Bronze Age textile evidence in ceramic impressions: weaving and pottery technology among mobile pastoralists of central Eurasia.

Doumani, Paula N. ; Frachetti, Michael D.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Introduction

In central Eurasia, the late third to early second millennium BC marks the beginning of intensified regional interaction and productive economies, specialising in pastoralism of sheep, goat and cattle (Kohl 2007; Frachetti 2008; Hanks & Linduff 2009). For decades, regional socio-economic integration among early pastoralists across the Eurasian steppe zone has been traced geographically and chronologically through the distribution of associated stylistic classes of pottery and metal objects (Chernykh 1992; Kuz'mina 2007), while other significant material classes, such as textiles, have remained more elusive. Textiles in Eurasia represent a major component of community organisation and socio-economic integration, ethnographically and archaeologically (Good 2006; Naheed & Beck in press). But poor preservation and archaeologically scattered evidence still leaves them as one of the least investigated material classes in Eurasian steppe prehistoric archaeology. The few extant studies available (Chernai 1985; Shishlina 1999) show stylistic and technological consistencies across central Eurasia, suggesting a high potential for exploring regional preference and socio-economic integration in this formative period of Eurasian prehistory.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Even though textiles are subject to poor preservation in Bronze Age central Eurasia, secondary evidence is widely recovered across the territory in the form of textile impressions in pottery that was produced using textile-lined moulds and other forming techniques (Figures 1 & 2). Here we present evidence for textiles from Begash, a newly excavated multi-period pastoral settlement in Semirech'ye in south-eastern Kazakhstan (Frachetti & Mar'yashev 2007), that offers the earliest evidence for cloth and pottery production in the eastern steppe region. The diverse array of textile prints in pottery from Begash has permitted the first in-depth study of textiles, weaving and pottery manufacture in Bronze Age south-eastern Eurasia.

Textiles from Begash

The recent excavations at the settlement Begash (Frachetti & Mar'yashev 2007) revealed textile-impressed, plain coarseware ceramics from the first phase of occupation (c. 2450 cal BC) and throughout subsequent occupation phases to the medieval period (c. fourteenth century AD) (Doumani 2009). Here we focus on the 18 samples found in the Early/Middle and Late Bronze Age phases of the site (phase 1, c. 2450-1700 cal BC; and phase 2, c. 16501000 cal BC). Casts were made of the negative textile impressions using white baking clay, rendering a positive mould of the textile impression, to accentuate the weave characteristics of the original cloth. In Figures 3-6, the casts appear convex because the sherd surface was concave (on the inside of the pot). The moulds were examined under hand magnification and photographed using a macro lens (x 10 magnification). Cloth structures were more visible in those samples where the cloth was pressed deeply into the wet clay. In some samples, the cloth structure was less visible due to shallow impressions, sherd wear or disturbance of the impression during the pot's 'wet' stage. However, in the remaining samples it was possible to detect different weaves, cloth densities, thread thicknesses, and possibly a number of raw materials used for making cloth. These are summarised in Table 1.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Description of the textiles implied

The Early/Middle Bronze Age samples from phase 1 at Begash (2450-1700 BC) include five doth/fibre-impressed sherds. Two possible weave types can be identified: interlaced weave and twining. Sample 1 might show a woven cloth impression (Figure 3a). The shallow impression prevents a close reading of the sample. However, some of the elements cross one another perpendicularly, which is typical of plain weave interlaced elements. Sample 2, by contrast, shows a weft/warp-faced cloth impression (Figure 3b). This cloth impression could be the product of either twining or interlacing. Weft/warp-faced textiles, whether twined or interlaced, have one set of elements masked by the greater density of the opposing elements (Emery 1966: 76-77). Unfortunately, the compact spacing of elements obfuscates the weave structure, and consequently the weaving technique (King 1978:90-91). Even though we cannot identify the weaving technique of sample 2, samples 1 and 2 together show early pastoralists in the south-eastern steppe were manufacturing two cloth structures--balanced-interlace and weft/warp-faced which share technological parallels with roughly coeval and earlier societies in the western and northern steppe zone (Table 2).

