Fig. 29a.—Illustration on a small lekythos of an Athenian girl at work on a tapestry loom, together with a full size tracing of the tapestry loom. British Museum. B.C. 500.
Fig. 29b.—Illustration of a Greek woman with a tapestry loom. From Stackelberg’sGraeber der Hellenen, pl. xxxiii.
The Greeks were, however, acquainted with the tapestry loom, for there exists in the British Museum a small lekythos with anillustration,Fig. 29a, of such an article resting on the knees of a lady weaver.[F]
Fig. 30.—Greek woman at work on a loom. From C. RobertἘφ ἀρχ1892, pl. xiii., p. 247. It is not possible to say from this illustration whether this is a warp weighted loom or not.
Fig. 31.—Penelope at her loom. Illustration on an Athenian skyphos found in anEtruscantomb at Chiusi, and at present in the museum there. The illustration is taken fromMonumenti d. Inst. Archeologico, IX., pl. xlii.
It has been described by Mr. H. B. Walters inJour. Hellenic Studies, XXXI., 1911, p. 15, who says: “In front of her,Fig. 29a, is a white wool basket (Kalathos) and on her lap is a frame somewhat in the form of a lyre, being formed by two upright pieces with knobs at the top, diverging slightly towards the top, across between which are stretched two threads at the top and two at the bottom, seven vertical threads being also visible. Her hands are placed on the threads, which she is engaged in manipulating. This object can only be intended for a hand loom, though there is apparently no evidence for theuseof such objects in ancient times or among Oriental races either in the past or the present day. The only other parallel to the representation on this vase is one published by Stackelberg,Fig. 29b, where a woman holds a similar frame and is similarly occupied with her hands. The writers of the articlesStickenin Baumeister andPhrygium Opusin Daremberg and Saglio, misled by the likeness of the object to the modern crewel-frame, interpret the process as embroidery. But this kind of work implies cloth or other textile substance already woven, on which patterns are worked in, whereas in both vase paintings the textile is obviously in course of construction.” He is right in so far as he goes, but both representations are those oftapestrylooms which fact is indicated by the warp threads in both cases, and by the design marked on the warp threads ofFig. 29b—a method of preparing their work in use to this day by tapestry weavers. Some authorities consider that tapestry weaving is more closely related to mat making than to true weaving. In other words, I take it tapestry is an early stage in the development of weaving. From this we get some idea as to how far the Greeks had progressed in the textile arts.
As pointed out by MM. Daremberg and Saglio,Dic. des Antiquités Grecques et Romainespt. 46, p. 164, “illustrations of Greek or Roman methods of weaving are very rare, they are much reduced and in so far as the art is concerned purely diagrammatic.” On the other hand if there are numerous references in the texts of classic authors, these references seem rather to obscure than elucidate the method of working. However, there are three illustrations—the Penelope loom,Fig. 31, and two Boeotian looms, one of which is illustrated inFig. 15—quite sufficient to explain the principle of the upright loom as used with warp weights by the Greeks, and the discovery of numerous articles, considered to be the warp weights, confirm the illustration.
The principle is the same throughout, viz.: the looms are vertical, there is a warp beam on top, there are two cross rods one of which is a laze rod andpossiblythe other is a heddle; and the warp threads are all kept taut by means of attached weights. On one of the Boeotian looms a bobbin or spool is shown. Along the top of Penelope’s loom there are indications of nine pegs, on six of which balls of coloured thread have been placed, evidently for working out the designs, very much the same as shown on the rug loom in Bankfield Museum already referred to. The warp weights on this Athenian illustration are triangular in shape, and perhaps resemble the pyramidic weights found in Egypt and attributed to Roman times. Assuming these pyramids are Roman warp weights it would appear that both Greeks and Romans had vertical looms on which the warp threads were kept taut by means of weights. In one of the few clearly expressed technical classical references, Seneca speaks of the warp threads stretched by hanging weights.
