Category: Museum

NOW: Coppergate/York/Jorvik Sock – Small Find 13517 (Patreon sponsored)

With my sincerest thanks to my Patrons, this week’s Nalbound Object of the Week is the Coppergate Sock. On display at the Jorvik Viking Centre, this sock goes by many names; all related to its find location. Coppergate Sock, York Sock, or Jorvik Sock, but they are all the same artifact.

Photo: York Archaeology CC BY-NC 4.0
Photo: York Archaeology CC BY-NC 4.0

Object: Coppergate Sock, also known as the York Sock or the Jorvik Sock

Description: A fine wool sock that ends just below the ankle. The last row at the ankle is worked in a dyed yarn, unlike the rest of the sock, which either was meant to act as a decorative edge or could indicate a longer stocking leg in red is missing.1 However, we don’t have evidence of nalbound stockings going much past the ankle until a few centuries after this sock and even then they are not common in finds. Additionally, we do have evidence of Egyptian socks that have a single row of color at the ankle. Much of the heel is missing as well as holes near the toes and a damaged slit along the vamp. All pieces were connected, none loose. The pieces were drawn together during conservation in order to better show the original shape.2 There is evidence of patching having been sewn on the sock based on the outline of wool stitching. After conservation, the sock is 10 1/4 in. (260mm) long toe to heel (pre-conservation c. 9 1/2 in. / 0.23m). Circumference at ankle 12 7/8 in. (325mm) and at broadest part of foot 10 5/8 in. (270mm).3 Before conservation measurements are in Jean M. Glover’s, Senior Textile Conservation Officer at the North West Museum and Art Gallery Service, conservation report “Sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. The Archaeology of York, The Small Finds 17/5. Published for the York Archaeological Trust by the Council for British Archaeology. 1989. Pg. 430-431. ISBN 0 906780 79 9.

Dated to: Period 4B is dated to 930-975 CE,3 10th century4

Find location: The sock was found in the backyard of one of the wattle buildings of Period 4B5 in the excavations of 16-22 Coppergate, York, England, UK. It was found in context with several other Scandinavian style textiles which may imply that they were imported on a Scandinavian visitor/invader or that they could be simplified copies made by the local Anglians.6

Current location: On display at the Jorvik Viking Centre

Material: Stable isotope analysis of the Coppergate sock indicates that the wool came from somewhere in the Ireland-to-south Scandinavia band. It is consistent with an origin of the British Isles, but Ireland and Denmark also give similar results.8  It is a smooth and even S2Z plied wool.9 (Two S spun singles plied together with a Z twist.) The missing patch (possibly flax or other vegetable fiber that has since decayed away) was sew on with Z2S plied wool10 1.5 mm in diameter.11 Based on the pictures, this repair yarn appears thicker in diameter than the yarn used for the nalbound fabric.

Color: Dark brown (potentially related to the many years of being buried).14 The last row of the sock at the ankle is worked in a smooth dark yarn that was dyed with madder. Test results were negative for dyes on the rest of the sock.15

The original diagram of the stitch used in the Coppergate sock. There is an issue with this diagram in that the needle shows the correct connection to the previous rows of F2, but the rest of the diagram shows an F3 connection. Image was originally published in the 1980’s and has been used repeatedly in multiple publications since.

Stitch(es) used: Based on analysis of the upper edge of the sock: York, UU/OOO F2.10 The foot portion could not be analyzed due to “heavy wear and felting on the inside.”11 Further analysis is obscured by the conservation tulle covering the sock.

Construction details: Examination of the pre-conservation drawings and the photographs available of the sock show a clear round start to the toe with quite a few stitches in it. According to Penelope Walton’s analysis, there is a single loop of yarn at the toe around which a circular row of loops is worked.12 The F2 connection combined with York stitch UU/OOO means that each subsequent row overlaps the previous row by half. Penelope Walton reported a gauge of approximately 36 rounds per 100mm.13 That’s about 36.6 rows per 4 inches or just barely over 9 rows to the inch.

