Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Christianity and Monasticism in the Fayoum OasisEssays from the 2004 International Symposium of the Saint Mark Foundation and the Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society in Honor of Martin Krause$

Gawdat Gabra

Print publication date: 2005

Print ISBN-13: 9789774248924

Published to Cairo Scholarship Online: September 2011

DOI: 10.5743/cairo/9789774248924.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CAIRO SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.cairo.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright The American University in Cairo Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CSO for personal use (for details see www.cairo.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 16 January 2019

A Textile Puzzle from Arsinoë

A Textile Puzzle from Arsinoë

Chapter:
(p.143) 13 A Textile Puzzle from Arsinoë
Source:
Christianity and Monasticism in the Fayoum Oasis
Author(s):

Gawdat Gabra

Publisher:
American University in Cairo Press
DOI:10.5743/cairo/9789774248924.003.0013

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter examines the textile and tunic fragments excavated by African explorer Georg Schweinfurth at the Arsinoë archaeological site in the Fayoum Oasis in Egypt. It explains that Schweinfurth described the textiles as the outfit of the deceased and the tunics can with certainty be located in the cemetery of Arsinoë according to Schweinfurth's map. The funeral context is proven by the fact that almost all the preserved pieces belong to the outer extremities of the garments while the areas of stomach and back are usually destroyed by liquids exuding from the corpse.

Keywords:   textiles, tunic fragments, Arsinoë, Georg Schweinfurth, Fayoum Oasis, Egypt, burial clothing

THE LOCALITY OF ARSINOË (modern Fayoum town) has been the capital of the Fayoum Oasis from the beginning of pharaonic times up to now. Despite its long tradition the ancient topos almost fell into oblivion for centuries. Few visitors took notice of it until 1877–18781 when discovery of thousands of papyri drew attention to it again. Consequently the Fayoum was regarded as a fertile archaeological region that promised to bring to light hitherto unknown antiquities. Scholars, dealers, and tourists followed.2

From a good yield of documentary papyri from Christian up to early Muslim times we are able to sketch Arsinoë's history, at least for that time (Timm 1984–92, vol.1: 1506–1525). In contrast, due to the fact that its ruins were used as a quarry for the Arab city on the one hand and that the debris of the ancient rubbish heaps served as fertilizer for agricultural purposes on the other, there is hardly any archaeological evidence of building activity from that period (Grossmann 2003: 125–126).

Single pieces of sculpture and pottery were attributed to the site, however in most cases these were not found in situ, but bought from natives (p.144) who found them or from antique dealers, which means that the real provenance remains doubtful.3

Thus another extensive group of artifacts, that is, the textiles which reliably can be attributed to that site, deserves all the more importance. From papyri we already know that the Fayoum Oasis played an important role in the textile industry from Greco-Roman to Fatimid times. This is also attested by the hundreds of fabrics that were gathered there.

It was at the beginning of the 1880s that Josef Karabacek, an Austrian orientalist, convinced Theodor Graf, a wealthy carpet dealer, that it would be promising to explore the funeral habits of the early Christian population. Thereupon Graf started an expedition to Fayoum town. After a few fruitless attempts, Graf 's Egyptian staff discovered the late Roman and Christian necropolis they had been searching for; subsequently it was clandestinely plundered.4 The bulk of the material—mostly textiles—from this ‘excavation,’ which may have been mixed with other pieces from the antiquities trade, was sold to the Museum für Angewandte Kunst (former K. K. Österreichisches Museum) at Vienna,5 while a minor part was acquired by the Kunstgewerbemuseum at Berlin.

From our present point of view, Graf 's proceeding must be evaluated as adventurous and of purely commercial interest. But it is also true that on the eve of the twentieth century he and Karabacek opened people's eyes to these extraordinary and so far hardly known artifacts of Egypt's post-pharaonic period, subsequently attracting other scholars. One of them was the famous botanist and African explorer Georg Schweinfurth (1836–1925). He visited the Fayoum region in 1884 and 1886, where he concentrated on the topography of the ancient site of Arsinoë (Schweinfurth 1886; 1887). Due to his preference for organic materials and inspired by Graf 's finds he searched for further textiles in the ruins of Arsinoë. His intention was purely scientific; his aim was to reconstruct the antique costume. During his stay he collected about 450 fabrics from Arsinoë's soil and donated the major part to the Ägyptisches Museum at Berlin in 1887. These textiles were transferred to the Altchristliche Abteilung of the Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum (today the Museum für Byzantinische Kunst) in 1923 and 1934–1935 (Volbach 1946: 39).6 A few pieces have been distributed to collections at Hamburg, Hildesheim, and Mainz.7 Schweinfurth clearly handed single pieces to interested colleagues or travelers, as is proved by one sample, now in the Musée Départemental des Antiquitités at Rouen, which will be referred to later.