In the above classical illustrations which are after all only rough diagrams, the warp weights appear to hang from asinglethread only, but this can not have been correct. The warp threads must have been bunched, because a single suspended thread with a tension weight immediately begins to unravel, and so loses the advantage of its having been spun, as any one can ascertain for oneself. As regards the same point on the Lake Dwellers looms, Cohausen was the first to surmise that the warp threads were bunched to receive the weight, and Messikommer proved it by practical experiment.[G]
As can be surmised with this class of loom the weaving begins at thetop, workingdownwards, and the beating-in of the weft isupwards—the exact opposite to the method adopted with other looms—for the pendant warp ends, although weighted to keep them taut, do not appear to have been further fixed in position, so that to commence weaving at the lower end made the operation so extremely difficult as to be almost impossible.
Fig. 32.—Illustration of a Scandinavian warp weighted loom in the Copenhagen Museum. The illustration is taken from Montelius’Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times, translated by the Rev. F. H. Woods, London, Macmillan & Co., 1888, p. 160.
[In the illustration of this loom published by the Trustees of the British Museum, in theirGuide to the Antiquities of the Early Iron Age, London, 1905, p. 139, the shape of the warp weights has been altered to suit the shape of such weights in the British Museum collections.]
Fig. 33.—Icelandic Loom after Olafsson.
a aBeam on which the warp is fixed.b bWeights to make the warp taut.c cBrackets which support the beam and on which it can be revolved by means of the spokeewhen the warp has to be lengthened, on account of the weftfworking downwards and so shortening the finished portion of the woven cloth.gA sharp bone or tough piece of wood to beat the weft into proper position.hThe wound up weft which is pushed through the warp with the fingers.i iThe unbeamed warp.k kThe heddles or shed openers.l lThe supports on which the heddles rest when the “pick” is made [i.e., the pushing the weft through].mThe beater-in.nandoLaze rods.qThetemplatefor regulating the width of the cloth.r rands sBeam on to which the loom is fixed.
Some of the descriptions are not as clear as could be wished. It is probable thatgis a preliminary tom. N. Annandale mentions that he obtained in the Faroes a beater-in made of a whale’s jaw or rib; while in Iceland he saw some of the perforated stones to which the warp threads were attached (The Faroes and Iceland, Oxford, 1905, pp. 195-6).
The Scandinavian form of the “Greek” loom from the FaroesFig. 32, is made known to us through the article itself in the Copenhagen Museum, illustrated by Montelius,Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times, Lond. 1888, p. 160, and through the very clear illustration and description given us by Olafsson in hisOeconomische Reise durch Island, 1787, translated from the Danish edition of 1780. The loom figured by Olafsson,Fig. 33, shows an advance on that of Montelius, in being provided with heddles.[H]Upright looms with a lower beam instead of with warp weights and furnishedwith heddles, are not uncommon. There are the well known Indian and Persian rug looms, and Du Chaillu figures one in hisJourney to Ashango Land, London, 1867, plate facing p. 291. Randall-Maciver and Wilkin illustrate a vertical loom in use among the Kabyles,Libyan Notes, London, 1901, Pl. IX., and although the details of the illustration are not clear the text indicates the existence of one heddle: “The warp is decussated by means of a horizontal rod and leashes.” Dr. Washington Mathews figures several Navajo looms with heddles,Third Ann. Rep. Bureau of Ethnology, p. 291; Ancient Peruvians also used them, as shown by Dr. Max Schmidt,Baessler Archiv, I. pt. 1, and so on practicallyad. lib.But to work an upright warp-weighted loom with heddles is attended with great practical inconvenience, and this difficulty has, no doubt, been one of the chief causes of the complete discardance of this class of loom.