Also shown are three areas of shorter row wedges in the heel. The first 7 rows deep coming off the mid-foot. The second, 3 or 4 rows are still remaining. The ankle has apparently 4 rows going around the entire ankle, cut only by the slit on the vamp. In the back of the heel are quite a few rows going parallel to the rows around the ankle. There was difficulty in this area for the conservators as they tried to draw the damaged areas together, because the rows were not as obvious in their orientation in this region.18 This is where the confusion regarding type of heel comes in, because if those were a third wedge in the style of the Egyptian or Swiss socks/stockings (which tended to have two at most), then one would expect longer rows followed by shorter rows with the ankle rows covering the ends. It is possible that the third wedge is worked in reverse, short to longer rows, to cup the back of the heel and give a more upright angle to the ankle opening (wedge heels tending towards a 45 degree rather than 90 degree angle between foot and leg). Figure 142a on page 344 of Textiles, Cordage and Raw Fibre from 16-22 Coppergate shows a drawing of how Penelope Walton thought the heel might have been reconstructed. It is important to note that she suggests the construction may be closer to the double wedges of one of the slightly later Swiss socks from Délémont/Delsberg than the spiral construction of the Uppsala heel or the rectangular heel flap and cup combination of the earlier Roman Egyptian socks. She does not appear to have known of the compound nalbound socks out of Egypt (only the cross-knit looping variety) that almost all have wedge heels, a few with two wedges, (the only exception being one that has a heel flap and cup style like the Cross-knit Looping style socks).

Inventory number: Small Find 13517. Catalogue Number 1309.

Link to museum catalog or other data: https://www.collections.yorkarchaeologicaltrust.co.uk/s/collections/item/124898#lg=1&slide=0

Some sources in which more information can be found:

Glover, Jean M., Senior Textile Conservation Officer at the North West Museum and Art Gallery Service, Blackburn. “Sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. The Archaeology of York, The Small Finds 17/5. Published for the York Archaeological Trust by the Council for British Archaeology. 1989. Pg. 430-431. ISBN 0 906780 79 9.

von Holstein, Isabella Christina Charlottie. “A light stable isotope (C, N, H, O) approach to identifying movement of medieval textiles in North West Europe.” PhD Thesis, University of York, 2012. Pgs. 268–70.

von Holstein, Isabella C. C. & Walton Rogers, Penelope & Craig, Oliver & Penkman, Kirsty & Newton, Jason & Collins, Matthew. Provenancing Archaeological Wool Textiles from Medieval Northern Europe by Light Stable Isotope Analysis (δ13C, δ15N, δ2H). PLOS ONE: 2016 11. 10.1371/journal.pone.0162330.

Walton, Penelope. ‘Needlework from Jorvik’ Embroidery 36/4 (Winter 1985), pp 130-131.

Walton, Penelope. “Production at Coppergate, York: Anglo-Saxon or Viking?” in Textiles in Northern Archaeology, Textile Symposium in York, North European Symposium for Archaeological Textiles Monograph 3, NESAT III, ed. by Penelope Walton and John Peter Wild. London: Archetype Publications, 1990. ISBN 1-873132-05-0.

Walton, Penelope. Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. The Archaeology of York, The Small Finds 17/5. Published for the York Archaeological Trust by the Council for British Archaeology. 1989. Pgs. 341-345. ISBN 0 906780 79 9.

Walton Rogers, Penelope. “Chapter 5. Textile networks in Viking-Age towns of Britain and Ireland” in Crafts and Social Networks in Viking Towns ed. by STEVEN P. ASHBY and SØREN M. SINDBÆK. Oxbow Books, 2019. Paperback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-160-9. Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-161-6 (ePub) https://www.academia.edu/99573338/Chapter_5_Textile_networks_in_Viking_Age_towns_of_Britain_and_Ireland

Walton Rogers, Penelope. Textile Production at 16-22 Coppergate. The Archaeology of York, The Small Finds 17/11 ed. by P.V. Addymann. Published for the York Archaeological Trust by the Council for British Archaeology. 1997. ISBN 1 872414 76 1.

