Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 31/1. (2011)
Articles
28 P. Mazäre These studies are not enough to cover the gap of knowledge that is presently displayed for the territory of Romania towards the study of this major ‘invisible craft’ of prehistoric times. The almost total lack of actual textile remains (real archaeological textiles)1 and the scarcity of textile impressions and other forms of textile preservation - like pseudomorphs - must be seen as the main inhibiting cause towards the development of research in prehistoric textiles for Romania. The small number of articles and studies dedicated to textiles and pottery textile imprints before 2004, is a proof of this (Gumä 1977; Zaharia-Cädariu 1979; Nica 1981). In most cases the topic of textile imprints has been treated in short notes and observations within the pottery studies or the chapters dedicated to pottery in archaeological site monographs. Further proofs and finds are probably still awaiting re-discovery within the museum’s pottery collections. In order to provide a basis and an encouragement for future studies we considered necessary to create a short review of textile structures and techniques identified to the present days, with focus on Neolithic and Copper Age finds in Romania.1 2 Textiles definition In a strict sense ‘textile’ refers only to woven cloth, the source of the word coming from the Latin word texere, to weave. In a broad sense the term applies to all structures created from perishable materials, with a more or less rigid appearance (Adovasio 1996). We chose the definition proposed by E. Barber, a definition that makes a clear distinction between textile and matting/basketry. By textiles the author understands all types of woven and unwoven clothes that are “thin sheets of material made from fibres, which are soft and floppy enough to be used as coverings for people and things” (Barber 1991, 5). Therefore, even though they can structurally resemble textiles, the products created from more rigid materials do not share the same properties and purposes and they often require special techniques. Compared to textile fibres, rigid or semi-rigid raw materials, like straws or wickers do not require the use of additional tools in the process of creating a finite product, mats, basketry or wickerwork. In defining textile products we differentiate fabric (structure) and technique. The fabric characterizes the interlacing system, and the technique is depicting the creation process (Médard-Seiler-Baldinger 2010, 61). The classification of textile creation techniques by A. Seiler-Baldinger (1991; 1994) shows that, even if the number of structures is limited, the way in which they are obtained is various.3 Towards this the author relates about the ‘ambiguous’ structures in which the correspondence between a structure and a particular textile technique is hard to define. This applies especially to archaeological textiles that are in most cases just fragmentary (Seiler-Baldinger 2003,55-56; Médard-Seiler-Baldinger 2010,61). She distinguishes between primary manufacturing processes, i.e. “methods using no or very simple implements” and advanced techniques which “invariably require equipment” (Seiler-Baldinger 1994, 5). The textiles made by primary techniques comprise a large variety of mesh fabrics and plaiting. 1 Besides textile fragments belonging to a bedspread found at Sucidava-Celei, the Celei group (Nica 1981) we do not have any knowledge of found and published textiles artefacts, to this day. 2 It is possible that the data is incomplete due to the large volume of bibliography and archaeological material that could contain relevant information to our study. In other words the current data is to be considered a stage of research and is opened to future additions. 3 In defining techniques of creating the textile fabrics the author considers that “the fineness and quality of the threads are of secondary importance”, and so the classification can also be applied to fabrics of more rigid materials, such as basketry/wickerwork.