The Early/Middle Bronze Age material from Begash also documents additional uses for processed fibres in potting manufacture, such as twine-wrapped implements for paddling vessel walls. Samples 3, 4 and 5 contain impressions from single direction elements typically left from cordage and not textiles (Figure 3c). Cordage-impressed pottery is documented among much earlier fourth-millennium BC hunter-gatherer and early pastoral societies of Siberia (Table 2).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

The 13 Late Bronze Age textile-impressed sherds from phase 2 at Begash (1650-1000 BC) exhibit various weaves, numerous thicknesses and 'fluffiness' among yarns, coarse to fine cloth, and possibly a number of fibre sources or processing techniques (Table 1). Impressions in Begash samples 6 and 7 were created by balanced plain weave cloth with a very fine, thin and tightly spun yarn (Figure 4: a & b). These samples bear a resemblance to textile impressions in pottery from slightly earlier Petrovka sites in the western steppe zone (Orfinskaya et al. 1999: sample 20). Sample 9 shows a denser balanced plain-woven cloth with a wider, ribbon-like yarn (Figure 4c), that resembles slightly earlier textile-impressed pottery from Sintashta and Andronovo period cemeteries in southern Russia (Orfinskaya et al. 1999: samples 11, 13, 17). Samples 6, 7 and 9 demonstrate some technological consistency in pottery and textile manufacture between the western and eastern steppe zones, though multiple processes might account for these similarities. By contrast, the cloth impression in sample 10 is distinctive in the Begash assemblage for its compact weave and exceptionally fine yarn (Figure 5).

Within the later Bronze Age assemblage from Begash, samples 11 and 12 present unique, coarsely woven textiles made of either a different raw material fibre or a yarn processed and manipulated with a special technique (Figure 6). Sample 11 documents a simple S-twined fabric and offers the first solid evidence for twining technology at Begash and in the south-eastern steppe zone. Dating to as early as 1650-1000 BC, the twined-weave structure visible in sample 11 shows crossed woven elements and slanted indentations in the clay impression--features typically associated with twined cloth structures (Emery 1966: 196).

Sources and techniques of manufacture

Imprints of cordage, basketry, netting and cloth in pottery can index various vessel building and decorating procedures. Such techniques can include resting pots on woven mats during shaping, stamping for vessel ornamentation, paddling with cord-wrapped implements or lining pottery moulds with cloth. The 18 textile/cordage-impressed samples from Begash suggest mould-forming techniques were dedicated to vessels with specific uses, or perhaps in times when quick production was necessary. Shepard (1956: 63), in her study of potting industries, notes that mould-based potting is typically a technique to facilitate the ad hoc production of multiple vessels. Moreover, high labour investments behind cloth production probably encouraged cloth 'recycling' (Drooker 1992: 49) for moulding vessels, as it would not make economic sense to use pristine or newly manufactured cloth for potting. Five of the Begash samples (Table 1) exhibit torn, frayed and mended textiles, a strong indication of fabric recycling of rather tattered textiles. These economic factors might account for the utilisation of various cloths for potting at Begash.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

To date, Begash has yielded only scanty primary evidence of textiles themselves, consisting of small fragments of carbonised S-twisted yarn recovered through soil flotation of a pit hearth radiocarbon-dated to between 1950 and 1690 BC (Figure 7). Carbonisation and deterioration prevented identification of the yarn as either animal or plant derived (Robert Spengler, pers. comm. 2010). The piedmont steppe environment around Begash produces a number of wild plants with fibre compositions suitable for spinning thread, such as Cannabis ruderalis, Artemisia spp., Urtica spp. and Celtis spp., and a suitable ecology for animal pastoralism and therefore wool harvesting (Frachetti et al. 2010). Although we cannot as yet identify fibre sources from clay impressions, the Begash pottery demonstrates marked differences in the broad characteristics of textiles that may derive from various raw material fibres or from multiple fibre processing techniques. For example, the yarn in samples 14, 15 and 16 is extremely fibrous and bestows a 'fuzzy' finish to the cloth impression (Figure 8). In contrast, samples 6 and 7 show a finer yarn clean of loose fibres (Figure 4: a & b). The impression in sample 10 presents an additional contrast whereby tiny balls of fibre are distributed along the fine strands of yarn, termed 'slubbing' (Figure 5). Slubbing occurs when excess fibres catch in the finished thread during spinning or when wool is spun tight enough for balls of fibre to bunch up along the yarn. Economic investments in pastoralism (Frachetti & Benecke 2009) and domestic and wild plant utilisation (Frachetti et al. 2010) at Begash would have facilitated a range of perishable fibre manipulations to produce the broad range of cloth impressions documented among its pottery.

