Agata Ulanowska
1) Raw materials
‘Flax’ and ‘woolly animals’ motifs are regarded as markers for two basic raw materials used in textile production in Bronze Age Greece: flax and wool, two major classes of fibres of plant or animal origin. It has been suggested that the ‘silk moth’ motif might represent the use of wild silk as a raw material,28 although whether wild silk was indeed used in textile production in Bronze Age Greece remains debatable.
‘Flax’
In Greece, the cultivation of domestic flax (Linum usiatis-simum L.) has been documented since the early Neolithic.29 In the Bronze Age, the extensive use of this plant in textile production is supported by excavated textiles,30 textile iconography,31 Linear B documents32 and the remains of a large-scale flax processing industry at Late Bronze Age (LBA) Kontopigado Alimos in Attica.33
The flax plant is characterised by long stems with slen-der, lanceolate leaves. Stems end in branches with small blue flowers that later produce seed pods (Fig. 2.1.a). A single stem with a series of narrow leaves and seed pods is
considered to be a distinct characteristic of the fibres and seeds that mark the usability of the flax plant. Graphically, the ‘flax’ motif may appear in a variety of forms ranging from detailed ones showing all the plant’s distinctive char-acteristics to more schematic ones in which the stem length is reduced and the seed pods omitted (Fig. 2.3). The motif is found exclusively on MM prisms from Crete. ‘Flax’
is suggested as a graphic equivalent for CHIC sign 031 and as such appears predominantly within inscriptions,34 often in the formula CHIC 038–010–031 (Fig. 2.3.c and 2.8.a).35 Occasionally, it may be seen as an ornament or ornamental filling on inscribed seals (Fig. 2.3.d-e below).
The sign has been recognised as a plant in CHIC36 and by Anna Margherita Jasink,37 though without further botani-cal identification. Anastasiadou classified this motif as the
‘shamrock’ a and b.38
Depictions of the harvest and processing of flax can be found in ancient Egyptian art. There, the stem length is exaggerated to suggest the importance of the fibre; the plants are reduced to a series of long parallel lines shown occasionally with narrow leaves or just one seed pod on each stem.39 Close graphic comparisons are found in 3rd millennium BCE Mesopotamia on seals (Fig. 2.3.f) and on the stelae and the vase from Uruk.40 According to Breniquet, this motif might represent a fibrous plant such as flax, though this remains uncertain. On vessels from 3rd-century BCE Kafizin, Cyprus, which bear inscriptions referring to a flax and linseed company, a flax plant is sketched similarly to
Fig. 2.3. ‘Flax’ motif on Aegean seals. A–E. CMS IV 135b (CHIC #276β); CMS X 312c (# 273β); CMS II,2 259a (#248α) and the formula:
CHIC 038–010–031; CMS III 186b; CMS III 237a. F. Seal from Susa, Mesopotamia. After Breniquet (2008, fig. 70.1). All drawings of seals are not to scale. Aegean seals in all figures by courtesy of D. Panagiotopoulos and the CMS Archive, Heidelberg.
Agata Ulanowska 26
the ‘flax’ motif, being simplified to low branches with dots representing seeds.41
‘Woolly animals’
The economic importance of wool, a new and innovative fibre in Bronze Age Europe, grew steadily in Greece from the Late Neolithic42 onwards to the LBA when the indus-trial scale of specialised wool production is documented by Linear B tablets.43 It appears that the first depictions of sheep on seals are to be found in the MM II44 which roughly coincide with the adoption and spread of purple dyeing in Crete.45 This important innovation required a raw material with a good capacity for fixing dyes, such as wool. Since wool could also be obtained from goats, and goat hair was indeed found in a narrow band from LM Chania,46 the
‘woolly animal’ motif covers depictions of two species:
‘sheep’ (Ovis aries) and ‘goat’ (Capra hircus).
Iconographic distinction between members of the Caprinae family, for example sheep and, especially, domes-ticated goats and feral goats (agrimia), is very difficult to identify on seals and became the focus of a separate research project within the ‘Textiles and Seals’ project.47 Criteria for the recognition of ‘sheep’ have been established, including: lateral spiral horns curved downwards, head
in profile with a bump, lack of a beard, a short or long tail hanging downwards and mane or fleece (Fig. 2.1.b and 2.4.a–d). ‘Goats’ and agrimia (Cretan wild goats) share several physical features such as horns that grow close together (larger and with a more prominent curve in agrimia) or a beard for males (Fig. 2.1.c–d and 2.4.e–g).
What differentiates them are: their tails, short and held upwards in goats but downwards in agrimia; a beard and characteristic udders and teats in female goats (Fig. 2.4.g);
and straight hair with bristles on their back for agrimia.
However, simplified animal depictions, especially on MM prisms, do not always allow specific species identification and many depictions remain classified more generally as
‘woolly animals’ (see Tab. 2.1).
