Fig. 5, in Prof. Percy Newberry’s Beni Hasan, London, 1910. In this work the reproduction is about one twentieth of the original, or about three fifths of the size of that of Wilkinson, and unfortunately so crude as not to be available for our present purpose.[B] Lastly we have the reproduction, Fig. 6, from Mr. N. de Garis Davies’ drawing made in 1903, and now first published by kind permission of Mr. F. Ll. Griffith.

Fig. 6.—Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep. Size of original: Height of the figures 9¼" = 24·4 cm. Drawn by Mr. N. de G. Davies, and now published for the first time by permission of Mr. F. Ll. Griffith.

In the various reproductions by the above explorers, the only three which agree very closely are those of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies. The others vary considerably and in essentials do not agree with the above nor with one another. The differences may in the first instance be due to difficulties in copying the original in the tomb. Others may be due to ignorance of detail on the part of the secondary copyist—the man who prepared them for publication—so that he was unable to follow up the clues on the drawings laid before him. The differences may also be due to careless copying and to “touching up” of the copies when made; they may be slightly due to deterioration and obliteration of the original in the course of time.

The Encyclopædia Biblica gives a variant from all six illustrations, but approaching nearest to that of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies. It is misleading in so far that the drawing has been made to suit Professor Kennedy’s idea as to what it should be.

Some of the differences are of minor importance, but a comparison will help materially to our understanding of the method of weaving adopted by the Egyptians from the XIIth to the XIXth Dynasties, or about B.C. 2000 to 1200. To go into details, and taking Mr. N. de G. Davies’ illustration as our basis, we find slight differences in the shape of the pegs B, B1, which are immaterial. A more pronounced difference is seen in the way in which the threads are attached to the warp beam A. Neither Wilkinson nor Lepsius carry these threads over the beam, the former carrying them only as far as the laze threads C, while the latter carries them up to a line drawn parallel to and below the beam; Cailliaud and Rosellini carry them over the beam while Mr. Davies carries them half way only. The object of this half carrying over is not clear. The threads in chain-form at C are probably laze threads, apparently placed there so that in case of any disarrangement of the warp threads the weaver can from that point run her fingers along them and get them disentangled. It has been suggested to me that this chain-form might be a tension chain for taking up slack warp, but the former explanation seems the more likely.

All the drawings but Wilkinson’s show the warp threads converging towards the breast beam; Wilkinson shows them parallel and in Lepsius their convergence is excessive. There should be a slight convergence shown, as in the course of weaving the threads get drawn in, and in later forms of looms in semi-civilised countries we find an endeavour to counteract this tendency by the use of a tool known as a “temple.”

The cross sticks D1, D2, look like laze rods. It may not be out of place here to point out that in primitive weaving laze rods serve two purposes, or one more than in the later somewhat more advanced looms. They serve throughout to keep the warp threads in place, and they serve to separate the odd threads from the even (1, 3, 5, 7 from 2, 4, 6, 8, &c.), and in so doing take the place of the fingers in making the “shed,” i.e., the opening through which the “weft (or woof)” is passed, a function which in turn is usurped by the “heald (or heddle).” The heddle therefore becomes a very important factor, and Dr. H. G. Harrison by no means overstates the case when he says that the development of the heddle is the most important step in the evolution of the loom (Horniman Museum Handbooks, No. 10, pp. 47-49). We may now return to the drawing. Wilkinson shows the rod D1 indistinctly and the left hand end only of D2. Lepsius’ artist seems to have taken a liberty with D1 but in the right direction, by making it more definitely into an early form of heddle—the loop and rod—but he shows D2 the same as Cailliaud and Rosellini. Prof. Kennedy argues that these rods are in the wrong position and that D1 which is a heddle should be in the place of D2. Mr. Davies’ drawing as well as those of Cailliaud and Rosellini show that D1 is a heddle while D2 is shown to be a laze rod. Asiatic primitive looms, like those from Borneo and Bhutan, have two laze rods but no heddle; on the other hand many primitive African looms have one laze rod and one heddle as is the case with this Egyptian loom. More threads are shown on the left hand end of D2 than on the right hand end. Mr. Davies informs me that the same quantity should be shown from end to end across the warp, but on the right hand side they are so indistinct that he was just able to detect but not to trace them and so he omitted them.

We now come to the rod E. Cailliaud and Rosellini show an undulation at the one end a, but do not make the other end clear. Wilkinson shows a small hook at the end a, which appears to me to be a transcriber’s development of the curved end of his two predecessors; in the text Wilkinson says there is a hook at each end of this stick, but he does not show any at the end opposite to a; he refers to these hooks more than once (1st ed., III., p. 126 footnote). Lepsius has altered the shape of the curve and transferred it from the end a to the opposite end. In Mr. de G. Davies’ drawing, it has been inserted in dotted lines, as the original is in such a state that tracing is almost impossible. Wilkinson, Erman, v. Cohausen (Das Spinnen u. Weben bei den Alten, in Ann. Ver. Nassau. Altherthumsk., Wiesbaden, 1879, p. 29), and others call it a shuttle, but I am more inclined to consider it a slashing stick (“sword” or “beater-in”) for pushing the weft into position. A tool which appears to be a beater-in and of similar end shape is seen held in the hand of a woman on a wall painting at El Bersheh—see Fig. 11, top right-hand corner. We have in another illustration, Fig. 7, an article which appears to be a spool, which I think confirms the view that E is not the shuttle but the beater-in. In all the illustrations, too, the pose of the hands of the women bearing on this stick is indicative of a downward pressure and not of a grasp.