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

The textile-impressed pottery from Begash offers evidence for two distinct production techniques: tension-loom weaving and hand-twining. On-site yarn spinning and ceramic manufacture is supported by the discovery of spindle whorls, spun fibres and clay wasters. However, the material evidence from Begash lacks direct evidence for weaving, such as loom timbers and weights. Thus, textile impressions in clay from both twined and woven cloth offer one of the few investigative avenues for identifying weaving technologies of the south-eastern steppe zone between 2450 and 1000 BC.

Twined textiles can be manufactured using warp-weighted, untensioned frame looms or by manipulating the elements by hand (Emery 1966: 199, 200; Drooker & Webster 2000: 271). By comparison, the manufacture of 1/1 plain weaves requires stable and constant tension while weaving, which can be achieved with a relatively simple and unmechanised tension loom (Barber 1991: 80). Plain weave, interlaced cloth impressions from Begash place loom technology in south-eastern Eurasia no later than 2450 BC. Begash was a seasonal camp (Frachetti & Mar'yashev 2007) and looms fashioned from a few short sticks would have allowed ease of transport and reassembly in the lead up to and following seasonal migrations. Thus, looms were probably light, small and portable, such as the back-strap loom, horizontal ground loom or untensioned upright loom. Low growing willow, poplar and elm trees (Salix sp., Populous sp. and Ulmus sp.), typically found in riparian zones around Begash, produce timber suitable for constructing such looms. These looms are widespread among ethnographic and historic mobile populations from Eurasia (Wulff 1966: 201; Wertime 1978: 15; Rutschowskaya 1990: 30) and were probably used by Eneolithic and Bronze Age populations as well (Chernai 1981). Interlaced and twined textiles at Begash would have been manufactured within a similar technological framework.

Context

The earliest fibre impressions known in Eurasia (c. 26 000 BC) are from Upper Palaeolithic Eastern Europe where cordage and basketry were accidentally pressed into clay that was then fired (Adovasio et al. 1996; Softer et al. 2000). Cord-impressed pottery fragments in eastern Russia document the first deliberate use of processed fibres for potting in the latest phases of the Upper Palaeolithic (e. 10 500 BC) (Hyland et al. 2002). In Eurasia, the earliest textile- and cord-impressed pottery is associated with the early food producing economies of the Neolithic in Eastern Europe (Chernai 1981), and Early Bronze Age in the Caucasus (Shishlina et al. 2000; Heinsch & Vandiver 2006).

Textiles, mats and basketry constructed from plant fibres predate the first known woollen textiles in central Eurasia (Shishlina et al. 2003; Olsen & Harding 2008). Woollen textiles are thought to emerge along with economies investing in woolly sheep no earlier than the fourth millennium BC in Eurasia (Barber 1991: 2). Following the late third millennium BC in the western steppe zone, plant and woollen textiles are documented in domestic and ritual contexts at Sintashta and later Bronze Age sites (Glushkov 1993: 65; Shishlina 1999: 34-35; Galiullina 2000: 102; Kupriyanova 2008: 83; Ucmanova 2010).

The pottery from the Eneolithic and Bronze Age of central Eurasia documents long-term traditions in textile- and cordage-based potting techniques, as well as innovations in weaving and potting throughout prehistory (Table 2). In central Eurasia, vessel stamping and paddling is documented among Eneolithic hunter-gatherer and early pastoral cord-impressed pottery from the mid fourth and third millennia BC in northern Kazakhstan (Olsen & Harding 2008), throughout the Tobol and Ishim basins in western Siberia (Glushkov & Glushkova 1992) and in the Minusinsk basin (Gryaznov 1969: fig. 9) (Table 2). Mould-formed, textile-impressed pottery, on the other hand, spans the Eneolithic, Bronze Age and later periods across much of central Eurasia (Korobkova 1962; Chemai 1981, 1985).

Eneolithic fourth- and third-millennia BC potting techniques incorporate unwoven cloth and cordage for concave moulding and stamping, whereby impressions are found on the vessel exterior. Some scholars believe the comb-stamped and textile-impressed surface of round-bottomed Eneolithic pottery make references to baskets in their outward appearance (Chernai 1985: 103-104; Glushkov & Glushkova 1992: fig. 48). Therefore, the stylistic classification of Eneolithic pottery may also provide a formal classification of perishable containers that predate the earliest pottery in Eurasia. Starting in the late third millennium BC, the emergence of convex-moulded vessels coincides with a technological innovation in steppe textiles to woven cloth production. In addition, textile impressions fall 'out of view'--impressions appear on vessel interiors, a fraction of the vessel is impressed and impressions are often smeared away (Glyshkov & Glyshkov 1992: 56). Therefore, the use of textiles as a membrane for moulded pottery was probably a practical production measure later on. By the Late Bronze Age, in the mid to late second millennium BC, this pottery occurs in scattered archaeological contexts from the forest steppes of Siberia to the mountainous regions of southern central Asia, where it continues into the first millennium BC (Table 2).