In spite of the evidence in favour of the existence of warp weighted looms, the Director of the Hermannstadt Museum, Dr. v. Kimakovicz-Winnicki, sees fit to deny their existence. He found that in some parts of Transylvania the peasants use wooden pyramids (seeFig. 18) similar to the Roman warp weights for winding the thread from the spindle on to the shuttle. For this purpose sockets are bored into the thin or top end of two pyramids, which are placed just so far apart that a spindle can rest horizontally with one end in the socket of one pyramid, and the other end of the spindle in the socket of the other pyramid, and the thread in being wound off on to the shuttle causes the spindle to revolve in the sockets. From this he argues that what we have hitherto taken to be warp weights are not warp weights at all (Spinn- u. Webewerkzeuge, Wuerzburg, 1911), and having denied these articles to be warp weights he gets over the difficulty presented by the illustration of Penelope at her loom, by attempting to prove that what we take to be a loom is no loom at all but aflechtrahm,i.e.plaiting frame! He then attempts to pull to pieces the idea that the Scandinavian loom in the Copenhagen Museum is a loom and condemns it as unworkable. There can be no doubt about his meaning as he defines his terms. The principle of weaving (Weben) he describes “as the absorption of two groups of parallel material elements (warp and weft) at right angles to each other, and the principle of plaiting (Flechten) as the absorption by itself in one plane of one group only of material element, (warp)” and he gives diagrammatic illustrations showing clearly what he means (op. cit.p. 31).[I]Judging from his remarks one must conclude he has not seen a primitive loom of any sort, and were it not for the official position he holds, his remarks would not need answering.
It has, I believe, been suggested more than once that some of the perforated stones, pieces of burnt clay, pieces of chalk and like objects may be and are net-sinkers, and there is some justification for Dr. Kimakovicz-Winnicki’s statement that the pyramidic forms are not warp weights; but it does not follow that all the perforated articles are either spindle-holders or net-sinkers, yet that is what his subsequent statements lead one to infer. It is, however, difficult to prove that these perforated articles are warp weights.
Fig. 34.—Side view and section of chalk warp weight found at Great Driffield. Of three of the weights the following dimensions were taken:
Hull Museum.
Fig. 35.—“Chalk weight, 6" × 4" × 2" (15·2 cm. × 10·2 × 5·1), similar to those found in pits, at Mount Caburn and Cissbury near Worthing, Sussex. Found with eighteen more in thefillingof pit 7, Winkelbury Hill.”Excavations in Winkelbury Camp, by Lieut.-Gen. Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranbourne Chase, Vol. II., 1888). As Pitt-Rivers also found at Winkelbury the fragment of a comb and a chalk spindlewhorl, which are textile tools, we may safely presume these fashioned pieces of chalk are warp weights.
In 1875 several flat irregular oblong perforated pieces of soft chalk were found in enlarging the cattle market in Great Driffield, Yorkshire; they were found in a hole about three feet deep with Anglo-Saxon potsherds, animal remains, and bits of iron. They can now be seen in the Mortimer Collection in the Hull Museum. They consist of pieces of chalk, similar to those which drop annually in thousands upon thousands down the cliffs from the boulder clay between Bridlington and Flamborough. On some a shoulder has been cut,Fig. 34, most have one perforation, but in a few specimens, where the thin portion above the hole has been broken off, a second hole has been made. None of them can stand unsupported. Owing to the soluble nature of the chalk they could not have been used as net-sinkers in the sea (about nine miles off) for they would quickly dissolve in salt water, and the same holds good in regard to fresh water, although in a lesser degree. But I do not think they were used even infresh water as net-sinkers, for it was a characteristic of primitive peoples, with whom time was of no account, to do their work thoroughly—what they made was intended to last, and chalk net-sinkers would not have lasted. That these were found in a limited quantity, I believe about seventeen in number, tends to show that they are warp weights, for only a few are required for every loom, in spite of the considerable number shown in the non-technical illustration of Penelope’s loom. Not being able to find any other use for these pieces of chalk, and judging that they are suitable for the purpose, I should say they are warp weights. In this case the weaver has made the most of what nature has given him; in other parts of England he has had to fashion the weight out of the rough chalk,Fig. 35.
