So we’ve discussed how simple it would be for the earliest loom technology to not have an imprint in the archaeology. It really seems to me that weaving could not have been too far behind spinning. That we have found pieces of fabric (a rare find in itself) with selvage edges which were obviously made with looms proves that looms existed before we have record of them.
The earliest looms we do know about were about 12,000 years ago. While this corresponds to approximately when we domesticated sheep, it would be several more millennia before humans would stop tanning sheep skins as clothing, and start shearing sheep for their wool leaving the animal alive. The earliest looms must have been continuing the use of plant based fibers. Cotton, hemp and linen fibers were woven into set pieces of fabric, much of which would have a slit cut in the neck (or created during weaving) and then have the edges sewn up, leaving holes for arms. This simple tunic, using the entire piece of fabric that had been woven, formed the basis for early clothing throughout the world. The realization that silk fibers and the hair from animals such as alpacas and sheep revolutionized clothing and animal husbandry, and allowed people to live in less hospitable climates, even if the use of tanned skins started this migration.
What the archaeological record does show is that by 400 BCE, commercial looms are found. People were making more fabric than they needed and selling the surplus as a livelihood, not merely for a little extra cash. It’s staggering to wonder how many spinsters they would need to create so much fabric, as the next innovation in spinning would not be invented until the first millennium. We have no record of commercial yarn sales yet, but these weaving shops would have needed a lot of yarn.
The tale of Rumpelstiltskin apparently dates back millennia, and suddenly makes more sense. A daughter who can spin quickly and well can obviously ‘spin straw to gold’, or raw materials to money.
