#lang scribble/base
@(require "../Bibliography/cite.rkt"
          scriblib/footnote)

@define-cite-footnote[footnote
                      make-footnote
                      cite-footnote]

@title{Domestic Production of Textiles}

@; Kleijwegt: I must confess that this is meaningless to me; I know that this is what scholars claim, but I am not particularly convinced; is this simply based on the frequency with which the image is used in literature of the Augustan period?; there are very few inscriptions which use the trope

The trope of the dutiful woman employed with textile work was common throughout the ancient Mediterranean world.@footnote{@cite[Barber1994], @cite[Cottica2006], @cite[LarssonLoven2002]} In many ancient societies, early Rome included, women would contribute to the domestic economy of the household with wool work. This would provide the clothing and necessary textiles for the family and, if a surplus was produced, it could be sold to contribute to the household funds. In Ancient Greek literature and iconography, textile production was used as a shorthand to distinguish women's spaces, most notably through the common representation of women spinning wool on vases. While not as visible in Roman culture as it had been in Greek culture, this trope made a resurgence in the early empire even as the Roman textile industry shifted farther toward commercialization.@footnote{@cite[LarssonLoven2007] 230, @cite[LarssonLoven2002] 8}
@; Kleijwegt: I am not that much interested in who is saying this – see footnote.  I am much more interested in what makes them say this.  How do they see a resurgence?  Is that just a numbers game?

@; NDC: Idealized? You have argued - rightly - that textile production was important in the past and remained so. So does the focus on women and textiles under Augustus reflect a real but lost or an idealized past? 
This seemingly contradictory trend fit into the spirit of Augustus's moral reforms by referring back to traditional women's roles. When Augustus came into power the Roman world was in upheaval. The civil wars and political intrigues had depleted the population of patrician men, social structures were changing, and Augustus himself was actively re-forming the political structure of their society. The new emperor was walking a fine line between distancing himself from the despotic kings of the past while simultaneously hearkening back to an idealized past. The moral reforms aimed to mitigate the damage of the preceding decades. Many of these reforms were particularly focused on women. In rewarding patrician women who bore multiple children, for instance, they stimulated population growth for the dwindling aristocracy. Since textile production had traditionally been the women's domain, referencing this history even as centralized production centers overtook the traditional cottage industry, was a way to praise women within the framework of tradition.@footnote{Praise for historical methods of textile production in reference to an idealized past has been utilized for political gains repeatedly throughout history. Some examples include prioritizing 'homespun' cloth over imported fabrics during the American Revolution, see: @cite[Ulrich2001], and Mahatma Gandhi's return to traditional Indian textile techniques, see: @cite[Trivedi2007].}

@; CW: Maybe expand on the ways in which women were given more rights, also expand a bit about there being a vacuum left by the diminished male population

@section{Augustan Propaganda and the Domestic Production of Textiles}

The association between women, textiles, and a 'simpler time' is particularly evident in the story of Lucretia: the mytho-historical woman whose death catalyzed the downfall of the Etruscan kings and the foundation of the Roman Republic. The two primary sources that relate Lucretia's story are from Ovid's @italic{Fasti} and Livy's @italic{History of Rome,} both written during the reign of Augustus. The story begins at a military encampment, where a group of men including Lucretia's husband, Tarquinius Collatinus, and the Tarquin princes brag over the virtues of their wives. In light of their drunken discussion, they decided to make a contest of it: they would ride home unexpectedly, surprise their wives, and determine by their actions and reactions whose wife was superior. Below are the accounts by Ovid and Livy of how they discovered their wives:

@bold{Ovid:} @nested[#:style 'inset]{The royal palace first they seek: no sentinel was at the door. Lo, they find the king’s daughters-in-law, their necks draped with garlands, keeping their vigils over the wine. Thence they galloped to Lucretia, before whose bed were baskets full of soft wool. By a dim light the handmaids were spinning their allotted stints of yarn. Amongst them the lady spoke on accents soft: “Haste ye now, haste, my girls! The cloak our hands have wrought must to your master be instantly dispatched.@footnote{ Ovid, @italic{Fasti} 2.722-751}}

