economies of time? Or do the sherds testify to an ingenious, alternative textile technique that we have not yet uncovered? Perhaps our knowledge as modern scholars biases our comprehension of the irrationalities of the past, which we may more easily accept in the realms of cult and belief and societal matters, but in the realm of technology, we still depend very much on an early modern industrial appreciation of rationality, practicality, purpose and goals (for further discussion see e.g. Andersson Strand and Mannering 2014; Nosch 2015). INVISIBLE TEXTILE PRODUCTION: IDENTIFYING GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE

The results from the analyses of textile tools, contexts, terminology and textiles depicted in frescoes have each, and in combination, furnished us with new knowledge of textile production in the Bronze Age Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. Nevertheless, many unanswered questions and gaps of knowledge remain. Our results, based on the analyses of the loom weights, clearly demonstrate that the production of elaborate textiles was already possible by the beginning of the Bronze Age, and that the warp-​weighted loom was used in certain regions and periods (Fig. 2.1). The warp-​weighted loom was used for producing both tabby and twill fabrics, and according to ethnographical data, it would weave lengths of fabrics up to c. 12 m (Barber 1991, 91–​113; Hoffmann 1964). However, the scarcity of loom weights in some areas and periods indicates that other loom types were also in use. The horizontal ground loom is considered

25

26

26

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

to be the oldest loom type in the eastern Mediterranean area; its earliest depiction is dated to the Late Neolithic and comes from Badari, Egypt (Barber 1991, 83–​91; Broudy 1979, 38). It consisted of four corner pegs holding two beams at either end, with the warp running between them.The Badari image further depicts a piece of woven cloth with distinct lines painted across the middle, presumably heddle-​bars, weft beaters or other weaving devices. Early pictorial evidence for the use of the horizontal loom exists also in Mesopotamia, for example, on a cylinder seal from Susa dated to the fourth millennium bc. This loom type is also the most commonly used loom in ancient Egypt where the available evidence from archaeological textiles indicates that the horizontal ground loom was primarily used for weaving tabby and basket weaves (Vogelsang-​Eastwood 1993, 28–​29). The length of the warp in antiquity is difficult to estimate, but today it would be possible to weave 12 m of fabric or more (e.g. Broudy 1979). Another loom type is the vertical two-​beam loom (Fig. 2.2), which is suggested to have its origin in Syria or Mesopotamia, although the earliest iconographic representation occurs in Egypt in the latter part of the second millennium bc (Barber 1991). An association between this type of loom and the introduction of wool has been suggested since this loom type is associated with tapestry weaving, and wool, which is quite easy to dye, could have inspired patterned weaving; indeed, the vertical two-​beam loom is considered the most convenient loom for tapestry weaving (Barber 1991, 113–​116; Broudy 1979, 44). However, tabby and twill fabrics can also be produced on this loom. The length of the warp on this loom type in antiquity is difficult to estimate, but today, weavers in Turkey weave c. 10 m on two-​beam looms. New textile analyses suggest that the two-​beam loom was used in the Scandinavian Early Bronze Age, c. 1500 bc (Mannering et al. 2012, 102). Theoretically, all three loom types could have been used for weaving all types of textiles in long lengths, so why would people use different loom types? What are the advantages of one type over another? Was the choice of loom defined by the technical requirements and/​or the type of fabrics demanded, or was the loom chosen according to the weaver’s training, tradition, origin and/​ or culture? Do any of the loom types work better with wool than with flax? A commonly held view is that the horizontal ground loom was primarily used when weaving linen textiles, and in Egypt there seems to be a strong nexus between linen tabbies and the horizontal loom in the second and first millennia bc (Kemp and Vogelsang-​Eastwood 2001). However, the horizontal ground loom is still in use today, and in Jordan, for example, is used for weaving wool rugs.The age-​old cultivation of flax as the first textile fibre, and the similarly long existence of the horizontal loom (see above), may have influenced our interpretation of the archaeological finds, leading to the suggestion that flax and the horizontal loom have an exclusive relationship. Nevertheless, the

27

The Appearance of W ool

inclusion of ethnographic data shows how this tool can be used differently, and highlights its flexible and portable qualities. Likewise, the vertical two-​beam loom is still in use today for tapestry and carpet weaving, for example, in northern Europe and the Near East. In contrast, the third loom type that is generally discussed in ancient contexts, the warp-​weighted loom, is no longer in use. It is plausible that this loom type has been replaced by the horizontal treadle loom. It is important in this discussion to keep in mind that, even if the horizontal ground loom and the two-​beam loom are still used, their modern textile products are different from ancient textiles. To conclude, we must consider all three loom types as tools for weaving when discussing loom types and weaving in the Bronze Age Aegean and the ancient Near East.What we also envision for the Bronze Age is a continued and parallel usage of these different loom types, supplemented with other weaving and braiding techniques, such as sprang, twining and weaving on small frames (Barber 1991, 122–​125; Hald 1980, 240–​277). We assume a high productivity of textiles throughout the Bronze Age irrespective of time and place, and when we do not find preserved loom weights, it simply means that weaving took place using devices other than the warp-​weighted loom. THE APPEARANCE OF WOOL: WHEN, WHERE, WHY AND HOW TO FIND IT?

Textile archaeologists and palaeozoologists are currently working together to identify when, where and how the making of textiles with wool fibres came to be commonplace. Many different approaches and methods can be used to answer this question, yet, to date, none has been conclusive. Here we present a brief survey of the current methods for identifying wool. Palaeozoological analyses are a traditional and rather demanding approach. In the Aegean, a well-​known example is the extensive archaeozoological analysis of sheep bones in the Franchthi cave (Payne 1975). Ovis is absent in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic layers, and remains of wild animals dominate. The shift occurs c. 6000 bc, i.e. at the beginning of the Neolithic, when ovicaprid bones rapidly become very abundant and form 90 per cent of the faunal remains in the Franchthi cave (Payne 1975, 130). This shift towards sheep husbandry, evident as it is in the bone analyses, does not necessarily mean that sheep wool was developed or used. Another method used to detect the use of wool for textiles is slaughter patterns (Halstead 1981; Halstead and Isaakidou 2011, 67–​68). In Neolithic Knossos, people apparently favoured husbandry for meat consumption since sheep were slaughtered at a young age (between 6 months and 2 years for 50 per cent of the data) (Isaakidou 2006, 101). In contrast, in Bronze Age Knossos,

27

28

28

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

an increase in adult and male bone remains is recorded (Isaakidou 2006, 107), suggesting that rams or wethers were kept alive longer to shed their wool. A third method for identifying the use of wool is textile tools. Karina Grömer (2006) has discussed the appearance of wool in central Europe, and it is tempting to correlate the appearance of smaller and lighter spindle whorls and the spinning of short wool fibres. New research projects are currently in the process of examining the data to confirm or reject this hypothesis, such as the investigations of changes between Neolithic and Early Bronze Age spindle whorls in terms of technology, available fibres or population movements. In particular, Neolithic spindle whorls in northern, central and southern Greece appear to be smaller than the specimens of Early Bronze Age I–​II (Siennicka 2012).Thus, size matters for the functionality of textile tools; but it appears that it is not a secure indicator for identifying fibres. An ingenious approach was taken by colleagues in the German TOPOI Excellence Cluster, hypothesising that spinning wool would leave traces of lanolin on the tools. Regrettably, the results were not conclusive and lanolin could not be confirmed in the laboratory tests.1 Pietro Militello has proposed yet another method for detecting the emergence of wool in textile production, namely its natural capacity to absorb dyes: The first sure evidence for the use of wool is given by the introduction of dyeing installations which first appear in Myrtos, eastern Crete, in the EM IIB phase, i.e. around 2500–​2400 bc, because dyeing is preferentially associated with wool rather than linen because linen is very difficult to dye. (Militello 2014, 266)

Nevertheless, the precise identification of the equipment and tools for wool dyeing remains a difficult task (Alberti 2007). Iconography of garments may be another method to detect the use of wool, yet it is not easy to distinguish a plant fibre garment from an animal fibre garment in statuettes (Militello 2014, 367). Moreover, figurines of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age tend to be naked or with only very little clothing. Militello stresses that it may not be a coincidence that the earliest statuette of a dressed female in Crete is from Early Bronze Age IIB Myrtos, precisely the same find-​spot with the earliest dyeing installations (Militello 2014, 267). Research on Neolithic clothing in the Aegean may in future add evidence to this body of data (Sarri 2018, 168–​172). Another way to investigate the appearance of wool for textiles is to examine the archaeological wool textiles. Despite the fact that sheep bones become increasingly important in the archaeological record of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, the earliest wool textile found to date in this area is from Anatolia, dated 3000–​2900 bc; in the southern Levant, wool only occurs from the Middle Bronze Age. It is not before the Late Bronze Age that wool textiles

29

The Appearance of W ool

become common finds in the eastern Mediterranean area (Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015; Frangipane et  al. 2009; Ryder 1983; Shamir 2014; see also Rast-​Eicher and Bender Jørgensen 2013 for northern and central Europe and the Balkans). From an archaeological perspective, wool is rather invisible and difficult to grasp, even with the above-​mentioned array of archaeological methods. Based solely on archaeological artefacts, one could question whether wool existed or was commonly used at all in the Bronze Age. It is therefore crucial to include the view from Bronze Age texts, where references to wool abound (Michel and Nosch 2010). The large survey of the Wool Economies of the 3rd and 2nd Millennia BC (Breniquet and Michel 2014) clearly highlights the numerous strategies to obtain more and better wool in all complex Bronze Age societies. Already in Early Bronze Age Tell Beydar, flocks of wethers and ewes (c. 4,000 animals) were separated, suggesting targeted breeding aiming for quality wool (Sallaberger 2014). In the Akkadian/​Sargonic period of the twenty-​ third to twenty-​second century bc, Benjamin Foster (2014) describes how the Akkadian governor at Adab documents 3,000 plucked sheep and 3,000 other animals, perhaps not yet plucked. At the place called Ešnunna, in the northern palace, there are records of 2,000 goats and 1,200 sheep. One talent of wool is worth 15 shekels, according to Foster (2014), and wool is not only sold and purchased but also allocated as rations. Sallaberger (2014) provides us with the significant figures of the Ur III documents: in the provincial administration of Umma, wool is a staple good that merchants on state contract received to bring as capital to international markets. Wool fibre as a commodity constitutes 25–​ 50 per cent of their trade capital, never wool textiles. In the Ur III document on the royal textile production, 8,000 talents (240 tons) of wool were produced annually, from 320,000 sheep. These herds comprised ‘native/​Sumerian’ sheep (udu eme-​gi) and ‘mountain/​fat-​tailed’ sheep (udu kur-​ra/​GUKKAL). Apart from their supposed different origin or places of pasture, they apparently produced wool of different quality and values since 1 talent of Sumerian wool (siki (eme-​)gi) was worth c. 6 shekels, while 1 talent of mountain wool (siki kur-​ra) was more expensive and worth c. 8 shekels (Sallaberger 2014). In the Aegean, Minoan Linear A texts (c. 1700–​1500 bc) contain what we believe are logograms for sheep and wool, and the wool economy continues to play a very prominent role in the Mycenaean palace economies (Nosch 2014). Thus, we face a highly significant lacuna in knowledge and the challenge of incompatible sources, between the highly visible wool in texts and the invisible wool in the archaeological record. Militello (2014) also suggests another indirect source for the use of wool, namely the introduction of a special wool-​measure of c. 700 g, which in the Bronze Age texts is the weight estimated for a fleece. Such a 700 g marble disc

29

30

30

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

from Ayia Irini on the Greek island of Kea, dated to the Early Bronze Age (2400–​ 2300 bc), was interpreted as a balance weight. Militello (2014, 267) observes that no Early Bronze Age data has the potential to represent a wool weight in Crete, and he interprets this as a sign of the east–​west wool trade between central Greece, the Cyclades and Anatolia/​the Levant. However, from the Middle Bronze Age, weights are abundant all over the Aegean (Michailidou 2008). From different bodies of data from the Aegean and the ancient Near East, both weights and texts, several scholars have suggested the existence of this special wool or fleece unit and its fractional values, perhaps forming an independent wool-​weight system (Alberti 2005, 609; De Fidio 1999; Parise 1986; Petruso 1986; Rahmstorf 2003; Younger 2005). The wool unit that may be identified in the Late Bronze Age Mycenaean palace archives, as well as in Alalakh and Nuzi, represents around 3 kg, which corresponds to the weight of four fleeces (4 × 750 g) (De Fidio 1999; Firth 2012; Militello 2014; Nosch 2014).The palace of Ebla, too, yields both textual and archaeological data suggesting a specific measure for wool. Luca Peyronel writes that, A fundamental step linked to the manufacture but also to the administrative procedures of wool and textile distribution was the weighing of the raw material and/​or the finished products. A series of wool measures (na4 –​ ‘KIN’ –​ zi-​ri) are attested in the Ebla texts: an investigation of their value allows Zaccagnini to identify a specific weight system for wool at Ebla and the rations between the three units (1 na4 is a half of KIN and a quarter of zi-​ri). This system was different from the sexagesimal one adopted for exchange and economic transactions that employed a shekel of 7.8 g, a mina of c. 470 g and a talent of 28 kg. (Peyronel 2014, 126)

Moreover, two hemispherical stone weights, one wool mina (666.1 g) and one double wool mina (1,132 g), were found at Ebla (Peyronel 2014, 127). These modalities of independent wool measure systems at Ebla and Nuzi are still debated by several scholars examining wool terminologies and weight systems (Archi 1987; Peyronel 2011; Zaccagnini 1984, 1990). In terms of shape, an interesting correlation can often be observed between these measuring weights (often disc-​shaped or cylinder-​shaped) and Bronze Age disc-​shaped or cylinder-​shaped loom weights. The famous talent weight of 20 kg that Sir Arthur Evans found in the palace of Knossos is instead of a pyramidal shape not unlike anchor (weights) and pyramidal loom weights. DISCUSSION AND PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACT OF WOOL

Should we speak of a wool introduction or a wool revolution? Joy McCorriston (1997) outlined the ramifications for society of the introduction of a new fibre. Yields, the time spent on textile production and the social scaffolding around

31

I s Wool Connected to the Warp - Weighted  L oom ?

textile crops, herding and textile production were different compared with those involved in plant fibre production. We would, however, agree with Pietro Militello (2014, 276), who suggested abandoning the idea of a wool ‘revolution’ and perhaps instead accepting that wool appeared at an early stage, in the Neolithic, and that perhaps it acquired a special symbolic value, at the end of the fourth millennium bc, but that its full potential unfolded slowly. Nevertheless, this apparent continuity in the textile tools and devices should not hide other fundamental changes brought by wool. In Bronze Age texts, a new terminology related to animal fibres appears, with a series of derived innovations (Breniquet and Michel 2014; Nosch 2015). Occupational designations and fabric names of wool textiles are widely recorded with much care and precision. Interestingly, in many texts and archives, wool fabric appears as a rather standardised commodity, such as in the Ur III textiles túgguz-​za, túg níg-​lám, túguš-​bar and túgbar-​dul5 (Firth and Nosch 2012) and Linear B tu-​na-​ no, te-​pa and pa-​we-​a (Nosch 2012). Brendan Burke (1999, 2010) and Pietro Militello (2007) further argue that the Minoans gained prosperity by exploiting wool and purple dyes, making them an exclusive Minoan trade product. This market advantage, a modern concept coined by Adam Smith, was also exploited by the Mycenaean palace economies, and fuelled the Old Assyrian trade networks between Anatolia and Assur, as well as between many other commercial centres in the ancient Near East. IS WOOL CONNECTED TO THE WARP-​W EIGHTED LOOM OR TO CERTAIN WEAVES?

It is perhaps not coincidental that we have such difficulties in identifying specific textile tools related to wool spinning and weaving. Clearly, textile production was formed by the long tradition and older technology of plant fibre textiles; when wool was eventually introduced, this new fibre was integrated in the existing plant fibre textile technology. It may have transpired that the outcomes appeared very new, but the tools remained the same. A possible exception is the warp-​weighted loom, which may have gained in importance with the introduction of wool production, and it has been suggested that there is a correlation between the arrival of wool and the warp-​weighted loom in the southern Levant (Shamir 2014). However, this correlation could also be part of a cultural change marking the arrival of new inhabitants who brought the warp-​weighted loom and the wool sheep with them. It does not necessarily signify that the warp-​weighted loom was invented for the purpose of weaving wool fabrics. The advantages of weaving with a horizontal ground loom are that the warping and heddling can be done at the same time, and it is possible to

31

32

32

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

weave warp-​dense tabby fabrics.The warp-​weighted loom is convenient when weaving twill, especially with wool yarn, as the sheds are clearly separated. Since wool fibres are shorter than plant fibres, wool yarn is, generally, fuzzier than a plant fibre yarn. When weaving with wool yarn, warp threads easily get attached to each other, which is inconvenient, since it slows down the weaving pace, breaks the weaving rhythm and potentially damages the threads, especially when weaving dense tabbies. It can therefore be easier to weave dense wool fabrics on the warp-​weighted loom because of its more defined sheds. Thus, there may be a technological advantage in choosing the warp-​weighted loom for weaving dense wool fabrics. However, as we have seen above, some areas and periods do not have traces of the warp-​weighted loom, but this is by no means an argument for assuming that wool was not woven in these periods and places, or that wool was not woven densely. The question of a possible connection between the warp-​weighted loom and wool becomes even more acute when weaving twill with a high thread count. A potential connection between wool and twill is corroborated in the abundant finds of archaeological wool twills in central and northern Europe of the first millennium bc (Bender Jørgensen 1986; Grömer et al. 2013). It is, generally, more common to find twill fabrics of wool than made of plant fibre. However, dense plant fibre fabrics can, indeed, be woven on a warp-​weighted loom.The nexus between fibres, weaves and looms is therefore extremely complex and cannot be solved based only on technological and practical choices. Technological advantages alone, in general, are not sufficient reason for assuming that weavers would change their traditional weaving devices, as is evidenced abundantly in technology history. We must assume that, before changing technology, people would try to adapt their own traditional tools and techniques to new demands. It can be concluded that the warp-​weighted loom plays a role in assessing textile production in the Bronze Age, but the extent to which it is a marker for wool textile production still remains uncertain. A particularly challenging and interesting question of locality versus mobility arises when interpreting wool textile production in the Bronze Age. Strontium isotopic tracing of the Danish Bronze Age Egtved girl’s clothing indicates that wool or wool textiles were moved over long distances (Frei et al. 2015; Skals and Mannering 2014). A picture of the high mobility of wool and wool textiles emerges in the Bronze Age texts from private Old Assyrian archives, from temple and palace archives in Mesopotamia, and from the Mycenaean administration of wool sheep. Wool fleeces, wool fibres and wool textiles were traded extensively, and we should not automatically assume that local findings of sheep bones on a site will testify to local wool textile production or consumption; moreover, the focus on the commercial role and value of textiles in Bronze Age societies highlights the importance of viewing wool and wool textiles as separate from other commodities, with their own areas of distribution, agents, markets and nomenclature (Breniquet and Michel 2014; Michel

33

I s Wool Connected to the Warp - Weighted  L oom ?

