Vævning over gruber

Resumé

Pits, Looms, and Loom Pits?

In the archaeological quarterly Skalk (1959, no 2), Mogens Ørsnes described "The Problem of the Hundred Holes," pits "large and small, shallow and deep" that mystify our archaeologists, apparently dug at random by prehistoric folk inside and outside their dwellings. For comparison, we are then told of similar occurrences in the East made by people nowadays, for whom pits are places of work with a variety of uses such as washing places, forges, loom sites -examples which could perhaps help us to interpret the pits in Denmark. The idea seems promising, and an attempt will be made here to deal with the possibilities as far as weaving is concerned, in that the point of departure is a drawing used by Mogens Ørsnes to illustrate an eastern loom, which is standing over a pit with the warp lying full-Iength on the sand.

It is immediately obvious that the suitability of this arrangement is questionable for the climate of northern latitudes. Even a screen or lean-to would hardly prevent the warp from absorbing damp from the ground or a fall of dew, and a solid Danish downpour would very easily make the weaver's shelter unpleasant. Even the inhabitants of the Near East do not leave everything to the whims of the weather gods, for both the Syrians and some of their neighbours have discovered how to arrange looms of this type indoors, without altering the principle and often in very cramped conditions. The loom stands over a pit in the floor. The warp is not shortened, only the warping arrangement is altered. It is first pulled from the front beam under the back beam, and then obliquely upwards across a horizontal rod under the roof, down again behind the weaver to be anchored finally on the floor or possibly by a peg in the wall above his head. Sometimes the wall serves as a back-rest during a break in work, in that a strip of floor between the wall and the edge of the pit provides the weaver's seat. Sometimes for his comfort a loose sitting board is provided. He can half sit and half lean against it, as it is slightly slanting and can tilt and follow his movements when he treads on the treadles down in the pit, from where by means of a string arrangement the heddle rods are pulled. The treadles are a little raised over the bottom of the pit in order to allow for the upward and downward movement, and because of this the pit can be fairly deep. The supporting elements of the loom are usually four solid posts, one pair of which carries the front beam (cloth beam) and the other pair the back beam, Fig. 2

Occasionally an extra pair of posts is inserted to carry a lighter cross-bar that lifts the warping arrangement slightly. More rarely, the two upper laths which carry the hanging batten with the dents are supported by four tall posts, an example is shown in Fig. 6. However, timber is scarce in Syria, and usually the number of posts is reduced by inserting the two points of the laths into holes in the wall above the weaver, while the two posts that keep the back beam in position are heightened enough to give two other necessary points of support for the laths.

Strictly speaking, wood is the only material needed to make a loom of this kind, and if the house should go up in flames the loom would presumably also be destroyed, leaving for archaeologists just a pit and holes from 4-6 (sometimes perhaps 8-10) posts. See Fig. 6.

However, a variant of this loom exists which must be mentioned. It cannot be considered a separate type as its main characteristics correspond with those of the loom just described. The difference is that the warp is not fastened to the floor or to a peg in the wall behind the weaver, instead the tension of the warp is achieved by using stones as weights. The stones are apparently irregular in shape but fairly equal in size. These weights hang from a horizontal rod, high above the loom, sometimes slightly behind the weaver but usually in front of him, i. e. beyond the second beam. See Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. The method is evidently deeply ingrained, and Syrian weavers apparently have no intention of giving it up, for it is still in use even in the fairly industrialized workshops that produce modem artificial silks. In any event one thing is certain, the loom weights would always survive should both the house and the loom burn to ashes, and they would always lie outside the pit.

However, there remains the question of whether the upright warp-weighted loom Fig. 14, using stones or loom weights of burnt clay, and which has long been considered to be a loom of antiquity in the North 1), is in fact suitable for use over a pit similar to the horizontal warp­weighted loom with treadle. In my opinion the answer is no, as an upright loom of this kind has only one beam, which rests on two tall posts, and its purpose is to carry the hanging warp with the weights at the bottom. The woven cloth is also wound up round the beam, and the weaver/weavers must work. in the upper part of the warp, either walking or standing in front of the web 2). A seat in front of the two posts or between them is not justified, and I find it hard to believe that it is comfortable or expedient for the weavers to walk or stand on the edge of a pit. Nevertheless, if for some reason or other the loom had to stand in a pit, the floor level would have to be lowered correspondingly over an area large enough to allow the workers ample room for movement in front of the loom, but this would have no significance for the loom or its function.

Another loom type that is sometimes found over a pit in the Near East is the so-called tubular loom. Two forms occur in Syria and her neighbouring countries, one with two beams and the other with three 3). These looms can also be found indoors, and as the warp is put up outside the two/three beams in a ring, the length of the warp (or circumference) is decided by the distance between the beams. The beams are moveable and the distances are consequently variable. Products such as cloth for Bedouin tents are made in panels of considerable length, and are woven on three-beamed looms in long workshops. For smaller articles such as grain sacks which are produced as units, i. e. one article in each setup, only a double beamed loom is needed that can rest in a slightly oblique position against a wall. The common feature of the two forms is that they both consist of two strong posts that stand firmly, often whith a slight slope, in the sides of the pit in which the weaver sits on the floor. The posts support two beams, one upper beam, high up, and a lower one almost at floor level so that the weaver can only just get his knees in under it. The weaving is carried out from the bottom upwards, treadles are not used for changing sheds. Therefore the depth of the pit need only correspond to the length of the weaver's leg from sole to kneecap. This description seems to cover the essential details of the two beamed tubular loom, and if a loom of this kind were destroyed by fire, little else would remain other than a pit with two post-holes in its sides.