(p.145) In a comprehensive report on his expedition to Arsinoë in 1886, Schweinfurth gives a general description of his textile finds (Schweinfurth 1887: 68–73).8 Thanks to Schweinfurth's careful working method, which was exemplary and progressive for its time, we get additional information on some of the textiles. When Schweinfurth unearthed the fabrics, he attached small labels to them that stated the name of the finder, the year of the find, and its provenance—e.g., “ruins” or “rubbish heaps” of Arsinoë. Each item got a handwritten number on the label during or shortly after the discovery. Occasionally, the exact find spot or a short comment on the textile was recorded on the label too.

That is the case with several tunic fragments that will be discussed below. In one case Schweinfurth has hinted to us of an “outfit” of a deceased. We come to know that fragment no. 147 belongs to a garment “decorated in the same manner.” The latter is a fragment of a linen tunic with a colorful floral pattern (here: tunic A, fig. 13.1). On the other hand, Schweinfurth has testified on the label attached to fragment no. 194 of a linen tunic with simple-patterned tapestry borders (here: tunic B, figure. 13.6) that it is the undergarment to no. 187 (= fragment of tunic A). From this it becomes clear that Schweinfurth was referring to an ensemble of two tunics.

In spite of his minute documentation it was not as easy as expected to find all the fragments originally belonging to the same cloth in the storerooms. Schweinfurth's collection at Berlin was repeatedly displaced by moves within the museum itself, or when it was evacuated during World War II. Therefore the fragments were sometimes separated and mixed up with textiles of other provenances, and some of the labels got lost. To rejoin these pieces some detective work was necessary. With the help of detailed technical analysis and—last but not least—by accident it was possible in the end to reassemble twelve pieces.

The fragments of tunic A are registered under acc. no. 9306 and nos. 187.a, 147, and 147.bis of the Schweinfurth collection. Schweinfurth collection nos. 194, 194.a, 194.c, 194.d, and 240 (two fragments) belong to tunic B. All are housed in the Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst at Berlin today. The fragment acc. no. 9306 has already been published in the catalog of Oskar Wulff and Wolfgang Fritz Volbach (Wulff and Volbach 1926: 120, pl. 110). For tunic A it was possible to identify one unregistered piece within the Berlin collection and two further fragments from museums at Hildesheim and Rouen which reliably can be traced back to Schweinfurth.

(p.146) Both tunics can with certainty be located in the cemetery of Arsinoë, the so-called “Kom ql-‘Edam” (‘hill of bones’) which according to Schweinfurth's map was situated to the west of the ruins of the ancient town (Schweinfurth 1887: pl. 2). The funeral context is proven by the fact that almost all the preserved pieces belong to the outer extremities of the garments, i.e. ends of sleeves, neck sections, and sides, while the areas of stomach and back are usually destroyed by liquids exuding from the corpse. In addition they show brown crusts and remnants of natron, skin, and blood, typical of textiles from burying grounds.

A Textile Puzzle from Arsinoë

Fig. 13.1. Shoulder parts of tunic A (Museum für Byzantinische Kunst inv. 9306 and Schweinfurth collection no. 187.a). © Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst Berlin.

A Textile Puzzle from Arsinoë

Fig. 13.2. Sleeve of tunic A (Museum für Byzantinische Kunst: Schweinfurth collection no. 147). © Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst Berlin.

The left and right shoulder parts (187.a and acc. no. 9306, fig. 13.1) and the lower ends of the sleeves (Schweinfurth collection no. 147 [fig. 13.2], 147bis, and unregistered fragment) of tunic A are preserved at Berlin. The largest fragment measures 47 centimeters in length (weft direction) and 20 centimeters in width (warp direction). The structure of the tunic's basic weave is coarse. It is decorated with triple stripes in irregular intervals.9 The shoulder parts are trimmed with relatively broad clavi10 (width 12–13 (p.147) centimeters in warp direction) which are sewn on to the basic weave with overcast seams and an additional row of simple stitches at the vertical axis.11 They are subdivided into three ribbons. In the middle ribbon heartshaped buds alternate with pairs of palmettes. At the shoulder part to the right of fig. 13.1, the row is interrupted by a four-leafed rosette, after which the motifs seem to change their direction. The upper part of this clavus shows traces of a repair of coarse stitches around a hole. The clavus at the left fragment consists of two pieces sewn together by simple seams (above on fig. 13.1). Above the seam the four-leafed rosette which occurs at the height of the shoulder on the counterpart can be seen. The motifs appear in green, red, and yellow on an undyed background. The smaller outer ribbons show undyed rosettes and candelabrum motifs on a red background. The weave of the clavi is of fine quality. They were sewn on to the tunic before the wedge-shaped incisions at the peak of the shoulders had been made.