@bold{Livy:}@nested[#:style 'inset]{Lucretia was discovered very differently employed from the daughters-in-law of the king. These they had seen at a luxurious banquet, whiling away the time with their young friends; but Lucretia, though it was late at night, was busily engaged upon her wool, while her maidens toiled about her in the lamplight as she sat in the hall of her house. The prize of this contest in womanly virtues fell to Lucretia.@footnote{Livy, @italic{History of Rome} 1.57.9}}

Lucretia's incorruptible virtue and her devotion to her husband, Tarquinius Collatinus, even in his absence so inflamed the ardor of the prince Sextus Tarquinius that he returned alone days later and raped her. To preserve her family honor, she summoned her father and husband to come with witnesses and after she told them her story she committed suicide. One of the witnesses, Lucius Junius Brutus, swore on the knife covered in Lucretia's chaste blood to overthrow the Tarquins and no longer suffer kings in Rome.

Lucretia's feminine virtues are what situate her as the linchpin of this political shift and domestic textile production is one of the primary indicators of that virtue. While her husband was away at war, Lucretia was at home, properly attended by maidservants, and quietly and industriously working into the night. In Ovid's text, she even identifies the product of that labor as a cloak for her husband to use in the field while on campaign -- expressing concern for his safety and needs. Her textile work and the motivations behind it reflect the virtues of a good wife: devoted, loyal, industrious, and decorous. 

While both Livy and Ovid include Lucretia's virtue as one of the primary features that attracts Sextus Tarquinius's unwanted attention, Ovid makes the connection explicit as the prince exclaims about his forbidden love: "’Twas thus she sat, ‘twas thus she dressed, ‘twas thus she spun the yarn, ‘twas thus her tresses lay fallen on her neck ..." including her wool work within a more extensive list of her attractions.@footnote{ Ovid, @italic{Fasti} 2.768-772} It was exactly the same positive traits that made her a good wife that Sextus Tarquinius felt compelled to despoil. As such, Lucretia was the ideal victim to fuel public outrage at the excesses and crimes of the ruling party: a good woman, doing everything properly and still blamelessly brought to shame.

In contrast to this feminine ideal, the king's daughters-in-law provided further fuel toward the anti-royal sentiments. They were dressed extravagantly, drinking, socializing and had no porter guarding the door (the last bastion between a virtuous wife and a corrupting lover). In this description, the authors were drawing upon common characterizations and scenarios that Latin poets used to describe encounters with their mistresses. In effect, Ovid and Livy were highlighting that, unlike Lucretia, these women were neglecting their responsibilities. Based on how they were dressed, how much they drank, who they were with they were acting more like men and putting themselves and their reputations at risk.

The noble Lucretia was portrayed in an inviting scene of domestic comfort: maidservants present to do the bulk of the work, inviting lamplight, soft wool, and a softer voice as she expresses her concerns for her heroic husband's safety. Later in the Fasti, Ovid draws on the same trope of diligent matron working with wool in an entirely different social context:

@nested[#:style 'inset]{A thrifty countrywoman had a small croft, she and her sturdy spouse. He tilled his own land, whether the work called for the plough, or the curved sickle, or the hoe. She would now sweep the cottage, supported on props; now she would set the eggs to be hatched under the plumage of the brooding hen; or she gathered green mallows or white mushrooms, or warmed the low hearth with welcome fire. And yet she diligently employed her
hands at the loom, and armed herself against the threats of winter.@footnote{ Ovid, @italic{Fasti} 4.687-714}}

This scene depicts the hard-working matron in the harsher world of the laboring class. Her other chores are far more numerous and menial but nonetheless she weaves by her own hand in spite of her other work. Textile production is again highlighted as a woman's primary contribution to the household. The other tasks are grouped together in a list, whereas weaving and the looming threat of winter that necessitate her work are given greater weight in their own sentence. Both Lucretia and the country woman are providing for their husbands. While the urgency with which Lucretia produced a cloak for her husband was caused by the war, it is unlikely that Collatinus would greatly suffer without Lucretia's direct role in its production. For the countrywoman, there is a more pressing need to weave the necessary garments before the winter falls in addition to her other daily labor. With no servants to pick up the slack, if she does not finish her work before the winter her family will suffer the consequences.