In the Museum at Devizes there are several hard pieces of perforated and fashioned chalk which offer more conclusive evidence. Of these Mrs. M. E. Cunnington, the Curator, writes me: “All the weights here have holes bored right through. Two large ones stand easily on the floor. Others are more irregular in form and will not stand upright. This latter type is, as far as I am aware, the more usual in this part of the country. They arecommonlycut out of the hard chalk, and weigh about 3 or 4 lbs. (1·5-2 Kilos). We think these weights are loom weights because we find them with Romano-British remains, as at Westbury, and late Celtic remains on our chalk uplands, far from water where fishing could have been carried on. With the same remains we find weaving combs, numerous spindle whorls and other tools of bone that were also probably used in weaving operations.” The Westbury, in Wiltshire, referred to, is some thirty miles in a straight line from the mouth of the Severn, and about forty miles from the English Channel. These pieces of chalk cannot therefore have been used as net-sinkers, leaving out of consideration their composition; they were found with weaving tools and they fit the position. So far the ingenuity of our ablestarchæologistsat home and abroad has not succeeded in ascribing the use of these objects to anything else than net-sinking or warp tension. The adaptability of the articles for use as warp weights, the small groups in which they are found, the discovery of weaving implements in the closest proximity, our knowledge of the Greek representations of warp-weighted looms, the Olafsson illustration, and the loom in the Copenhagen Museum all tend to prove that these articles are really warp weights.
As regards the practical possibility orimpossibilityof working a “Greek” loom, I had a simple frame made in the Museum and showed Mr. J. Smith, a mill “Overlooker” at Messrs. Wayman and Sons, Ld., Halifax, the illustration in Montelius’ book already referred to, and asked him to weave me a small piece of cloth on it. In the course of a few hours he did the warping, beaming and weaving, making the pick with his fingers and using a ball of weft thread instead of a spool or shuttle. The result is shown in the accompanying illustration,Fig. 36, conclusively proving that weaving on such a frame is quitefeasible, and practically proving that Olafsson’s and the Copenhagen warp weighted looms are properly constructed workable looms.
Fig. 36.—A warp weighted loom made at Bankfield Museum, to show the possibility of weaving by this method. There is no heddle nor shuttle used. The weaver made the “shed” and pushed the weft through with his fingers. He naturally workeddownwards.
Fig. 37.—Diagram to show how the warp is kept taut on a Syrian loom.
Finally, it may not be out of place here to point out that there are other looms, besides the Greek and Scandinavian, on which the warp is made taut by means of warp weights. The Rev. Dr.HarveyPorter, of the American College, Beyrout, Syria, writing about the year 1901, thus describes the common loom of the country. He says: “Two upright posts are fixed in the ground, which hold the roller to which the threads of the warp are fastened, and upon which the cloth is wound as it is woven. The threads of the warp are carried upward towards the ceiling at the other end of the room, and pass over rollers, and are gathered in hanks and weighted to keep them taut (Dic. of the Bible, Edinburgh, 1902, IV., p. 901).” He has kindly sent me anillustration of this loom, but unfortunately the weights are not clearly shown, and the same is the case with an illustration of a loom from Cyprus.[J]The diagram,Fig. 37, shows the principle. In a Shan loom illustrated by Mrs. Leslie Milne, inThe Shans at Home, London, 1910, p. 120, the warp makes a somewhat similar detour over the head of the weaver, it is, however, not weighted but tied to a beam. The point to be observed is that these warp-weighted looms are horizontal and not perpendicular, and also that the weaving is the reverse of that on the Greek loom but similar to that on our horizontal looms, so that the present Syrian and Cyprian looms have nothing in common with the old Greek loom.
Fig. 38.—Hand of Penelope clutching her shuttle. From a corner of a piece of sculpture discovered by O. Kern and described by C. Robert, (The Feet Washing of Odysseus, fifth Century B.C.,Mitt. Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Inst., Athens, XXV., 1900, pp. 332-3). The author considers Penelope to be in the act of unravelling what she has woven: “We see her holding the spool with her right hand, while the left hand, half closed, is raised to about shoulder high, and the fingers, if I read the traces correctly, are posed as though she held a thread.”
The Greeks evidently used a spool in weaving, that is a piece of stick round which was wound the thread that became the weft, as is shown in the hand of Penelope,Fig. 38, and in Kirke’s loom,Fig. 15.