Remnants of a neck-braid (width 3.5 centimeters in weft direction) are preserved at both shoulder fragments.12 The braid originally surrounded the circular cutout neck opening and was regularly trimmed to make the bend, taking into account the wedges at the shoulders. The oblique edges of the braid and the edge of the basic weave around the neck opening are hemmed. The braid overlaps the clavi and shows a tapestry pattern of two ribbons with either ‘m’-shaped or four-leafed motifs of a yellowish, reddish, or dark red color on a black background.

From one of the sleeve ends only five broken-off pieces remain, while the other sleeve is in better condition (fig. 13.2). Hence, the construction details can be examined. The lower parts of the sleeves are slanted, which means they become narrow toward the wrists. This is gained by tucking the long sides of the rectangular-woven sleeves diagonally to the reverse. Here the original selvedges of the weave can be seen. The slanted sides are fastened by simple seams. The decorative braids had been sewn on before that. The sleeves were originally closed by an overcast seam. Only the last few centimeters at the wrists were left open. A long twisted thread of linen yarn which may have been a fastening is preserved at the left edge on the back of one of the sleeves. A small fragment of the lower braid, reproduced in fig. 13.2 above, actually belongs to the other sleeve. It has to be added to its upper edge. The outer braids13 of the sleeves (width 4 to 4.5 centimeters in weft direction) are decorated with a zigzag band created by a stylized tendril with arrow-shaped and three-lobed leaves. The (p.148) wedges of the zigzag are filled with semicircles containing half-rosettes. The motifs are woven in tapestry and appear in black on a reddish background. The upper sleeve-braids (width 11.5 to 12 centimeters in warp direction) show the same tapestry motifs as the clavi with corresponding technical details and colors, but with the outer ribbons and each motif in the middle ribbon sewn on separately on a fine linen weave.14

The Hildesheim fragment (inv. 1587, fig. 13.3; Eggebrecht 1978: 2.23–2.25 no. 4245) belongs to a group of fabrics from Arsinoë that was acquired from Georg Schweinfurth by the Roemer-Pelizaeus Museum in 1886.15 It consists of a fragment of a fragile linen weave of 39.5 centimeters length (warp direction) and 15 centimeters width (weft direction) and a sewn-on part of a clavus of 12.5 centimeters width (warp direction). The structure of the basic weave, the pattern of the clavus and the technical analysis correspond to the Berlin pieces no. 187.a and acc. no. 9306 (fig. 13.1).

A Textile Puzzle from Arsinoë

Fig. 13.3. Fragment of tunic A (Pelizaeus-Museum inv. 1587). © Roemer-und Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim.

Probably in 1889 Gaston Le Breton,16 a collector of Egyptian artifacts, donated a fabric fragment to the Musée Départemental des Antiquités de Rouen (inv. 2002.0.137, fig. 13.4; Durand and Saragoza 2004: 21 no. 5). It measures 30 centimeters in length (weft direction) and 15.5 centimeters in width (warp direction) and is made of the same basic weave showing the same characteristic triple stripes as the Berlin pieces. The pattern on the sewn-on clavus fragment, which is made of two (p.149)

A Textile Puzzle from Arsinoë

Fig. 13.4. Fragment of tunic A (Mu-sée Départemental des Antiquités inv. 2002.0.137). © Musée Départemental des Antiquités Rouen.

pieces joined together, is identical with those already mentioned. Fortunately, one of Schweinfurth's labels was attached to the piece, by which it can reliably be associated with the Berlin fragments. It bears the collection number 187c which corresponds to the shoulder fragment 187.a at Berlin. Additionally, the exact find spot, ‘Kom el-Addame,’ i.e. the necropolis of Arsinoë, is stated. By this, the above-mentioned supposition— allocating the fragments to a burial place—is definitely confirmed.