Various arrangements can be found in association with the three beamed loom, and the third beam is almost an appendix to the basic elements described. It lies behind the two beams, either close to them or at a distance, according to the length required for the tubular warp. The simplest and strongest method is to secure the beam to two stout posts driven into the ground in a permanent arrangement, which means that, after a fire causing everything to be destroyed, four post-holes and the pit would remain in the ruins. It should be added that in this case, as in the horizontal loom mentioned earlier, an extra pair of posts is sometimes added for carrying a crossbar to support the warp, and this would increase the number of post-holes to six.

A more temporary arrangement is when the third beam rests in a moveable trestle on the floor that is tied to two long, sloping poles held tautly between the floor and a beam in the roof. Sometimes the poles stand in two shallow hollows in the floor, but not dug into the ground, as occasionally there is no need for them, and they are removed. But Fig. 23 shows an example where the trestle is attached to only one, vertical post, and here both the trestle and the post stand in deeper hollows. These would presumably be visible in the ruins after the destruction of the dwelling by fire.

We need not be in any doubt of the existence of the tubular loom in prehistoric Denmark, for textiles found in bogs show that it was used in this country as early as the Celtic Iron Age, indeed probably even during the Late Bronze Age 4). Therefore it would be of interest to see how one of these pieces of cloth fares in a comparison with the known facts of the Syrian tubular loom. For this purpose I have chosen the so-called "Huldremose Gown" or "Peplos Costume" which is a typical tubular woven article in its primary state; in other words where the tubular warp was not opened and flattened when the cloth was completed. The circumference is 268 cm intact, which shows that the beams enclosed by the tubular warp on the loom were a distance of 132 cm from each other (supposing that two beams were sufficient), taken from the upper and lower edge respectively. This measurement gives the minimal height. The width of the loom can be approximately judged from the measurement of the cloth in the weft, i. e. 168 cm. At least an additional 10 cm should be allowed on each side, together with the width of the posts, for example 15 cm each -all in all a measurement of approximately 220 cm.

As the tubular loom can be made exclusively of wood, it is vulnerable to fire and would burn with the building. And if for some reason it were no longer used, the possibility of it ending its days as fuel is also very likely. In any event, it has never yet been recovered among archaeological finds, and the chances of archaeologists ever recovering even parts of it are extremely remote.

All the looms described here have one feature in common: the absence of a warp-beam, but this is understandable. The dexterity needed to wind a warp of even moderate length round a beam is considerable, and to this day in primitive weaving this operation is avoided as far as possible. The advantages of weaving in generous lengths is obvious, and when a demand for this arises ingenuity is needed. The method chosen in the case of the tubular loom is to make the distance between the 2 (or 3) beams variable to ensure a long passage for the warp when necessary, and the results can be very satisfactory.

The upright warp-weighted loom can also produce cloth of fairly considerable length because the length of the warp need not be limited by the height of the loom. The warp can be considerably longer, and the excess length is wound up at the bottom in halls or bundles above which the weights are tied. As work progresses and the completed cloth is wound round the beam at the top, a corresponding length of wool is unwound from the halls at the bottom and the weights moved upwards. While the evidence that the tubular loom and the vertical warp­weighted loom existed in prehistoric Denmark seems unquestionable, the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the treadle loom are still obscure. We do not know when it gained favour nor in what form it came to us. Possibly it was more primitive than we imagine -perhaps without a warp-beam?

Arrangements for tying the warp to a peg or to weights, which have been dealt with here in connection with the horizontal looms of the East, are actually provisions to avoid the warp­beam, and in areas where the vertical warp-weighted loom was in use, it is tempting to fancy that weights were also used on the primitive, horizontal loom if this were also present. Perhaps an interesting case of interchange is hereby revealed. Apparently A. C. Mace is of this opinion, and he has published the Egyptian "pit treadle loom" which is shown in Fig. 9 5). The loom was found in use in 1922 in the village of Maharraqa, near the southerly Lisht pyramid, in close proximity to which considerable finds have been made of loom weights in the strata under the old town. However, A. C. Mace also points out that the weights give no clue as to the type of loom to which they belonged, and concludes by saying: "Indeed it is quite possible that the modern loom is but a development from a form that has persisted in the district since ancient time".

In any event one thing is certain, we must hope that archaeology and the study of ancient working methods and weaving implements continue their close liason, providing fresh contributions to help clarify the problem. The field of study in the Near East is far from exhausted as far as textiles and textile tools are concerned.

In order to conclude with Danish conditions, it seems to me that, even though nothing remains to confirm conjectures concerning the occurrence of a horizontal loom with weights, we should nevertheless allow for the possibility on theoretical grounds 6), and in this connection it is worth remembering that we knew absolutely nothing about the existence of the tubular loom in Danish antiquity (not in the rest of Europe), until textiles recovered from bogs were studied in the 1940's-studies which proved its existence in Denmark.

From the details described in this article, it is presumably fairly clear that the task of differentiating between the traces of the various loom types in a demolished dwelling site is not without its difficulties, but it is precisely because of this that we need a representative collection of implements for our research. To date four different looms have been brought back to the National Museum from the Near East.

But where are they to stand in order that they may be of help to archaeological research?

Margrethe Hald