FOOTNOTES:[E]I find frequent references, by various writers, to an upright loom mentioned by E. H. Palmer as used by a Bedawin woman near Jebel Musa, but on looking up his description (The Desert of the Exodus, I. p. 125), I find it to be so indifferent as to be quite useless for purposes of comparison.[F]My attention to this was kindly drawn by Mr. F. N. Pryce, Assistant in the Dept. of Greek and Roman Antiquities.[G]The existence of warp weighted looms amongst the prehistoric Lake Dwellers of Switzerland was first surmised by Pauer (Keller’s Lake Dwellings) from the discovery of the weights, and was made practically certain by Messikommer and Jentsch.[H]Comparing the loom Olafsson saw with the description in the Nial Saga, he concludes this sort of loom was in use A.D. 1014, in the North of Scotland.[I]He criticises the detail of the illustration of Penelope’s loom. It must be remembered this illustration is not a technical drawing, but an artist’s representation where correctness of detail cannot be expected. In his own drawing of the Egyptian horizontal loom many of the warp threads are shown over instead of under the laze rods, and yet this is supposed to be a correct technical drawing![J]Since writing Dr. Porter has sent me photograph of another sort of loom in which weights are used as counter balances to keep the heddles raised. The subject requires further elucidation.
[E]I find frequent references, by various writers, to an upright loom mentioned by E. H. Palmer as used by a Bedawin woman near Jebel Musa, but on looking up his description (The Desert of the Exodus, I. p. 125), I find it to be so indifferent as to be quite useless for purposes of comparison.
[E]I find frequent references, by various writers, to an upright loom mentioned by E. H. Palmer as used by a Bedawin woman near Jebel Musa, but on looking up his description (The Desert of the Exodus, I. p. 125), I find it to be so indifferent as to be quite useless for purposes of comparison.
[F]My attention to this was kindly drawn by Mr. F. N. Pryce, Assistant in the Dept. of Greek and Roman Antiquities.
[F]My attention to this was kindly drawn by Mr. F. N. Pryce, Assistant in the Dept. of Greek and Roman Antiquities.
[G]The existence of warp weighted looms amongst the prehistoric Lake Dwellers of Switzerland was first surmised by Pauer (Keller’s Lake Dwellings) from the discovery of the weights, and was made practically certain by Messikommer and Jentsch.
[G]The existence of warp weighted looms amongst the prehistoric Lake Dwellers of Switzerland was first surmised by Pauer (Keller’s Lake Dwellings) from the discovery of the weights, and was made practically certain by Messikommer and Jentsch.
[H]Comparing the loom Olafsson saw with the description in the Nial Saga, he concludes this sort of loom was in use A.D. 1014, in the North of Scotland.
[H]Comparing the loom Olafsson saw with the description in the Nial Saga, he concludes this sort of loom was in use A.D. 1014, in the North of Scotland.
[I]He criticises the detail of the illustration of Penelope’s loom. It must be remembered this illustration is not a technical drawing, but an artist’s representation where correctness of detail cannot be expected. In his own drawing of the Egyptian horizontal loom many of the warp threads are shown over instead of under the laze rods, and yet this is supposed to be a correct technical drawing!
[I]He criticises the detail of the illustration of Penelope’s loom. It must be remembered this illustration is not a technical drawing, but an artist’s representation where correctness of detail cannot be expected. In his own drawing of the Egyptian horizontal loom many of the warp threads are shown over instead of under the laze rods, and yet this is supposed to be a correct technical drawing!
[J]Since writing Dr. Porter has sent me photograph of another sort of loom in which weights are used as counter balances to keep the heddles raised. The subject requires further elucidation.
[J]Since writing Dr. Porter has sent me photograph of another sort of loom in which weights are used as counter balances to keep the heddles raised. The subject requires further elucidation.