Photographs:

Regia Anglorum was the first place to publish anything online regarding nalbinding that I can remember and they included Penelope Walton’s diagram and drawing of the Coppergate sock: https://regia.org/research/life/naalbind.htm

Astrid Bryde shared photos of the Coppergate sock from her visit to the Jorvik Viking Centre in 2018. The photo taken of the back of the heel is particularly interesting as it shows angled rows as if from a wedge style heel.

The article “York’s Viking Sock Becomes Part of ‘A History of the North in 100 Objects’” by the Jorvik Viking Center published August 6, 2018 has a close enough view you can see the conservation tulle.
Read more at https://www.jorvikvikingcentre.co.uk/press/yorks-viking-sock-becomes-part-history-north-100-objects/#6aq4FWa8UDvMoPYH.99

The Coppergate sock made BBC’s A History of the World: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/fvO4ZPlnTKyGE0dWyuOdBQ

The Coopergate sock is included as one of the artifacts in the Jorvik Artefact Gallery. Scroll to right several times to see a nice photo that you can click on to enlarge. https://www.jorvikvikingcentre.co.uk/about/jorvik-artefact-gallery/

On May 7, 2019, Hacking Civilization published the following embedded YouTube video showing the Coppergate sock as it is currently displayed.

I recently ran across this video published by The JORVIK Group on Jun 6, 2016 also showing the Coppergate/York sock.

And more recently they’ve also posted:

This Facebook group, Nålbinding, is a closed group. If you join it and search for the Coppergate sock, you will find several interesting posts by a variety of people of photos taken of the sock on display.

Hilde Thunem’s article, Viking Clothing: hose and socks, includes several additional photos of the Coppergate sock on display. It also puts the sock in perspective noting that while there are multiple finds of socks/hose from the period and region, only the one is nalbound. Most are of cut and sewn woven cloth.

Acknowledgements: This extended Nalbound Object of the Week is brought to you by the generosity of my Patrons on Patreon. Your continued support helps to fund more detailed research and articles as well as longer blog posts.

Please note that sharing to other venues will likely be intermittent. If you wish to receive these each week, please remember to follow the blog.
Patrons on Patreon receive early access previews, occasional extra details, and priority requests.

  1. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 343. ↩︎
  2. Glover, Jean M. “Sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 431. ↩︎
  3. Glover, Jean M. “Sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 430. ↩︎
  4. Walton, Penelope. Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 418. ↩︎
  5. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 341. ↩︎
  6. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 341. ↩︎
  7. Walton, Penelope. Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 418. ↩︎
  8. von Holstein, Isabella Christina Charlottie. “A light stable isotope (C, N, H, O) approach to identifying movement of medieval textiles in North West Europe.” PhD Thesis, University of York, 2012. Pgs. 268–70. Also cited by Walton Rogers, Penelope. “Chapter 5. Textile networks in Viking-Age towns of Britain and Ireland” in Crafts and Social Networks in Viking Towns. Pg. 105. and von Holstein, Isabella C. C. & Walton Rogers, Penelope & Craig, Oliver & Penkman, Kirsty & Newton, Jason & Collins, Matthew. Provenancing Archaeological Wool Textiles from Medieval Northern Europe by Light Stable Isotope Analysis (δ13C, δ15N, δ2H). PLOS ONE: 2016 11. 10.1371/journal.pone.0162330. Pg. 20. ↩︎
  9. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 342. and Glover, Jean M. “Sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 430. ↩︎
  10. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 341. ↩︎
  11. Walton, Penelope. “Catalogue” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 435. ↩︎
  12. Glover, Jean M. “Sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 430. ↩︎
  13. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 342. and Glover, Jean M. “Sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 430. ↩︎
  14. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 342. Diagram on page 343. ↩︎
  15. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 342. and Glover, Jean M. “Sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 430. ↩︎
  16. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 342. ↩︎
  17. Walton, Penelope. “The sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 342. ↩︎
  18. Glover, Jean M. “Sock in nålebinding, 1309” in Textiles, Cordage and Raw fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. Pg. 431. ↩︎

NOW: Tarim Beret

Anne Marie Decker with the Tarim beret as it was taken out of the display case for her to examine in order to determine the stitch used. 21 June 2000.

