1/2 size of end of Fig. 24.

1/2 size section of Fig. 24.

A long piece of perforated wood described by Prof. Flinders Petrie, _Kahun_, p. 29, as a Weaver's Beam for making rush mats. Length 968 cm. 80 30 (3 ft. 1-1/4 in. 3-1/4 in. 1-3/16 in.) From Manchester Museum.]

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

We now come to the two reeds in the Museum of the Liverpool Inst.i.tute of Archaeology, which Dr. John Garstang discovered near Abu Kirkas, tomb No. 693, of which he tells us: "They are 27 and 29 inches (686 and 737 cm.) in length respectively, and are precisely similar in general form. They are constructed on a system of nineteen or twenty reeds to the inch, and they may be seen to be exactly similar to the modern reed taken from a loom in the village of Abu Kirkas. It is not possible, unfortunately, to a.s.sign a precise date to these objects.

They were found in a tomb which contained no other remains; this tomb was surrounded by others, all of them likewise very much disturbed, but equally characteristic of the general nature of the Middle Empire tombs, and containing nothing but Middle Empire objects. Since, in general, few tombs of this site show signs of intrusive burial of a later age, there is no reason to suppose that these objects are of any date later than the XII. Dynasty (_The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt_, London, 1907, pp. 134-136)."

The horizontal looms we have been describing belong to this period, and the artists have not shown any reeds with them. My studies of primitive looms lead me to think that these Egyptian looms are of a date far anterior to the invention or the application of a reed. It has also, I believe, been remarked by those who have examined cloths of this date, that the irregular array of the warp threads is good proof that reeds could not have been in use. I have already pointed out that in the evolution of the loom the reed puts in a late appearance, but apart from this fact, I do not think the artist would have omitted such an important tool had it been in use in his time.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 25.--Reed in Cairo Museum. Length 66 cm. (26 in.) It consists of two wooden frames fitted with flat iron wires. String is wound round the frames binding them together. Then a kind of canvas(?) cover in placed over the frames to cover up the projecting ends of the wires, but this has disappeared in places.]

Dr. Garstang points out that although the surrounding tombs contained Middle Empire objects, the reeds were found in a tomb _without_ any other remains. This can hardly be considered evidence tending to prove that they belonged to the period named, and it is certainly weakened by the accompanying statement that the reeds are _exactly_ similar to the modern reed, for that is almost sufficient to prove that they are _not_ 3900-3700 years old. To me they seem comparatively modern and very similar to one in the Cairo Museum which MM. Brugsch and Quibell are inclined to think is Coptic with this difference, that in Dr.

Garstang's reeds the divisions appear to be of cane or wood, while in the Cairo reed they are of iron (?steel). The sketch of this Coptic reed, Fig. 25, has been drawn specially for me, and Miss W. M.

Crompton, a.s.sistant Keeper in Egyptology in the Manchester University Museum, has kindly examined the sketch with the article and p.r.o.nounced it correct. We may, I think, safely conclude that the reed found by Dr. Garstang is Coptic and not Ancient Egyptian.

As regards the actual work of weaving, b.a.l.l.s of thread have been found and so have very flat bobbins and pieces of stick with thread wound round which may have been spools as indicated in the drawing, Fig. 7.

There is no reason why b.a.l.l.s of thread should not have been used as they are in uncivilised countries at the present day, as, for instance, in Tibet, as reported by W. W. Rockhill in _Diary of a Journey through Mongolia and Thibet_, Washington, 1894, p. 41.

"DIAGONAL WEAVING."

I am unable to agree with a recently made statement published in _The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Marghuneh_, by Prof. Flinders Petrie, E. A.

Wainwright and E. Mackey, p. 6, which runs: "The fact of the weft not being at right angles to the warp, if one may conclude by the fabrics, does not, I think, imply that such weaving is of inferior quality.

When I noticed the peculiarity first, I thought it might have arisen through distortion by stretching over the body, but repeated examples of the same fact have led me to consider other causes. We know how closely a.n.a.logous to 'darning' was the early weaving; and in our days it is not unusual to find stockings not darned at right angles, and it may be the women weavers of old sometimes put in the weft more or less out of true right angle. In the childhood of weaving we should expect different methods, and it may be, seeing that we have no selvedged cloth until very long after this time, that they experimented with a diagonal weft to see if it would not reduce the tendency to fray out at the sides." The amount the warp and weft are out of the right angle is stated to be about 20. The specimen shown me under the microscope indicated clearly that the warp and weft were not at right angles and that the interstices were not square but diamond shaped.

It is possible to arrange the warp threads diagonally from beam to beam, but with continuous weft (that is in weaving so as to get selvedges) the weft has the tendency to slip up on one side and down on the other, hence the weaving is made laborious. With a separate weft for each pick, _i.e._, for every once the shed is opened, there is naturally not this tendency, but this alleged diagonally woven cloth frays just as easily as any other piece of cloth without selvedge, so in either case there is not only no advantage but distinct disadvantage taking the diagonal "beaming" into consideration. We must give the Egyptians credit for using the least laborious of two methods, that is _if_ the second one were known to them.

Apparent diagonal weaving can be produced by anyone taking an ordinary piece of linen or cotton cloth, cutting off the selvedge and stretching the cloth in a direction diagonally to the direction of the warp and weft, and a piece of diagonally woven cloth is the result!

The probability is that the specimen of cloth, without a selvedge, having been stretched over the body for a long period of time, has, in the course of that time lost its nature and when removed it has retained its altered form and gives us the impression of having been woven diagonally.

"THE LINEN GIRDLE OF RAMESES III."