From the foregoing we gather that the Ancient Egyptians had two forms of looms. The earlier or horizontal form, date about B.C. 2000, has in a modified way survived to the present day in desert Egypt and is also found in Seistan. It required a large area of ground for working and probably in earlier times when there was plenty of space this did not much matter. But as the population inthe towns increased and with the increase of civilisation and its concomitant increased demand for cloth, probably out of proportion to the increase of population, space would be begrudged and this may have caused the invention or the introduction of the vertical form of loom which we find in use some 500 years later. In Egypt therefore the horizontal loom preceded the vertical loom but it does not necessarily follow that such was the case elsewhere. In so far as we can gather from the small amount of information at our disposal, in the earlier days the women were the weavers, and later on with the introduction of the upright loom the men were the weavers with an occasional female weaver. In the Egyptian Desert and in Seistan in the present day with horizontal looms the weavers appear to be males, but among the nomads of Persia who likewise use horizontal looms the weavers are females. In the use of either form of loom the Egyptian weavers beat the weft downwards or towards themselves andnotupwards or away from themselves. They had the heddle in one of its earliest forms and had consequently made the first great step in the evolution of the loom as we now know it. In the beginning they made no selvedges so that for every pick a separate length of weft thread was used. The adoption of the selvedge was another improvement and until it was introduced the weft would no doubt have been put through with the fingers, later on a spool being used. It is possible also that in very late times the weavers’ comb was introduced. It is safe to say that the Egyptians had no knowledge of the reed. Both forms of looms were simple, without harness or other complicated pieces of mechanism. The Egyptians accomplished fairly good work and judging these people from their looms alone we must conclude they were a progressive race.
The Greek form of loom was an upright one on which the warp threads were kept taut by means of weights and similar to the form which existed in Central and Northern Europe (in the latter until recent times) but of which so far there is no trace to the east, or south, or west. The Greek loom may have been furnished with a heddle but the drawings are not clear on this point. A spool was used. The weavers were women and the weft was beaten upwards or away from the weaver. It was not a form of loom so capable of improvement as the Egyptian forms and there appears to be no connection between the forms used on either side of the Mediterranean. The Greek tapestry loom could hardly have been more primitive. In respect to the forms of looms used by the two peoples the Egyptians were considerably in advance of the Greeks.
FINIS.
Transcriber's NoteA brief Table of Contents has been added for ease of navigation.Punctuation errors have been repaired.The author uses some archaic and alternative spelling, for example, nooze for noose, gramms for grammes. These have been retained as printed.The original text contained an erratum, as follows:Erratum:—Page39, Line 5, for Dr. Henry Porter,readDr. Harvey Porter.The error has been fixed in this e-text.The following amendments have been made:Page8—Calliaud amended to Cailliaud—"... as well as those of Cailliaud and Rosellini show that ..."Page11—Tehuti-hotep amended to Tehuti-hetep—"... from the tomb of Tehuti-hetepcirca1938-1849 B.C., ..."Page18—netsinker amended to net-sinker—"... the material is not suitable for a net-sinker, ..."Page 19,Fig. 21caption—cm. amended to in.—"... Breadth 6·5 cm. (111/32in.)."Page23—pecularity amended to peculiarity—"When I noticed the peculiarity first, ..."Page23—analagous amended to analogous—"We know how closely analogous to ‘darning’ was ..."Page27—safron amended to saffron—"2. This is a coarser fabric, has been dyed with saffron, ..."Page29—Millemetres amended to Millimetres—"Micro Measurements of Ten Fibres in Millimetres."Page 32,Fig. 31caption—Etrusian amended to Etruscan—"... an Athenian skyphos found in an Etruscan tomb ..."Page32—repeated instance of use deleted—"... there is apparently no evidence for the use of such objects ..."Page 35,Fig. 33caption—templete amended to template—"The template for regulating the width of the cloth."Page 37,Fig. 35caption—whorle amended to whorl—"... the fragment of a comb and a chalk spindle whorl, ..."Page38—commonally amended to commonly—"They are commonly cut out of the hard chalk, ..."Page38—archaeologists amended to archæologists—"... the ingenuity of our ablest archæologists at home and abroad ..."Page38—impossibilty amended to impossibility—"As regards the practical possibility or impossibility ..."The Figures have been moved, where necessary, so that they are not in the middle of a paragraph. Omitted page numbers occur where Figures have been moved.