While both Lucretia and the thrifty countrywoman are archetypes, the association between women and textile production reflected real women as well. In his @italic{Life of Augustus,} Suetonius tells us that: "Except on special occasions he wore common clothes for the house, made by his sister, wife, daughter or granddaughters."@footnote{ Suetonius, @italic{Life of Augustus} 73 as translated in @cite[Suetonius]. Also discussed in @cite[LarssonLoven2007] 124} This assertion likely reflected extreme traditionalism on both the part of the emperor and his family. It demonstrates that Augustus preferred simplicity in his clothing over imported luxury fabrics while for the women of his family it demonstrated that they met traditional standards of domestic labor.@cite-footnote[Wardle2014 450] Like Lucretia, the women of the imperial family would have sufficient servants to carry out the production of textiles for the household as well as sufficient means to purchase on the growing market of commercial textiles available.@footnote{Indeed, records from Livia's household after Augustus's death include a high number of servants specifically for wardrobe maintenance and textile-production; @cite[Treggiari1975]} It seems, therefore, that this assertion should be taken with a grain of salt. While it is likely that these women had the skill and ability to spin and weave, it is difficult to imagine the Imperial ladies providing all of the labor for the emperor's wardrobe given the sheer amount of production time required to spin and weave a single tunic.@footnote{According to Ulrike Roth's calculations, the total labor required to spin and weave a single tunic would amount to roughly 159-170 hours total, or the equivalent of one person's devoted labor for an entire month. @cite[Roth2007-Spinning] 81-82} However, the notion that Augustus's female relatives embodied that nostalgic ideal of female virtue was politically potent for the first emperor, particularly in light of his moral reforms that urge other noble women to follow a similar path.

@; NDC: yes, indeed, and this has been pointed out by many studies of Aug.
@; NDC: move info about Livia's servants to main text, but first check Treggiari. Do we know more about Augustus'/Livia's own textile-producing slaves? how many male, how many female?

Other moralizing texts applied a more direct correlation between textile production and women's virtue. Less than a century after these Augustan paragons of domestic diligence, Columella chastised modern wives for purchasing pre-made clothing and neglecting to even supervise servant labor with wool.@footnote{ Columella, @italic{On Agriculture} 12.preaf.9-10}

@nested[#:style 'inset]{But as it is now, some women are advanced to such a pitch of shamelessness as not only, though they are women, to give vent to intemperate language and abuse among a crowd of men, but even to strike men and insult them, with hands practiced rather in works of the loom and spinning than in blows and assaults, like competitors in the @italic{pancratium} or wrestlers...@footnote{Philo, @italic{Special Laws} 172-5}}

@; CW: End above paragraph with either a period or ellipses?

Philo took it a step further and juxtaposed textile production as the benchmark of traditional women's tasks with the decidedly masculine action of physical attack. He indicates that not only were women's hands more suited to textile work by training and experience, but that their application in physical violence against a man called into question her femininity itself. 

All of the above examples, however, refer to either the ideal or the excesses of the Roman woman. While these sources are useful in establishing cultural context of the link between women and textile crafts, they do not illustrate the realities of Roman women or Roman textile production.

@subsection{Epitaphs to Virtuous Housewives}

Much like the literary trend discussed above, a small number of funerary inscriptions from Rome and elsewhere in the empire follow a formula for female virtues which include textile production tied in with the roles of wife and mother.@footnote{ While there are no epitaphs from any of the three case-studies discussed in this work, I felt that the practice within the empire as a whole was still relevant to discuss in the synthesis chapter.} While this handful of examples is not statistically significant, the pattern that they represent is worth noting in this work.

In the simplest instances, wool-work is merely included in a list of other feminine virtues: "Here lies Amymone, wife of Marcus, most good and most beautiful, @index['("quasillaria/spinner")]{wool-spinner,} dutiful, modest, careful, chaste, stay-at-home." @footnote{ @italic{CIL} 6.11602} In this case, Amymone is described as a @italic{@index['("lanificia")]{lanifica}} or @index['("quasillaria/spinner")]{wool-spinner.} Elsewhere, this term is used as a job title,@cite-footnote[Treggiari1976 82] but paired with the term @italic{domiseda,} stay at home, ties it to the domestic tradition.

@; NDC: It surprises me that there aren't any relevant epitaphs from e.g. Ephesus, which has such a rich epitaphic tradition.