The Tarim Beret is a beautifully fine example of what kinds of designs are possible using even the simplest variants of nalbinding. This hat was on display in 2000.

Object: Tarim Beret

Description: A finely nalbound brown wool beret stretched over a felt roll. The stitch patterning leaves a visual impression of four striped quarters, but it is worked in the round.

Dated to: ca. 1000 BC (wood of the tomb calibrated C14 results date to 2960 ±115 years Before Present* (published 1999))

Find location: Zaghunluq Cemetery, Chärchän/Qiemo County, Tarim Basin (central southern edge thereof), Xinjiang, China

Material: Wool

Stitch(es) used: Space patterned Z-crossed Simple Looping, F1 O (as determined by Anne Marie Decker 2000)

Current location: 新疆维吾尔自治区博物馆 Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Museum, 581 Xibei Rd, Saybag District, Ürümqi, Xinjiang, China, 830000

Sources in which more information can be found: https://nalbound.com/2019/06/03/urumchi-and-the-tarim-hats/

*王炳华 = Wang, Binghua. 新疆古尸 : 古代新疆居民及其文化 = Xinjiang gu shi: gu dai Xinjiang ju min ji qi wen hua = The ancient corpses of Xinjiang : the peoples of ancient Xinjiang and their cvlture [i.e. culture]. Wulumuqi-shi: Xinjiang ren min chu ban she, 2001. ISBN 7-228-05161-0

NOW: Vasa mitten 21116

This week’s Nalbound Object of the Week is the Vasa Mitten on display in the Vasa Museum in Stockholm, Sweden. The wool mitten was found in a barrel with a pair of leather outer mittens in the remains of the ship Vasa which sank in 1628 CE.1 It is not the only mitten found on shipwrecks around this timeframe, nor is it the only nalbinding that was found on the Vasa. Simply the nalbound item on display; the rest are kept in the museum inventory.2

Anne Marie Decker as she finds the Vasa mitten and its outer casing on display in the Vasa Museum.

Object: Vasa Mitten

Description: A left mitten liner made of grey wool; loosely spun.3 The thumb is no longer attached to the mitten though it is placed in position for display. The fabric shows heavy fulling, although it is unknown if that was original or simply developed from wear and/or find circumstances.

Dated to: 10 August 1628 CE4 (no more recent than)

Find location: Vasa shipwreck, starboard side of the lower battery deck between beams 2 and 3 about 5.3 to 6.77 meters from the bow,5 Stockholm archipelago, Sweden

Material: single ply S-spun wool6

Stitch(es) used: Pending results of examination.
Stitch count 40 stitches/10 cm and 12 rounds/10 cm.7

Inventory number: 21116

Current location: The Vasa Museum https://www.vasamuseet.se/en

Link to museum catalog or other data: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024785035/vante

Only one of several beautiful and detailed photographs available on the digitaltmuseum.se link. Scroll past the photos of the leather mittens to find them.
Photo: Vasa Museum CC BY 4.0

The 1983 edition of Berit Westman’s Nålbindning: 12 varianter contained the first image of the Vasa mitten that I had seen. It was lovely to see it in person again in May of 2023; when I also got the chance to examine the other nalbinding found on the ship.

Some sources in which more information can be found:

Looström, Anne and Birgitta Stapf. “Tre Tusen Textilfragment : Från Wasan Söndagen Den 10 Augusti 1628.” Dissertation. 1983. [Note: I have not read this yet. It was recommended.]

Please note that sharing to other venues will likely be intermittent. If you wish to receive these each week, please remember to follow the blog.
Patrons on Patreon receive early access previews, occasional extra details, and priority requests.

