 Thank you very much and as many others have said as well, thank you all for bringing this panel together. It's a fabulous day. I hope I won't sour it now. The freeze that surrounded the Temple to Minerva in the Forum Transitorium features not just textiles, but textiles making more specifically. Focused mainly on the freeze's depiction of weaving technology, textile scholars tend to tentatively accept the identification of the central motif as the contest between Arachne and Minerva, but we rarely go beyond the notion of Arachne as an exquisitely skilled weaver for the motivation of that motif. While if D'Ambra's monograph on the freeze argues persuasively for this identification based on the dynamic poses of the central characters, D'Ambra understandably makes relatively little of the diverse and novel textile technologies displayed in other parts of the freeze. Taking a more holistic approach, I will explore more fully the connections between the display of Minerva's victory over Arachne in the central narrative panel and the attention to training and technology technological development rather in textile crafts that dominates elsewhere in the freeze. I will first address the effectiveness of Arachne's story as a cautionary tale for which D'Ambra has argued by connecting it more closely to contemporary literary references to Arachne. These will then be used to review the connections of Arachne's story to the focus on weaving technology in other parts of the freeze. D'Ambra argues that to demission, Arachne's story serves as a cautionary tale because Arachne is a rebel against authority, she offends against Minerva and based on Ovid's metamorphosis, the tales that she weaves represent a dangerous erosion of sexual moors. Other panels displaying women engaged in different aspects of textile work, D'Ambra sees as idealizing traditional Roman domestic virtues. In Ovid, whose versions of Arachne's story, we tend to view as the canonical one because it's the most elaborate one. Arachne is strongly aligned with a poet himself and she is portrayed as an ingenious artist with considerably more talent than her divine opponent. Minerva's revenge on Arachne appears not so much as justified vengeance on the impious but rather as an unflattering example of wounded despotic pride. Why would an emperor, much less demission, pick a motif that has that potential to invite sympathy with such an authority-booking figure? By looking beyond Ovid to the slightly later but still Augustine astronomical of Minalia's, we may better gauge the contemporary attitudes to Arachne's story. The relevant section of Minalia's deals with the signs of the Sodiak and the characteristics of people born under each sign. In the section on Arie's Rich and Abundant Rule, Arachne and Minerva's contest is mentioned only very briefly in the bolded line but the theme of textile work in combination with skill that is sabotaged by hubris present throughout the section adds depth to the mythological reference. The length of that makes it significant, sorry. The description of the cyclical nature of sheep sharing takes a full three lines and the length makes it stand out. That description is focalized through the ram himself. He is rich then loses his wealth i.e. he's shorn of his wool, he takes new hearts and gathers his ambitions again, rises from nothing only to fall again, he is condemned by his variability to regrow his fleas. Minalia's implies that the ram sees his abundantly growing fleas only in terms of his own individual wealth and his splendid appearance although it's also pointed out that through numerous different crafts his abundance comes to benefit the world at large. Then three fast paced lines illustrate this. People roll a raw wool and comb it, they spin and weave it and finally buy and sell the garments made. The importance of textile production is emphatically stated in 133. No society even one that rejects luxury can manage without it and for that reason Minerva has declared it her own responsibility a task that is worthy of her own involvement. In the line most crucial to us, Minalia states that for this reason Minerva claimed greatness for defeating Arachne. Although no further details are given about Arachne's own attitude, the contrast between the ram's linguistic delight in his wealth and the benefits that his wool brings to the world at large suggests that Minalia's Minerva sees the contrast, sees the contest with Arachne as one that is about far more than just weaving skill. The passage then closes with the assertion that those born under Aria's sign are suited to these and similar crafts but also, like Arachne, constantly seek individual recognition and praise. The Arachne Minerva contest is reinterpreted as one of individualism versus a commitment to the common good. Minerva's victory in Minalia's comes to represent the sharing of skills in textile work with a wider community. That's quite different from all of it. Approaching the Arachne motif via Minalia's thus creates a closer even causal relationship between the central cautionary tail panel and the representation of the processes of textile production elsewhere in the frieze. Minerva appropriates and shares Arachne's crafts with her followers. She also assumes Arachne's contemporary association with skilled invention. While all its focus is on Arachne as a skilled and