2001;Veenhof 1972). We now know that it is necessary to analyse wool fibre/​ fleece and wool textiles separately, since, despite their common origin, they are distributed and circulated in different ways and for different purposes. Based on the extant textual documentation, it seems that trade in wool fibre/​fleece is earlier than trade in wool textiles. Already in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia of the twenty-​fourth century bc of the Presargonic period, in the archive of the Lady of Girsu, the Lagaš city state traded wool for copper, silver and spices. Wool was a regularly traded commodity, while only a single Presargonic document mentions wool textiles (Sallaberger 2014). That wool fibre/​fleece and wool textiles were two distinct commodities was clear and standardised in the script in Jemdet Nasr of the late fourth millennium (Charvát 2014), with the earliest evidence of logograms for wool (SIG2) and textile (TUG2), respectively. Thus far, we have reviewed the presence of a mostly invisible object from the past –​wool –​and much work remains to be done. The intriguing divide between (1)  the ample textual documentation on wool, wool textiles, wool workers and names for wool products, (2) the invisible wool in archaeology, (3)  the thousands of textile tools, and (4)  our inability to detect wool in excavations and archaeological assemblages merits further investigation. Above all, there is a wide chronological gap between the first mentions of wool in the texts and the late and scant archaeological evidence on wool textiles, with a few extraordinary exceptions, and the appearance of archaeological wool textiles only very late in the Bronze Age. This gap of knowledge is a thread worth following in future interdisciplinary research.The European and ancient Near Eastern focus on wool continued over time, and textile historian Giorgio Riello (2014) divides Eurasia in the medieval and early modern periods into three spheres:  wool-​producing Europe and central Asia, cotton-​producing India and silk-​producing China. Our ten years of multidisciplinary research has clearly demonstrated the importance of recording and analysing textile tools from not only a typological but also a functional perspective, demonstrating the types of textile that could have been, or were, produced. It is gratifying that other researchers and research projects have now adopted our methods so that we can join forces in the future. Our experiences and results clearly show the advantages of combining analyses of texts and archaeological materials/​contexts. This interdisciplinarity, including new scientific analyses, provides new insights into textile production (e.g. Andersson Strand et al. 2017; Michel and Nosch 2010). The next step is to unite results from northern (Bergerbrant 2007), central and southern Europe (e.g. Bender Jørgensen et al. 2018; Gleba and Mannering 2012; Grömer 2010; Grömer et al. 2013) with the results from research in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. This will undoubtedly yield new, exciting perspectives and insights on European, Eurasian and Near Eastern Bronze Age textile production and the important development of wool and sheep, and thereby the complexities of Bronze Age societies.

33

34

34

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

NOTE

1 We thank Wolfram Schier, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, for sharing this information with us. REFERENCES

Alberti, M. E. (2005) I sistemi ponderali dell’Egeo nell’età del bronzo. Studi, storia, pratica e contatti, Annuario della scuola archeologica di Atene 81(serie III, 3, 2003/​ii), 597–​640. Alberti, M. E. (2007)Washing and dyeing installations of the ancient Mediterranean: towards a definition from Roman times back to Minoan Crete, in Ancient Textiles, Production, Craft and Society (Ancient Textiles Series 1), ed. C. Gillis and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 59–​63. Andersson Strand, E. and M. Cybulska (2013) Visualising ancient textiles: how to make a textile visible on the basis of an interpretation of an Ur III text, in Textile Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East: Archaeology, Epigraphy, Iconography (Ancient Textiles Series 12), ed. M.-L. Nosch, H. Koefoed and E. Andersson Strand, Oxford, 113–​127. Andersson Strand, E., Breniquet, C. and C. Michel (2017) Current Research on Textile Imprints on Bullae at Kültepe, in Proceedings of the 2nd Kültepe International Meeting, Kültepe 26–​ 30 July 2015 (Subartu XXXIX), ed. F. Kulakoglu and G. Barjamovic, Turnhout, 87–​104. Andersson Strand, E. and U. Mannering (2014) An exceptional woman from Birka, in A Stitch in Time: Essays in Honour of Lise Bender Jørgensen (GOTARC Series A 4), ed. S. Bergerbrant and S. H. Fossøy, Gothenburg, 301–​316. Andersson Strand, E. and M.-L. Nosch eds. (2015) Tools, Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), Oxford. Archi, A. (1987) Reflections on the system of weights from Ebla, Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language 1, 47–​89. Barber, E. J. W. (1991) Prehistoric Textiles: the Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean, Princeton. Bender Jørgensen, L. (1986) Forhistoriske Textiler i Skandinavien (Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie B 9), Copenhagen. Bender Jørgensen, L. and Rast-Eicher, A. with contributions by S. K. Ehlers and S. H. Fossøy (2016) Innovations in European Bronze Age textiles, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 91(1), 68–102. Bender Jørgensen, L., Sofaer, J. and M. L. S. Sørensen eds. (2018) Creativity in the Bronze Age: Understanding Innovation in Pottery,Textile, and Metalwork Production, Cambridge. Bergerbrant, S. (2007) Bronze Age Identities: Costume, Conflict and Contact in Northern Europe, 1600–​1300 BC (Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 43), Lindome. Breniquet, C. (2008) Essai sur le tissage en Mésopotamie: des premières communautés sédentaires au milieu du IIIe millénaire avant J-​C (Travaux de la Maison René-​Ginouvès 5), Paris. Breniquet, C. and C. Michel eds. (2014) Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry (Ancient Textiles Series 17), Oxford. Broudy, E. (1979) The Book of Looms: a History of the Handloom from Ancient Times to the Present, Hanover, NH. Bruun Lundgren, M., Andersson Strand, E. and B. P. Hallager (2015) Textile tools from Khania, in Tools, Textiles and Contexts:  Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 197–​206.

35

R eferences

Burke, B. (1997) The organization of textile production on Bronze Age Crete, in TECHNE:  Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 16), ed. R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt, Liège and Austin, 413–​422. Burke, B. (1999) Purple and Aegean textile trade in the early second millennium bc, in Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters his 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), ed. P. P. Betancourt,V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W. D. Niemeier, Liège and Austin, 75–​82. Burke, B. (2010) From Minos to Midas: Ancient Cloth Production in the Aegean and in Anatolia (Ancient Textiles Series 7), Oxford. Charvát, P. (2014) Lambs of the gods:  the beginnings of the wool economy in Proto-​ Cuneiform texts, in Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean (Ancient Textiles Series 17), ed. C. Breniquet and C. Michel, Oxford, 79–​93. Cutler, J., Andersson Strand, E. and M.-L. Nosch (2013) Textile production in Quartier Mu, in Fouilles exécutées à Malia: le Quartier Mu V. Vie quotidienne et techniques au minoen Moyen II (Études crétoises 34), ed. J.-​C. Poursat, Athens, 95–​118. De Fidio, P. (1999) On the routes of Aegean Bronze Age wool and weights, Minos 33–​34,  39–​63. Del Freo, M., Nosch, M.-​L. and F. Rougemont (2010) The terminology of textiles in the Linear B tablets, including some considerations on Linear A  logograms and abbreviations, in Textile Terminologies from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC in the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean Area (Ancient Textiles Series 8), ed. C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 338–​373. Elster, E., Andersson Strand, E., Nosch, M.-L. and J. Cutler (2015) Textile tools from Sitagroi, northern Greece, in Tools,Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 299–​308. Firth, R. T. (2012) An interpretation of the specifications of textiles on Ln 1568, in Études mycéniennes 2010:  Actes du XIIIe colloque international sur les textes égéens, Sèvres, Paris, Nanterre, 20–​23 septembre 2010 (Biblioteca di ‘Pasiphae’. Collana di filologia e antichità egee 10), ed. P. Carlier, C. de Lamberterie, M. Egetmeyer, N. Guilleux, F. Rougemont and J. Zurbach, Pisa and Rome, 227–​242. Firth, R. T. (2015) Mathematical analysis of the spindle whorl and loom weight data in the CTR Database, in Tools, Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 153–​195. Firth, R. T. and M.-L. Nosch (2012) Spinning and weaving wool in Ur III administrative texts, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 67–​84. Foster, B. (2014) Wool in the economy of Sargonic Mesopotamia, in Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean (Ancient Textile Series 17), ed. C. Breniquet and C. Michel, Oxford, 115–​123. Frangipane, M., Andersson Strand, E., Laurito, R., Möller-​Wiering, S., Nosch, M.-​L. B., Rast-​Eicher, A. and A. Wisti Lassen (2009) Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey): textiles, tools and imprints of fabrics from the 4th to the 2nd millennium bce, Paléorient 35, 5–​29. Frei, K. M., Mannering, U., Kristiansen, K., Allentoft, M. E., Wilson, A. S., Skals, I., Tridico, S., Nosch, M.-L., Willerslev, E., Clarke, L. and R. Frei (2015) Tracing the dynamic life story of a Bronze Age female, Scientific Reports 5, 10431. Gleba, M. and U. Mannering eds. (2012) Textiles and Textile Production in Europe from Prehistory to AD 400 (Ancient Textiles Series 11), Oxford. Grömer, K. (2006) Textilien der Bronzezeit in Mitteleuropa, Archäologia Austriaca 90,  31–​72.

35

36

36

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

Grömer, K. (2010) Prähistorische Textilkunst in Mitteleuropa, Geschichte des Handwerkes und Kleidung vor den Römern,Vienna. Grömer, K., Kern, A., Reschreiter, H. and H. Rösel-​Mautendorfer (2013) Textiles from Hallstatt:  Weaving Culture in Bronze Age Salt Mines/​Textilien aus Hallstatt:  Gewebte Kultur aus dem bronze-​und eisenzeitlichen Salzbergwerk (Archaeolingua 29), Budapest. Guzowska, M., Becks, R. and E. Andersson Strand (2012) ‘She was weaving a great web’:  textiles in Troia, in KOSMOS:  Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 33), ed. M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur, Liège, 107–​112. Guzowska, M., Becks, R., Andersson Strand, E., Cutler, J. and M.-L. Nosch (2015) Textile tools from Troia, western Anatolia, in Tools, Textiles and Contexts:  Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 309–​328. Hald, M. (1980) Ancient Danish Textiles from Bogs and Burials: a Comparative Study of Costume and Iron Age Textiles, Copenhagen. Halstead, P. (1981) Counting sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece, in Pattern of the Past:  Studies in Honour of David Clarke, ed. I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond, Cambridge, 307–​339. Halstead, P. and V. Isaakidou (2011) Revolutionary secondary products: the development and significance of milking, animal-​traction and wool-​gathering in later prehistoric Europe and the Near East, in Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millennia BC, ed. T. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and J. Bennet, Oxford, 61–​76. Hoffman, M. (1964) The Warp-​Weighted Loom:  Studies in the History and Technology of an Ancient Implement (Studia Norvegica 14), Oslo. Iakovidis, S. (1977) On the use of Mycenaean ‘buttons’, The Annual of the British School at Athens 72, 113–​119. Isaakidou, V. (2006) Ploughing with cows:  Knossos and the ‘Secondary Products Revolution’, in Animals in the Neolithic, ed. D. Serjeantson and D. Field, Oxford, 95–​112. Kemp, B. and G.Vogelsang-​Eastwood (2001) The Ancient Textile Industry at Amarna, London. Killen, J. T. (1984) The textile industries at Pylos and Knossos, in Pylos Comes Alive: Industry and Administration in a Mycenaean Palace, ed. C. W. Shelmerdine and T. G. Palaima, New York,  49–​63. Killen, J. T. (2015) Economy and Administration in Mycenaean Greece, vols. I–​III (Incunabula Graeca 104), Rome. McCorriston, J. (1997) The fiber revolution: textile extensification, alienation and social stratification in ancient Mesopotamia, Current Anthropology 38 (4), 517–​549. Mannering, U., Gleba, M. and M. Bloch Hansen (2012) Denmark, in Textiles and Textile Production in Europe: From Prehistory to AD 400 (Ancient Textiles Series 11), ed. M. Gleba and U. Mannering, Oxford, 91–​115. Michailidou, A. (2008) Weight and Value in Pre-​Coinage Societies, Volume II:  Sidelights on Measurement from the Aegean and the Orient (Melethemata 61), Athens. Michel, C. (2001) Correspondance des marchands de Kaniš au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-​C., Paris. Michel, C. and M.-L. Nosch, eds. (2010) Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC (Ancient Textiles Series 8), Oxford. Militello, P. (2007) Textile industry and Minoan palaces, in Ancient Textiles, Production, Craft and Society (Ancient Textiles Series 1), ed. C. Gillis and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 36–​45. Militello, P. (2014) Wool economy in Minoan Crete before Linear B: a minimalist position, in Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry (Ancient Textiles Series 17), ed. C. Breniquet and C. Michel, Oxford, 264–​282.

37

R eferences

Möller-​Wiering, S. (2015) External examination of spinning and weaving samples, in Tools, Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 101–​118. Nosch, M.-L. (2012) The textile logograms in the Linear B Tablets:  les idéogrammes archéologiques –​des textiles, in Études mycéniennes 2010: Actes du XIIIe colloque international sur les textes égéens, Sèvres, Paris, Nanterre, 20–​23 septembre 2010 (Biblioteca di ‘Pasiphae’; Collana di filologia e antichità egee 10), ed. P. Carlier, C. de Lamberterie, M. Egetmeyer, N. Guilleux, F. Rougemont and J. Zurbach, Pisa and Rome, 305–​346. Nosch, M.-L. (2014) The wool economy in Greece in the end of the II millennium bce, in Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry (Ancient Textiles Series 17), ed. C. Breniquet and C. Michel, Oxford, 366–​395. Nosch, M.-L. (2015) The Wool Age: textile traditions and textile innovations, in Tradition and Innovation in the Mycenaean Palatial Polities, ed. F. Ruppenstein and J. Weilhartner, Vienna, 67–​201. Olofsson, L., Andersson Strand, E. and M.-L. Nosch (2015) Experimental testing of Bronze Age textile tools, in Tools, Textiles and Contexts:  Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 76–​100. Parise, N. (1986) Pesi egei per la lana, La Parola del Passato 227, 81–​88. Payne, S. (1975) Faunal change at Franchthi cave from 20,000 bc to 3,000 bc, in Archaeozoological Studies:  Papers of the Archaeozoological Conference 1974, held at the Biologisch-​Archaeologisch Instituut of the State University of Groningen, ed. A.-​T. Clason, Amsterdam, 120–​131. Petruso, K. M. (1986) Wool evaluation at Knossos and Nuzi, Kadmos 25 (1), 26–​37. Peyronel, L. (2011) Mašqaltum kittum. Questioni di equilibrio: bilance e sistemi di pesatura nell’Oriente antico, in Studi italiani di metrologia ed economia del Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati a Nicola Parise in occasione del Suo settantesimo compleanno (Studia Asiana 7), ed. E. Ascalone and L. Peyronel, Rome, 105–​161. Peyronel, L. (2014) From weighing wool to weaving tools:  textile manufacture at Ebla during the early Syrian period in the light of archaeological evidence, in Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry (Ancient Textiles Series 17), ed. C. Breniquet and C. Michel, Oxford, 124–​138. Poursat, J.-​C., Rougemont, F.,Andersson Strand, E., Nosch, M.-L. and J. Cutler (2015) Textile tools from Quartier Mu, Malia, Crete, Greece, in Tools,Textiles and Contexts: Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 229–​241. Rahmstorf, L. (2003) The identification of early Helladic weights and their wider implications, in METRON:  Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 24), ed. K. Polinger and R. Laffineur, Liège, 293–​299. Rast-​Eicher, A. and L. Bender Jørgensen (2013) Sheep wool in Bronze Age and Iron Age Europe, Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 1224–​1241. Riello, G. (2014) The world of textiles in three spheres: European woollens, Indian cottons and Chinese silks, 1300–​1700, in Global Textile Encounters (Ancient Textiles Series 20), ed. M.-L. Nosch, F. Zhao and L.Varadarajan, Oxford, 93–​106. Ryder, M. (1983) Sheep and Man, London. Sallaberger,W. (2014) The value of wool in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia: on the control of sheep and the handling of wool in the Presargonic to the Ur III periods (c. 2400 to

37

38

38

The Wool Zone in P rehistory and P rotohistory

2000 bc), in Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry (Ancient Textiles Series 17), ed. C. Breniquet and C. Michel, Oxford, 94–​114. Sarri, K. (2018) Αισθητική και ενδυμασία στη Νεολιθική εποχή (Aisthitikí kai endymasía sti Neolithikí epochí), in Οι αμέτρητες όψεις του ωραίου στην αρχαία τέχνη/​The Countless Aspects of Beauty in Ancient Art, ed. M. Lagogianni-​Georgakarakos, Athens, 163–​174. Shamir, O. (2014) Textiles, basketry, and other artifacts of the Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant, in Masters of Fire:  Copper Age Art from Israel, ed. M. Sebbane, O. Misch-​Brandl and D. M. Master, Princeton, 138–​152. Shaw, M. and A. Chapin, eds. (2015) Woven Threads: Patterned Textiles of the Aegean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 22), Oxford. Siennicka, M. (2012) Textile production in Early Helladic Tiryns, in KOSMOS: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 33), ed. M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur, Liège, 65–​75. Skals, I. and U. Mannering (2014) Investigating wool fibres from Danish prehistoric textiles, Archaeological Textiles Review 56, 24–34. Skals, I., Möller-​Wiering, S. and M.-L. Nosch (2015) Survey of archaeological textile remains from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean area, in Tools,Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 61–​74 and appendix A and B. Tzachili, I. (1997) Υφαντικη και οι υφάντρες στο προϊστορικό Αιγαίο (Yphantiki kai hyphántes sto proistorikó Aigaío), Heraklion. Veenhof, K. (1972) Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology (Studia et documenta ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentia 10), Leiden. Vogelsang-​Eastwood, G. (1993) Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing, Leiden. Younger, J. (2005) Cretan hieroglyphic wool units (LANA, double mina), in Studi in onore di Enrica Fiandra: contributi di archeologia egea e vicinorientale (Studi egei e vicinorientali 1), ed. M. Perna, 405–​409. Zaccagnini, C. (1984) The terminology of weight measures for wool at Ebla, in Studies on the Language of Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli, Florence, 189–​204. Zaccagnini, C. (1990) The Nuzi wool measures once again, Orientalia 59, 312–​319.

