Collections:

Description:

Textiles and Textile Production

Introduction by J.R. Green

Textiles are one of the greatest gaps in our knowledge of the material culture of the ancient world, and it is the more frustrating in the light of the high status accorded to fine and decorated cloth in antiquity. We have some hints of its appearance from Greek art, for example in the clothing of the gods and heroes on the François Vase of about 570 BC, the cloaks given to Ajax and Achilles by Exekias on his Vatican amphora, or the painted detail of the korai from the Athenian Acropolis (see especially the watercolours in H. Schrader, Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis, Frankfurt 1939). In more recent years there has of course been the discovery of cloth in the later fourth-century Royal Tombs at Vergina in ancient Macedonia (e.g. M. Andronikos, Vergina: the Royal Tombs and the Ancient City [Athens 1984] figs. 42, 167, 158) and those pieces give a good idea of the styles and techniques attainable at that period.

I. Jenkins, Greek and Roman Life (London: British Museum, 1986, 1990) 20-22 has an illustrated discussion of spinning and weaving. There is a depiction of wool-working, including weaving, on the lekythos by the Amasis Painter in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (31.11.10, much illustrated, e.g. S. Karouzou, The Amasis Painter [Oxford 1956] pll. 43 and 44, 1; D. von Bothmer, The Amasis Painter and his World [Malibu 1985] 185-187 no. 48; C. Bérard et al., A City of Images. Iconography and Society in Ancient Greece [Princeton 1989] 84 fig. 123), and a fine depiction on the name vase (red-figure skyphos) of the Penelope Painter in Chiusi (CVA [2] pl. 34, 4, pll. 35-36; M.R. Scherer, The Legends of Troy in Art and Literature [New York – London 1963] 168 fig. 142; J. Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Classical Period [London 1989] fig. 247). One may also note the amusing depictions of Kirke at the loom: J.-M. Moret, “Circé tisseuse sur les vases du Cabirion”, RevArch 1992, 227-266.

In the Greek world, most clothing was made at home from textiles produced in the home. This was a major preoccupation for the women of the house whether they themselves did the spinning and loom-work or supervised more junior members of the family or slaves to do it for them. Thus a vase-painter or sculptor seeking to depict a woman in her domestic context would show her spinning or at least with a wool-basket (kalathos) by her side. Competitive instincts with other families doubtless prompted pride in their work, as one may sense in the elaborate drapery given to Late Archaic korai, and one could imagine women wearing their best when participating in religious festivals and processions. It is significant of the status of cloth as well that it was regularly depicted as being carried in wedding processions on later Attic black-figure pottery. For the males, who were more often seen about town, clothing often constituted a social or political statement, as it has in more recent societies. A proper (i.e. ‘gentlemanly’), upper-class Athenian male wore heavy outer clothing in the form of the himation coming over the left shoulder and enclosing the left arm. His dress was in contrast with that of a workman (or a slave) who needed more freedom of action whether for legs or arms, or again from those involved in e.g. hunting or riding. A proper Athenian male was not to be seen hurrying or dashing about (e.g. J. Bremmer, “Walking, Standing, and Sitting in Ancient Greek Culture”, (in) J. Bremmer and H. Roodenburg (eds.), A Cultural History of Gesture from Antiquity to the Present Day [Oxford 1991] 15-35). At the same time, as Geddes has shown, the nature of the cloth worn could be used as a political statement (A.G. Geddes, “Rags and Riches: The Costume of Athenian Men in the Fifth Century”, CQ 37, 1987, 307-331). All these factors combined to make clothing a reflection of one’s oikos. Note also S.D. Bundrick, “The Fabric of the City. Imaging Textile Production in Classical Athens”, Hesperia 77, 2008, 283-334.