Discussion

The textile-impressed pottery from Early/Middle and Late Bronze Age Begash stands out as one of the most varied Bronze Age textile assemblages in central Eurasia. The breadth of cloth characteristics from phase 2 Begash is not reflected in assemblages elsewhere in the steppe. Apart from late second- to early first-millennia BC impressions of plain-, twill- and repp-weaves from the Fergana Valley (Korobkova 1962), textile impressions from Bronze Age central Eurasia include simple plain weave with little variation in cloth characteristics (Table 2).

Sample 1 from Begash places the first tentative evidence for woven textiles in the southeastern steppe zone around 2450-1950 BC. Elsewhere in the steppe, plain weave textiles show up in pottery impressions and as preserved cloth around 2100-1800 BC at Stepno'ye and Arkaim in southern Russia (Kupriyanova 2008: 83). Sample 2 is significant because it offers the sole example in the steppe of weft-faced cloth impressions in ceramics for the Bronze Age. Bronze Age pottery impressions are usually woven (Orfinskaya et al. 1999), while twined, unwoven textiles are more typical of Eneolithic pottery (Table 2). Twined-cloth from early second-millennium BC Begash enhances the idea of durable channels of interaction between pastoral and hunter-gatherer societies from the northern steppe with pastoralists to the south-east.

Outside Semirech'ye, similar weave impressions to that of sample 10 might exist at Gonur, an Oxus civilisation site in Turkmenistan dating to c. 2200-2000 BC in the Middle Bronze Age (Hiebert 1994: fig 4.34). Frachetti has recently argued that broad material, cultural and economic affiliations may have formed through extended institutional ties among populations living in the south-eastern steppe zone and southern central Asia (Frachetti et al. 2010; Frachetti 2012; cf. Hiebert 2002). More specifically, compelling new evidence exists for the eastward spread of domestic plants and animals along this mountain zone into eastern Eurasia no later than the third millennium BC (Frachetti et al. 2010). Although the movement of textiles and pottery does not figure significantly in the model to date, the appearance of similar weave impressions in sample 10 and the sample from Gonur, and additionally textile-moulded pots from Bronze Age contexts in the Fergana Valley (Table 2), might evince a broader material basis of trade networks in this region. Alternatively, common methods for raw fibre processing and plant harvesting may have diffused along diverse vectors throughout the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor.

For a long time, the primary research goal in Eurasia has been to define the social boundaries of various mobile pastoral 'culture groups' through stylistic analyses of pottery (i.e. decorative and morphological studies). Kuz'mina's (2007) regional culture-history of Bronze Age Andronovo ceramics reflects the canonical basis for mapping demic diffusions of mobile pastoral populations across Eurasia beginning in the early second millennium BC. According to her model, migrant agro-pastoralists allegedly brought about massive changes in technology, material culture and economy around 1500 BC in Semirech'ye, where Begash is located (Goryachev 2004; Kuz'mina 2007). However, in recent years, absolute dating schemes have pushed the Eneolithic and Bronze Age chronology of central Eurasia back several hundred years (Frachetti & Mar'yashev 2007; Hanks et al. 2007; Svyatko et al. 2009), thereby calling for more detailed material studies into the whereabouts, timing and nature of technological innovations in the steppe. Although often overlooked, textiles offer key data to flesh out models of interaction, technological transfer and interregional exchange in central Eurasia (Good 2006). The textile and pottery assemblage from Begash show that longer-term and earlier technological trends were in place as early as 2450 BC.

Conclusion

We argue that the multiple uses of utilitarian items, such as textiles, had both direct and unforeseen impacts on socio-economic integration among pastoralists and their interaction with agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers across Eurasia from the Eneolithic into the Bronze Age. Given textiles' portability, they were undeniably essential containers for the transfer of material items between central Eurasian populations from at least the third millennium BC. Within the assemblage considered here, some textiles resemble those known from adjacent steppe contexts, while others are particular only to Begash. Systematic analysis and material comparisons of craft technologies used by other Bronze Age societies is of key importance for understanding long-term developments in mobile pastoral lifeways across the Eurasian steppe zone. This study traces a geographically broad tradition of both textile and pottery manufacture technology in the Bronze Age that is the first of its kind in the eastern steppe zone. Textile impressions in potsherds from Begash at 2450-1000 BC offer a rare line of material evidence for investigating perishable fibre technologies among some of Eurasia's first pastoralists, which in the future can be used as correlates to investigate interaction between additional productive economies across Eurasia.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation, grant # 0535341 and by Washington University in St Louis. We are grateful to Dr Elizabeth Horton for contributing insightful comments and for her continuing support and encouragement throughout the writing and analysis phase. We thank Robert Spengler (Washington University in St Louis) for assistance with plant fibre identification. Finally, we thank Professor Alexei Mar'yashev of the Institute of Archaeology, Almaty, Kazakhstan, for his continued international collaboration.