39

THREE

WEAVING IN BRONZE AGE ITALY: THE CASE OF THE TERRAMARE SETTLEMENT AT MONTALE Serena Sabatini

TERRAMARE AND TEXTILE PRODUCTION IN THE PO PLAIN

Terramare is a term used in archaeological literature to roughly define the Italian Middle and Recent Bronze Age populations and material culture of the central Po plain.1 The term (terramara or terra marna) was used to describe the organic soil extracted from the numerous compost quarries of the plain, largely exploited during the nineteenth century. The mounds on which the quarries were established were actually the remains of Terramare villages, as became evident around 1860, when the first archaeological excavations took place and the area attracted the interest of both Italian and foreign scholars of the time (Bernabò Brea and Mutti 1994; Cardarelli 2009b, 11–​13; Saltini 1997). Thanks to a number of modern scientific investigations, we have a coherent picture of the whole Terramare phenomenon (Bernabò Brea et  al. 1997; Cardarelli 2009a; Cremaschi et  al. 2006; Nicolis 2013; Vanzetti 2013). It can therefore be stated that during the second half of the second millennium bc, the Po plain was not only the theatre of intense population interactions and diverse production, but it was also embedded in a wide network of exchange with the outside world (Belardelli et  al. 2005; Bellintani 2015; Bettelli and Vagnetti 1997; Cardarelli 2009a; Cardarelli et al. 1997, 2004; Rahmstorf 2005, 2010, 2011). Owing to the widespread presence of textile tools in the Terramare settlements (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003; Bianchi 2004b; Leonardi 2009; Lincetto 39

40

40

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

2006; Provenzano 1997, 534; Sabatini et al. 2018), textile manufacture has been generally inferred as one of the components of the local economy (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003; Rast-​Eicher 1997), but little attention has been directed to envisioning a more integrated scenario where the economic, political and socio-​cultural impact of such production is taken into account, both in single settlements and on the area as a whole (Sabatini et  al. 2018). This chapter aims to shed renewed light on those issues, focusing on weaving at the site of Montale in particular and –​through the lens of a community of practice approach –​in the area in general as well.

ANCIENT TEXTILES AND COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

A growing number of studies on the archaeology of Bronze Age textiles (Andersson Strand and Nosch 2015; Barber 1991; Breniquet and Michel 2014; Burke 2010; Gleba and Mannering 2012; Harlow et al. 2014; Nosch 2011, 2015; Nosch and Laffineur 2012) have demonstrated the existence, primarily in the Mediterranean area, of articulated systems of production that were largely surplus-​oriented activities for trade and exchange. Our understanding of any textile-​related activity is biased by the limited number of surviving textile fragments (e.g. Bazzanella et al. 2003; Bender Jørgensen 1992; CinBA Database; Gleba and Mannering 2012; Grömer et  al. 2013, 2018; Harding 1995; Marić Baković and Car 2014; Skals et al. 2015), and partly also by the characteristics of the relevant archaeological evidence, mostly consisting of tools that were made of non-​perishable material.We know from both ethnographic and textual evidence that each of the various stages of the textile manufacture chaîne opératoire is highly demanding in terms of resource management, labour force and time. Indeed, throughout prehistory significant numbers of people must have been occupied in manufacturing processes from fibre preparation to spinning, weaving, finishing and finally distributing the various products (e.g. Andersson Strand 2015; Baccelli et  al. 2014; Barber 1991; Bender Jørgensen 2018; Firth 2014b; Gillis and Nosch 2007; Hoffmann 1974; Killen 1964; McCorriston 1997; Michel and Nosch 2010; Nosch 2014; see also Andersson Strand and Nosch, Chapter 2). A number of studies have convincingly demonstrated how specific phases, such as spinning, are generally time consuming and require specialised workforces, particularly when the final outcome has to be of high quality (Andersson Strand and Cybulska 2012, 116–​118; Bender Jørgensen 2012b, 129; Olofsson et al. 2015, 84). As to the scope of this work, it is relevant to consider that textile technology in pre-​industrial contexts necessarily rested on embodied knowledge, performance of which depended on learning processes and practice (Bender Jørgensen 2012a, 93, 2018). It therefore seems appropriate to propose a community of practice approach in order to shed new light on our understanding of prehistoric textile production.

41

A ncient Textiles and C ommunity of P ractice

Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. (Wenger and Wenger-​Trayner 2015, 1)

The members of a community of practice are linked to each other by what they are doing and by the processes of learning and developing that spring from their engagement in this community endeavour (see also Wenger 1998a, 1998b). The community of practice represents a flexible model that can be profitably applied to enhance our understanding of systems of craft production (Costin 2005) in general and of textile manufacture in particular (Bender Jørgensen 2018). The model does not necessarily involve questioning the characteristics of the community in terms of its social and cultural variety, or of the free/​unfree participation in it. It is primarily concerned with the dynamic mechanisms through which members interact in order to achieve and develop their common undertaking. For such a community to exist it is necessary that all its members share a common domain, that they actively engage in it, and that they interact with one another through discussions, learning and practice development (e.g. Wenger 1998a, 1998b; Wenger et al. 2002; Wenger and Wenger-​Trayner 2015). Community of practice provides the opportunity to shift the focus from products to practices, and thus to establish a fruitful frame of reference for approaching variation and similarities in comparative analyses of the archaeological evidence of craft production (cf. Bender Jørgensen et al. 2018). In general, there is very little evidence of ancient textiles, but we do have abundant remains from some of the looms (i.e. the warp-​weighted ones) that produced them in the form of the loom weights, to which warp threads were attached, allowing weavers to create the desired fabrics (e.g. Barber 1991, 91–​ 113; Hoffman 1974). Loom weights vary greatly in terms of geography and chronology, as well as taxonomy, even within single contexts/​areas. Attempts have been made to establish a correlation between shape and weight of loom weights and the possible characteristics of the weaving outcomes, but the discussion as to whether it is possible to apply experimentally based correlations to describe ancient weaving is open (Andersson Strand et  al. 2006; Barber 1991, 79–​125; Gleba 2008, 122–​138; Olofsson et  al. 2015; Wisti Lassen 2015). If we assume that some kind of best practice principles must have inspired craft production to secure expected results, possibly within reasonable time frames, we should aim to identify them through the tools used. It has been discussed how, in a community of practice setting, knowledge ‘resides in the skills, understanding, and relationships of its members as well as in the tools, documents, and processes that embody aspects of this knowledge’ (Wenger et al. 2002, 11). In this perspective it is proposed that loom weights should be seen not simply as tools, but as markers of practices developed by the members of a community in given contexts (see also Wenger and Wenger-​Trayner 2015).

41

42

42

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

MONTALE AND THE LOCAL EVIDENCE FOR TEXTILE PRODUCTION

The settlement at Montale was situated on a low, but visible, natural hillock, which was probably relatively clear of forest-​like vegetation before the settlement foundation (Accorsi et  al. 2009, 64–​65). The earliest occupation dates to the second phase of the Italian Middle Bronze Age, while the latest archaeological evidence from the site dates to the first phase of the Italian Recent Bronze Age (Table 3.1), thus approximately between 1600 and 1250 bc (Cardarelli 2009b, 32). The settlement had a total surface of c. 10,000 m² including defensive structures. It was surrounded by a c. 40 m wide and 3 m deep ditch filled with water. The ditch, which was probably built at the same time as the village or just slightly after, was carefully maintained and must have had multiple purposes from defence to water supply (Cardarelli and Labate 2009). Between the ditch and the village there was a 10 m wide embankment/​ rampart, which was preserved to a height of c. 2 m until the mid-​1800s (Boni 1884; Cardarelli and Labate 2009). Montale was already recognised as a Bronze Age site in 1868 by Carlo Boni, who conducted archaeological excavations there (Boni 1882, 1884), but could not prevent the establishment of a compost quarry, which literally shovelled away c. 7,000 m² of the site in about 10 years. Boni, who had become the director of the newly founded Modena Civic Museum, partly supervised the quarry work, and although no contexts or structures were documented, he ensured that all relevant archaeological material was collected and brought to the museum (Cardarelli 2009b, 16–​17). After about a century, modern excavations took place in a c. 45 m² area that had not been destroyed by the quarry. Untouched prehistoric layers were uncovered, providing remarkable information about the site and its development. The excavated area is situated in the central/​western part of the village and provided the opportunity to identify 11 different phases (Table  3.1), each showing intense anthropic activity and an apparently well-​regulated use of the space inside the settlement (Cardarelli 2009b). Recent investigations at the Modena museum led to the quantification of the astonishing number of textile tools from the site. During the nineteenth-​ century quarry works, more than 4,000 terracotta spindle whorls and 127 loom weights were collected,2 suggesting an emphasis on yarn production that would have been close to industrial in scale. The material collected during the modern excavations comprises a total of 182 spindle whorls and 17 loom weights, and largely confirms the hypothesis of intense spinning at the site (Sabatini et al. 2018). As for the scope of this work, it should be taken into consideration that the total number of loom weights from Montale probably does not provide a fair picture of the original number. If one considers that nine of the items from the modern excavations are in very fragmentary

43

M ontale and Local E vidence for T extile P roduction

Table 3.1 The stratigraphic phases at Montale (data from Cardarelli 2009b, fig. 27) and contemporary European and Mediterranean Bronze Age chronologies. Montale

Italy

Greece

Central Europe

Northern Europe

Phase I

Middle Bronze Age 2a 1600/​1550–​1500 bc Middle Bronze Age 2b 1500–​1450 bc Middle Bronze Age 3a 1450–​1400 bc Middle Bronze Age 3b 1400–​1350/​1325 bc Recent Bronze Age 1 1350/​1325–​1250/​ 1225 bc Recent Bronze Age 2 1250/​1225–​1150 bc

Late Helladic iia 1600–​1500 bc

Bronzezeit b1 1600–​1500 bc

Period I 1700–​1500 bc

Late Helladic iib–​iiia1 1500–​1400 bc

Bronzezeit b2–​c 1500–​1300 bc

Period II 1500–​1300 bc

Bronzezeit d 1300–​1200 bc

Period III 1300–​1100 bc

Phase II Phases III–​VI Phases VII–​ VIII Phases IX–​XI

Late Helladic iiia2 1400–​1300 bc Late Helladic iiib 1300–​1200 bc

Late Helladic iiic Hallstatt ai 1200–​1100 bc 1200–​1100 bc

condition, and that the finds from the nineteenth-​century collection consist only of complete or almost complete items, it seems likely that many more fragmentary loom weights were discarded or not recognised as such during the quarry works.

Archaeozoological Evidence for Wool Production If the archaeological material from Montale undoubtedly suggests intense textile manufacture, with the exception of one single tabby-​woven woollen textile fragment from a nearby settlement, we have only indirect palaeobotanical and archaeozoological evidence to infer the range of fibres used and their eventual quality. The wool fabric comes from Castione dei Marchesi, Parma province, and is generically dated to the Middle Bronze Age or approximately 1700–​1350 bc (Bazzanella 2012, 209; Bernabò Brea 2003). The wool has the very thick hair and very fine underwool that is typical of other Bronze Age fabrics from Europe (Gleba 2012a, 328–​329, 2012b, 3647–​3648). The diameter of the thread is around 1.3 mm, which is apparently the thinnest possible diameter that could be obtained with such wool (Gleba 2012a, 329). The quality of the wool also suggests that local sheep/​goats were probably similar to today’s

43

44

44

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

Soay sheep (Gleba 2012a, 329), and had not yet reached any particularly high degree of uniformity in their fleeces (Gleba 2012b, 3648). Thus, any production in the Terramare area would have relied on a limited quantity of wool per animal (Riedel 1989, 2004) per year, and consequently on access to necessarily large flocks.3 Indeed, the reconstruction of the prehistoric faunal population in general and sheep/​goats in particular is biased by numerous factors (see, e.g., Killen 1964; Peres 2010; Riedel 1996, 46–​52), but the overall geomorphological characteristics of the Po plain and its immediate surroundings certainly provide a good environment for eventual large-​scale husbandry.4 Whether relating to textile production or serving another purpose, a variety of evidence indicates that sheep had a significant role in the Terramare economy in general and at Montale in particular.5 There is a high percentage of sheep/​goat bones among the archaeozoological remains from nearly every site of the plain, which also tends to increase with time (De Grossi Mazzorin 2013; De Grossi Mazzorin and Riedel 1997). It has been noticed that the increasing number of sheep/​goat during the Recent Bronze Age goes hand in hand with the decrease of pig at several sites. Since the presence of pig can be interpreted as a sign of a mixed economy where agriculture is relevant (pigs are associated with the consumption of leftovers from agricultural productions), their diminution suggests the greater economic importance of animal farming at the time and of their secondary products (De Grossi Mazzorin 2013, 258). As far as the case study of Montale is concerned, the preliminary study of the numerous osteological remains from the modern excavations (De Grossi Mazzorin 2013; De Grossi Mazzorin and Ruggini 2009) shows not only that sheep/​goats are the prevailing taxa (Table 3.2), but also that they consistently increase from an average of c. 50% of the total remains during the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1600–​1350 bc) to 63% during the first phase of the Recent Bronze Age (c. 1350–​1250 bc). It has also been possible to argue for an increase of goats from c. 10% of the sheep/​goat population during the local phase I–​II to c. 19% in phase XI (Tab. 3.2). A similar pattern has been observed in other Terramare sites as well (De Grossi Mazzorin 2013; Farello 2011).

Archaeobotanical Evidence for Vegetable Fibres Although it is argued here that wool production must have had a primary role in the political economy of Montale and of the Terramare in general, one should not rule out the possibility of a more complex system that did not discard vegetable fibres as wool production increased. Evidence suggests that vegetable fibres may also have been produced and used in the Po valley. Evidence of flax, if scanty, shows that it was not unknown to the Terramare populations (Aceti et al. 2009, 123; Marchesini and Marvelli 2011, 42). Indeed, flax releases a very modest amount of pollen (Zohary and Hopf 2000) and it is therefore hardly visible in palaeobotanical studies.6 Also, it is not easy

45

A nalyses of Montale L oom W eights

Table 3.2  Animal population at Montale (percentage) (data from De Grossi Mazzorin and Ruggini 2009).

Montale Phase I–​II Montale Phase VI Montale Phase X Montale Phase XI

Sheep

Goat

Total sheep/​goat

Pig

Cattle

37.2 40.0 54.0 44.0

10.0 7.0 9.0 19.0

47.2 47.0 63.0 63.0

41.4 40.0 29.0 27.0

11.4 13.0 8.0 10.0

to distinguish between cultivated and wild flax (Aceti et al. 2009, 123). Flax macroremains alongside the consistent presence of Fallopia convolvulus (a weed typically growing in cultivated flax fields) in the ritual basin at Noceto (Parma province) seem a good indicator for flax cultivation (Rottoli and Castiglioni 2009). Finally, it should be considered that flax in the Italian peninsula was cultivated and used for textile production since at least the Early Neolithic (Bazzanella 2012; Bazzanella et al. 2003), and high quality textiles were made from it in the Early Bronze Age or by the end of the third/​beginning of the second millennium bc, as attested by the elaborate line textiles from Ledro (Bazzanella and Mayr 2009). In addition to flax, hemp is also documented at several Bronze Age sites of the plain; however, with the likely exception of Poviglio and possibly Montale, it may have been growing wild (Accorsi et al. 1998; Aceti et al. 2009, 124; Marchesini and Marvelli 2011; Mercuri et al. 2006, 55).7 Nettle and tilia are also widely present (e.g. Bandini Mazzanti et al. 1996; Marchesini and Marvelli 2011, 45; Mercuri et al. 2012, 360; Ravazzi et al. 2004); both may be used to make textiles (e.g. Bergfjord et al. 2012; Gleba 2008, 71), but being very common taxa in humanised landscapes, there are no detailed studies as to the characteristics of their presence.

THE TAXONOMICAL ANALYSES OF MONTALE LOOM WEIGHTS

It has been suggested that Montale must have been a centre of textile production and that it is most likely that wool was at the core of that production.The available archaeological finds from the site also show that there must have been a great emphasis on yarn production (Sabatini et al. 2018). The aim of the present work is to draw attention to fabric production, which was also undertaken at the site. Despite limitations, mainly relating to the fact that the majority of the relevant finds lack contextual and chronological information, a conspicuous number of loom weights hints at well-​developed weaving practices. In view of the fact that loom weight sets may vary consistently depending on the type of weave and the weaver’s skills (e.g. Barber 1991, 104–​105; Gleba 2008, 122–​138), and that such sets could be seen, when adopting a community of practice model, as markers of specific knowledge/​practices, a typological

45

46

46

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

Bun-shaped Thickness

Cylindrical

Max. diameter/ height of the loom weight

Horizontal hole

Horizontal hole

Ring-shaped Thickness Section’s diameter Max. diameter/ height of the loom weight

Max. diameter/ height of the loom weight

Thickness Truncated pyramidal Upper face Horizontal hole

Bell-shaped Horizontal hole Height

Height Max. diameter Lower face Lower face

3.1  Schematic representations of the types of loom weight identified among the material from Montale. (Graphics: Serena Sabatini.)

study of the material has been applied with the aim of singling out groups of finds with functional and/​or chronological proximity. The most significant assemblage of finds unearthed during the modern excavations is characterised by items with relatively homogeneous shape and proportions, but presenting considerable differences in weight.8 Primary attention has therefore been given to the analysis of the morphology of the items followed by an examination of their weights.9 Five different types have been identified (Fig. 3.1): 1 cylindrical 2 bun-​shaped 3 ring-​shaped 4 truncated pyramidal 5 bell-​shaped.