It is worth observing that ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’ do not seem to occur that often, especially when compared to agrimia.48 Fleece, which would be a direct iconographic reflection of their woolliness, is even more rarely depicted on seals.49 Beside entire depictions, ‘woolly animals’ can appear as frontal views of rams (Fig. 2.4.i–j) or with heads in profile (Fig. 2.4.h). A ‘woolly animal head in profile’ has been identified as a real-life representation for CHIC sign 016 (Fig. 2.6.e–f).50 It can also appear, however, in single
Fig. 2.4. ‘Woolly animal’ motifs on Aegean seals. A–D. ‘Sheep’. Images: P.TSK05/499. After Krzyszkowska (2012, fig. 5); CMS VI 31b;
CMS II,8 33; VI 177. E–G. ‘Goats’. CMS II,2 163a; CMS II,2 224c; CMS II,8 378. H–J. Heads in profile and protomes of rams. CMS III 164c; CMS III 159a; CMS II,7 176. K. Caprinae in Mesopotamian art. From left to right: a sealing from Tepe Gawra; detail from a seal from Tell Mazan; animal frieze from the ritual stone basin Temple D, Ebla. After Vila and Helmer (2014, figs 2.16, 2.17, 2.21).
2. Textile production in Aegean glyptic 27
or multiplied images, as a separate motif on non-inscribed seals (Tab. 2.1, Fig. 2.4.h).
The ‘woolly animal’ motif can include representations defined previously as ‘ram’, ‘goat’, ‘bovine or goat’51 or
‘agrimi’, ‘sheep’, ‘head of a ram’, ‘head of a ‘goat’ and
‘head of an agrimi’.52 ‘Woolly animal head in profile’ as a script designation has been classified within the group of mammals,53 or as a ‘goat head’.54
In frescos, sheep and a goat have been shown in a pastoral setting, led by two different shepherds, on the Miniature Fresco from Akrotiri, Thera.55 The animals share character-istics of both the ‘sheep’ and ‘goat’ motifs and in addition display red (sheep) or white (sheep and a goat) fleeces. In the Bronze Age, sheep and goats were a frequent theme in Mesopotamia (see Fig. 2.4.k)56 but their depictions are also to be found in Egypt.57 The oldest Mesopotamian images date to the Uruk period and show hairy sheep with long spiral horns that spread horizontally, while a different type with horns curved downwards appears on cylinder seals from Uruk-Warka. In the EBA and MBA, the animals with horns curved downwards could also be shown with fleece.58
‘Silk moth’
A unique find of a calcified Pachypasa otus cocoon from Akrotiri, Thera, raises the possibility that wild silk was used in textile production in Bronze Age Greece.59 Since the other silk moth common in Europe, Saturnia pyri, is characterised by wings marked by large single dots, a series of LM I seals showing butterflies with dotted wings, as well as religious scenes with the so-called ‘tree-shaking’
ritual, seem pertinent to this discussion.60 However, with the exception of the cocoon and these depictions of butterflies/
moths together with possibly diaphanous fabrics, no other
evidence exists that might imply the use of wild silk.61 Fourteen out of the 29 examples of the ‘butterfly’ motif in CMS Arachne show seal faces with insects that have wings dotted with large circles. These potential ‘silk moths’ are usually shown frontally and singly (Fig. 2.5.a–b) or in profile with other insects. According to earlier research, butterflies had a symbolic meaning due to the transformations in their life cycle.62 Butterflies of various species were a frequent theme in Egyptian art from the Old Kingdom onwards and had a symbolic or magical meaning related to the afterlife.63 2) Processing of fibres and spinning
Flax and wool fibres have to be processed before they can be transformed into yarn. A possible reference to this man-ufacturing step is a ‘comb’ motif. Combs may also have been used for beating weft in weaving and, obviously, for combing hair. Combs used for wool might have had longer teeth and those used in weaving might have been broader and denser (Fig. 2.1.e).64 However, since combs were made of perishable materials, for example bone and wood, they are rarely preserved in the archaeological record, especially in Greece. Spinning, the most time-consuming operational sequence in textile making, may be reflected on seals by the ‘spindle with whorl’ motif.
‘Comb’
‘Combs’ are shown as rectangular objects indented on one of the longer sides65 and slightly curved inwards on their non-indented side.66 Depictions of a man67 holding a ‘comb’
provides the basis for this identification. However, there is little graphical consistency in representing this motif –
‘combs’ may be shown longer, shorter, thicker or thinner, their teeth short or long. ‘Combs’ in association with human
Fig. 2.5. ’Silk moths’ and ‘combs’ motifs on Aegean seals. A–B. ‘Silk moths’. CMS VI 455; CMS V 677b. C–G. ‘Combs’ and ‘combers’.
After Anastasiadou (2011, cat. no. 597a); CMS II,8 62 (CHIC #160); CMS VS1A 325a; CMS VII 15a; CMS II,2 102a; CMS II,2 304c.
Agata Ulanowska 28
figures can be shown being held in two hands, one hand (Fig. 2.5.c and e–g) or not being held at all (Fig. 2.5.h).
When held, a ‘comb’ is always touched from the non-in-dented side, which may lend support to its identification as a tool.