References

ADOVASIO, J.M., O. SOFFER & B. KLIMA. 1996. Upper Palaeolithic fibre technology: interlaced woven finds from Pavlov I, Czech Republic, c. 26 000 years ago. Antiquity 70: 526-34.

BARBER, E.J.W. 1991. Prehistoric textiles: the development of cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with special reference to the Aegean. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.

BIRD, J. 1956. Fabrics, basketry and matting as revealed by impressions on pottery, in W.A. Fairservis Jr (ed.) Excavations in the Quetta valley, west Pakistan (Anthropological papers of the American Museum of Natural History 45, part 2): 372-77. New York: American Museum of Natural History.

CHERNAI, I.L. 1981. Vyrabotka tekstilya u plemen d'yakovskoy kul'tury materialam Seletskogo Gorodishcha. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4: 70-86.

--1985. Tekstil'noe delo i keramika po materialam iz pamytnikov Eniolit-Bronzy yuzhnogo aural'ya k severnogo Kazakhstana. Eneolit I Bronzovyy vek Uralo-Irtishskogo mezhdurech'ya. 93-109. Chelyabinsk: Chelgu.

CHERNYKH, E.N. 1992. Ancient metallurgy in the USSR: the early metal age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DOUMANI, P.N. 2009. Detailed ceramic, petrography and textile analysis of Bronze Age ceramics from Begash (Kazakhstan). Unpublished Master's paper, Washington University in St Louis.

DROOKER, P. 1992. Mississippian village textiles at Wickliffe. Tuscaloosa (AL): University of Alabama Press.

DROOKER, P. & L.D. WEBSTER (ed.). 2000. Beyond cloth and cordage: archaeological textile research in the Americas. Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press.

EMERY, I. 1966. The primary structure of fabrics: an illustrated classification. Washington, D.C.: The Textile Museum.

FRACHETTI, M.D. 2008. Pastoralist landscapes and social interaction in Eurasia. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.

--2012. Multi-regional emergence of mobile pastoralism and nonuniform institutional complexity across Eurasia. Current Anthropology 83(1) (in press).

FRACHETTI, M.D. & N. BENECKE. 2009. From sheep to (some) horses: 4500 years of herd structure at the pastoralist settlement Begash (south-eastern Kazakhstan). Antiquity 83: 1023-37.

FRACHETTI, M.D. & A.N. MAR'YASHEV. 2007. Long-term occupation and seasonal settlement of eastern Eurasian pastoralists at Begash, Kazakhstan. Journal of Field Archaeology 32(3): 221-42.

FRACHETTI, M.D., R.N. SPENGLER, G.J. FRITZ & A.N. MAR'YASHEV. 2010. Earliest direct evidence for broomcorn millet and wheat in the central Eurasian steppe region. Antiquity 84: 993-10l0.

GALIULLINA, M.V. 2000. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 95-103. Chelyabinsk: Arkaim Works Museum.

GLUSHKOV, I.G. 1993. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]: 57-70. Petropavlock: Zhana-Arka.

GLUSHKOV, I.G. & T.N. GLUSHKOVA. 1992. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Tobol: Templan.

GOOD, I. 2006. Textiles as a medium of exchange in third millennium BCE western Eurasia, in V. Mair (ed.) Contact and exchange in the ancient world: 191-214. Honolulu (HI): University of Hawai'i Press.

GORYACHEV, A.A. 2004. The Bronze Age archaeological memorials in Semirech'ye, in K. Linduff (ed.) Metallurgy in ancient eastern Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow Rivet. 109-52. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.

GULYAMOV, YA. G. ISLAMOV, U. ASKAROV, A. 1966. Pervobytnaya kul'tura i vozniknovenie oroshaemogo zemledeliya v nizov'yakh Zarafshana. Tashkent: Fan.

GRYAZNOV, M.P., 1969. The ancient civilization of ancient Siberia. New York: Cowles Book Co.