An epitaph to Murdia uses @italic{@index['("lanificia")]{lanificia}} as a virtue:

@nested[#:style 'inset]{...Hereby my mother, dearest to me, won the greatest praise of all, in that in modesty, decency, chastity, obedience, woolmaking, zeal, and loyalty she was like and similar to other good women.@footnote{ @italic{CIL} 6.10230}}

The attributes listed here include many of the same themes common in women's epitaphs and highlighted in the story of Lucretia: @italic{modestia, probitas, pudicitia, @index['("lanificia")]{lanificia} sequio, diligentia, fide.} The epitaph then self-reflectively identifies that this is a formula by noting that these are characteristics common among good women.

We have fragments from an epitaph commonly referred to as the @italic{Laudatio Turiae} from multiple locations in Rome. This detailed funerary inscription from a husband to his wife is the longest known private epitaph from Rome. The full inscription tells the compelling story of a brave woman who not only persisted through the danger of the proscriptions but saved her husband's life as well.@cite-footnote[Hemelrijk2004 185] After praising Turia for her long and faithful marriage that ended only with her death, it continues:

@nested[#:style 'inset]{Why should I mention your personal virtues - your modesty, obedience, affability, and good nature, your tireless attention to wool-working, your performance of religious duties without superstitious fear, your artless elegance and simplicity of dress? Why speak about your affection toward your relatives, your sense of duty toward your family (for you cared for my mother as you cared for you own parents)? Why recall the countless other virtues which you have in common with all Roman matrons worth[y] of that name? The virtues I claim for you are your own special virtues; few people have possessed similar ones or been known to possess them. The history of the human race tells us how rare they are.@footnote{ @italic{CIL} 6.1527 As Translated by S. Treggiari}}
@;http://www.attalus.org/docs/cil/epitaph.html#6.1527

The short excerpt cited above both draws on and subverts the formula we see in the epitaph to Murdia. This inscription in unique in that is juxtaposes the public (and therefore typically masculine) exploits of the deceased with the private (and therefore typically feminine) attributes that we see in other inscriptions of this type.@cite-footnote[Hemelrijk2004 186] Following his detailed summary of his wife's heroic and brave deeds, he questions whether he needs to follow the standard formula for feminine praise when she has so many unique virtues that set her apart from other women. In questioning whether it is necessary, however, he nonetheless utilizes and expands the standard list. She doesn't just work with wool but had a tireless attention to wool-working (@italic{comitatis facilitatis @index['("lanificia")]{lanificii} studii}).
      
@; NDC: praeterito

A frequently cited epitaph to Claudia from Rome fits into this trend. It first highlights her role as a daughter, wife, and mother of sons with an emphasis on the fact that one of her sons predeceased her:

@nested[#:style 'inset]{Stranger, my message is short. Stand and read it through. Here is the unlovely tomb of a lovely woman. Her parents named her Claudia. She loved her husband with all her heart. She bore two sons; of these she leaves one above ground, but one has already been laid within the earth. She was charming in conversation and gentle in manner. She kept the house, and she spun wool. That is all there is to say. Go now.@footnote{ @italic{CIL} 1.1211}}
@;include dates and locations for epitaphs

In describing the deceased herself, this epitaph notes that she was charming and gentle, that she kept the house, and she spun wool. This inscription uses the phrase @italic{lanam fecit,} she spun/worked with wool, emphasizing wool-work as an activity that reflects a virtue rather than a virtue itself. This inscription, commonly dated to the Republican period, is often considered the earliest epitaph of this type. Recent scholars, however, have convincingly questioned this dating and the authenticity of this inscription due several incongruities including word-usage that was not common in the Republican period, lack of similar inscriptions from the period, and most notably naming traditions (a legitimate daughter born to a father named Claudius would be named Claudia by default, not given the name by her parents' choice). Due to these inconsistencies, it is most likely that this particular epigraph is a sixteenth century forgery.@cite-footnote[Massaro2018 107] 

Funerary epitaphs, typically provided by the father, husband, or son(s) for a deceased woman, are written by the surviving family and often reflect their priorities.@cite-footnote[Saller2007 90] They frequently name the men in the woman's life -- sometimes even omitting the name of the deceased herself in favor of her husband or father's name. In fact, another atypical aspect of the inscription to Claudia is that while her parents, husband, and sons are all mentioned, she is the only one named.
@;Do more analysis of the epitaphs as a whole. How do these differ from 'job title' epitaphs, even if it is a 'job title' women are more likely to be identified by their domestic merits than their professional roles based on Roman gender ideologies @cite-footnote[LarssonLoven2007 124] etc. 