imaginative weaver, writers in the Flavian period emphasize her technological invention. Pliny the Elder, however implausibly, credits her with the invention of linen production and Statius suggests that she was the first tapestry weaver. The central panel then implicitly comes to express Minerva's ability to harness and bestow on her followers not just Arachne's skill but also the advantages of technological development. This matches the focus on technological detail in other parts of the frieze. For example, the scene where Minerva demonstrates the use of a disc staff and of course particularly in the frieze's prominent display of two-beam looms. While this iconographic representation of a Roman two-beam loom provides only a terminus antiquem for Roman use of this type of loom, repeated mentions of warp-weighted looms in Augustine poetry hint that the two-beam loom was still at the time of construction here a relatively recent addition to Roman weaving technology and that I think explains the frieze's interest in the specifics of its operation. We have two panels showing two women working together on a loom each. One woman reaches up to the top of the loom frame. She grasps something in her hand while the other woman extends her hand upward as if to pass something up or to receive something back. The question here becomes whether they display these panels display the same work element or different ones and if so which ones? First, as noted by others, the relative positions of the women in both scenes corresponds tantalizingly well to the passing of warp yarn between workers involving warping especially if you're thinking about a tubular setup on the two-beam loom. There are, however, subtle differences between the two panels that hint at a display of different work elements. In this panel, the straight side of the object held up by the seated woman and its length suggests that it might be a small weaving sword like smallish bone weaving swords found in Pompeii or the wholly flat type that has proven to be very effective in reconstructions of weaving on the two-beam loom. If so, weaving is already underway here. The standing woman reaching upwards might then be operating a mechanism to lower the shed rod. The position of her hand suggests a downward pulling action whereas the seated weaver might reach up to use the small weaving sword to further open the new shed. While lack of evidence for similar systems of operating the shed rods with a centrally placed handle in later Roman iconography or indeed in ethnographic parallels speak against that interpretation, I think it still remains a possibility because moving the shed rod is the most frequently repeated work element where you need to do stuff at the top of the two-beam loom. The depiction of the standing woman in the other panel is certainly different. The object that she is grasping with her left hand goes over the middle of the upper beam. I think interpretations of this object as individual or bundles of warp threads are unsatisfactory rather it appears as a solid strap that extends downward. As this would prevent an even spacing of warp threads across the top beam, we may be looking not at the warping of a tubular setup but at the gradual letting down of a warp stretch between loose rods tied to the horizontal beams with cortisol straps. If so, we are seeing not the beginning but rather the end of weaving here a motif that is appropriate given the position of this panel at the further end of the extant freeze. Now the damage to the freeze precludes a definite conclusion on these questions but it's evident that the freeze displays working elements that are done differently in the two-beam loom compared to how they would be done in the warp weighted loom. Warping, shedding, completion and the direction of weaving. Now why is this important to Domitian? It's easy to say that the display of female virtuous rule work is connected to Domitian's efforts to revitalize Roman morals paralleled in his harsh punishments of offending Vestal virgins but set alongside the cautionary tales of arachnus individualistic hubris, it also offers a counterpoint to an emerging stoic paradigm of Xorial loyalty where wives supporting or outshining their husbands in individual moral strength are lauded even though they transgress against the norms for female behavior. Cleanly the youngest letters position Aria, wife of Peters and Fania who goes into exile with her husband as icons of stoic virtue and Flavian epic prominently features several similar examples. So Domitian's display of the paradigmatic female activity of textile work instead advocates a realization of conjugal loyalty where spouses are committed partners with distinct responsibilities both working for increased prosperity. Arachnus's story suggests that female dedication should serve shared goals whether within a spousal unit or within the empire. Domitian's point is not merely a moral one. The detailed depiction of textile tools and the repeated display of a loom type still rarely paralleled at the time create a pronounced focus on the potential societal and economic output of female industriousness expertise and technological development. Overall the freeze thus reinforces and refractures perhaps the state-bearing role of Roman wives by connecting it specifically to economic development and success. Thank you.