Holding a ‘comb’ in one hand whilst standing may refer to its use as a weaving comb; and holding it whilst sitting to wool combing. However, the gesture of holding the ‘comb’
in two hands while sitting cannot be easily explained by any specific activity in the textile-making process. The gesture of a man holding the rectangular ‘comb’ in one hand (Fig. 2.5.g) also resembles the gesture of the ‘weaver’ with the ‘loom weights’ (see below), while the ‘comb’ itself can be interpreted as either a component of the ‘loom weights’
motif, i.e. a bar with warp threads, or heddles (Fig. 2.7.g–i).
In addition to its association with human figures, the ‘comb’
motif appears occasionally in inscriptions, although it is not itself considered to be a script sign (Fig. 2.5.d).68
In earlier identifications, the ‘comb’ held by a human figure was categorised as an undefined tool69 or, when shown separately, as a ‘saw branch’.70 The ‘saw branch’
motif, i.e. an elongated bar with teeth or narrow leaves on one side, appears frequently in combination with animals, including possible ‘woolly animals’, with their heads in
both frontal and profile views (Fig. 2.4.e and h). There is no consistency in how ‘saw branches’ are portrayed graphically:
they may resemble combs,71 plants or even saws, making it unlikely that a universal identification existed for this motif.
Iconographic comparisons to the ‘comb’ being used as a textile tool have not been found.
‘Spindles with whorl’
In Bronze Age Greece, spinning was performed using a spindle with a whorl placed along the lower part of the rod. Spindle whorls had various geometric forms and sizes that corresponded to their efficiency in producing yarns of different qualities.72 Spinning can be performed sitting, standing and even walking but it always involves the use of both hands.
A hypothetical identification of the ‘spindle with whorl’
motif has been proposed on the basis of an impression from a hard stone inscribed prism73 (Fig. 2.6.a). The elongated form of CHIC sign 063 – with a potential whorl-like object and a thread-like effect created by a series of narrow crescents – bears some resemblance to an actual spindle with whorl and a cop74 of spun yarn (see Fig. 2.2.a). Similar elongated forms with a blob in the middle or at the top/bottom may be seen amongst other hieroglyphic signs such as CHIC 062,
Fig. 2.6. ‘Spindle with whorl’ and ‘spinner’ motif on Aegean seals. A–H. ‘Spindles with whorls’ and ‘spinners’. CMS II,8 86 (CHIC #141);
CMS II,2 230c (#229α); CMS XII 112a (#287α); CMS II,2 150a; CMS II,2 168 (#234α); CMS IV 136a (#305α); CMS II,2 306c; CMS II,2 309a. I. Spinning in Mesopotamian glyptic. A seal from Djemdet Nasr and a seal from Susa. After Breniquet (2008, figs 78.1, 79.1).
2. Textile production in Aegean glyptic 29 065 and perhaps even 050.75 The ‘spindle with whorl’ motif
also accompanied inscriptions not recognised by CHIC as a script sign76 and it is occasionally found on non-inscribed prisms (Fig. 2.6.d). The motif was sometimes shown with another smaller blob that resembles a skein of fibre pre-pared for spinning (Fig. 2.2.a and 2.6.e–f). Based on this new interpretation, a few depictions of a man shown with a ‘spear’ head pointing downwards have been tentatively redesignated as ‘spinners’ (Fig. 2.5.h, 2.6.g–h and 2.8.e).
The ‘spinner’ is shown striding or sitting and occasionally holding the ‘spindle’ with one hand.77 On CMS II,2 306c, a potential ‘spindle with whorl’ is combined with a ‘weaver’
and ‘loom weights’ (Fig. 2.6.g). The shape of ‘whorls’ cor-responds roughly to spherical and biconical spindle whorls that have been found in archaeological contexts.78 This, as well as a possible representation of skeins of fibre or yarn loops, are considered features of functional significance.
Traditionally, the signs/motifs discussed were labelled as a ‘lance’ or ‘dart’, as a ‘peg’, ‘mace’ or ‘sceptre’,79 or as a
‘spear’.80 In CHIC, the signs 062, 063 and 065 appear under the heading ‘geometric signs’; and 050 as ‘arms’.81 Jasink labelled them neutrally as variations of ‘dots (cup sinking) with outgoing elements’, ‘pin with a dot in the middle’
(=063) and a ‘pin (nail/peg)’ (=062).82
Spinning was a frequent theme in ancient art and mythol-ogy, especially in classical antiquity.83 Female spinners are predominantly shown standing, while the technical hand gestures range from schematic depictions to very detailed ones, for example in Greek vase painting. In the Bronze Age, spinning scenes are found in Egyptian wall-paintings and tomb models and, again, in Mesopotamian glyptic.
Although Egyptian techniques of spinning were different from the drop-spindle technique,84 a wall-painting from the Tomb of Khnumhotep, Beni Hassan, shows a possible analogy to the specific shape of a cop which resembles a spearhead pointing downwards.85 In the Mesopotamian glyp-tic, spinners (usually female) are shown striding, as well as sitting, in the scenes that Catherine Breniquet identifies as spinning (Fig. 2.6.i). The dominant technical gesture is to have two hands on a spindle, though the spindle may also be held with only one hand.86
3) Dyed textiles and dyeing: ‘Murex shell’ motif