@section{Social Hierarchy and the Division of Domestic Labor}

The image of the productive housewife was the root of the associative ideal between women and wool work; however, they likely represented only a small portion of the labor force within the home.@cite-footnote[Cottica2007] While the women of the household may have participated in this activity, much of the labor was done by domestic slaves and servants. The majority of these were likely women, but male slaves and servants performed some tasks in textile production as well.@cite-footnote[Lyapustin1985] Social class and financial means dictated whether the mistress of the household herself was engaged in spinning and weaving or in supervision of slave or servant labor. In Livy's version of the story of Lucretia, the lady of the house is engaged in her own textile work alongside her servants.@footnote{Livy, @italic{History of Rome} 1.57.9} In Ovid's version, Lucretia takes on a supervisory role with the baskets of wool before her while her servants are each busy spinning an allotted amount. 

Even in just the two scenes from Ovid's @italic{Fasti} discussed above we can see four tiers of women and their relationship to textile production: The royal wives who are luxurious to a fault and spend their time frivolously are not engaged in textile work at all; Lucretia who is wealthy but modest and contributes to the textile production out of duty; the thrifty countrywoman who weaves out of harsh necessity among her other work; and the domestic servants who are also working into the night at the command of their mistress while Lucretia is assigned all of the credit for their labor.

At the bottom of this social hierarchy of domestic labor, assets are transferable. The two contracts from Karanis discussed above reflect these lower tiers of domestic labor. For example, in one contract from Karanis, Aurelia Taesis offered her own domestic labor in weaving and other household tasks as collateral for a loan to pay off her father Asklepiades's debt.@footnote{P. Mich. Inv. 2819} Her skill at weaving, therefore transferred from her father's household to Aurelia Thaisarion's until the loan was paid off. This scenario likely also reflects a shift in A. Taesis's position in that hierarchy from a free but plebian daughter to, essentially, a slave within A. Thaisarion's household. 

The transfer of labor can also serve the purpose of education in textile crafts and therefore represent an accumulation of assets. For example, the slave owner, Aurelius Ision, requires a servant to produce textiles within his home and therefore contracts out his slave girl as an apprentice to Aurelia Libouke, a professional @index['("textrix")]{weaver,} in order to learn the trade.@footnote{P. Mich. Inv. 5191} Typically, education of textile production would happen within the @italic{domus,} with older servants or slaves teaching the younger on the job.@cite-footnote[Saller2007 109] The contract does not specify his reasons for apprenticing her to the @index['("textrix")]{weaver} -- perhaps there were no other slaves or servants to teach her, or he specifically wanted a servant capable of producing higher quality fabrics than he had -- but after her apprenticeship she would put her new skills to use within his household. She would also then be in a position to pass this knowledge on to other members of the @italic{domus.} This contract from Karanis stands out within a larger study of @index['("textor/weaver")]{weaver's} apprenticeship contracts from Egypt, in which the majority of apprentices are boys.@cite-footnote[Saller2007 106] 

@; NDC: What is the evidence for older servants/slaves teaching the younger within the household?

@; NDC: Saller's study of weaver's apprenticeship contracts ... is women's education differen't from men's in general?


@section{Archaeological Evidence of Domestic Production of Textiles}
@; NDC: you've done this at Karanis, Trier, and Ephesus; maybe specify here 'more generally' or something

@; Me: give Karanis a greater prominence of place in this section

Textile tools in domestic contexts are common finds throughout the Roman Empire, though they are often not adequately reported or assessed.@cite-footnote[Quercia-Foxhall2015 62] While loom weights and @index['("spindle/whorl")]{spindle whorls} are fairly ubiquitous they are rarely decorated, their forms remain static over long periods of time, and it is rare to find relatively complete domestic assemblages so they are often only briefly mentioned in excavation reports and publications as we've seen with Trier. Publications that focus on textiles in particular are more likely to give specific details from decentralized locations within the empire.@cite-footnote[Lipkin2012] Detailed reports about the textile tools from any one site typically cover anomalies: a large quantity of tools -- like Messene where 141 loom weights were discovered in one Roman villa@footnote{141 loom weights from Roman Villa A, XVII/6 out of over 1000 loom weights total from the site as a whole @cite[Gkika2012 74]} -- a unique assemblage of artifacts -- like the @index['("distaff")]{distaffs} from Ephesus -- or a particularly high level of preservation -- like Karanis.