HANKS, B.K., A.V. EPIMAKHOV & A.C. RENFREW. 2007. Towards a refined chronology for the Bronze Age of the southern Urals, Russia. Antiquity 81: 353-67.

HANKS, B.K. & K.M. LINDUFF (ed.). 2009. Social complexity in prehistoric Eurasia: monuments, metals and mobility. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

HIEBERT, F.T. 1994. Origins of the Bronze Age oasis civilization in central Asia. Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

--2002. Bronze Age interaction between Eurasia and central Asia, in K. Boyle, A.C. Renfrew & M. Levine (ed.) Ancient interactions: East and West in Eurasia: 237-48. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

HEINSCH, M. & P. VANDIVER. 2006. Recent xeroradiographic analysis of Kura-Araxes ceramics, in D.L Peterson, L.M. Popova & A.T. Smith (ed.) Beyond the steppe and sown: proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology: 382-94. Leiden: Brill.

HYLAND, D.C., I.S. ZHUSHCHIKHOVSKAYA & A.P. MEDVEDEV. 2002. Pleistocene textiles in the Russian Far East: impressions from some of the world's oldest pottery. Anthropologie 40: 1-10.

KING, M.E. 1978. Analytical methods and prehistoric textiles. American Antiquity 43(1): 89-96.

KOHL, P. 2007. The making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

KOROBKOVA, G.F. 1962. Otpechatki tkaney na keramike (po materialam Dal'verzina Eylatana i Daraut Kurgana). Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 118: 231-34.

KUZ'MINA, E. 2007. The origin of the Indo-Iranians. Leiden: Brill.

KUPRIYANOVA, E. 2008. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Chelyabinsk: Avto Graf.

NAHEED, D. & L. BECK. In press. Bands, ropes, braids and tassels among the Qashqa'i of Iran (including an annotated glossary), in F. Mushkat (ed.) Warp-faced bands and related weavings of nomadic pastoralists in Iran.

OLSEN, S.L. & D.G. HARDING. 2008. Women's attire and possible sacred role in 4th millennium northern Kazakhstan, in K.M. Linduff & K.S. Rubinson (ed.) Are all warriors male? Gender roles on the ancient Eurasian steppe: 76-92. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.

ORFINSKAYA, O.V., V.P. GOLIKOV & N.I. SHISHLINA. 1999. Complex experimental research of textile goods from the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe, in N. Shishlina (ed.) Tekstil Epokhi Bronzy Evraziiskikh Stepei: 58-184. Moscow: State Works Museum.

RUTSCHOWSKAYA, M. 1990. Coptic fabrics. Paris: A. Biro.

SHEPARD, A.O. 1995 [1956]. Ceramics for the archaeologist. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute of Washington.

SHISHLINA, N.I. 1999. Tekstil Epokhi Bronzy Evraziiskikh Stepei. Moscow: State Works Museum.

SHISHLINA, N.I., V.P. GOLIKOV & O.V. ORFINSKAYA. 2000. Bronze Age textiles of the Caspian Sea maritime steppes, in J. Davis-Kimball, E.M. Murphy, L. Koryakova & L.T. Yablonksy (ed.). Kurgans, ritual sites, and settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age (British Archaeological Reports international series 890): 109-117. Oxford: Archaeopress.

SHISHLINA, N.I., O.V. ORFINSKAYA & V.P. GOLIKOV. 2003. Bronze Age textiles from the north Caucasus: new evidence of fourth millennium BC fibres and fabrics. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22(4): 331-44.

SOFFER, O., J.M. ADAVASIO, J.S. ILLINGWORTH, H.A. AMIRKHANOV, N.D. PRASLOV & M. STREET. 2000. Palaeolithic perishables made permanent. Antiquity 74: 812-21.

SPRISHEVSKIY, V.I. 1974. Katalog Arkheologicheskikh Materialov Epokhi Kamnya i Bronzy. Tashkent: Akademiya Nauk Uzbekskoy CCP.

SVYATKO, S.V., J.P. MALLORY, E.M. MURPHY, A.V. POLYAKOV, P.J. REIMER & R.J. SCHULTING. 2009. New radiocarbon dates and a review of the chronology of prehistoric populations from the Minusinsk Basin, southern Siberia, Russia. Radiocarbon 51(1): 243-73.

TATARINTSEVA, N.S. 1984. Keramika Poseleniya Vishnevka 1 v lesostepnom pri Ishim'e. Bronzovyi vek Uralo-Irtyshskogo Mezhdurec'iya: 104-13. Chelyabinsk: Bashkir University.