Most of the material falls within the first two types, which are also those showing the greatest variety as far as measures/​proportions and weight are concerned.10

Cylindrical Loom Weights These are objects with a roughly cylindrical shape and a horizontal hole that is approximately in the middle of the cylinder (see Fig. 3.1). In total, 57

47

A nalyses of Montale L oom W eights

cylindrical loom weights are documented:  44 from the nineteenth-​century collection of material and 13 from the modern excavations. Nine pieces, six of which are from the modern excavations, are in such fragmentary condition that they could not be further classified. There does not seem to be a direct correlation between the diameter of the perforated faces and the weight of the items (Fig. 3.2). On the other hand, on the basis of the proportional relationship between the diameter of the perforated faces (or the height of the pieces) and their thickness (see Fig. 3.1), six different groups (Table 3.3) seemed to emerge: 1 very thick cylindrical weights (height/​thickness relation between 1.01 and 1.09 or aspect ratio of c. 1:1); 2 thick (height/​thickness relation between 1.19 and 1.91); 3 medium (height/​thickness relation between 2.01 and 2.36); 4 thin (height/​thickness relation between 2.56 and 2.62); 5 compressed (height/​thickness relation 3.06 or aspect ratio c. 3:1); 6 flattened (height/​thickness relation 4.5 or aspect ratio c. 4:1).

It is difficult to assume that these groups may have had a direct functional meaning, since weight in particular varies consistently within each of them (Table 3.3); however, the fact that most Phase IIC items from the same context appear to be similarly thick suggests that the thickness of the loom weights may indeed have played a role in local weaving. As far as weight is concerned, the items between 590 and 1,000 g definitely dominate in any group. It may be worth drawing attention to the fact that the only two pieces lighter than 590 g belong to the thick items, while weights heavier than 1,000 g are observed only among the very thick and the thick ones. Three cylindrical items were decorated with a shallow concentric feature on one of the flat faces. According to the adopted proportional criteria, they appear to vary in thickness. Also, their weights vary between 890 g and at least 1,080 g,11 and it is therefore difficult to assess whether their decorations had some particular function; if any, it was not necessarily the same for all three pieces. Cylindrical weights are well known from several other sites in the Po plain and northern Italy, where the archaeological evidence suggests they were continuously used from the Early Bronze Age to the Recent Bronze Age or between c. 2200 and 1150 bc (Bazzanella and Mayr 2009; Gleba 2008, 130; Lincetto 2006, 61–​63).

Bun-​shaped Loom Weights Bun-​shaped loom weights have a roughly flat face on one side and a convex form on the other. Like the cylindrical weights, they also have a horizontal hole approximately in the middle (see Fig. 3.1).The embossment of the convex face

47

48

48

18

16

Mon 1379 Mon 1426 Mon 1348 Mon 1362

14

Mon 1428

Mon 1370

Mon 1438 Mon 1393

Mon 1430

Mon 1381 Mon 1445 Mon 1394 9807 Mon 1326

Mon 1408

Mon 1371

Diameter of the perforated face (cm)

Mon 1344 Mon 1441

12

Mon 1380

Mon 1440

Mon 1423 Mon 1373

Mon 1363 9802

Mon 1336

Mon 1369

10

M

9804 Mon 1365 9806 Mon 1347

8

Mon 1343

Mon 1349 9805 Mon 1395 Mon 1387 Mon 1353

226 9803

Mon 1351 Mon 1376

Mon 1378

Mon 1350bis

Mon 1374

Mon 1439 Mon 1331

6

4

2

0 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Weight (g)

3.2 The relation between the height (or the maximum diameter of the perforated faces) and the weight of the cylindrical loom weights.The Phase iic loom weights are marked in grey. (Graphics: Serena Sabatini.)

newgenrtpdf

49

Table 3.3 Cylindrical loom weights from Montale (N=57); data per proportion (from very thick to flattened) and per weight. Inv. No.

Estimated original weight (g)

Actual Preservation weight (g)

Height (cm)

Thickness (cm)

Hole Ø (cm)

Height/ thickness relation​

Very thick (height/​thickness relation 1.01–​1.09) Mon 1395 590 Mon 1353 650 592 Mon 1374 925 832 Mon1350bis 1,200 722

complete c. 10% missing c. 10% missing c. 40% missing

7.9 8.3 9.3 9.2

7.7 8.2 8.5 8.8

1.6 2.2 2.2 2.6

1.02 1.01 1.09 1.04

Thick (height/​thickness relation 1.19–​1.92) 9805 400 246 Mon 1336 519 Mon 1387 610 549 Mon 1349 650 588 Mon 1331 727 Mon 1343 751 Mon 1438 840 760 9806 862 Mon 1351 900 778 Mon 1376 900 9807 950 758 Mon 1441 975 877 Mon 1365 1,000 922 9804 1,000 976

35–​40% missing complete c. 10% missing c. 10% missing complete complete c. 10% missing complete 10–​15% missing complete c. 20% missing c. 10% missing damaged 5–​10% missing

7.5 10.45 8.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 11.4 10.9 10.2 10.15 12.51 11.6 10.3 11

5.15 5.45 6.7 6.7 7.02 7.8 6.1 7.4 8.5 8.35 6.7 6.9 7.35 7.75

2.1 2.8 1.7 1.8 1.97 2.6 1.9 2 2 1.6 3.5 2.6 1.8 2.5

1.45 1.91 1.28 1.38 1.32 1.19 1.86 1.47 1.2 1.21 1.86 1.68 1.4 1.14

Chronology/ observations​

Phase IIC

Phase IIC irregular outline Phase IIC

Phase IIC (continued)

49

newgenrtpdf

50

50 Table 3.3 (Cont.) Inv. No.

Estimated original weight (g)

Actual Preservation weight (g)

Mon 1369 1,080 1,025 9802 1,080 1,024 M 1,100 1085 Mon 1363 1,100 1035 Mon 1440 1,100 1025 Mon 1344 1,310 1265 9803 1,350 750 Mon 1380 1,380 1260 226 1,450 630 Mon 1328 ? 913 Mon 1375 ? 818 Medium (height/​thickness relation 2.01–​2.36) Mon 1373 590 530 Mon 1423 609 609 Mon 1408 708 Mon 1430 715 571 Mon 1348 749 Mon 1439 753 Mon 1362 770 735 Mon 1426 780 722 Mon 1370 840 798 Mon 1347 870

Height (cm)

Thickness (cm)

Hole Ø (cm)

Height/ thickness relation​

damaged damaged damaged damaged damaged damaged c. 40% missing c. 10% missing 55–​60% missing damaged damaged

10.9 11 10.7 11.03 11.9 12.4 10.8 12.3 11 11.66 11.4

7.2 7.25 8.8 7 7.4 7 7.7 6.4 7.35 7.05 6.8

1.9 2.75 2.4 2.2 1.6 3.1 2.21 1.9 2.85 3.8/​3.65 2.9

1.51 1.51 1.21 1.57 1.6 1.77 1.4 1.92 1.46 1.65 1.67

c. 10% missing damaged complete c. 20% missing complete complete damaged damaged damaged complete

10.7 11.9 11.4 11.35 12.2 9 11.27 12.2 11.9 11

4.7 5.1 4.8/​3.6 5.4 5.7 3.8 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.3

1.5 3.2 1.75 2 2.9 ? 2 1.9 2.2 1.7

2.27 2.33 2.37 2.1 2.14 2.36 2.01 2.34 2.33 2.07

Chronology/ observations​ concentric decoration Phase IIC

Phase IIC Phase IIC concentric decoration

damaged surface

51

Mon 1393 Mon 1428 Mon 1378 Mon 1394 Mon 1326

874 878 890 910 990

complete complete complete complete complete

12 11.7 11.5 11.9 12.2

5.8 5.8 5.45 5.4 5.8

2.2 2.5 1.5 1.75 2.3

2.06 2.01 2.11 2.2 2.1

Thin (height/​thickness relation 2.56–​2.62) Mon 1445 1,000 875 Mon 1371 1,000 668

10–​15% missing c. 30% missing

13.1 11.8

5.1 4.5

2.65 2

2.56 2.62

Compressed (height/​thickness relation 3.06) Mon 1381 930 559

c. 40% missing

13.2

4.3

1.8

3.06

Flattened (height/​thickness relation 4.05) Mon 1379 910 878

damaged

15.6

3.45

2.2

4.5

?

5.9

?

7.3 ? 9.4 ? ? ? ?

? ? ? 7.4 ? ? 6.15

2.5 ? 2.45 ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Fragmentary items possibly cylindrical sn 186 1,020 340 Mon 1377 ? 917 Mon 1334 ? 332 LW 5 ? 197 302+304 ? 132 LW 8 ? 115.4 LW 4 ? 64.5 LW 3 ? 52.5 LW 10 ? ?

c. 60% missing c. 15–​20%? missing

c. 75% missing

irregular outline concentric decoration irregular outline

Phase? Phase IIC Phase IIC Phase IIC Phase IVC Phase XIA, the piece is lost

51

52

52

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

is irregular and it has not been fruitful to use this feature as a parameter for further subdivisions of the material.The majority of the pieces (21) come from the nineteenth-​ century collection, while four fragmentary examples were found during the modern excavations. In contrast to the cylindrical weights, there seems to be a direct correlation between the increase in weight and the increase in diameter/​height of the bun-​shaped loom weights (Fig. 3.3). The sample is limited, though, and the difference in weight is so marked that no other parameters would have been necessary to decide whether one was handling a very heavy or a very light piece. Nonetheless, on the basis of the relation between their height (or the diameter of the perforated faces) and their thickness, four different groups were singled out (see Table 3.4): 1 thick bun-​shaped weights (height/​thickness relation 1.63);12 2 medium (height/​thickness relation between 1.82 and 2.22); 3 thin (height/​thickness relation between 2.38 and 2.74); 4 compressed (height/​thickness relation 2.90).

With the exception of three (one thick and two medium) examples between 134 and 150 g and one thin piece of 1,276 g, the remaining bun-​shaped specimens weigh between 502 and 920 g (Table 3.4). The medium objects are the most numerous and show the most significant variety of weights as well. Some are decorated on their upper face; however, no obvious pattern could be established between their decoration and any of the other parameters that were analysed. Bun-​shaped loom weights are known in the whole Terramare area and northern Italy (Bazzanella and Mayr 2009; Bernabò Brea et al. 2003; Bianchi 2004a; Lincetto 2006), although they have been classified under a number of different labels at the various sites, such as ‘plano-​convex’ at Poviglio (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003; Bianchi 2004b) or ‘compressed pear-​shaped’ in the northern Italian sites analysed by Stefania Lincetto (2006, 65–​66). The latter are dated from the Early Bronze Age to the very beginning of the Recent Bronze Age (Lincetto 2006, 65–​66), while the plano-​convex type from Poviglio was in use during the whole life-​span of the site until the end of the Recent Bronze Age. The four pieces unearthed at Montale belong to various phases of the Middle Bronze Age.

Ring-​shaped Loom Weights Only one item is ring-​shaped, with a large horizontal hole and a roughly circular section (Fig. 3.1). The piece is preserved in its entirety and weighs 978 g.  Despite the fact that ring-​shaped loom weights are generally considered common in Bronze Age Italy (e.g. Gleba 2008, 130–​131; Lincetto 2006, 63), there are no close contemporary parallels to this piece. It is reminiscent of later specimens such as those from the Final Bronze Age and Early Iron Age

53

16 Mon 1360 Mon 1350 Mon 1364 Mon 1348

14

Mon 1444

LW9

Mon 1402

Mon 1327

Diameter of the perforated face (cm)

12

Mon 1391 Mon 1361

Mon 1443 Mon 1346

Mon 1335

10

Mon 1432

Mon 1392

Sn187 Mon 1325

8 Mon 1159

6 Mon 1420 Mon 1418

4

2

0 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Weight (g)

3.3 The relation between the height (or the maximum diameter of the perforated faces) and the weight of the bun-shaped loom weights. (Graphics: Serena Sabatini.)

53

newgenrtpdf

54

54 Table 3.4 Bun-​shaped loom weights from Montale (N=24); data per proportion (from thick to compressed) and per weight. Inv. no.

Estimated original weight (g)

Actual weight (g)

Thick (ratio max diameter/​height 1.63) Mon 1418 151 151

Preservation

6.2

3.8

0.9

1.63

Medium (ratio max diameter/​height 1.82–​2.22) Mon 1420 134 134 complete Mon 1159 150 129 c. 10–​15% missing Mon 1443 502 complete Mon 1335 560 560 complete Mon 1327 600 551 damaged Mon 1325 664 664 complete

6.2 6.9 11.2 11.1 11.6 10.5

3.4 3.6 5.35 5 5.5 5.75

1.3 1.65 1.95 1.85/​2.4 2 2.22

1.82 1.91 2.09 2.22 2.10 1.82

Mon 1392 Mon 1446 Mon 1350 Mon 1361 Mon 1391 Mon 1329

11.25 11.7 13.2 12.4 12.2 12

5.7 5.45 7.1 5.75 6 5.5

2.76 2.25 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.93

1.97 2.14 1.83 2.15 2.03 2.18

11.9 12.4 13

4.5 4.9 5.45

1.85 1.7 2.35

2.64 2.53 2.38

766 778 828 873 920 ?

766 778 828 873 898 582

complete

Height (cm) Thickness (cm) Hole Ø (cm) Height/ thickness relation​

complete complete damaged complete damaged damaged

Thin (ratio max diameter/​height 2.38–​2.74) Mon 1444 611 611 complete Mon 1432 850 777 damaged Mon 1364 880 852 damaged

Chronology/observations​

no typical use-​wear: spindle whorl?

circular groove on upper face cup marks on upper face

cup marks on upper face

newgenrtpdf

55

Mon 1360 880 863 Mon 1401 1,276 1,276 Compressed (ratio max diameter/​height 2.90) LW9 600 280 Fragmentary items. possibly bun-​shaped Sn 187 600 295 Sn 189 860 288 LW 1 ? 158 LW 2 LW 6

? ?

81 33.5

damaged complete

14.7 15.2

5.35 6.3

3.1 2.6

2.74 2.41

4 grooves on upper face

c. 50% missing

13.2

4.55

1.8

2.90

Phase IC

c. 50% missing c. 60% missing

11.5 ? ?

? 4.6 ?

? ? ?

? ? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

Phase VIB;V-​mark on lower face; same as LW 2? Phase VIB; same as LW1? Phase VIIC

55

56

56

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

in northern Italy (e.g. Saracino and Maritan 2012, fig. 2). This particular item might therefore also be the evidence of human presence in the area even after the end of the Terramare settlement.

Bell-​shaped Loom Weights Bell-​shaped loom weights are roughly conical objects with a circular or sub-​ circular base and a rounded upper part right above the horizontal hole (Fig. 3.1). All nine items derive from the nineteenth-​century collection of material.They appear rather homogeneous in their overall appearance, although two items are narrower than the others (the maximum diameter of their lower face is smaller than their height) and are similar in weight (see Table 3.5). The maximum diameter of the lower face of the remaining items is larger than their height. In this second subgroup, four weight clusters can be observed: items of c. 550 g and 590 g; those between c. 720 g and c. 800 g; those of c. 1 kg; and one item of 1,385 g. It appears that bell-​shaped loom weights are not very common in Bronze Age northern Italy. A  number of them are known from Castellaro del Vhò (Cremona province), dated to the Early and Middle Bronze Age (Gleba 2008, 130; Lincetto 2006, 67–​68), and there is one piece dated to Phase 3 of the Italian Middle Bronze Age from Mulino Giarella (Verona province) and another dated to the Early Bronze Age from Porto Galeazzi (Brescia province). A chronology in the Middle Bronze Age could also work well for Montale’s examples. In this respect, since similarities had been noted between the ceramic material from Montale Phases VI–​VII and Mulino Giarella (Bernabò Brea et al. 2008, 93), one might tentatively date the Montale bell-​shaped objects to these phases.

Truncated Pyramidal Loom Weights Loom weights of the truncated pyramidal type include three items with a roughly squared lower face and the shape of a truncated pyramid (Fig. 3.1). They belong to the nineteenth-​century collection of material, and thus have no contextual information. Each has a horizontal hole right under the upper face, which is marked with a straight groove (see Appendix 3.1). The objects weigh between 600 g and 640 g (Table 3.6). In slight contrast to the rest of the material, the shape and weights of the truncated pyramidal loom weights from Montale are so uniform as to suggest that they actually belonged to the same set, and possibly to one specific loom or weaving practice. Truncated pyramidal weights are not unknown in northern Italy, and have been found at Castellaro del Vhò (Cremona province) and at Borgo Panigale (Bologna province).The loom weights from Borgo Panigale are not homogeneous in weight. According to the only available up-​to-​date catalogue for these items (Lincetto

newgenrtpdf

57

Table 3.5 Bell-​shaped loom weights from Montale (N=9); data per proportion (from narrow to wide) and per weight. Inv. no. Narrow Mon 1435 Mon 1368 Wide Mon 1324 Mon 1333 Mon 1434 Mon 1396 Mon 1366 Mon 1437 Mon 1436

Estimated original weight (g)

Actual weight (g)

Preservation

Lower face max. Ø (cm)

Height (cm)

Hole Ø (cm)

Relation lower face max. Ø/​height

786 800

786 638

complete damaged

8.5 9.05

10.5 9.34

1.4 2

0.83 0.96

550 590 720 800 1,000 1,000 1,385

524 590 695 711 849 893 1,385

damaged complete damaged damaged damaged damaged complete

10.3 9.5 9.75 9.64 10.3 11.1 12.9

8.6 8.27 8.6 8.8 10.3 9.3 11.3

1.9 1.65/​1.95 1.9 1.4/​1.65 1.9 2.25 1.25/​1.45

1.19 1.09 1.13 1.09 1 1.19 1.14

57

newgenrtpdf

58

58 Table 3.6 Truncated pyramidal loom weights from Montale (N=3); data per weight. Inv. no.

Estimated original weight (g)

Actual Preservation Lower face (cm) weight (g)

Height (cm)

Hole Ø (cm)

Observations

Mon 1409 Mon 1398 Mon 1407

600 610 640

585 610 640

8.45 8.26 9.5

1.95 1.85 2.4

straight groove on upper face straight groove on upper face straight groove on upper face

damaged complete complete

8.5/​8.95 8.88/​9.1 9.8/​5.2

59

B ronze A ge W eaving at Montale and the P o P lain

2006, cat. 71–​72), they present a weight range from c. 550 g to 1,750 g, and are all dated to the first phase of the Italian Recent Bronze Age. The weights of the two pieces recorded from Castellaro del Vhò (Lincetto 2006, cat. 71–​72) are very different (526 g and 1,285 g), but chronology might be a reason for this difference since the lighter piece is dated to the Middle Bronze Age 2, while the heavier is dated to the Recent Bronze Age 1. It is noteworthy for the scope of this work that such items appear generally marked on their upper face, and that marks seem to be locally specific. Of the 16 truncated pyramidal weights from Borgo Panigale, 8 are decorated with a round shallow depression (cuppella), one with a cross motif, while seven are unmarked. The marked piece from Castellaro has a cross motif (Lincetto 2006, 68, pls. lxi–​lxii, cat. 71–​72). All three pieces from Montale are characterised by a wide shallow groove that, so far, is unique to this site (see Appendix 3.1). Trapezoidal or truncated pyramidal weights seem to become the most common type during the first millennium bc (Gleba 2008, 131).