By putting all the preserved fragments into their proper places it becomes obvious that they belong to a cross-shaped, wholecloth tunic with the warp running horizontally in the made-up tunic (fig. 13.5), which is the typical manner of construction in the first millennium.17 The neck opening was an oval or circular cutout with gussets at each shoulder for movement. The tunic's sleeves slanted toward the wrist. All decorative elements are arranged symmetrically, which makes it impossible to determine which side is the front or back of the tunic. Clavi ran from the shoulders toward the lower edges; a braid surrounded the neck-opening, a broad and a narrow braid decorated the lower ends of the sleeves. The closing edges at the bottom of the tunic are not preserved. So we do not know its original length. Nor could any traces of a horizontal tuck be found, which is shown by a considerable number of tunics elsewhere.

When having a closer look at the pattern of the clavi and the broad sleeve-braids one will notice some striking features. Comparable clavi with floral motifs arranged in a sequence of two by one usually do not end with sigilla, but run through to the lower edge of the front and back of the tunic, (p.150)

A Textile Puzzle from Arsinoë

Fig. 13.5. Drawing of tunic A. © Kathrin Mälck, Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst Berlin.

exemplified in more complete samples in Berlin and in a Flemish private collection and which could also be presumed for tunic A.18 But all clavi of these and other similar tunic fragments are directly woven into the basic weave, which is not the case with the fragments of our tunic A where, doubtlessly, the clavi and sleeve-braids were sewn on. Usually the motifs within the clavi are arranged in a way that they can be ‘read’ in the right direction on the front as well as on the back side of a tunic. That means that the pattern direction normally changes on the shoulders as demonstrated in the righthand clavus of tunic A on fig. 13.1, where a four-leafed rosette in the middle ribbon (which lies exactly in the horizontal axis of the tunic) marks the turning point. In fact, the candelabrum motif above the uppermost rosette of the outer ribbon is woven in reverse. While studying the counterpart to the left in fig. 13.1 we notice some differences. Here the motifs run continuously in one direction only, which means that to the eye of the observer, they occur upside down on either the tunic's front or back side, unless the fragment lacking at the lower left of the clavus was added somewhere below the shoulder-part by a seam with the motifs then turned in the other direction. This remains hypothetical but cannot be excluded, especially since the clavus in question was sewn together of at least two pieces. However, it is unusual anyway and against the rules of symmetry that the motifs do not mirror at the horizontal axis, which stands in contrast to the otherwise well-done construction of the tunic and the high quality of its tapestries.

Apart from this it is also confusing that the outer ribbons and every single motif in the middle ribbon of the upper sleeve-braids are sewn on (p.151) one by one on a basic weave. One can hardly imagine that each motif was woven separately, which would have been very inefficient. It is simply nonsensical to cut out the motifs of a patterned braid and then to resew them onto another plain braid. For these reasons I would like to suggest that the decorative elements of the tunic—if not all, at least the clavi and the broader sleeve-braids—were made of reused material from another garment no longer in use. The patched clavus on the left and the sewn-on motifs on the sleeve-braids could be explained by the fact that the decoration of the older fabric was already damaged and that only the well-preserved parts were reused to decorate the new tunic.

On the other hand it is not convincing to presume that the tunic and all its decoration were made at the same time and that parts of it—especially the upper sleeve-braids and the left clavus—were so damaged from wear that they had to be removed, repaired, and sewn on again. Above all, the fact that only one sort of thread has been used to stitch on the whole set of decorations—only the thread used to repair a hole in the tapestry on the clavus of no. 187.a is different—contradicts this assumption. It remains an open question to which of the shoulder fragments shown in fig. 13.1 the Hildesheim and the Rouen pieces can be joined. Nor can it be attested whether they once belonged to the tunic's front or back. The broken-off edges of the fragments do not fit together. Therefore, the position of those fragments in fig. 13.5 is merely speculative.

A Textile Puzzle from Arsinoë

Fig. 13.6. Shoulder parts and sleeve of tunic B (Museum für Byzantinische Kunst Schweinfurth collection nos. 194, 194.d, and 194.c). © Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst Berlin.