UCMANOVA, E.P. 2010. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Lucakovsk: Karaganda.

VINOGRADOV, N.B. & M.A. MUKHINA. 1985. Novye dannye o tekhnologii goncharstva u Naseleniya Alakul'skoy Kul'tury Yuzhnogo Zaural'ya i Severnogo Kazakhstana. Drevnosti Srednego Povolzh'ya: 79-84. Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev State University.

WERTIME, J. 1978. The names, types and functions of nomadic weaving in Iran, in A. Landreau (ed.) Yoruk: the nomadic weaving tradition in the Middle East. Pittsburgh (PA): Museum of Art, Carnegie Institute.

WULFF, H.E. 1966. The traditional crafts of Persia: their development, technology and influence on western and eastern civilizations. Cambridge (MA): M.I.T. Press.

Received: 5 May 2011; Accepted: 20 June 2011; Revised: 29 September 2011

Paula N. Doumani & Michael D. Frachetti *

* Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St Louis, 1 Brookings Drive-CB 1114, St Louis, MO 63130, USA (Email: [email protected]; [email protected])

Table 1. Bronze Age textile impressed ceramics from Begash. Phase
1=2450-1700 BC, Phase 2=1650-1000 BC.

 Thread
 Thread count
 width (mm) (cm)
Archaeological Weave active/ active/
phase Sample # structure passive passive

Phase 1 1 woven -- 0.6 -- 5
 interlace (?)

Phase 1 2 twined/plain 0.9 1.3 13 7
 weave (?)

Phase 1 3 cordage(?) -- 0.9 -- 8

Phase 1 4 cordage (?) -- -- -- --

Phase 1 5 cordage (?) -- 0.7 -- 5

Phase 2 6 plain-weave 0.6 0.6 10 8
 interlace

Phase 2 7 plain-weave 0.6 0.6 10 7
 interlace

Phase 2 8 plain weave -- -- -- 5
 interlace

Phase 2 9 plain-weave 0.9 0.9 7 7
 interlace

Phase 2 10 plain-weave 0.5 0.5 12 12
 interlace

Phase 2 11 simple-twine 1.1 1.1 5 5
 weave:
 S-twined

Phase 2 12 twined/plain 0.5 0.6 15 17
 weave (?)

Phase 2 13 twined/plain 1.4 1.7 6 4
 weave (?)

Phase 2 14 twined/plain 0.7 1.2 8 5
 weave (?)

Phase 2 15 twined/plain 0.7 0.7 11 5
 weave (?)

Phase 2 16 twined/plain 0.9 1.1 8 3
 weave (?)

Phase 2 17 twined/plain -- -- -- --
 weave (?)

Phase 2 18 twined/plain -- -- -- 6
 weave (?)

Archaeological Final spin Yarn Cloth
phase direction characteristics characteristics