Survival bias for looms is always problematic. The majority of the loom is made of perishable materials and do not survive. In most cases we rely on clay or stone @index['("loom weight")]{loom weights} from warp-weighted looms as evidence of the loom as a whole because they can survive. Even so, complete sets of loom weights are rare. Twenty weights or more are typically required to furnish a full-size loom, yet these artifacts are often found in smaller groupings or even on their own.@cite-footnote[Flohr2013 66] In Pompeii, sets of loom weights discovered @italic{in situ} suggest that smaller looms may have been operational with as few as four weights.@cite-footnote[Allison2004 157] This makes interpretation of loom weights difficult. If one house contains two @index['("loom weight")]{loom weights} found in different rooms, do these reflect two separate looms, or part of a larger set?@cite-footnote[Roth2007-Spinning 79]

Relying on @index['("loom weight")]{loom weights} is particularly problematic for the Roman Imperial period when the the two-beam upright loom gained popularity.@cite-footnote[Wild1976] Unlike the warp-weighted loom, the two-beam upright loom did not require weights at all and therefore left no archaeological footprint. Given these factors, it is often impossible to determine if a loom was present in any given context. Other weaving equipment, such as shuttles, @index['("heddle")]{heddles}, @index['("heddle jack")]{heddle jacks}, and @index['("weaver's comb")]{weaver's combs}, would likewise be made of wood and therefore not survive. The presence of @index['("spindle/whorl")]{spindle whorls}, then, becomes the most archaeologically reliable evidence of domestic textile production. However, spinning could be done nearly anywhere as spindles are extremely portable. The presence of @index['("spindle/whorl")]{spindle whorls}, therefore, does not necessarily indicate the presence of a loom. 

Within Roman houses, textile tools are most frequently uncovered in the atrium, small rooms off of the atrium, or in the courtyard.@footnote{@cite[Allison2004 69], @cite[DAmbra2007 97]} In line with this trend, five of the ornate @index['("distaff")]{distaffs} from Ephesus were discovered either in the courtyard or the vicinity of the peristyle of the terrace houses.@cite-footnote[Trinkl2004 292] These locations were open, public portions of the Roman household. While @index['("spindle/whorl")]{spindles} were portable and could have easily been moved from room to room depending on the time of day, it is difficult to move a loom once it is dressed and in use. Therefore, if it was set up in the atrium, it would have been visible to both members of the @italic{domus} and guests alike. In her analysis of the Ephesus @index['("distaff")]{distaffs}, Elizabeth Trink even argues that their concentration around the courtyard and peristyle was because they were intentionally displayed as status symbols of domestic authority and matronly virtue.@cite-footnote[Trinkl2004 302]

@; NDC: This is a bit short for such a big subject. Agreed, this is not a dissertation about the whole of the Roman empire, but perhaps either more bib. here or acknowledgement that this is a subject that hasn't yet been dealt with systematically but needs to be in the way that you were trying todo with the 3 case studies.

@section{Conclusions}

According to the laws and literature of the time, the early empire was a period where women gained new roles and rights, but through the virtue of maintaining old roles and duties. Mytho-historical accounts reflect old myths re-told by new authors in the imperial period with a political agenda. The moral of the stories remained, but their applications changed over time. The outcome of Lucretia's story highlighted the negative impact of kings on the Roman people, and in the political rebirth of the empire it was re-branded to continue to disavow kings while easing the path for emperors. It is impossible to tell the extent to which this framing was real as opposed to Augustan propaganda. However, while Augustan authors were re-framing the myths to support women's increasing rights while emphasizing their domestic duties, the archaeological record demonstrates continued production of textiles within the domestic sphere. 

@;write conclusions for each of these sub-chapters

@; NDC: **The archaeological record at Karanis, Trier, and Ephesus"? and purhaps further. "for domestic and commercial consumption" or something?? You're drawing together a big chunk of the dissertation her, and a bit more conclusion would be satisfying.

@make-footnote[]

@(generate-chapter-bibliography)