In the foregoing I have shown how extremely simple was the whole apparatus for weaving in use by the Ancient Egyptians, and one is rather surprised to be told that about B.C. 1200, in the time of Rameses III., the Egyptians "built and used looms very much more complicated than has. .h.i.therto been believed to be the case," or to be referred to "the really complicated form of loom used." Yet this is what Mr. Thorold D. Lee tells us (pp. 84 and 86) in his paper on _The Linen Girdle of Rameses III._ (_Ann. of Archaeology and Anthropology of the Liverpool Inst.i.tute of Archaeology_, July, 1912, V.)

The characteristics of this girdle are its great length, 17 feet (5 m.

2), its even taper diminishing from 5 in. (127 cm.) in width to 1-7/8 in. (48 cm.) in width, its elaborate design and excellent workmanship. Perhaps the chief of these characteristics is the taper.

It is most probable, as Mr. Lee points out, that in the weaving the warp threads have been gradually dropped out to make the taper, rather than that additional warp threads have been added. As it is easy to drop a warp thread, and almost impossible to add one while weaving is in progress, Mr. Lee's view is confirmed by this. It would also be almost impossible to keep the warp taut if the number of warp threads were increased as the work went on. This means that the girdle was commenced at the wide end and finished at the narrow end.

It is common knowledge that when a warp thread drops out, its place is indicated by a thinness or fine opening for the whole length of the missing warp, and this is so because the reed, besides pushing the weft into position, also acts as a warp s.p.a.cer, that is to say it keeps the warp threads properly apart, every one being properly aligned. When no reed is used the warp threads are not so evenly placed--they are not so parallel to one another for there is nothing but their tautness to keep them in position. Hence there is every reason to conclude that when, on a loom provided with a reed, warp threads have been removed their position must be indicated, and _vice versa_ if no reed has been used the position of the removed threads will not be so clearly indicated, but there will be a more marked shrinkage in the width of the cloth as well as in the pattern, and this is what has taken place in the girdle giving us the diminishing taper.

[Ill.u.s.tration: "THE LINEN GIRDLE OF RAMESES III."

_Reproduced by kind permission of Dr. Clubb, Director, The Museums, Liverpool._]

If this diminishing taper were indicated by a decrease in the width of the pattern commencing at the selvedges, then it might be presumed that a reed had been used for the central portion only--a very clumsy even if feasible arrangement, but the pattern begins to decrease along the middle and hence no reed could have been used.

It does not follow that because a loom was not provided with a reed it was without heddles. Anyone who will examine the large series of primitive looms at Bankfield Museum, will observe that heddles preceded reeds; this must necessarily be so as the making of the shed is the first step in weaving, while the reed's work is more that of a finisher. But the heddles are all extremely primitive, and in my experience do not exceed four in number where there is no reed. Such a quant.i.ty of heddles with its complicated harness as Mr. Lee considers necessary is quite out of the question with a loom so undeveloped as not to be provided with a reed. Hence the indication is that the girdle was woven on a loom of a primitive character.

In carrying out the work the weaver has made many mistakes. On the left hand side of the right hand row of red crosses (they come out black in the photograph) there is an "end down" for a considerable distance--that is a thread has been missed.

On the same row of crosses three white threads show above and below, while on the left hand row of crosses there are five white threads above and below. The crosses are neither the same size nor shape in the two columns and curiously their white hafts in both columns point to the left instead of one row pointing to the left and the other to the right. Then again the white point at the right apex of the zigzag on the left corresponds to a red point at the left apex of the right hand zigzag, but if the girdle had been woven on an advanced loom with dobby and harness these points would have been red in both places.

As regards the large number of warp threads to the inch which Mr. Lee puts down as 272-340 (107-134 per cm.), this does not by any means indicate a complicated piece of machinery for the weaving of this belt or any other fabric. The greater the number of threads to the inch the finer must the threads be in order to get them into the allotted s.p.a.ce, and in the weaving there will be so many more threads to raise and lower in order to make the shed opening. It means multiplying the work but does not necessarily mean that a more complicated loom must be used in the weaving.

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

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

AN EXAMINATION OF FIFTEEN SPECIMENS OF MUMMY WRAPPINGS.

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

"So far back as 1834, Mummy cloths occupied the attention of James Thompson, F.R.S., who, after researches into their characteristics and structure wrote a paper on the subject, which appears in the London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine, Vol. V., page 355. From that time until quite recently, little additional knowledge on the subject has appeared. In the early part of 1910, Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie, F.R.S., expressed a desire that the writer should undertake microscopic investigation of the body-wrappings of cloths of the III.

and early IV. Dynasties (_circa_ 2980-2750 B.C.) which he had brought home from excavations made at a cemetery near Meydum, Upper Egypt. The report upon them forms part of the "_Historical Studies_," Vol. II., of the _British School of Archaeology in Egypt_.

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

Each of the fifteen cloths submitted was first examined by mounting about 3/4" 5/8" (20 mm. 16 mm.) of the cloth on 3" 1" (76 mm.

25 mm.) gla.s.s slips, and covering with thin gla.s.s, so as to find out its plan of composition and the number of warp and weft threads per linear inch. Afterwards, a little of the warp threads as well as of the weft, was untwisted and the fibres separated, and these mounted apart on another 3" 1" slip (76 25 mm.), so that the kind of textile fibre used and the diameter of the fibres could be measured.

These microscopical preparations will be kept in Bankfield Museum, as they may be of interest to microscopists in the locality.

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

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

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

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

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 26.--Magnified 10 diameters.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 27.--Magnified 10 diameters, showing the warp yarn in pairs.]

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

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

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

5. A coa.r.s.e linen cloth with plain selvedge. All the yarns are single and even in diameter.

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