Transcriber's Note
A brief Table of Contents has been added for ease of navigation.
Punctuation errors have been repaired.
The author uses some archaic and alternative spelling, for example, nooze for noose, gramms for grammes. These have been retained as printed.
The original text contained an erratum, as follows:
Erratum:—Page39, Line 5, for Dr. Henry Porter,readDr. Harvey Porter.
Erratum:—Page39, Line 5, for Dr. Henry Porter,readDr. Harvey Porter.
The error has been fixed in this e-text.
The following amendments have been made:
Page8—Calliaud amended to Cailliaud—"... as well as those of Cailliaud and Rosellini show that ..."Page11—Tehuti-hotep amended to Tehuti-hetep—"... from the tomb of Tehuti-hetepcirca1938-1849 B.C., ..."Page18—netsinker amended to net-sinker—"... the material is not suitable for a net-sinker, ..."Page 19,Fig. 21caption—cm. amended to in.—"... Breadth 6·5 cm. (111/32in.)."Page23—pecularity amended to peculiarity—"When I noticed the peculiarity first, ..."Page23—analagous amended to analogous—"We know how closely analogous to ‘darning’ was ..."Page27—safron amended to saffron—"2. This is a coarser fabric, has been dyed with saffron, ..."Page29—Millemetres amended to Millimetres—"Micro Measurements of Ten Fibres in Millimetres."Page 32,Fig. 31caption—Etrusian amended to Etruscan—"... an Athenian skyphos found in an Etruscan tomb ..."Page32—repeated instance of use deleted—"... there is apparently no evidence for the use of such objects ..."Page 35,Fig. 33caption—templete amended to template—"The template for regulating the width of the cloth."Page 37,Fig. 35caption—whorle amended to whorl—"... the fragment of a comb and a chalk spindle whorl, ..."Page38—commonally amended to commonly—"They are commonly cut out of the hard chalk, ..."Page38—archaeologists amended to archæologists—"... the ingenuity of our ablest archæologists at home and abroad ..."Page38—impossibilty amended to impossibility—"As regards the practical possibility or impossibility ..."
Page8—Calliaud amended to Cailliaud—"... as well as those of Cailliaud and Rosellini show that ..."
Page11—Tehuti-hotep amended to Tehuti-hetep—"... from the tomb of Tehuti-hetepcirca1938-1849 B.C., ..."
Page18—netsinker amended to net-sinker—"... the material is not suitable for a net-sinker, ..."
Page 19,Fig. 21caption—cm. amended to in.—"... Breadth 6·5 cm. (111/32in.)."
Page23—pecularity amended to peculiarity—"When I noticed the peculiarity first, ..."
Page23—analagous amended to analogous—"We know how closely analogous to ‘darning’ was ..."
Page27—safron amended to saffron—"2. This is a coarser fabric, has been dyed with saffron, ..."
Page29—Millemetres amended to Millimetres—"Micro Measurements of Ten Fibres in Millimetres."
Page 32,Fig. 31caption—Etrusian amended to Etruscan—"... an Athenian skyphos found in an Etruscan tomb ..."
Page32—repeated instance of use deleted—"... there is apparently no evidence for the use of such objects ..."
Page 35,Fig. 33caption—templete amended to template—"The template for regulating the width of the cloth."
Page 37,Fig. 35caption—whorle amended to whorl—"... the fragment of a comb and a chalk spindle whorl, ..."
Page38—commonally amended to commonly—"They are commonly cut out of the hard chalk, ..."
Page38—archaeologists amended to archæologists—"... the ingenuity of our ablest archæologists at home and abroad ..."
Page38—impossibilty amended to impossibility—"As regards the practical possibility or impossibility ..."
The Figures have been moved, where necessary, so that they are not in the middle of a paragraph. Omitted page numbers occur where Figures have been moved.