  1. Other Information: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024785035/vante ↩︎
  2. See Identifier 09184 https://digitaltmuseum.se/021026380762/pung and 27908IX https://digitaltmuseum.se/021026380969/textil ↩︎
  3. About: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024785035/vante ↩︎
  4. Rising, Catrin ed. The Story of Vasa. The Swedish National Maritime Museums. Pg. 5. ISBN 978-91-984713-3-5. ↩︎
  5. Find Place: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024785035/vante ↩︎
  6. Techniques: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024785035/vante ↩︎
  7. Techniques: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024785035/vante ↩︎

Case Study 8 of Archaeological Puzzles in a Museum

I’m excited to announce the “Archaeological Puzzles in a Museum” online exhibition at the National Museum of Denmark is now online!

https://en.natmus.dk/museums-and-palaces/the-national-museum-of-denmark/exhibitions/classical-and-near-eastern-antiquities/archaeological-puzzles-in-a-museum/

I contributed Case study 8, and a bit for the catalog, on the fringed nalbound sock in their collection. The sock is one of 112 textile fragments from Roman, Byzantine, and Early Medieval Arab Egypt currently in the National Museum of Denmark. The case study includes some beautiful professional photographs of the sock!

This is the same sock I was honored to examine in 2019. Initial results of that examination were included in“Fringed and patterned: decorative elements in Romano-Coptic nalbound socks” presented at the Textiles from the Nile Valley study group conference on the 27th of October 2019. More in depth information and the current status of my research on this sock was presented in “A fringe study in footwear: lessons learned from a sock in a box” at the Reconstructing Textiles and Their History: Egyptian Fabrics from the 1st Millennium AD online workshop that occurred on March 26th, 2022.

The exhibition has twelve downloadable PDFs that include the Introduction, a Catalog of 30 fabrics from the collection, and eight Case Studies that go deeper into a variety of topics.

The online exhibition is the result of the RECONTEXT research project entitled “Reconstructing the history of Egyptian textiles from the 1st Millennium AD at the National Museum of Denmark” which involved research carried out by historians, art historians, archaeologists and ancient fabric conservators. The project included analyses of textile fibers, weaving and looping techniques, as well as complete photography of the entire collection. Fingers crossed that we will be able to continue research on this collection.

Pre-opening of “Archaeological puzzles in a museum”

I’m really looking forward to being able to share this with you all. After some delays, the online exhibition that I referenced in my post on the Reconstructing Textiles and their history workshop last May is happening.

On Wednesday, 15 March 2023, from 15:15-16:00 Copenhagen time (10:15-11:00 am EDT), the Centre for Textile Research will be hosting their bi-weekly lecture in person and on Zoom. This week’s is the pre-opening of the “Archaeological puzzles in a museum” online exhibition, presented by Dr. Maria Joanna Mossakowska, that will be opening at the National Museum of Denmark end of this month. For three minutes near the end, I will be presenting on my case study of the fringed nalbound sock in their collection.

The Zoom link and further details are available here: https://ctr.hum.ku.dk/courses_activities_and_facilities/activities-and-events/2023/ctr-lectures-spring-2023/

The exhibition will be covering the systematic research done within the RECONTEXT research project entitled “Reconstructing the history of Egyptian textiles from the 1st Millennium AD at the National Museum of Denmark” on the 112 textile fragments from Roman, Byzantine, and Early Medieval Arab Egypt in the NMD, comprising the richest ensemble in Denmark.

Per the linked announcement above “RECONTEXT involved research carried out by historians, art historians, archaeologists and ancient fabric conservators. The project also included analyses of textile fibers and weaving techniques, as well as professional photographic documentation of the entire collection. The results of these investigations are presented in the exhibition entitled Archeaological Puzzles in a Museum / Arkæologiske puslespil på et museum, which will be available for the public in March 2023 on the NMD website (https://natmus.dk/). The exhibition includes general information on what a collection of Egyptian textiles is, how it is created, and the methods of reconstructing its history and the objects that form it. It presents 30 selected fabrics, arranged according to the four stages of the collection’s history. For the visitor who wishes to go deeper into various topics, eight Case studies were prepared.”

Case Study 8 is on the fringed brown sock in the NMD collection. This is the same sock I was honored to examine in 2019 and presented the current status of my research on in “A fringe study in footwear: lessons learned from a sock in a box” at the Reconstructing Textiles and Their History: Egyptian Fabrics from the 1st Millennium AD online workshop that occurred on March 26th, 2022.

Lily helped keep me company during the presentation. It was announced that the online exhibition should be available for viewing by the 1st of April!