Montale Loom Weights: Summing Up The analysis of the material shows that weaving at Montale was carried out with a variety of loom weights. The identified shapes are generally known from other contemporary sites of the Po plain and northern Italy (Gleba 2008; Lincetto 2006), showing that the material is well embedded in the wider economic and cultural environment. The taxonomic analyses of the material allowed the singling out of several subgroups, in particular for the cylindrical and the bun-​shaped items (Tables 3.3 and 3.4); no clear correlations emerged between shape and proportions of the loom weights and their estimated original weight. Nonetheless, Montale Phase IIC loom weights (see Table 3.3), which were found relatively close to each other (see below), could have been part of the same assemblage, suggesting that items with a similar shape and thickness could have been used together despite differences in weight. In addition, the bell-​shaped items hint at evenly proportioned dimensions (see Table  3.5), but unevenly heavy weights, being part of the same sets/​ assemblages. The uniform weight and marks on the few truncated pyramidal pieces suggest, on the other hand, that groups of very similar items actually existed. All in all, and despite the lack of chronological and contextual information for a significant number of finds, the material suggests that various craft traditions or communities of practice may have been at work at the site. BRONZE AGE WEAVING AT MONTALE AND IN THE PO PLAIN: COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE

In order to surmount the limitations imposed by the lack of chronological and contextual data of the nineteenth-​century collection, a comparative study

59

60

60

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

of the available evidence from recently excavated contexts at Montale and at other sites of the Po valley has been undertaken. The aim of such a study is to broaden our understanding of weaving practices in the Terramare area and to attempt to demonstrate that a community of practice model might successfully account for variations within the local material in both space and time.

Montale Phase IIC Loom Weights As many as ten loom weights were found in the remains of one of the two Phase II structures investigated during the modern excavations (Cardarelli 2009b, 37–​41). Three weights are in very fragmentary condition, while seven are relatively well preserved and provide the opportunity to estimate their original weights and dimensions (see Table 3.3). They were found concentrated in the west corner of the excavation area in close proximity to the remains of the westernmost construction (Cardarelli 2009b, fig.  45), to which they probably belonged. The structure was pulled down at the end of Phase IIC, and the loom weights were mixed together with the rest of its collapsed east wall (Fig.  3.4). Although it is not possible to determine their original location, it seems plausible that they were part of the household ‘tool-​kit’, used or stored there. As noted above, they are all cylindrical, and seem to have been manufactured according to given proportions, while their weight distribution is markedly even (see Table  3.3). Evenly distributed weights are generally considered to produce a more uniform weaving; however, warp-​weighted looms using uneven weights –​each used to stretch a different numbers of warp threads –​are not unknown (Barber 1991, 95–​96; Hoffmann 1974, 42). It is also documented that heavier weights on the side of the loom might be used to provide stronger edges to the weave (Barber 1991, 96).

The Middle Bronze Age 2 Looms from Poviglio’s ‘Small Village’ Two likely sets of loom weights, dated to Middle Bronze Age 2 and thus roughly contemporary with the Phase IIC loom weights from Montale, are known from the Terramare site of Santa Rosa a Fodico di Poviglio (Parma province),13 and have been interpreted as the evidence of standing looms destroyed by fire while armed (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003). The first one probably belonged to a pile house from the southern part of the small village. It included 16 pieces found more or less aligned (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003, fig. 2) in the same stratum (US 28). Two of the items are in fragmentary condition, while the original weight of the others has been estimated between 287 g and 1,250 g (Bianchi 2004b, 640).14 The second concentration is from the northern part of the same small village. There are 12 items, 4 that were precisely aligned that are from the same stratum (US 15), and 8 that were scattered around in

61

Montale Phase IIC structures Loom weights

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

E

F

G

H

I

0

1

2

3

4

5 Meters

N

61

3.4 Locations of loom weights excavated in collapsed structures of Phase II, Montale. (Graphics: Serena Sabatini. Original by courtesy of the Civic Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Modena, Andrea Cardarelli, and Gianluca Pellacani.)

62

62

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

the surrounding ash layer (US 15b).Two of the four aligned pieces weigh c. 300 g and two between 650 g and 750 g. Seven of the scattered specimens could be measured and included two pieces of c. 1,000 g each and five lighter items between approximately 550 g and 650 g (Bianchi 2004b, fig. 291). Regarding the shape, the majority are of Poviglio plano-​convex type, but at least one biconvex and one cylindrical item are known (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003, 114). The archaeological evidence has suggested that those looms are likely to have been c. 170 cm wide. The Middle Bronze Age 2 assemblages from Poviglio show that cylindrical and bun-​shaped loom weights could be used in the same loom. On the whole, it seems that unevenly weighted loom weights could be employed in the same loom.

The Middle Bronze Age 3 Loom Weights from Mulino Giarella A discovery at the site of Mulino Giarella, north of the Terramare area proper in Verona province, shows that assemblages with various types of loom weights can be encountered (Lincetto 2006, 160–​166). At Mulino, 18 weights were found very close to one another in an area of c. 2 m2, which has been interpreted as belonging to the moment of collapse/​abandonment of the site during the Middle Bronze Age 3. It has been argued that their alignment suggests that they fell from an armed loom (Lincetto 2006, 164–​165). The group included loom weights of various types (cylindrical, bun-​shaped, biconvex and bell-​ shaped). In contrast to what seems to happen during the Middle Bronze Age 2 at Montale and Poviglio, the weights of the Mulino pieces are rather homogeneous and range between a minimum of 380 g and a maximum of 648 g. The Mulino finds suggest the emergence (or simply the existence) of weaving practices that employed more uniformly heavy loom weights despite their shape. Post-​depositional events may have altered the original width of the alignment, which was around 80 cm at the time of the excavation (Lincetto 2006, fig. 96), or it could be hypothesised that the loom, or the fabric produced at the time of the destruction, was relatively narrow.

The Recent Bronze Age 1 Loom Weights from Beneceto At the Terramare site of Forno del Gallo di Beneceto (Parma province), in a Recent Bronze Age 1 context, an alignment of loom weights hints at the presence of a once armed loom in situ. The extent of the Beneceto settlement has not been determined with precision (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003), but it was of considerable size and lasted from the Middle Bronze Age 3 to the Recent Bronze Age 2. The extensive rescue excavations at the site shed light on areas that were peripheral to its centre. Under a collapsed wall likely belonging

63

B ronze A ge W eaving at Montale and the P o P lain

to a Recent Bronze Age 1 house/​building, a double line of aligned plano-​ convex loom weights decorated with deep impressions on one or both faces was exposed. Most of the objects were in very fragmentary condition, but six could be reconstructed. Their original weights were rather uniform, between 650 g and 820 g, including one of 500 g (Lincetto 2006, 153–​154). Given the characteristics of the find, it is difficult to figure out the original extension of the loom; however, the preserved length of the alignment points to a loom width of more than 120 cm (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003, 116). The Recent Bronze Age 1 evidence from Beneceto suggests that similarly shaped and sized loom weights of less than 1,000 g could possibly distinguish local weaving of the time, or at least in specific local contexts.

The Recent Bronze Age 2 Loom Weights from Poviglio More food for thought regarding the eventual development or variety of weaving techniques on the plain is provided by the Recent Bronze Age 2 material from the large village at Poviglio. In its northern part, four possible houses (areas A, B, C and D) have been uncovered. An aligned group of 17 loom weights came to light in the north-​western corner of the ‘area A’ house. In the same area, another 50 fragments from various loom weights were also found. Those specimens have rather uniform dimensions and weigh between 1,200 g and 1,400 g, with only one piece of c. 1,600 g (Barnabò Brea et al. 2003; Bianchi 2004b). It has been emphasised how the lightest (1,200 g) weights were found in the middle part of the assemblage while the heaviest were concentrated at its two edges (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003, fig. 6). The alignment appears to have been framed by two postholes, supporting the idea that it was a c. 180 cm wide standing loom at the time of its destruction. Approximately 6–​7 m away from the loom, towards the south-​east corner of area A, were ten fully preserved loom weights of different weights (one is 1,000 g, five are around 1,200 g and four between 1500 g and 1700 g) and 19 fragments were also scattered around. They have been interpreted not as a mounted loom, but rather as a probable deposit. A third linear concentration of weights has also been found along the north-​east side of the A structure; however, being all in fragmentary condition, they have been interpreted as belonging to a waste dumping area (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003, 118). Several loom weights have been found in ‘area C’ as well. The finds seem aligned with what is thought to be the northern wall of the original structure (Bernabò Brea et  al. 2003, 118). They include five complete specimens (four weighing between 1,200 g and 1,400 g while one weighs 1,800 g) and about ten fragmentary pieces. Several other fragments not directly related to the above-​mentioned group were also found. According to the excavators (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003), there is no evidence of a working loom at the time

63

64

64

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

of the destruction, although weaving must have been a relevant activity in the structure. The Recent Bronze Age 2 material, when contrasted with the Middle Bronze Age loom weights from the same site discussed above, suggests that these tools tend to become heavier with time, while lighter specimens below 1,000 g are apparently completely withdrawn at the end of the Recent Bronze Age. The hypotheses put forward to explain such change (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003) include possible transformations regarding the fibres used or in production scale, and/​or in the type of weaving technique or textiles produced (e.g. introduction of twill; see also Rast-​Eicher 1997).

Recent Bronze Age 2 Loom Weights from Custoza and Beneceto More evidence dated to the end of the Recent Bronze Age comes from Custoza (Verona province), north of the Terramare area proper, where a group of cylindrical loom weights was found in what looks like a votive deposit (Lincetto 2006, 226–​231; Salzani 1997). Owing to the characteristics of the deposition, we cannot infer whether they belonged to the same assemblage or were chosen from different ones. Nonetheless, the items are similarly shaped and weigh between 1,350 g and 2,100 g, supporting the idea that, as at Poviglio, at the onset of the Recent Bronze Age 2 weaving with heavy loom weights becomes more common in the Po valley and in some immediately surrounding areas. A more complex story seems to be told by the later finds from the already mentioned site of Beneceto. Hundreds of loom weight fragments demonstrate intense weaving, in particular during the Recent Bronze Age 2 (Bernabò Brea et al. 2008; Lincetto 2006, 138–​156). Since only parts of the site have been the focus of rescue excavations, the picture we have so far is not equally clear for all the phases of the settlement. Most of the recovered loom weights are also fragmentary, making it impossible to estimate their original shape and weight. In any case, about 56% of the reconstructed objects weigh between approximately 1,000 g and 2,000 g, while 26% are between 850 g and c. 1,000 g, with the remainder being lighter than 800 g (data from Lincetto 2006, 74–​155). As at Poviglio and Custoza, it is clear that by the end of the Recent Bronze Age emphasis was generally placed on the use of considerably heavier specimens than in the previous periods; nevertheless, lighter items, at least at Beneceto, did not disappear.

Comparative Evidence: Summing Up To sum up, we need more data and further research in order to attempt a reconstruction of the local characteristics and the possible general development

65

Communities of Practice :   Montale and the Po P lain

of weaving traditions in the Po valley. Nevertheless, the comparative archaeological evidence from known and well-​published contexts presented here provides the opportunity to tentatively trace some general outlines. On the one hand, local variations in shape and weight of the loom weights hint at the existence of contemporary, but different, weaving traditions in individual settlements. On the other hand, some general regional trends can be discerned. It seems that while uneven loom weights (with sporadically heavy weights up to 1,450 g) were widely used, at least during the Middle Bronze Age 2, lighter and evenly weighted assemblages of loom weights occur at the analysed sites during the Middle Bronze Age 3 and the Recent Bronze Age 1 phases. Heavy items between 1,000 g and 2,000 g are instead not only common during the Recent Bronze Age 2, but appear exclusively at large sites like Poviglio. The characteristics of the material from Montale, which is generally dated between Middle Bronze Age 2 and Recent Bronze Age 1, fit well into this hypothetical outline. WEAVING AND COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AT MONTALE AND IN THE PO PLAIN

The finds from Montale demonstrate that several types of loom weights were in use at the site, although cylindrical and bun-​shaped weights were apparently the most common.The complex history of the archaeology at the site resulted in a large quantity of finds without contextual and chronological information, while modern investigations have provided limited, but very interesting evidence. During the stratigraphic investigation, an assemblage of cylindrical items emerged in the Phase IIC levels, suggesting that by this time loom weights of homogeneous shapes may have characterised specific contexts. Given the documented existence of various types of loom weights, one could take this a step further and suggest that distinct contexts or periods may have been characterised by specific tools. In order to interpret the socio-​ cultural and economic significance of Montale loom weights, it should be remembered that in pre-​ industrial contexts, craft production in general, and textile technology in particular, likely required embodied knowledge that could be gained and developed through learning processes and practice (Bender Jørgensen 2012a, 93, 2018); thus, this could be called a community of practice-​like environment. If we consider that a fundamental component of the knowledge elaborated and developed by communities of practice resides in the very same tools that the community uses in order to achieve its common undertaking (Wenger et al. 2002, 11), loom weights should be considered as the evidence not just of weaving, but of weaving practices. Such an approach provides an intriguing frame of reference for the interpretation of specific types of loom weights, such as Montale’s

65

66

66

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

bell-​shaped and truncated pyramidal loom weights, as markers of particular craft traditions, which were probably different (perhaps more exclusive, given their rarity) from the more common ones associated with the use of cylindrical and bun-​shaped weights. There is little doubt that textile production had a fundamental role in the economy of Montale (Sabatini et al. 2018). The characteristics of the evidence from other Terramare sites of the Po plain such as Poviglio and Beneceto, discussed above, suggest that this was the case for other settlements as well (Bernabò Brea et  al. 2003; Lincetto 2006). It seems not only that a different emphasis was placed on weaving at the various sites, but also that it was at the same time a vital domain that was continually developing over time. The comparative analysis of all the available and well-​documented evidence from the area has provided the opportunity to outline the characteristics of both local traditions and general patterns as well. The overall impression is not only that various communities of practice were at work at the same time in the different sites, but also that they were not isolated from one another. The hypothesis put forward in this work is that their presence would account for local differences, suggesting patterns of community specialisation, while their interaction led to supra-​local similarities. The idea of intra-​and inter-​site communication in the Terramare area with regard to particular craft traditions such as weaving seems corroborated by the apparent lack of strict similarities with, for example, the neighbouring Trentino-​Alto Adige region, to the north-​east of the Po plain, where related archaeological material has been recovered. The well-​documented evidence from the Bronze Age lake dwellings of Ledro and Fiavè, in Trento province (Bazzanella and Mayr 2009, 194–​237), from the Middle Bronze Age settlement of Sotćiastel, in Bolzano province (Lincetto 2006, 187–​192; Tecchiati 1998), from the end of the Recent/beginning of the Final Bronze Age at Romagnano Loc, Trento province (Lincetto 2006, 232–​ 235; Perini 1971, 52–​60), and from a number of sites from the region (see Tecchiati 1999, 2013) shows a marked preference for cylindrical weights throughout the Bronze Age. Additionally, when data is available, the archaeological evidence also shows that in general light loom weights were used in this part of the Italian peninsula. The known assemblages from Trentino-​Alto Adige consist of normally rather evenly weighted objects, a characteristic that apparently remained stable through time, while weight, as discussed above, appears to have been a relatively dynamic factor in the material from the Po plain. Despite the fact that relations between the Terramare area and Trentino-​ Alto Adige are indisputable (e.g. Bellintani 2015; Nicolis 2013), it seems that different traditions characterised weaving in the two regions. The lively development of the tools in the Po plain seems to demonstrate an engaged local political economy and possibly a high degree of experimentation and specialisation.

67

Acknowledgements

CONCLUSION

The characteristics of the finds from Montale suggest that while there must have been a great deal of spinning at the site, weaving was also a vital activity there. However, given the lack of contextual and chronological data for a significant part of the material, the characteristics and scale of the local weaving practices are difficult to estimate. By adopting a community of practice model as a frame of reference for the interpretation of the material, it has been possible to consider loom weights as evidence for a specific craft tradition. Indeed, the taxonomic features of the finds hint at the existence of specialised sets of looms weights, which could have been used to produce particular kinds of articles. Comparative evidence from the Po plain corroborates not only the idea of active communities of practice at every site, but also that there were forms of communication between them. In fact, weaving tools at Montale seem to fit the general development patterns hypothesised for the entire area. All in all, weaving tools from the Terramare area indicate that textile manufacture was a vibrant genre of craft production, with patterns of community specialisation and, at the same time, of supra-​regional similarities. Further studies and a larger dataset are necessary in order to draw definitive conclusions; however, some clear differences between the Terramare loom weights recorded to date and those recovered in the neighbouring Trentino-​Alto Adige region seem to confirm the hypothesis put forward in this chapter. In contrast to the apparent dynamic environment of the Po plain, the material from Trentino appears not only taxonomically different, but also stable over time, suggesting –​with regard to weaving  –​the existence of local communities of practice operating and networking in rather different political economic settings. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The archaeological material from Montale presented here has been kindly entrusted to me by Andrea Cardarelli, to whom I  am most grateful. Access to the material has been possible thanks to the kind support of the Civic Archaeological and Ethnographical Museum of Modena and to the generous assistance of Gianluca Pellacani. This chapter is one of the outcomes of the ‘Travels, Transmissions and Transformations in Temperate Northern Europe during the 3rd and 2nd Millennium bc: the Rise of Bronze Age Societies’ project financed by the ERC Advanced Researchers Grant/​agreement no. 269442 and of the ‘Bronze Age Wool Economy: Production, Trade, Environment, Herding and Society’ project financed by the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences under Project Grant p15–​0591:1. Documentation and study of the material has been possible thanks to the generous support of the Birgit and Gad Rausing Foundation. I wish to warmly thank the peer reviewer for invaluable comments and suggestions.