Phase 1 -- -- closely spaced
 elements

Phase 1 S -- weft/warp
 faced

Phase 1 -- -- --

Phase 1 -- -- --

Phase 1 -- -- --

Phase 2 -- fine, round, near-balanced,
 tight spin spaced
 elements

Phase 2 Z fine, round, evenly spaced
 tight spin elements

Phase 2 -- -- --

Phase 2 -- flat, ribbon-like balanced
 yarn compact
 elements

Phase 2 -- fine, tight spin compact
 elements,
 very fine
 cloth

Phase 2 S fibrous, loose loose weave,
 spin very coarse
 cloth

Phase 2 Z fibrous compact
 elements,
 coarse cloth

Phase 2 Z -- chunky, knotty

Phase 2 Z fibrous, fuzzy, weft/warp
 loose spin faced,
 compact
 weave

Phase 2 Z fibrous, fuzzy, weft/warp
 loose spin faced,
 compact
 weave

Phase 2 Z fibrous, fuzzy, weft/warp
 loose spin faced, dense
 & fluffy
 cloth

Phase 2 -- -- --

Phase 2 -- -- compact
 weave,

Archaeological Textile
phase quality

Phase 1 --

Phase 1 --

Phase 1 --

Phase 1 --

Phase 1 --

Phase 2 --

Phase 2 mended

Phase 2 --

Phase 2 --

Phase 2 --

Phase 2 missing
 elements,
 worn

Phase 2 worn

Phase 2 --

Phase 2 missing
 elements,
 worn

Phase 2 missing
 elements,
 worn

Phase 2 --

Phase 2 --

Phase 2 --

Table 2. Textile evidence in central Eurasia from the Eneolithic
to Bronze Age. Key to citations: 1) Olsen & Harding 2008; 2)
Chernai 1985; 3) Glushkov & Glushkova 1992; 4) Shishlina et al.
2003; 5) Shishlina et al. 2000; 6) Shishlina 1999; 7) Gryaznov
1969; 8) Good 2006; 9) Heinsch & Vandiver 2006; 10) Tatarintseva
1984; 11) Bird 1956; 12) Kupriyanova 2008; 13) Ucmanova 2010; 14)
Vinogradov & Mukhina 1985; 15) Orfinskaya et al. 1999; 16)
Heibert 1994; 17) Chernai 1981; 18) Gulyamov et al. 1966; 19)
Sprishevskiy 1974; 20) Korobkova 1962.

 Geographic Archaeological
Time period region culture

c. 3700-3100 BC north Kazakhstan Botai

c. late 4th mill BC Tobol-Irtysh Krohalevka &
 forest-steppe neighbouring
 sites

c. 3700-2500 BC north Caucasus Majkop, Yamnaya

c. 3700-2500 BC Minusinsk basin Afanasevo

c. late 4th mill BC Iranian plateau Shahr-i Sokhta

c. 3500-2500 BC Caucasus Kura-Araxes

c. late 3rd mill BC Ishim forest steppe Vishnevka I &
 II(site)

c. late 3rd mill BC Quetta Valley, Harappa
 Pakistan

c. 2450-1000 BC south-east Begash (site)
 Kazakhstan

c. 2050-1900 BC south-east Ural Sintashta
 mountains, north
 Kazakhstan

c. 1900-1750 BC south-east Ural Petrovka
 mountains, north
 Kazakhstan

c. 1700-1500 BC north-central Alakul
 Kazakhstan

c. 2200-1800 BC Turkmenistan Gonur (site)

2nd-1st mill BC Moscow region D'yakovska

2nd-1st mill BC Fergana Valley, Chust & later
 Uzbekistan

 Vessel
Time period Textile evidence manufacture

c. 3700-3100 BC textile & cordage concave moulding,
 impressions paddling,
 stamping

c. late 4th mill BC textile & fibre concave moulding,
 impressions paddling,
 stamping

c. 3700-2500 BC textile impressions, --
 textiles, basketry

c. 3700-2500 BC cordage impressions stamping

c. late 4th mill BC textile impressions, unspecified
 textiles

c. 3500-2500 BC textile impressions possible moulding

c. late 3rd mill BC textile impressions concave, convex
 moulding

c. late 3rd mill BC textile impressions convex moulding

c. 2450-1000 BC textile & cordage convex moulding,
 impressions, yarn stamping

c. 2050-1900 BC textile impressions, convex moulding
 textiles

c. 1900-1750 BC textile impressions, convex moulding
 textiles

c. 1700-1500 BC textile impressions convex moulding

c. 2200-1800 BC textile impressions --

2nd-1st mill BC textile impressions moulded

2nd-1st mill BC textile impressions convex moulding
 and other

Time period Cloth structure Raw material

c. 3700-3100 BC unwoven, twined bast (hemp/nettle)

c. late 4th mill BC unwoven, twined --

c. 3700-2500 BC plain weave, twined wool, flax, cotton(?)

c. 3700-2500 BC -- --

c. late 4th mill BC plain weave --

c. 3500-2500 BC unspecified --

c. late 3rd mill BC twined, plain weave --

c. late 3rd mill BC plain weave --

c. 2450-1000 BC twined, plain weave plant & wool(?)

c. 2050-1900 BC plain weave, twined plant & wool

c. 1900-1750 BC plain weave, compound plant & wool
 weave

c. 1700-1500 BC plain weave plant & wool

c. 2200-1800 BC -- --

2nd-1st mill BC twined, knitted --

2nd-1st mill BC plain, twill, repp --

Time period Citation

c. 3700-3100 BC 1, 2, 3

c. late 4th mill BC 3

c. 3700-2500 BC 4, 5, 6

c. 3700-2500 BC 7

c. late 4th mill BC 8

c. 3500-2500 BC 9

c. late 3rd mill BC 2.10

c. late 3rd mill BC 11

c. 2450-1000 BC --

c. 2050-1900 BC 2, 12-15

c. 1900-1750 BC 2, 14, 15

c. 1700-1500 BC 14.15

c. 2200-1800 BC 16

2nd-1st mill BC 17

2nd-1st mill BC 18-20