Papua Koteka with nalbound covers

CW: male genitalia

Festive Koteka from Papua New Guinea on display in The Icelandic Phallological Museum in Reykjavik, Iceland. Photo taken by Anne Marie Decker August 30, 2022.

Traditional forms of nalbinding are used for a wide variety of purposes around the world. One area with a strong continuous tradition of nalbinding is the highlands of Papua New Guinea and West Papua, Indonesia. While one is most likely to be familiar with the Bilums from the region, another usage of nalbinding is found covering some Koteka.

A Koteka is a traditional penis sheath worn by some ethnic groups of Papua; mainly in the highlands. One may also see the koteka referred to as a horim. While often made of a particular gourd, the ones of most interest to this blog are the ones that have an outer layer of nalbound textile.

I have not yet had the opportunity to travel to Papua to see the amazing amount and variety of nalbinding that their traditions have and continue to produce. I do hope to make it to their annual Bilum Festival and Gala someday. And yet, Papuan nalbinding has been collected by colonizers and purchased by modern tourists for centuries and thus found its way into some of the most unexpected places. So much so, that when I once again find nalbinding where I didn’t expect it, I’m not surprised to often find that the example in question is Papuan.

On my most recent trip to Iceland, where I was honored to be able to examine the mitten from Arneiðarstaðir in Iceland, I also took the opportunity to go to several other museums. I picked up a new nalbinding needle at the Saga Museum. But having entirely forgotten about nalbound koteka covers, I was rather pleased and surprised to find nalbinding in The Icelandic Phallological Museum. Probably the last place I expected to find nalbinding. Even more so than finding nalbinding in a Ripley’s Believe it or Not.

“Penis Sheath From The Forests Of New Guinea” https://www.ripleys.com/weird-news/penis-sheath/

The Festive Koteka in The Icelandic Phallological Museum uses both the Simple Looping variant (often called Blanket or Buttonhole Stitch) and a spaced and staggered Cross-Knit Looping variant. The Danai tribe Koteka shown in the Ripley’s Believe it or Not! video has the Simple Looping variant on the sheath itself and what looks like a compound variant (undetermined) in the strap.

Newest issue of ATR contains our article on several slip stitch crocheted objects misidentified as nalbound

I’m excited to announce the publication of the peer reviewed article, “Three objects catalogued as vantsöm in the collections of the Museum der Kulturen in Basel, Switzerland,” in Archaeological Textiles Review No. 64 (2022).

I had the distinct pleasure of collaborating with my friend Cary Karp to write this article after we were allowed the opportunity to jointly examine the items in question at the museum storehouse in January of 2019. I posted about that visit here (where you can see a few extra photos). Cary will be making a corresponding announcement on his blog, Loopholes; which has lots of additional information on the technique.

ATR is now Open Access and so you can freely download the complete volume, including our article, by following the instructions at: https://www.atnfriends.com/. If you’d like a hard copy of the issue, you can purchase a print on demand copy from the University of Copenhagen’s Campus Print Webshop here. You can now also download or purchase all of the back issues as well if you like. An offprint of the article itself can be found here.

Abstract
The looped structure termed a slip stitch in the craft glossary of crochet can be produced both with a hook and an eyed needle. These implements are not equally amenable to working that structure into complex constructs such as the toe and heel of a sock. This article describes the examination of three objects that have been misidentified as nalbinding. Two of them are certain to have been crocheted and the third is highly likely also to instantiate that technique. The provenance of the objects is recorded as “Coptic Egyptian” on anecdotal evidence and without ascription of specific dates. If scientific dating were to establish that any of them approaches even the youngest age this might imply, the accepted date for the advent of crochet would require major revision.

As I’ve mentioned before, incorrectly co-opting slip stitch crochet structures into the nalbinding atlas of stitch variants has obscured and made difficult the study of crochet’s history and transmission. Given that nalbinding has long suffered under this same issue of miss-classification/identification obscuring its own history, it behooves us to exhibit caution when examining textiles with which we may not be as familiar to avoid doing the same to our looping cousins.