67

68

68

WEAVI N G I N B R O N ZE A GE I TA LY:   T HE C AS E O F MO N TAL E

Appendix 3.1. Montale’s Loom Weights (Photos: Serena Sabatini. Courtesy of the Civic Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Modena)

69

Appendix 3 . 1

69

70

70

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

71

Appendix 3 . 1

71

72

72

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

NOTES

1 The Bronze Age chronology for mainland Italy can be summarised as follows: Early Bronze Age (c. 2200–​1700/​1650 bc); Middle Bronze Age (c. 1700/​1650–​1325/​1300 bc); Recent Bronze Age (c. 1325/​1300–​1150 bc); and Final Bronze Age (c. 1150–​950/​925  bc). 2 Only 78 of them are today still preserved in the Modena Civic Museum and have been studied by the author. 3 The complexity of the issue emerges clearly from the study of the roughly contemporary Linear B documents from Knossos Late Bronze Age archives (Del Freo et  al. 2010). Numbers and features of sheep husbandry on Crete show a deep knowledge of the productive qualities of each age/​sex class of sheep. The Cretan texts suggest that between 80,000 and 100,000 sheep, divided in hundreds of flocks, the size of which varied considerably (from c. 30 to 400 animals), were administrated by the palace (Firth 2014a). It is also clear that there were specialised flocks. Judging by the way animal losses were solved, the system must have been integrated with the local private economy; thus, the total sheep population on the island was probably much bigger. With regard to large-​scale husbandry and wool production, it might be relevant to mention that in the Knossos tablets the sign *145/​LANA was used to mean both wool and its weight unit. The latter is apparently a wool sack of c. 3 kg (c. 4 fleeces of c. 750 g each), corresponding to 6 minas or 1/​10 of a talent (Alberti 1999, 2005; see also Andersson Strand and Nosch, Chapter  2). A  study of stone weights from the Terramare area (Cardarelli et  al. 2004) suggested the existence of a local unit of c. 36.6 g, which would match the Aegean unit for textiles (Alberti 1999) and thus support the idea of wool production and trade in the area. 4 This assumption is proved by the fact that the very same area was intensively populated and exploited for both agriculture and husbandry (in particular sheep husbandry) during Roman times (Corti 2012). 5 The presence of clay figurines representing sheep/​goats and in one case a sheep fleece (see Bianchi and Bernabò Brea 2012, figs. 1.2–​4, 1.14; Desantis et al. 2011, 38) visibly mark a relevant consideration for these animals. 6 In the Emilian plain, traces of cultivated flax appear at Monte Castellaccio di Imola (Bandini Mazzanti et al. 1996, 162), at Santa Rosa di Poviglio (Bianchi 2004b; Ravazzi et al. 2004) and from pre-​settlement (possibly Middle Bronze Age) layers at Anzola (Cattani and Marchesini 2010, 235). 7 Hemp is evident in the pollen diagram, but it has not been found as a macrofossil (Maini 2012, 28). 8 The assemblage includes 13 cylindrical weights belonging to the easternmost building identified for the local Phase II. 9 Since most of the objects were more or less damaged, the original weight is an estimate. 10 See Appendix 3.1 for pictures of all the preserved loom weights at the Modena Museum with their respective inventory numbers. 11 One of the items (Mon 1375) is damaged and although likely to have been above 1,000 g, it is not possible to estimate the original weight. 12 The only thick item is a complete small and light (151 g) piece with no use-​wear; it is therefore unclear whether it was or had ever been used as a loom weight. 13 The settlement of Poviglio has been studied in detail. As at Montale, large parts of the site were removed in the 1800s for a compost quarry. The lowest archaeological strata were, however, left intact. Modern excavations have taken place there since 1984 (Bernabò Brea et al. 2007), providing data that is also relevant to textile production (Bernabò Brea et al. 2003; Bianchi 2004b). The site consists of an older settlement, the so-​called ‘small village’, and a later ‘big village’, which grew in connection with the older village at the beginning of the fourteenth century bc. 14 The loom weights weighed approximately 287 g, 350 g, 500 g, 520 g, 750 g, 1,050 g, and 1,250 g, with seven between c. 600 g and 650 g.

73

R eferences

REFERENCES

Accorsi C. A., Bandini Mazzanti, M., Mercuri, A. M., Rivalenti, C. and P. Torri (1998) Analisi pollinica di saggio per l’insediamento palafitticolo di Cànar-​Rovigo, 6.80–7.00 m s.l.m. (Antica Età del Bronzo), in Cànar di San Pietro Polesine. Ricerche archeo-​ambientali sul sito palafitticolo (Padusa Quaderni 2), ed. C. Balista and P. Bellintani, 131–​149. Accorsi, C. A., Bandini Mazzanti, M., Bosi, G., Marchesini, M., Mercuri, A. M. and G. Trevisan (2009) The archaeobotanical analysis, in Guide to the Archaeological Park and Open-​Air Museum Terramara Montale, Modena, ed. A. Cardarelli, Modena, 64–​67. Aceti, A., Ravazzi, C. and E. Vescovi (2009) Analisi pollinica della successione stratigrafica, in Acqua e civiltà nelle Terramare, la vasca votiva di Noceto, ed. M. Bernabò Brea and M. Cremaschi, Milan, 121–​131. Alberti, M. A. (1999) Il sistema ponderale egeo tra omogeneità e flessibilità:  continuità e discontinuità tra il mondo minoico e quello miceneo, in Epi ponton plazomenoi. Simposio italiano di Studi Egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Roma, 18–​20 febbraio 1998, ed.V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti, Rome, 339–​350. Alberti, M. E. (2005) I sistemi ponderali dell’Egeo nell’età del Bronzo. Studi, storia, pratica e contatti, Annuario della Scuola Italiana di Atene 81(serie iii, 3, 2003/​ii), 597–​640. Andersson Strand, E. (2015) The basics of textile tools and textile technology: from fibre to fabric, in Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford,  39–​60. Andersson Strand, E. and M. Cybulska (2012) Visualising ancient textiles: how to make a textile visible on the basis of an interpretation of an Ur III text, in Textile Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East: Archaeology, Epigraphy, Iconography (Ancient Textiles Series 12), ed. M.-L. Nosch, H. Koefoed and E. Andersson Strand, Oxford, 113–​127. Andersson Strand, E. and M.-L. Nosch eds. (2015) Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), Oxford. Andersson Strand, E., Mårtensson, L., Nosch, M.-L. and L. Rahmstorf (2006) New research on Bronze Age textile production, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 51, 171–​174. Baccelli, G., Bellucci, B. and M. Vigo (2014) Elements for a comparative study of textile production and use in Hittite Anatolia and in neighbouring areas, in Prehistoric, Ancient Near Eastern and Aegean Textiles and Dress (Ancient Textiles Series 18), ed. S. Harlow, C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 97–​142. Bandini Mazzanti, M., Mercuri, A. M. and C. A. Accorsi (1996) Primi dati palinologici sul sito di Monte Castellaccio (76 m s.l.m., 4421’N Ilo 42’8, Imola-​Bologna; Nord Italia) dall’età del rame all’età del bronzo, in Musei Civici di Imola. La collezione Scarabelli 2, Preistoria, ed. M. G. Bertani and M. Pacciarelli, Imola, 158–​174. Barber, E. J. W. (1991) Prehistoric Textiles: the Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special References to the Aegean, Princeton. Bazzanella, M. (2012) Italy:  Neolithic and Bronze Age, in Textiles and Textile Production in Europe from Prehistory to AD 400 (Ancient Textiles Series 11), ed. M. Gleba and U. Mannering, Oxford, 203–​213. Bazzanella, M. and A. Mayr (2009) I reperti tessili, le fusaiole e i pesi da telaio dalla palafitta di Molina di Ledro, Trento. Bazzanella, M., Mayr, A., Moser, L. and A. Rast-​Eicher (2003) Textiles. Intrecci e tessuti dalla preistoria europea, Trento.

73

74

74

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

Belardelli, C., Peroni, R., Vanzetti, A., Levi, S. T., Damiani, I., Castagna, M. A., Schiappelli, A., Di Renzoni, A. and A. De Guio (2005) L’impatto miceneo sulle coste dello Ionio e dell’Adriatico e l’alta congiuntura’ del bronzo recente italiano, in Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean (Aegaeum 25), ed. R. Laffineur and E. Greco, Liège, 508–​513. Bellintani, P. (2015) Baltic amber, alpine copper and glass beads from the Po plain: amber trade at the time of Campestrin and Frattesina, Padusa L, 111–​139. Bender Jørgensen, L. (1992) North European Textiles until AD 1000, Aarhus. Bender Jørgensen, L. (2012a) Introduction to Part II: technology as practice, in Embodied Knowledge: Historical Perspectives on Belief and Technology, ed. M. L. Stig Sørensen and K. Rebay-​Salisbury, Oxford,  91–​94. Bender Jørgensen, L. (2012b) Spinning faith, in Embodied Knowledge: Historical Perspectives on Belief and Technology, ed. M. L. Stig Sørensen and K. Rebay-​Salisbury, Oxford, 13–​136. Bender Jørgensen, L. (2018) Textile production, in Creativity in the Bronze Age: Understanding Innovation in Pottery,Textile, and Metalwork Production, ed. L. Bender Jørgensen, J. Sofaer and M. L. Stig Sørensen, Cambridge, 67–​73. Bender Jørgensen, L., Stig Sørensen, M. L. and J. Sofaer (2018) Introduction, in Creativity in the Bronze Age: Understanding Innovation in Pottery, Textile, and Metalwork Production, ed. L. Bender Jørgensen, J. Sofaer and M. L. Stig Sørensen, Cambridge, 63–​66. Bergfjord, C., Mannering, U., Frei, K. M., Gleba, M., Scharff, A. B., Skals, I., Heinemeier, J., Nosch, M.-L. and B. Holst (2012) Nettle as a distinct Bronze Age textile plant, Scientific Reports 2, 664. Bernabò Brea, M. (2003) Terramara Castione dei Marchesi, in Textiles. Intrecci e tessuti dalla preistoria europea, eds. M. Bazzanella, A. Mayr, L. Moser and A. Rast-​Eicher, Trento, 199–​200. Bernabò Brea, M. and A. Mutti eds. (1994) Le Terremare si scavano per concimare i prati…, in La nascita dell’archeologia preistorica a Parma nella seconda metà dell’Ottocento, Parma. Bernabò Brea, M., Cardarelli, A. and M. Cremaschi eds. (1997) Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, Milan, 187–​195. Bernabò Brea, M., Bianchi, P. and S. Lincetto (2003) La produzione tessile nell’età del Bronzo. Fusaiole e pesi da telaio nelle terramare emiliane: esempi di studio dai villaggi di S. Rosa di Poviglio (RE) e Forno del Gallo a Beneceto (PR), in Textiles. Intrecci e tessuti dalla preistoria europea, ed. M. Bazzanella, A. Mayr, L. Moser and A. Rast-​Eicher,Trento, 111–​120. Bernabò Brea, M., Bronzoni, L., Cremaschi, M. and S. Costa eds. (2007) Gli scavi nella terramara Santa Rosa a Fodico di Poviglio (Exhibition Catalogue), Poviglio. Bernabò Brea, M., Miari, M., Bianchi, P. E., Bronzoni, L., Ferrari, P., Guarisco, F., Lari, E., Lincetto, S., Maggioni, S., Occhi, S. and B. Sassi (2008) La terramara di Forno del Gallo a Beneceto (Parma), in Archeologia ad alta velocità in Emilia: indagini geologiche e archeologiche (Quaderni di archeologia dell’Emilia-​Romagna 22), ed. R.Valloni and M. Bernabò Brea, Florence, 87–​112. Bettelli, M. and L. Vagnetti (1997) Aspetti delle relazioni fra l’area egeo-​micenea e l’Italia settentrionale, in Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, ed. M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi, Milan, 614–​620. Bianchi, P. (2004a) Capanne e spazi domestici del Bronzo Recente avanzato nel Villaggio grande della terramara S. Rosa a Fodico di Poviglio (RE), Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 54, 411–​485. Bianchi, P. (2004b) Manufatti per filatura e tessitura, in Il villaggio piccolo della Terramara di Santa Rosa di Poviglio (Scavi 1987–​1992), ed. M. Bernabò Brea and M. Cremaschi, Florence, 609–​651.

75

R eferences

Bianchi, P. and M. Bernabò Brea (2012) Rappresentazioni mobiliari zoomorfe, antropomorfe e simboliche dell’età del Bronzo. Nuovi ritrovamenti dalle terramare emiliane, Preistoria alpina 46(2), 299–​308. Boni, C. (1882) La Terramara del Montale:  scavo generale. Parte prima:  Scavi dell’ Ottobre, Novembre e Dicembre 1881, Modena. Boni, C. (1884) La Terramara del Montale:  scavo generale. Parte seconda:  Scavi del 1882–​1883, Modena. Breniquet, C. and C. Michel eds. (2014) Wool Economy in the ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry (Ancient Textiles Series 17), Oxford. Burke, B. (2010) Textiles, in The Oxford Handbook of the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. E. H. Cline, Oxford, 430–​442. Cardarelli, A. (2009a) The collapse of the Terramare culture and growth of new economic and social systems during the Late Bronze Age in Italy, Scienze dell’Antichità 15, 449–​520. Cardarelli, A. ed. (2009b) Guide to the Archaeological Park and Open-​Air Museum Terramara Montale, Modena. Cardarelli, A. and D. Labate (2009) Ditch and embankment, in Guide to the Archaeological Park and Open-​Air Museum Terramara Montale, ed. A. Cardarelli, Modena, 28–​31. Cardarelli, A., Pacciarelli, M. and P. Pallante (1997) Pesi da bilancia dell’età del bronzo?, in Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, ed. M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi, Milan, 629–​642. Cardarelli, A., Pacciarelli, M. and P. Pallante (2004) Pesi e bilance nell’età del bronzo italiana: quadro generale e nuovi dati, in Archaeological Methods and Approaches: Industry and Commerce in Ancient Italy (BAR International Series 1262), ed. E. De Sena and H. Dessales, Oxford, 80–​88. Cattani, M. and M. Marchesini (2010) Economia e gestione del territorio nell’età del bronzo: le radici della civiltà contadina, in Paesaggio ed economia nell’età del Bronzo, la pianura bolognese tra Samoggia e Panaro, ed. M. Cattani, M. Marchesini and S. Marvelli, Bologna, 231–​243. CinBA Database. CinBA Database of Bronze Age textile in Europe. http://​cinba.net/​ outputs/​databases/​textiles/​ [2016.8.23]. Corti, C. (2012) L’economia della lana a Mutina, in La lana nella Cisalpina romana. Economia e società studi in onore di Stefania Pesavento Mattioli, ed. M. S. Busana and P. Basso, Padua, 213–​229. Costin, C. L. (2005) Craft production, in Handbook of Archaeological Methods, ed. H. D. G. Maschner and C. Chippindale, Lanham, MD, 1034–​1107. Cremaschi, M., Pizzi, C. and V. Valsecchi (2006) Water management and land use in the Terramare and a possible climatic co-​factor in their abandonment: the case study of the Terramara of Poviglio Santa Rosa (northern Italy), Quaternary International 151, 87–​98. De Grossi Mazzorin, J. (2013) Considerazioni sullo sfruttamento animale in ambito terramaricolo, in Economia e ambiente nell’Italia padana dell’età del bronzo. Le indagini bioarcheologiche, ed. J. De Grossi Mazzorin, A. Curci and G. Giacobini, Bari, 257–​263. De Grossi Mazzorin, J. and A. Riedel (1997) La fauna delle Terramare, in Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, ed. M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi, Milan, 475–​480. De Grossi Mazzorin, J. and C. Ruggini (2009) The archaeozoological analysis, in Guide to the Archaeological Park and Open-​Air Museum Terramara Montale, ed. A. Cardarelli, Modena,  68–​69.

75

76

76

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

Del Freo, M., Nosch, M.-L. and F. Rougemont (2010) The terminology of textiles in the Linear B tablets, including some considerations on Linear A  logograms and abbreviations, in Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC (Ancient Textiles Series 8), ed. C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 338–​373. Desantis, P., Marchesini, M. and S. Marvelli eds. (2011) Anzola al tempo delle Terramare, San Giovanni in Persiceto. Farello, P. (2011) La fauna della Terramara, in Anzola al tempo delle Terramare, ed. P. Desantis, M. Marchesini and S. Marvelli, San Giovanni in Persiceto, 46–​48. Firth, R. (2014a) Considering the population statistics of the sheep listed in the east-​ west corridor archive at Knossos, in KE-​ RA-​ ME-​ JA Studies presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine., ed. D. Nakassis, J. Gulizio and A. James, Philadelphia, 293–​304. Firth, R. (2014b) Textile texts of the Lagaš II period, in Prehistoric, Ancient Near Eastern and Aegean Textiles and Dress (Ancient Textiles Series 18), ed. S. Harlow, C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 57–​73. Gillis, C. and M.-L. Nosch eds. (2007) 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 (Ancient Textiles Series 1), Oxford. Gleba, M. (2008) Textile Production in Pre-​Roman Italy (Ancient Textiles Series 4), Oxford. Gleba, M. (2012a) Lo sviluppo delle fibre di lana nell’Italia preromana, in La lana nella Cisalpina romana. Economia e società studi in onore di Stefania Pesavento Mattioli, ed. M. S. Busana and P. Basso, Padua, 325–​337. Gleba, M. (2012b) From textiles to sheep:  investigating wool fibre development in pre-​ Roman Italy using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 3643–​3661. Gleba, M. and U. Mannering eds. (2012) Textiles and Textile Production in Europe from Prehistory to AD 400 (Ancient Textiles Series 11), Oxford. Grömer, K., Kern, A., Reschreiter, H. and H. Rösel-​Mautendorfer, eds. (2013) Textiles from Hallstatt Weaving Culture in Bronze Age and Iron Age Salt Mines, Budapest. Grömer, K., Bender Jørgensen, L. and M. Marić Baković (2018) Missing link: an early wool textile from Pustopolje in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Antiquity 93(362), 351–​367. Harding, A. (1995) The finds from Pustopolje Tumulus 16 and their European context, Eirene 31, 112–​119. Harlow, S., Michel, C. and M.-L. Nosch, eds. (2014) Prehistoric, Ancient Near Eastern and Aegean Textiles and Dress (Ancient Textiles Series 18), Oxford. Hoffmann, M. (1974) The Warp-​Weighted Loom, Oslo. Killen, J. T. (1964) The wool industry in Crete in the Late Bronze Age, Annual of the British School at Athens 59, 1–​15. Leonardi, G. (2009) Fusaiole ‘in forma di vaso’ e produzioni femminili nella protostoria: un problema aperto, in La lana nella Cisalpina romana. Economia e Società studi in onore di Stefania Pesavento Mattioli, ed. M. S. Busana and P. Basso, Padua, 339–​351. Lincetto, S. (2006) Attività di filature e tessitura negli abitati e nelle abitazioni dell’età del bronzo dell’Italia settentrionale, Unpublished PhD thesis, University La Sapienza, Rome. McCorriston, J. (1997) The fiber revolution: textile extensification, alienation and social stratification in ancient Mesopotamia, Current Anthropology 38(4), 517–​549. Maini, E. (2012) Lo sviluppo dell’allevamento in Emilia-​Romagna, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bologna. Marchesini, M. and S. Marvelli (2011) Il paesaggio vegetale e l’agricoltura, in Anzola al tempo delle Terramare, ed. P. Desantis, M. Marchesini and S. Marvelli, San Giovanni in Persiceto,  40–​45.