A start on these questions has been made in recent years although there is still some way to go. Among general treatments one may note D. Cardon and M. Feugère (eds), Archéologie des textiles des origines au Ve siècle. Actes du colloque de Lattes, octobre 1999 (Monographies Instrumentum 14, Montagnac 2000); L. Cleland, M. Harlow and Ll. Llewellyn-Jones (eds), The Clothed Body in the Ancient World (Oxford 2005); S. Blundell and Ll. Llewellyn-Jones (eds), Women's Dress in the Ancient Greek World (Swansea 2002); J.L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante (eds), The World of Roman Costume (Madison, Wisconsin, 1994, 2001); A.T. Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion (Stroud 2002); F. Borca, Luoghi, corpi, costumi. Determinismo ambientale ed etnografia antica (Rome 2003); D. Candilio (ed.), Moda, costume e bellezza nella Roma antica (Milan 2004); M.-L. Nosch and C. Gilles (eds), Ancient Textiles: Production, Craft and Society. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19-23, 2003 (Oxford 2005); K. Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman: Self-Presentation and Society (London 2008); J. Edmondson and A. Keith (eds), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture (Toronto 2008). Useful particular studies include J.P. Wild, “Textiles”, in: D. Strong and D. Brown (eds), Roman Crafts (London 1976) 167-177, and the same author’s “Textile Production” in: J.P. Oleson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World (Oxford 2008) 465-482 (mostly concerned with Roman); J. d’A. Boissonneault, “Les textiles dans l’Antiquité classique”, in: M.-O. Jentel and G. Deschênes-Wagner (eds), Tranquillitas. Mélanges en l’honneur de Tran tam Tinh (Quebec 1994) 83-90; M. Bieber, “Charakter und Unterschiede der griechischen und römischen Kleidung”, AA 1973, 425-447; E.B. Harrison, “The Dress of the Archaic Greek Korai”, in: D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), New Perspectives in Early Greek Art (Studies in the History of Art, 32, Washington DC 1991) 217-223; B. Schmaltz, “Peplos und Chiton - Frühe griechische Tracht und ihre Darstellungskonventionen”, JdI 113, 1998, 1-30; V. Sabetai, “Aspects of Nuptial and Genre Imagery in Fifth-Century Athens: Issues of Interpretation and Methodology”, in: J.H. Oakley, W.D.E. Coulson, and O. Palagia, Athenian Potters and Painters: The Conference Proceedings (Oxford 1997) 319-335; J.K. Darling, “Form and Ideology: Rethinking Greek Drapery”, Hephaistos 16-17, 1998-99, 47-69; A. Filges, “Himationträger, Palliaten und Togaten. Der männliche Mantel-Normaltypus und seine regionalen Varianten in Rundplastik und Relief”, in: T. Mattern (ed.), Munus. Festschrift für Hans Wiegartz (Münster 2000) 95-109; C. Alfaro Asíns and L. Karali (eds), Purpureae Vestes, II. Vestidos, textiles y tintes. Estudios sobre la producción de bienes de consumo en la antiguëdad. Actas del II symposium internacional sobre textiles y tintes del Mediterráneo en el mundo antiguo (Atenas, 24 al 26 de noviembre, 2005) (Valencia 2008).

On later periods, note M. Harlow, “The Impossible Art of Dressing to Please: Jerome and the Rhetoric of Dress”, in: L. Lavan, E. Swift and T. Putzeys (eds), Objects in Context, Objects in Use. Material Spatiality in Late Antiquity (Leiden 2007) 531ff., and M. Parani, “Defining Personal Space: Dress and Accessories in Late Antiquity”, ib. 497ff.

On the use of myths and metaphors of weaving, cloths and clothing in the ancient world, see J. Scheid and J. Svenbro, The Craft of Zeus: Myths of Weaving and Fabric (Cambridge, Mass., 1996).

Wool has a much less important place now in our society, as artificial fabrics have improved and we have become more accepting of them (not to mention the earlier impact of cotton). From a long-term perspective one may note M.L. Ryder, Sheep and Man (London 2007); he examines man’s association with the sheep from Prehistoric times to the present, finally asking if it has come to the end of the road.