My presentation at NESAT XIV in 2021, “But it looks like… methods for differentiating non-woven looped structures,” looked to clarify some methods for recognizing ambiguous surface textures and the sometimes subtle, but distinctive, secondary structural attributes that can be used to distinguish the particular technique used to create an object.

The sock and the pouch discussed in “Three objects catalogued as vantsöm in the collections of the Museum der Kulturen in Basel, Switzerland” could very well be important early instances of the crochet technique of potentially pivotal historiographic significance, but we won’t know until they have been scientifically dated. This is an important reminder that dating crocheted objects based on the art historical dating of other nalbound items because the items were not recognized as crochet entirely obscures their potential place in crochet history and simultaneously muddies the water of nalbinding’s history, construction details, and definition.

I’m excited to be able to see this article in print and am looking forward to future projects and collaborations.

Nalbound Milk and Hop Strainers

When we think of traditional,* rather than historical, Scandinavian nalbinding, I think most people think of the beautifully embroidered mittens. But today I would like to talk about nalbound strainers. There are apparently two types of nalbound strainers in Scandinavia. Those used to strain milk and and more rarely those to strain hops or ale.**

The nalbound milk strainers tend to be flat with a round or oval appearance. Sometimes with a slit on one side or both acting as a kind of handle. They are used by either folding them into a cup shape and holding them or by placing them in a cup/bowl and board (one piece or two) set up that can be placed across the container.

Melkesil HH.1954-0280. Photo: Mostue, Erik / Domkirkeodden Attrbution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)Additional photographs of this milk-strainer and support are available at: https://digitaltmuseum.no/021027744194/sil

Those identified as hop strainers, or more generically as ale strainers, tend to be more basket/bag shaped with two examples nalbound directly onto the rectangular support frame. This frame is the same shape as that found in hop/ale strainers having woven baskets for the strainer portion. The woven basket type appear more frequently in the online collection records for Norway, but I am most fond of the nalbound ones.

Both types of nalbound strainers are made of “hair,” not wool, generally from cow’s tails.*** We also see horse, goat, and pig hair in strainers and other nalbound objects made of hair.

https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/buttons/80x15/png/by-sa.png
This milk strainer from 1850-1899 is made of pig hair. It is currently in the Skansen museum in Sweden. https://www.europeana.eu/en/item/91659/sk_object_SKANM0125122

It is one of the joys of updating the bibliography and reorganizing my sources for easier use that I get to re-read and explore books that I haven’t read in a good many years. In doing so, I am reminded of old favorites, the hop strainers have always been one, and interesting tidbits such as their anthropological use.

Concerning the actual use of the hair strainers, we have a short description from Flesberg in Numedal, Buskerud: ‘In the olden days they strained the milk through a straining which in Flesberg was called sællær and further up in the valley sallar. They spun cow’s hair and made sallarane in the same way as they made the short hair stockings, raggeloddar. When straining, they folded them up into a cup-like or bag-like form and ladled the milk into it. They also had wooden straining cups with a square hole in the bottom, over which they put the strainer. Such strainers may still be found on some farms. When they had strained the milk, they poured some hot water into the milk-cup, took the hair strainer and cleaned the cup with it. In that way they both cleaned the hair strainer, and rinsed the milk out of it at the same time. Afterwards the hair strainer was beaten against the wall or against something hard in order to thrash the water out of it, and then the strain was hung up to dry. But periodically they had to boil the hair strainer in a decoction of juniper, in order to prevent it from going sour. After they started to use straining cups of tin and with a strainer of brass netting, they utilized the hair strainer as a dishcloth.’

Odd Nordland, Primitive Scandinavian Textiles in Knotless Netting (Oslo: Oslo University Press, 1961), p. 108.

Nordland goes on to state that in other areas, the practice is to use the nalbound fabric as a dishcloth first. Then, once it has been softened and properly matted, using it as a strainer. Apparently this is associated with areas that tend to nalbind looser density strainers in simple variants.****

Donna Kallner and vakerrysta.blogspot.com have both posted about this video from 1943 of Norwegian textile making.