77

R eferences

Marić Baković, M. and G. Car (2014) Konzervatorsko-​restauratorski radovi I  rezultati najnovijih analiza na tekstilnome plaštu is prapovijesnoga zemljanog tumula Br. 16, Pustopolje, Kupres, Cleuna 1, 30–​47. Mercuri, A. M., Accorsi, C. A., Bandini Mazzanti, M., Bosi, G., Cardarelli, A., Labate, D., Marchesini, M. and G. Trevisan (2006) Economy and environment of Bronze Age settlements  –​Terramaras  –​on the Po plain (northern Italy):  first results from the archaeobotanical research at the Terramara di Montale, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 16, 43–​60. Mercuri, A. M., Bandini Mazzanti, M., Torri, P., Vigliotti, L., Bosi, G., Florenzano, A., Olmi, L. and I. Massamba N’siala (2012) A marine/​terrestrial integration for mid–​ late Holocene vegetation history and the development of the cultural landscape in the Po valley as a result of human impact and climate change, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21(4–​5), 353–​372. Michel, C. and M.-L. Nosch eds. (2010) Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC (Ancient Textiles Series 8), Oxford. Nicolis, F. (2013) Northern Italy, in Oxford Handbook of Bronze Age Archaeology, ed. H. Fokkens and A. Harding, Oxford, 692–​705. Nosch, M.-L. (2011) The Mycenaean administration of textile production in the palace of Knossos: observations on the Lc(1) textile targets, American Journal of Archaeology 115(4), 495–​505. Nosch, M.-L. (2014) Mycenaean wool economies in the latter part of the 2nd millennium bc Aegean, in Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean (Ancient Textiles Series 17), ed. C. Breniquet and C. Michel, Oxford, 371–​400. Nosch, M.-L. (2015) The wool age: traditions and innovations in textile production, consumption and administration in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, in Tradition and Innovation in the Mycenaean Palatial Polities, ed. J.Weilhartner and F. Ruppenstein,Vienna, 167–​201. Nosch, M.-L. and R. Laffineur eds. (2012) KOSMOS: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegeum, 33), Liège. Olofsson, L., Andersson Strand, E. and M.-L. Nosch (2015) Experimental testing of Bronze Age textile tools, in Tools, Textiles and Contexts:  Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 75–​100. Peres,T. M. (2010) Methodological issues in zooarchaeology, in Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: a Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases, ed. A. M.Van Derwarker and T. M. Peres, New York, 15–​36. Perini, R. (1971) I depositi preistorici di Romagnano Loc, Preistoria Alpina 7, 7–​106. Provenzano, N. (1997) Produzione in osso e corno delle terramare emiliane, in Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, ed. M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi, Milan, 524–​544. Rahmstorf, L. (2005) Terramare and faience: Mycenaean influence in northern Italy during the Late Bronze Age, in Emporia:  Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean (Aegaeum 25), ed. R. Laffineur and E. Greco, Liège, 663–​672. Rahmstorf, L. (2010) The concept of weighting during the Bronze Age in the Aegean, the Near East and Europe, in The Archaeology of Measurement, ed. I. Morley and C. Renfrew, Cambridge, 88–​105. Rahmstorf, L. (2011) Handmade pots and crumbling loom weights: ‘barbarian’ elements in the eastern Mediterranean in the last quarter of the 2nd millennium bc, in On Cooking

77

78

78

Weaving in Bronze A ge I taly:  the Case of M ontale

Pots, Drinking Cups, Loom Weights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighboring Regions, ed.V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, Nicosia, 315–​330. Rast-​Eicher, A. (1997) Tessuti dell’età del bronzo in Europa, in Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, ed. M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi, Milan, 545–​553. Ravazzi, C., Cremaschi, M. and L. Forlani (2004) Studio archeopalinologico. Nuovi dati, analisi floristica e sintassonomica della vegetazione dell’età del Bronzo, in Il villaggio piccolo della Terramara di Santa Rosa di Poviglio. Scavi 1987–​1992, ed. M. Bernabò Brea and M. Cremaschi, Florence, 703–​736. Riedel A. (1989) L’economia animale (della Terramara di Poviglio), in La Terramara di Poviglio. Le campagne di scavo 1985–​1989, ed. M. Bernabò Brea and M. Cremaschi, Reggio Emilia, 37–​38. Riedel, A. (1996) Archaeozoological investigations in north-​eastern Italy: the exploitation of animals since the Neolithic, Preistoria Alpina 30(1994), 43–​94. Riedel, A. (2004) La fauna, in Il villaggio piccolo della Terramara di S. Rosa di Poviglio (Scavi 1987/​1992), ed. M. Bernabò Brea and M. Cremaschi, Florence, 703–​736. Rottoli, M. and E. Castiglioni (2009) Indagini sui resti macroscopici, in Acqua e civilta’ nelle Terramare, la vasca votiva di Noceto, ed. M. Bernabò Brea and M. Cremaschi, Milan, 152–​163. Sabatini, S., Earle, T. and A. Cardarelli (2018) Bronze Age textile and wool economy: the case of the Terramare site of Montale, Italy, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 84, 359–​385. Saltini,A. (1997) L’estrazione della ‘terra mara’ un’industria rurale nell’Emilia dell’Ottocento, in Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, ed. M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi, Milan, 187–​195. Salzani, L. (1997) Il sito protostorico di Custoza (Sommacampagna VR), Padusa 32–​33,  7–​45. Saracino, M. and L Maritan (2012) Indagini archeometriche su alcuni pesi da telaio della ‘Cisalpina’ protostorica, in La lana nella Cisalpina romana. Economia e società studi in onore di Stefania Pesavento Mattioli, ed. M. S. Busana and P. Basso, Padua, 543–​550. Skals, I., Möller-​Wiering, S. and M.-L. Nosch (2015) Survey of archaeological textile remains from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean area, in Textiles and Contexts:  Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textile Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 61–​74. Tecchiati, U. (1998) Sotciastel. Un abitato fortificato dell’età del bronzo in Val Badia, Bolzano. Tecchiati, U. (1999) Indizi d’insediamento neolitico e della tarda età del Bronzo a Salonetto sull’altipiano del Salto (Comune di Meltina, BZ), Atti dell’Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati 249(VII, IX, A), 159–​184. Tecchiati, U. (2013) Resti d’abitato del bronzo finale (cultura di Luco) rinvenuti a Tires, località Bäckenwiesl (BZ), Annali del Museo Civico di Rovereto 29, 3–​76. Vanzetti, A. (2013) 1600? The rise of the Terramara system (northern Italy), Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 9, 267–​282. Wenger, E. (1998a) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge. Wenger, E. (1998b) Communities of practice: learning as a social system, Systems Thinker 9(5),  1–​5. Wenger, E. and B. Wenger-​Trayner (2015) Community of practice: a brief introduction, http://​wenger-​trayner.com/​wp-​content/​uploads/​2015/​04/​07-​Brief-​introduction-​ to-​communities-​of-​practice.pdf [2016.4.11]

79

R eferences

Wenger, E., McDermott R. and W. M. Snyder (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: a Guide to Managing Knowledge, Boston, MA. Wisti Lassen, A. (2015) Weaving with crescent shaped loom weights, in Textiles and Contexts:  Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series 21), ed. E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch, Oxford, 127–​137. Zohary, D. and M. Hopf (2000) Domestication of Plants in the Old World, Oxford.

79

80

FOUR

LOOM WEIGHTS IN BRONZE AGE CENTRAL EUROPE Jutta Kneisel and Stefanie Schaefer-Di Maida

INTRODUCTION

Proof of textiles in the Bronze Age of central Europe (2200–​800 bc) is rare (e.g. CinBA Database). We know of impressions on ceramics (Gedl 1992, 13; Maik 2012) and clay, finds from bog bodies or oak coffins with preserved textiles (Bender Jørgensen 1992; Bergerbrant 2007; Mannering et al. 2009; Schablow 1959) or remains from southern Germany and Alpine lakeside settlements (Rast-​Eicher 1995; Rast-​Eicher and Dietrich 2015; Rast-​Eicher and Reinhard 1998). Although traces of textiles can be found on bronze and iron artefacts, like those from Thürkow, Mecklenburg-​Western Pomerania (Billig 1958, 9; Scherping and Schmidt 2007) or in the Alpine salt mines (Grömer and Rösel-​ Mautendorfer 2013), such finds are rather rare. For the region between the Elbe and the Oder, the area of the Early Bronze Age Únětice groups and the Late Bronze/​Early Iron Age Lusatian groups, our knowledge of textiles is extremely poor (see Słomska and Antosik, Chapter 5). More often, however, we find spindle whorls and the loom weights from warp-​weighted looms. There is great diversity among these textile tools in terms of shape and weight. They are found not only in settlements but also in graves and hoard finds. In the Early Bronze Age, spindle whorls are rarely found in Únětice contexts (Zich 1996, 247). Therefore, loom weights were selected for the present study. Since these occur in both the Early and the Late Bronze Age, loom weights are suitable for a diachronic study. Their frequency, contexts and forms will be 80

81

Research H istory

investigated. If measurements (weight and size) are available, these are taken into account in the analysis. A database with the data used for this chapter (and some later additions) is available online (Kneisel 2019).

Selection of Material The material for this study was gleaned from various regional studies, which were combined and supplemented with new information from literature research. The emphasis was placed on Bronze Age and Early Iron Age loom weights, which chronologically cover the second millennium and first half of the first millennium bc (2200–​500 bc), and thus approximately the same time span as the Northern Bronze Age (Periods I–​VI).1 The material selected extends to the Rhine as a western border and to the Warta in the east, as well as from Denmark to the Alpine region. Northern Italy and Croatia were only sporadically recorded. Except for Denmark, northern Europe was not included. The data is supplemented by information from several case studies. This includes an excavation along the federal route ‘b6n’ in the region of Quedlinburg, Saxony-​Anhalt and the ‘digital fast entry’ of the finds (Christoph Rinne, University of Kiel, pers. comm.).The fully excavated b6n route provides a thoroughly investigated transect through the landscape in contrast to the rather selectively chosen sites in the area of investigation. The nearly 400 loom weights of different periods that were unearthed here represent a corrective set of data for comparison with the rest of the material. In total, more than 1,000 sites were recorded, and these produced more than 6,000 individual loom weights (Kneisel 2019). An exact indication of the number of loom weights is not always possible. In some cases, only fragments are present, and sometimes comprehensive details are not available in the literature. The number of loom weights listed in the tables may therefore be regarded as minimum totals. RESEARCH HISTORY

For the loom weights, a series of analyses are available, providing summaries of the finds from the respective regions. For overview purposes,Table 4.1 provides detailed information about the literature that was consulted. The earliest finds from central Europe are found in the Linear Band culture regions (Rast-​ Eicher and Dietrich 2015, 118; Schade-​Lindig and Schmitt 2003). The cylindrical loom weights of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in central Europe have been investigated by Gleser (2007, 154 figs. 5–​8), who has published a comprehensive catalogue of 111 sites. He uses metric measurements to identify regional differences, which can also be separated into two weight and

81

newgenrtpdf

82

82 Table 4.1 Articles with regional and chronological overviews on loom weights. Central Europe Early Neolithic Neolithic

Schade-​Lindig and Schmitt 2003; Rast-​Eicher and Dietrich 2015, 118 Grömer 2006, 181 fig. 5 (Alpine region)

Early Bronze Age

Gleser 2007, 154 figs. 5–​8

Bronze Age

Bankus 2004, 201–​206 (Bavaria)

Late Bronze Age

Buck and Buck 2010, 24 fig. 46; Bönisch 2005, 456 fig. 7; Kienlin et al. 2010, 237–​239 (southern Poland) Belanová et al. 2007; Ďurkovič 2015 (Hungary); Grömer 2007; Stegmann-​ Rajtár 1998;Teržan 1996 Reszczyńska 2014 (Poland) Menšík and Chvojka 2015 (Slovakia)

Iron Age

Roman period Diachron

Northern Europe

Case studies in this chapter

Literature about loom reconstructions (selection)

Lundø and Hansen 2015; Grundvad and Poulsen 2014 Bergerbrant 2007, 49, Chapter 11; Boas 1983

Maier 1964, fig. 74; Althoff 1992, 138 fig. 44,2; Wilhelmi 1977 Wilhelmi 1977

Bruszczewo: see Schaefer-Di Maida and Kneisel, Chapter 8 Kastanas: Aslanis 1985; Hänsel 1987; Mauel 2009 Arbon Bleiche: Hochuli 1994, 55 fig. 51 Zug-​Sumpf: Seifert 1997, 74

Biskupin: Kostrzewski 1950, 132–​147 Stillfried an der March: Penz 2006 Győr-​Ménfőcsanak: Ďurkovič 2015

b6n, Saxony Anhalt: C. Rinne, pers. Comm.; Meller and Dresely 2006

Belanová et al. 2007; Jentsch 1886; Ludikovský 1958; Petersen 2011; Schierer 1987; Schmotz 1988; Teržan 1996

83

Types of L oom W eights ( Shape )

size classes. D.-​W. Buck and E. Bönisch investigated the distribution of loom weights in the later Bronze Age for the Lusatian region. D.-​W. Buck also listed all Bronze Age graves with loom weights (Buck and Buck 2010, 24 fig. 46). E.  Bönisch presents a table with known weights and measurements of the loom weights in the Lusatian material (Bönisch 2005, 456 fig. 7). There is a whole series of articles dealing with weaving and spinning in the Iron Age. Early depictions from this period are also available showing images of both weaving and spinning, including rock art from Valcamonica, which dates back to the Italian Bronze Age, and the depictions of scenes on an urn from the cemetery of Sopron (Tumulus 27), Hungary, and on the tintinnabulum from Bologna, Italy (Gleba 2008, 29 fig. 5–​6). In addition, there are whole sets of tools that can be associated with textile processing in the graves of south-​ eastern central Europe (Belanová et al. 2007; Grömer 2007; Stegmann-​Rajtár 1998;Teržan 1996).They consist of spools, spindle whorls and variously shaped loom weights.2 As far as northern Europe (Denmark, Schleswig-​Holstein, Lower Saxony) is concerned, there are only a few loom weights known from the Bronze Age (Bergerbrant 2007, 49, and Chapter 11), but loom weights are more common from the pre-​Roman Iron Age (e.g. Althoff 1992, 138 fig. 44,2; Maier 1964, fig. 74; Wilhelmi 1977). Also, in west and south-​west Germany, loom weights and spinning whorls are rather rare (Krumland 1998, 94). For the Runder Berg near Urach, there are, for example, 78 spindle whorls, but no loom weights, and only 8 clay rings, which the author does not interpret as loom weights (Stadelmann 1981, 80). In general, loom weights in south-​western Germany are rare or absent, as Ambs (2016, 150) also noted. Within the material listed above, a number of sites have been found for which the textile tools have been analysed for distribution patterns within the settlements (see Appendix 4.2 with case studies). A great deal of literature has been published in recent years about the reconstruction and width of vertical or warp-​weighted looms (e.g. Schierer 1987; see Table 4.1).The primary intention of this chapter is, therefore, to deal with the wide-ranging distribution and chronological occurrence of the loom weights, and to identify their contexts. TYPES OF LOOM WEIGHTS (SHAPE)

The loom weights of central Europe can be classified into six basic forms (see Appendix 4.1). Cylindrical and pyramidal forms are among the most common (Fig. 4.1). In contrast, spherical and disc-​shaped loom weights are rare. Other forms, such as pear-​or bell-​shaped weights, are found occasionally and often resemble one of the six basic forms mentioned here. For unspecified forms, a seventh category, ‘others’, was created in the database.

83

84

84 4.1 Types of loom weights and their English and German names. N = number of loom weights. Sites = the number of sites in which each category is represented (data from Kneisel 2019). * For the B6n route excavations, the internal site numbers are used (sites III-XIV). (Graphics: Carsten Reckweg and Jutta Kneisel.)

