Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 31/1. (2011)
Articles
36 P. Mazäre this period. It is possible that other devices - like ground-looms, body-tensioned looms and various other small tools11 - may have been used but they did not survive. The archaeological finds also demonstrate that the representative binding structure for the Neolithic fabrics is the plain weave and its derivatives. Evidence of the oldest woven textiles was found in the Near East, the textile impressions found in PPNA at Jerf el-Ahmar or at PPNB sites from Jarmo, Qayönü, El Kowm (Adovasio 1977a, Barber 1991, 126-127, fig. 4.2; Breniquet 2008, 32, 55, Tab. III). The oldest textile fragments, consisting of plain weave fabrics and narrow tapes in warp-faced weave were discovered at iratai Elüyük (PPNB) (Helbaek 1963, 40-41; Burnham 1965, 172, pl. XXXIII; Barber 1991, 126-127, fig. 4.3; Breniquet 2008, 32, 55, Tab. III). Starting with the 6th millennium BC fragments of woven textiles were also discovered at various sites in Asia Minor (Barber 1991, 128-133; Breniquet 2008, 56-58). The oldest textile fragments from Europe were discovered in the submerged Neolithic settlement of La Marmota (lake Bracciano) dated to 5480-5260 BC (Rottoli 2003,68; Gleba 2008, 43). The major group of Neolithic textile vestiges however are of a later date, ca. 4000-2600 BC, and they were found in the lake-dwelling sites of Switzerland and Southern Germany (Vogt 1937; La Baume 1955; Bazzanella Et Al. 2003; Barber 1991, 134-143; Bender Jorgensen 2003, 55; Rast-Eicher 2005, 121-128; Médard 2000; 2010; 105-143, 191-243). Elsewhere in Europe they appear sporadically in the form of textile imprints and are generally older than woven textiles found in Central Europe. Early Neolithic textile imprints were found in Hungary, at various sites belonging to the Körös culture, like those (over 40 imprints) from Endrőd (Makkay 2001,12-18, fig. 1-3, 5-15) and Szentes-Kiss Boldizsár (Richter 2009, fig. 34.1.1). Also textile imprints were found in several Middle to Late Neolithic sites (Szakálhát, Tisza and Lengyel cultures) of the Great Hungarian Plain (Makkay 2001, 19-20, fig. 17; Richter 2005, fig. 7-8; Richter 2009, 211-212, fig. 34.1.2-3). In other countries textile imprints were found at Sitagroi, phase I, dated to ca. 5500- 5200 BC (Adovasio-Illingworth 2003,254-255, pi. 619; Elster 2003,258,259-261, 266, 271), Divostin, Serbia (Vinca culture) (Adovasio-Maslowski 1988, 350, pi. 1/g-h), Hesserode, Kreis Melsungen, Germany (Linear Pottery Culture) (Lüning 2005, 219, Bild 374); Kraków-Nova Huta- Clo, site 65 (Kaczanowska 2006, 108) or other sites from Polland (Chmielewski 2009, Rye. 126; T. XXXIII; XXXIV). They also appear frequently in the area of the Cucuteni-Tripolie culture, in Ukraine (Ljasko Et Al. 2004, 94, 515), Republic of Moldova and Romania (Marian 2009). Twenty-four woven textiles were identified in Romania, more precisely 22 textile imprints and 2 pseudomorphs (Table 1). Two types of structures were distinguished: 1. twenty-two plain weave fabrics (Table 1/1, 4-5, 8-10, 12-13, 17, 20, 22) and 2. one narrow tape in warp-faced weave (Table 1/15). Except the band imprint which dates back to Neolithic, all the other woven textile imprints come from the Copper Age: Foeni group and Cucuteni and Tiszapolgár cultures (Fig. 9-10). *** Even though the discoveries from Romania are rather scarce, they prove that Neolithic and Copper Age populations were capable of producing a variety of textile structures using different techniques. We can clearly distinguish two large groups of textiles: twined and woven 11 Although controversial, some finds and features from the PPNB site of El Kowm (Breniquet 2008, 142-143, fig. 34) and the Chalcolithic Cave of the Treasure in Nahal Mishmar (Bar Adon 1980 after Breniquet 2008, MO- 143, fig. 33; Barber 1991, 86) seem to be the earliest evidence of the ground and/or backstrap loom usage.
