The unwound yarn Birth and Development of Textile Tools Between Levant and Egypt

Flax is a fibre extracted from Linum usitatissimum and it consists of 70% cellulose. Common flax belongs to the family Linaceae and descends from the Linum bienne (Linum angustifolium) plant (Baines 1989, 13-14), which grows naturally in coastal areas of the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean; it grows in the Mesopotamian area only in winter. It is a perennial plant, standing between 1.0 to 1.30 metres tall on a slender stem; it branches out at the topmost section of its stem and has lanceolate leaves and blue flowers. Several other species in the genus Linum are similar in appearance to L. usitatissimum, including some that have similar blue flowers, and others with pink, white or yellow flowers. Egyptian Old Kingdom tomb scenes generally depict flax fields covered with blue blossoms (Kemp, Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001, 25). Flax fibres are extracted from the bast beneath the surface of the stem of the flax plant. They run from the root of the plant to the tip of its stem. An outer bark protects the bast, inside which the fibres occur in ‘bundles’ embedded within pectinous gums, waxes and non-cellulosic substances. Each stem contains between fifteen and thirty-five bundles (Baines 1989, 14), each containing between ten to forty individual fibres (Kemp, VogelsangEastwood 2001, 25). Under magnification fibres show regular horizontal rings where their cells overlap. Flax fibres possess a natural ‘S’ twist, due to the positioning of microfibrils inside each fibre (Breniquet 2008, 83). Flax was a highly exploited crop in antiquity due to its versatility: its seeds are edible and also provide oil suitable for consumption and lighting fuel), while the bast fibres were used for basketry and matting.1 The extraction of flax fibres for spinning and weaving is a complex multiplestep process. It is not possible to obtain from one plant both seeds and


Wood Identification
Taxonomic identification of the wood from which ancient Egyptian spindles and spindle whorls are composed has been achieved, so far, for a small number of objects deriving from the sites of Kahun and Tell el-Amarna, with quite unexpected results. Samples of seventeen spindle whorls and a heddle jack from Middle Kingdom Kahun have been analysed as well as one spindle whorl dating to the New Kingdom from Thebes. Fourteen of these objects were produced using a non-local wood of the Pinaceae family, probably the Abies genus, but it has not been possible to identify the precise species, due to the absence of specific anatomical features within the wood sample. The Abies species is not native to Egypt, normally localised to central European forests, but also occurring in Greece and Turkey.
Its fine texture, straight grain and a low tendency towards warping make this wood suitable for several carpentry and building purposes; it is quite remarkable that this kind of wood has been chosen for the production of small spindle whorls (Cartwright et al. 1998, 96). Four other samples have been recognised as Ficus sycomorus, 1 of the Moraceae family, a local wood commonly used in Ancient Egypt, for example in the manufacture of coffins. It is a light and soft timber, but it does not bear pressure, crushing or bending (Cartwright et al. 1998, 96). These characteristics do not prohibit its use for the making of spinning tools, especially spindle whorls, which are not subjected to excessive stress. For these reasons (i.e. lightness, local availability and probably cost-effectiveness), this wood would be a more obvious choice for spindle whorls but the archaeological data from Kahun are against this assumption.
Spindle whorls from Tell el-Amarna were analysed by Rainer Gerisch in 2000 (Kemp, Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001, 267-8). In almost all of the 37 examined samples, the orientation of the wood elements follows the crosssection of the spindle whorls, except in one case, which has been cut in a longitudinal direction from the structure of the wood. Most of the spindle whorls show evidence of growth rings typical of coniferous wood and, more specifically, the wide bands of fibres alternating with parenchyma bands, which are characteristic of Ficus sycomorus wood. The majority of the samples examined were obtained from sycomore wood but several

Spinazzi-Lucchesi
The Unwound Yarn were made of cedar wood (Cedrus libani). In all, 17 spindle whorls are recognised as being made of sycomore, 9 are made of cedar and the exact identity of 6 remain unknown, but these are known to belong to the class Dicotyledonis (to which Ficus Sycomorus belongs as well as a thousand other species) (Kemp, Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001, tab. 8.2).
Prof. Mauro Rottoli examined on two occasions some of the spinning tools, which are stored at the Museo Egizio and took some samples in order to determine the wood composition, the results of which are shown in Table 2. The majority of the museum objects were covered by a thick layer of encrustation or by a patina, which has prevented their investigation. On some items, however, the wood was completely exposed and some remarks have been possible. In almost all the cases under examination, the wood has been cut following the cross section, as was the case of the Amarna spindle whorls. In ten examples, the whorl surface was completely exposed and growth rings were easily visible: most of these whorls were cut from the central portion of a branch or a small trunk (e.g. S. 07526/012, S. 07526/060), from half of a log (e.g. S. 07526/047, S. 07527/03) and in four examples from a trunk of larger dimensions (S. 07526/009, S. 07526/109, S. 07526/090, 07526/095). Only two items were obtained by cutting the wood in a longitudinal direction (S. 07526/007, S. 07528/038). On one object traces left from its manufacture were very clear because it was not polished.
Most of the spindle whorls have been examined by eye and seem to have the same anatomical characteristics: the cross section exhibits inter-vessel pits very often with coalescent apertures, which are disposed in a radial pattern (e.g. S. 07526/009, S. 07526/097, S. 07526/100, S. 07526/103, S. 07528/025). It is highly probable that they were obtained from the same wood species as the whorl samples, i.e. Ficus sycomorus. Only two examples appear completely different from the others: S. 07528/044, which is quite heavy and of a dark colour, and S. 07528/109 which has been extracted from a sturdier wood.
It was not possible to arrive at a correct determination of spindle wood by eye and even observation by microscope occasionally left some doubt, due to the impossibility of observing a sufficiently wide cross-section. Four out of the six samples of spindles have proven to be cedar wood, one of the others was made of yew and one of a non-identified species of the class Dicotyledonis.
It is a very remarkable fact that in all the examples examined, from Kahun, Amarna and Deir el-Medina, local woods were used alongside foreign and consequently more expensive woods. Wooden spindles and spindle whorls have the advantage of being able to resist breakage through dropping better than other materials, especially pottery; as well, wood provides the opportunity to create large, but at the same time light, spindle whorls. However, a too-soft wood could easily warp, especially around its hole, and several wedges would then be required to attach it to the spindle, as has frequently been seen in the case of the Deir el-Medina materials. Spindles had to be strong enough to resist the constant friction with hands and tight of the spinner and the stress involved during the process of spinning that could lead to the breaking of the object. It is not surprising, therefore, that a more resistant wood would have been preferred, even if it was more expensive. The data obtained from Deir el-Medina clearly shows that the best wood was used to make spindle shafts and softer wood was employed for most of the spindle whorls. If this wood was manufactured into spindles and spindle whorls at the village (which seems more likely) or if they were acquired already fabricated from somewhere else is a very interesting question, which will hopefully find an answer by their comparison with other tools found at the Worker's Village. ??** * The identification of these two samples retains a slight degree of uncertainty. It is certainly from some type of conifer, but not all typical characteristics of cedar wood are clearly visible. It might be possible, although extremely unlikely, that it is fir (Abies sp.). ** Sample S.09978/5 belongs to a broad-leaf tree (angiosperm). The impossibility of observing a cross-cut section makes the identification very difficult even as regards the family classification.