85

C hronology of L oom Weights

Shapes of Loom Weights Examples for the classification of loom weights are provided, e.g., by Mårtensson et  al. (2009, fig.  2). The descriptions of the loom weights in the literature vary widely, and often a clear classification could only be made based on associated illustrations. Therefore, for the loom weights presented here, only rough classifications of the shapes are provided. Thus, the terms cylinder-​shaped, elongated oval, cylindrical and flat-​cylindrical were combined with the shape ‘cylindrical’, which is perforated along the longitudinal axis (see Fig.  4.1). Pyramid-​shaped, conical, frusto-​conical or pyramid-​frustum-​shaped weights are often difficult to distinguish, and the forms sometimes show smooth transitions. The term ‘pyramidal’ therefore encompasses the group of conical and pyramidal shapes. Spherical shapes are also understood differently depending on the authors, and often a classification of a shape can only be reached based on illustrations. Only very few forms in the present material really have a round, ball-​like shape. A distinction between ring-​and disc-​shaped forms is also strongly dependent on the authors. If pictures exist, ring-​shaped loom weights are characterised by a larger central hole and round diameter of the ring, while disc-​shaped are flat and have a small hole relative to the disc. The hole is usually located at the edge of the disc. Triangular loom weights are triangles, which can sometimes also have a complex perforation system. They were collected by Wilhelmi (1977, 181 fig. 1), but without any information about the sites. In contrast to the pyramidal shapes these are flat. Their arrangement at the loom must have been different depending on the perforation. They occur mainly in periods after the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. A last group contains all loom weights other than the specified shapes. CHRONOLOGY OF LOOM WEIGHTS

Cylindrical loom weights date from the Neolithic period to the Middle Bronze Age (Fig. 4.2). From Neolithic contexts, they are noted from Baalberge to Pfyn and Linear Pottery.The largest number of the cylindrical types emerge from the Bernburg group (Neolithic) and the Early Bronze Age Únětice groups. The distribution of the cylindrical loom weights of the Early Bronze Age (2200–​1600 bc) coincides with the extent of the Únětice groups on the basis of the eyelet pin (Ösenkopfnadel), which are typical for these groups (Strahm 1996). From this we can assume that the cylindrical type is a typical Únětice phenomenon in the Early Bronze Age. These types are also found in the Middle Bronze Age, and single examples of Late Bronze Age finds in central Europe, e.g. the site of Freisinger Domberg, Bavaria, are also verified (see Bankus 2004, 203; Gleser 2007, 133).

85

86

86

Loom W eights in B ronze A ge Central  E urope

Loom weights - dated sites Pre-Roman/ Roman Period LaTène/Pre-Roman Iron Age

Iron Age

LBA-IA

Bronze Age

Late Bronze Age

Middle Bronze Age EBA-MBA Early Bronze Age

Copper Age

Neolithic

0 disc shaped

triangle shape

10

20 ring shaped

30

40

50

spherical shaped

60

70

pyramidal

80

90 n

cylindrical

4.2 The different shapes of loom weights and their occurrence in time according to the dated sites. (Graphics: Carsten Reckweg.)

87

C hronology of L oom Weights

The chronology of pyramidal loom weights, the most extensive group of material available, is different. From the Neolithic, we detect pyramidal forms that originated from the Alpine region, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Even in the Early Bronze Age, such shapes form the majority of loom weight finds at some sites (e.g. Malé Kosihy, Slovakia or Singen-​Hohentwiel, Baden-​Württemberg). A number of Early Bronze Age pyramidal loom weights were also recovered in Lower Bavaria, Austria and Moravia (Bankus 2004, 201–​ 203; Gleser 2007, 133, 134 note 10). For the site at Freisinger Domberg, Bavaria, M. Bankus states that the cone-​shaped weights are predominantly from the Early Bronze Age, whereas the pyramid-​shaped weights are mainly found in layers of the Late Bronze Age/​Urnfield period (Bankus 2004, 201–​202).3 In central Germany and Poland, this form is mainly dated to the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (1200–​500 bc). West of the Harz mountains and north of the Spree River, pyramidal forms are also found from the pre-​Roman Iron Age in areas where loom weights from earlier periods are missing. It can be seen that the pyramidal forms are by far the most common form in the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age of central Europe, whereas the use of the warp-​ weighted loom seemed not to continue northwards before 500 bc. Ring-​shaped loom weights are recorded from the Neolithic, for example from the Czech Republic and Denmark, as well as from the Swiss pile dwellings. Iron Age-​related finds are known from the eastern Alps, but they have not been collected systematically in the catalogue since they are rarely referred to as loom weights (Teržan 1996). On the site of Stillfried an der March, Austria, the distribution of the ring-​shaped loom weights in relation to the pyramidal types is well documented. Some are from the same features (Penz 2006). Moreover, the pyramidal and disc-​shaped forms are represented in the settlement phases Stillfried II–​V (Ha b2–​Ha c2/​d1).The ring-​shaped clay objects do not appear before the Stillfried III (Ha b3) phase (Hellerschmid 2006, 304). From northern Germany, ring-​shaped weights from the pre-​Roman Iron Age and the Roman period are documented (from 500 bc onwards), but they seem to be larger than the Hallstatt period types in the south. In Denmark, a few types exist from the Late Neolithic and the Iron Age, but their shapes differ slightly from the types of southern origin. Spherical loom weights are known from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Triangular weights are also found in Neolithic contexts in the eastern Alpine region. However, they are mainly found from the pre-​Roman Iron Age until the Roman period in north-​western Europe (Wilhelmi 1977). Disc-​shaped weights are known from all prehistoric periods. Chronologically, the early cylindrical forms in central Europe are separated from the rather Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age pyramidal forms. The broad range of shapes from the Alpine lakeside settlements and the foothills of the Alps is striking, including cylindrical, pyramidal and ring-​shaped types and many special shapes as well. Gleser (2007, 132)  has already noted, ‘dass

87

88

88

Loom W eights in B ronze A ge Central  E urope

vor der Urnenfelderzeit Gewichte ganz unterschiedlicher Formgebung gefertigt wurden und teilweise sogar zusammen am Webstuhl in Gebrauch gewesen sein müssen’.4 In central Germany and Poland, the use-​type spectrum is nearly standardised in terms of type choice. This applies both to the Early Bronze Age (with cylindrical weights) and to the Late Bronze/​Early Iron Age (with pyramidal weights). There are also further different types of loom weights in south and south-​eastern Europe (see, for instance, Sabatini, Chapter 3). Certainly, this selection is not comprehensive, and the Neolithic period and the periods after 500 bc were not systematically included. The low number of loom weights in the north is noticeable until the pre-​Roman Iron Age and the Roman period, when loom weights are more common there. Nevertheless, the uniformity of loom weight types in central Europe encompasses a uniform technological tradition in terms of textile production. We might assume that very individual or local (regional) traditions were followed in the Neolithic period, which shifted to a certain degree of uniformity during the Bronze Age in central Europe. In central Europe, there is also a remarkable change between the Early and the Late Bronze Age. The cylindrical forms are almost invariably replaced by pyramidal forms. This is a technological change, since the number of loom weights and the variability of their heaviness also seem to increase. Furthermore, as explained below, the contexts also change. DISTRIBUTION OF LOOM WEIGHTS

Cylindrical loom weights are distributed from northern Italy to the Swiss lakeside settlements and are found mainly in central Europe (Fig.  4.3a–​b). North of the central German uplands, only a few finds have been noted. Larger quantities of cylindrical loom weights are documented from Bohemia and the Alpine region, partly owing to the larger and better-​preserved settlements. In addition, sites with several loom weights are also known from the Harz region (e.g. site b6n, Saxony-​Anhalt). In Lower Saxony and Denmark, this kind of weight is missing.5 Pyramidal weights are much more common, and also occur in regions in which cylindrical types are absent. Their distribution extends from the Carpathian Basin to the Oder River and from the Elbe further west to Switzerland (Fig. 4.3c–​d). Along the Rhine, as well as in northern Germany and Denmark, these forms are absent. North of the central German uplands, there is an even distribution between the Harz mountains and the Warta River. Large finds are known from the northern Carpathian Basin. Here, the finds of the tell settlements may favour the survival of loom weights.The largest find of loom weights, with more than 500 pieces, originates, however, from the fortified Iron Age settlement of Biskupin in Poland.

89

D istribution of L oom Weights

4.3  (A) The distribution of cylindrical loom weights in central Europe (dated sites). (B) The number of known weights per site. (C) The distribution of pyramidal loom weights in central Europe (dated sites). (D) The number of known weights per site. (Graphics: Jutta Kneisel.)

For Switzerland, M. Seifert distinguishes between cone-​shaped/​pyramidal weights and clay rings in a small regional context. While the pyramid-​conical forms occur more frequently in western Switzerland, the clay rings dominate in the settlement of Zug-​Sumpf (Seifert 1997, 73–​74). Spherical loom weights are mainly found in the Czech Republic, but some are also found in Saxony-​Anhalt, Poland and Austria (Fig. 4.4). The ring-​ shaped loom weights are concentrated in the Alpine region and Bohemia. In contrast to all previous forms, they are also represented in

89

90

90

Loom W eights in B ronze A ge Central  E urope

Ring shaped Spherical shaped

4.4 The distribution of spherical and ring-​shaped loom weights in central Europe. (Graphics: Jutta Kneisel.)

northern Germany and Denmark, although they look slightly different from clay rings of southern origin. Here, too, the larger quantities of weights per site are found in the Czech Republic and the southern Alpine region (e.g. Eppan/​ St Pauls, Italy). The few known disc-​ shaped loom weights originate from the eastern Alps and the Czech Republic. Disc-​shaped loom weights from the Freisinger

91

C ontexts of L oom Weights

Domberg site in Bavaria, as described by Bankus (2004, 205), are perforated in the middle; they may have also been used as spindle whorls. Triangular loom weights are apparently a north-​western European phenomenon, which is mainly known as a result of K. Wilhelmi’s (1977, 181 fig. 1) comprehensive survey. They are also documented along the Rhine and in the Czech Republic. It is true that the distribution of the finds is critical to some extent, since the work of individual authors is reflected in the distributions (e.g. Wilhelmi 1977 [north-​west Europe]; Grömer 2006 [Austrian Neolithic]; Menšík and Chvojka 2015 [Czech Republic]; see also Table 4.1). Nevertheless, a clear distribution area in central Europe is shown for Bronze Age and Early Iron Age finds (Periods I–​VI of the Northern Bronze Age).While we observe an intensive use of the warp-​weighted loom between the Alps and the northern foothills of the Low Mountain Range, evidence in the north is virtually absent. CONTEXTS OF LOOM WEIGHTS

The majority of the loom weights originate from settlements, regardless of region and period. However, loom weights were also occasionally found in graves, and some loom weights were also found in hoards. The distribution of the material reveals that, on the one hand, about 22 per cent of pyramidal loom weights were deposited in graves as opposed to sites. On the other hand, only 8 per cent of cylindrical weights appear in graves (Fig. 4.5). The majority of the grave finds date back to the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, whereas only a few date to the Early Bronze Age (Fig. 4.6). The Early Bronze Age graves are from Saxony-​Anhalt or the Czech Republic and clearly belong to the Únětice culture. On the other hand, the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age graves with loom weights are mainly located in the Lusatian region and the eastern Alps. The distribution of the Early Bronze Age grave finds is thus clearly separate from the Late Bronze Age (Urnfield period) and Iron Age graves with loom weights (Fig. 4.7). Cylindrical weights are mostly found in settlements, often placed in pits in large quantities (Table 4.2). However, in situ finds of looms are rare. From Derenburg, Saxony-​Anhalt in the vicinity of the Harz mountains, we know of a hoard with about 30 loom weights under an inverted vessel, only 12 m away from a burial ground (Zich 1996, cat. no. d75a). But loom weights are also known as grave goods. In total, 8 per cent of the sites are graves. The cylindrical weights do not occur as frequently in graves as in later periods. Bátora (2002, 215–​217) describes, among other things, textile craftspeople in his article on the ‘craftsman’ graves of the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age, but these burials mainly contain spindle whorls and combs; loom weights are missing. In Table 4.3, the certain and uncertain grave finds with further explanations are listed.

91

92

92

Loom W eights in B ronze A ge Central  E urope

Find Context 200

185

180 160 140 120

109

100 70

80 60 40 20

29 15

14

3 2

1

1

8

1

6

3

2

8

0 pyramidal

cylindrical

ring shaped

Grave

spherical

Settlement

triangle

Depot

disc shaped

others

Single find

4.5 The distribution of loom weight types according to the find contexts (total number). (Graphics: Carsten Reckweg.)

Dated Sites and Context 90

81

80

73

70

58

60 50 40 30

31

30 15

20 10 0

11 1

Neolith./ Copper

EBA

1 MBA

Grave

6

26

20

11 2

LBA

Settlement

1 LBA/IA

IA

4 Pre-Roman

5 Roman Period

Depot

4.6 The chronological distribution of loom weights according to the find contexts (total number). (Graphics: Carsten Reckweg.)

93

C ontexts of L oom Weights

93

Loom weights Grave EBA Grave MBA Grave Urnfield period (LBA) Grave Urnfield/EIA Grave IA Depot Settlement

4.7 The distribution of loom weights in different contexts (settlement, graves, hoards). (Graphics: Jutta Kneisel.)

Gleser (2007, 152)  emphasises that most of the Early Bronze Age grave finds are actually single finds from cemeteries or settlement burials, and therefore very few finds of cylindrical loom weights can be addressed as direct grave goods. He mentions the site of Planitz-​Deila (Deila) in Saxony, which is presumably a single find originating from a Lusatian cemetery and not an Early Bronze Age burial. Since Gleser (2007, 152) also excludes all graves in

94

94

Loom W eights in B ronze A ge Central  E urope

Table 4.2 Sites with cylindrical loom weights in special features (see Kneisel 2019). Site

Description

Feature

Blšany u Loun, Czech Republic

Grave II/​1950 with a crouched inhumation of a child, loom weight located under the back. Pit with 14 loom weights.

Grave

Two crouched inhumations in a settlement pit with a weight. About 30 loom weights under an inverted pot, 12 m away from a cemetery deposition. Grave, oval grave pit, left crouched inhumation, a storage vessel, a loom weight and two tuyères. Inside a house (w2), five pieces of pyramidal loom weights and two pieces of cylindrical weights. According to Gleser (2007), a single find from a cemetery, and after Zich (1996), remains of a skeleton with a vessel and a loom weight. Pit with, among others, 15 cylindrical, axial perforated loom weights. Grave in a filled-​up fireplace with six loom weights, a spindle whorl and an antler tool. Pit (Obj. 1245) with 45 loom weights with a total weight of 35 kg, 473 ceramic pieces from no fewer than 11 vessels, as well as cremated bone; from a cemetery of the Únětice group. After Gleser (2007), a single find from the cemetery.

Grave

No fewer than 12, likely more, loom weights in situ in a line. Grave 2, one loom weight and an amphora. Pit with 16 loom weights (including 2 fragmented pieces) and 2 tuyères. 37 cylindrical loom weights (some well preserved, others fragmentary) in layers. Some in a line-​like agglomeration. Pit with 15 weights and a sherd pavement. In feature 1051, a 1-​to 2-​year-​old child with a grinding stone fragment and a single sherd with 7 loom weights.

Line of loom weights Grave

Blšany u Podbořan, Czech Republic Brno Černa Pole, Czech Republic Derenburg, Saxony-​Anhalt Erfurt-​Gispersleben, Saxony-​Anhalt Großmugl, Austria Heldrungen,Thuringia

Herzogbirbaum, Austria Hlízow, Czech Republic Hrdlovka, Czech Republic

Kralupy nahe Vlt.-​ Lobeček, Czech Republic Krems-​Hundssteig, Austria Laucha, Saxony-​Anhalt Mierczyce, Poland Neubach ‘Am Wachberg’, Austria Niederröblingen, Saxony-​Anhalt Niederröblingen, Saxony-​Anhalt

Pit

Hoard Grave House Grave?

Pit Pit/​g rave? Pit/​g rave?

Grave?

Pit Line of loom weights Pit Grave

95

C ontexts of L oom Weights

Table 4.2 (Cont.) Site

Description

Feature

Postoloprty, Czech Republic Praha-​Smíchov, Czech Republic Šardice, Slovakia Schkopau, Saxony-​Anhalt

Single find from a cemetery.

Grave?

Single find from a cemetery.

Grave?

Grave 69. According to Gleser (2007), a settlement pit with a burial; Zich (1996, 473 [cat. no. e764]) mentioned only a settlement pit. Pits with loom weights and in one of the pits (pit 3) loom weights and remains of a child. In pit (obj. 306, among others), several conical and cylindrical weights. Settlement pit with crouched inhumation; contents included ceramics and a loom weight. Without further information.

Grave Grave

Schleinbach, Austria Straubing, Südring, Bavaria Weideroda OT Zauschwitz, Saxony Wymysłowo, Poland

Pit/​g rave Pit Grave Grave

Table 4.3 Sites with pyramidal loom weights in the context of a loom where reconstruction is possible (see Kneisel 2019). Site

Comment

Behringersdorf, Bavaria Chorvátsky Grob-​Triblavina, Slovakia Freundorf, Bavaria

Weaving pit? 2 looms, pyramidal and round weights

Gadzowice-​Kwiatoniów, Poland Goldberg, Baden-​Württemberg Gór-​Kápolnadomb, Hungary Gubin, Poland Hafnerbach, Austria Herbsleben, Saxony Horky bei Opolany, Czech Republic Ivanka pri Dunaji, Slovakia Kathreinkogel, Austria Königsbrunn, Bavaria Landau a. d. Isar-​Vollbach, Bavaria Lossow, Brandenburg Lübben OT Steinkirchen, Brandenburg Michelstetten, Austria Moreşti, Romania

Pyramid-​frustum-​shaped, partly ornamented, weaving pit obj. 518 Reconstruction of loom possible 3 weaving houses Proof of looms Weaving house? Reconstruction of loom possible, 4 m in width Location of a loom or pit (after Bönisch 1999, 421) Pit house Reconstruction of loom possible Proof of looms Weaving chamber Oval weaving pit Location of 2 looms Weaving hut with row of weights Loom in pit house but weights were not perforated Reconstruction of loom possible (continued)

95

96

96

Loom W eights in B ronze A ge Central  E urope

Table 4.3  (Cont.) Site

Comment

Naunhof, Saxony Niederröblingen, Saxony-​Anhalt Nove Košariska (Dunajská Lužkna), Slovakia Oberleiserberg, Austria Polanowice (Gruben), Poland Poštela bei Maribor, Slovenia Pozzuolo, Italy Rötha-​Geschwitz, Saxony Santorso, Italy Smolenice-​Molpír, Slovakia

Location of a loom Reconstruction of loom possible 2 looms with weights in 2 weight classes and sizes

Sopron, Hungary Stillfried an der March, Austria Strakonice, Czech Republic Straubing-​Kreuzbreite, Bavaria Tučapy, Czech Republic Unterschleißheim, Bavaria Wallwitz, Saxony-​Anhalt Wolkenberg, Brandenburg Zug-​Sumpf, Switzerland

8 weights in 2 lines, loom 2 lines of weights