(p.152) Finally, tunic B, the undergarment to tunic A, must be described in brief. All in all, six pieces of it have been preserved, three of which are reproduced in fig. 13.6. Two belong to the tunic's shoulder part with an oval neck opening, a neck-braid, and short shoulder-braids, two others are the lower remains of the sleeves with slightly slanted sides which were closed by a flat seam. Two tiny fragments stem from a braid. The largest fragment measures 24 centimeters in height and 40 centimeters in width. The warp and weft directions of the basic weave could not be determined.19 It cannot be ruled out that this tunic was not woven into shape but made of several pieces sewn together. The neck-braid measures 2.5 centimeters in width, the shoulder and sleeve-braids 5 centimeters (both in weft direction). All braids show the same pattern of circles alternating with pairs of semicircles on a red-brownish background. These are filled with rosettes of heartshaped leaves in a reddish or brownish color on a black background.

Because of stylistic analogies to similarly patterned textiles I would like to suggest that both tunics belong to the period shortly before or soon after the Arab conquest. This can be underlined by a carbon-14 analysis undertaken for a small but representative selection of textiles from Arsinoë by the Leibniz Labor für Altersbestimmung und Isotopenforschung of the Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel. All these samples dated to the seventh to eighth centuries. These results also correspond to the dates given by the Greek and Coptic papyri of that town.

It has not been our intention to focus here on the iconography of the floral motifs on the braids and clavi. That has already been carefully done for well-known pieces by Dorothee Renner-Volbach and others, who confirmed that these flowers had an apotropaic function, invoking prosperity and joy of life (Renner-Volbach 2001: 81–89). In this symbolic sense I would like to present this little bouquet of flowers to my honored teacher, Martin Krause, on the occasion of his birthday.

Notes

(1.) An overview of the visitors from the seventeenth century onward is given by Bernard 1975: 11–16.

(2.) For the circumstances of discovery of papyri in the Fayoum cf. Grenfell and Hunt 1900: 17–26.

(3.) For the difficulties in determining the exact provenance of objects attributed to the Fayoum cf. van der Vliet 2002/2003: 139.

(4.) The background of this venture is vividly explained by Karabacek 1883: 24–25. Cf. also the analytic study by Merz (2000: 129–131).

(5.) The material in Vienna was attributed to Saqqara by A. Riegl 1889: esp. V-VII, 1), (p.153) but this attribution cannot be proven. Unfortunately, since then Saqqara has been erroneously referred to as one of the major sources of textile finds in the literature on Christian Egypt. This can only be confirmed for a handful of textiles mentioned by Quibell 1907: 33–34, pl XXXVIII; 1912: 34–37) and a tunic sketched by the savants of Bonaparte's expedition in 1798–1801 (Description de ľÉgypte 1821, vol. 5: pl. 5).

(6.) Within this article (p. 39–40) Volbach speaks repeatedly of “fouilles du Crocodilopolis, … dirigées par … Schweinfurth en 1873.” This year could not be verified by the documents in the archives.

(7.) For the distribution of Schweinfurth's textile collection in detail cf. Fluck forthcoming.

(8.) Petra Linscheid and I worked on a catalog of Schweinfurth's textiles in the Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, Berlin, for which the manuscript is now finished. The following articles also deal with his collection: Fluck and Linscheid 1995a and 1995b; Linscheid 2001; Fluck forthcoming.

(9.) Warp: linen, S, 9–13/cm; weft: linen, S, 8–13/cm; tabby; stripes of bleached double linen yarn, S, woven in tabby.

(10.) Warp: linen, S, 20–25/cm; weft: linen, S, 17–21/cm; tabby. Motives in tapestry: two warp yarns bundled, weft: wool and linen, S, 58–80/cm.

(11.) The sewing material generally used for the tunic is made of a Z〈S-S twisted linen thread.

(12.) Warp: linen, Z〈S-S, 8–11/cm; weft: wool and linen, S, 46–58/cm; tapestry; reinforced selvedges at the long sides.

(13.) Warp: linen, Z〈S-S, 10–11/cm; weft: wool, S, 50–60/cm; tapestry; selvedges at the long sides.

(14.) Warp: linen, S, 22–24/cm; weft: linen, S, 18–19/cm; tabby with occasional double wefts.

(15.) For the provenance and history of Schweinfurth's textiles at the Hildesheim museum cf. the comment by Eggebrecht 1978: 2.17) on no. 4243.

(16.) For Le Breton and the textile collection at the Musée Départemental des Antiquités de Rouen, cf. Durand and Saragoza 2004: 11–14.

(17.) For the construction of tunics cf. De Jonghe and Verhecken-Lammens 1993: 41–45; Fluck, Linscheid, and Merz 2000: 15–18.

(18.) Ägypten 1996: 277 no. 317; Wulff and Volbach 1926: 118, pl. 113, no. 9219 (lost since World War II); Fluck, Linscheid and Merz 2000: 209–210, pl. 14, no. 137; De Moor 1993: 217–220, cat. 113–114.

(19.) Basic weave: 1st system linen, S, 10–15/cm; 2nd system linen, S, 11–16/cm; tabby. Braids: warp linen, Z〈S-S, 8–10/cm; weft wool, S, 50–56/cm; tapestry; reinforced or simple selvedges at the long sides. Sewing material: linen, Z〈S-S. (p.154)

Notes:

(*) I am grateful to Cécile Colonna (Rouen), Arne Effenberger (Berlin), and Bettina Schmitz (Hildesheim) for their support and the permission to reproduce the textiles treated in this article. I owe special thanks to Kathrin Mälck (Berlin) for an intensive discussion on this subject and for the drawing of tunic A. Armin Fed-dersen (Aabenraa) has kindly revised my English.

(1.) An overview of the visitors from the seventeenth century onward is given by Bernard 1975: 11–16.

(2.) For the circumstances of discovery of papyri in the Fayoum cf. Grenfell and Hunt 1900: 17–26.

(3.) For the difficulties in determining the exact provenance of objects attributed to the Fayoum cf. van der Vliet 2002/2003: 139.

(4.) The background of this venture is vividly explained by Karabacek 1883: 24–25. Cf. also the analytic study by Merz (2000: 129–131).

(5.) The material in Vienna was attributed to Saqqara by A. Riegl 1889: esp. V-VII, 1), (p.153) but this attribution cannot be proven. Unfortunately, since then Saqqara has been erroneously referred to as one of the major sources of textile finds in the literature on Christian Egypt. This can only be confirmed for a handful of textiles mentioned by Quibell 1907: 33–34, pl XXXVIII; 1912: 34–37) and a tunic sketched by the savants of Bonaparte's expedition in 1798–1801 (Description de ľÉgypte 1821, vol. 5: pl. 5).

(6.) Within this article (p. 39–40) Volbach speaks repeatedly of “fouilles du Crocodilopolis, … dirigées par … Schweinfurth en 1873.” This year could not be verified by the documents in the archives.

(7.) For the distribution of Schweinfurth's textile collection in detail cf. Fluck forthcoming.

(8.) Petra Linscheid and I worked on a catalog of Schweinfurth's textiles in the Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, Berlin, for which the manuscript is now finished. The following articles also deal with his collection: Fluck and Linscheid 1995a and 1995b; Linscheid 2001; Fluck forthcoming.

(9.) Warp: linen, S, 9–13/cm; weft: linen, S, 8–13/cm; tabby; stripes of bleached double linen yarn, S, woven in tabby.

(10.) Warp: linen, S, 20–25/cm; weft: linen, S, 17–21/cm; tabby. Motives in tapestry: two warp yarns bundled, weft: wool and linen, S, 58–80/cm.

(11.) The sewing material generally used for the tunic is made of a Z〈S-S twisted linen thread.

(12.) Warp: linen, Z〈S-S, 8–11/cm; weft: wool and linen, S, 46–58/cm; tapestry; reinforced selvedges at the long sides.

(13.) Warp: linen, Z〈S-S, 10–11/cm; weft: wool, S, 50–60/cm; tapestry; selvedges at the long sides.

(14.) Warp: linen, S, 22–24/cm; weft: linen, S, 18–19/cm; tabby with occasional double wefts.

(15.) For the provenance and history of Schweinfurth's textiles at the Hildesheim museum cf. the comment by Eggebrecht 1978: 2.17) on no. 4243.

(16.) For Le Breton and the textile collection at the Musée Départemental des Antiquités de Rouen, cf. Durand and Saragoza 2004: 11–14.

(17.) For the construction of tunics cf. De Jonghe and Verhecken-Lammens 1993: 41–45; Fluck, Linscheid, and Merz 2000: 15–18.

(18.) Ägypten 1996: 277 no. 317; Wulff and Volbach 1926: 118, pl. 113, no. 9219 (lost since World War II); Fluck, Linscheid and Merz 2000: 209–210, pl. 14, no. 137; De Moor 1993: 217–220, cat. 113–114.

(19.) Basic weave: 1st system linen, S, 10–15/cm; 2nd system linen, S, 11–16/cm; tabby. Braids: warp linen, Z〈S-S, 8–10/cm; weft wool, S, 50–56/cm; tapestry; reinforced or simple selvedges at the long sides. Sewing material: linen, Z〈S-S. (p.154)