Starting at 5:54 minutes in, the video starts a section on Cow hair and coarse wool spun on a handspindle. It starts with carding the hair and wool and creating a rolag. Then preparing a bundle of fibers which they hang from the ceiling and spin on a large spindle. Then plying from a ball. At 7:53 they shift to binding with a needle. At 8:06 they shift to looking over her shoulder at her nalbinding. While the majority of the film runs very fast, at 8:18 they slow it down to slow motion and you can see fairly clearly how she is working the stitch. At 9:16 it states “The yarn in a milk-strainer was of smooth cow-hair.”***** At 9:38 they start to show how she adds an additional length of yarn having used up the prior length. At 10:20 they show using the nalbound milk-strainer in a cup & board shaped strainer board. 10:52 they show washing it and striking it against a hard surface. The next section show hair shoe-covers being tied on over the shoes prior to putting on skis.

Nordland’s book, Primitive Scandinavian Textiles in Knotless Netting, is the best source for the nalbinding stitches used in these nalbound strainers. However, his classification system is based on describing 1/4 of the circle created by the spiral coiled variants which causes some difficulty in being certain of his description. His system only records the changes in intralacing within half of the working of a stitch, but not the initial direction. Thus each stitch he classifies could be one of two options. Add in the fact that when the stitch uses an F2 connection instead of an F1, he leaves off the last intralacement with the working thread, in those cases we can have four possible stitches that could all fall under the same classification of Nordland’s.

The red and green dots show the portion of the stitch that Nordland’s classification system describes. In this case he is describing the Dalby stitch. In Hansen’s classification this stitch is UOU/OUOO F1. As you can see, the superscript numbers of Nordland’s system describe changes in the intralacement as you exit the stitch. However, it does not specify which side of the fabric on which the intralacement begins. Thus 5112 could be Dalby, UOU/OUOO F1 or it could be OUO/UOUU F1. (Note: his system doesn’t address back or mid connections.) Had the stitch used an F2 connection, Nordland would have written it as 5111 (losing the green dot) which could be UOU/OUOO F2 or UOU/OUOU F2 or OUO/UOUU F2 or OUO/UOUO F2.

That said, Nordland records a large number of stitches being used in nalbound strainers. For example: Simple Looping in the center with 31 (probably a Danish stitch like U/OU F2) outer rows, Loop & Twist, 311 (probably Danish stitch, U/OU F1), 311m (Danish with a carried thread F1), 412 (Oslo, UO/UOO F1), 411 (most likely Oslo, UO/UOO F2), 4111 (probably Björsbo, UO/UOU F1), 51111 (probably Telemark, UOU/OUOU F1), 512 (possibly Fåberg, UUO/UOOO F2), and 522 (Korgen stitch, UOO/UUOO F1). He also emphasizes that there is the strong tendency for the strainers to be nalbound using whichever stitch was predominant in a particular location as traditional nalbinding in Scandinavia tended to reflect the use of one stitch only in any particular location. The need for a variety of textures and densities being filled by changes in yarn diameter/type and gauge.

We can be thankful to the anthropological and ethnographical departments for collecting these strainers. We have no archeological evidence of nalbound strainers being used prior to the late 19th and early 20th century collections of ethnographic materials. Most of the strainers themselves are undated. Their accession from anthropological circumstances instead of archeological ones imply that they were at least in use or in the household of the donator and unlikely to be of extremely earlier age than the collection date or century. The stitches used encompass the wide variety of stitches found in Scandinavia, including some of the simplest versions that are also found in earlier contexts. Odd Nordland argues that the peasant society changed little although we know from their clothing that there was a change around the 18th century. We know the technique of nalbinding existed earlier based on the socks and mittens that have been found. There is a cup and board support inscribed 1618. There is even a presumed board of a separate cup and board support for a strainer found on the Oseberg ship. Any evidence for Viking Era nalbound milk strainers has yet to be found. The concept is possible, possibly even plausible, but not yet provable.

As I was looking for more examples of nalbound strainers in the online museum catalogs of Scandinavia, I also came across a few in their Ethnographic collections from West Africa. Worked on the support more like the hops strainers than the milk strainers, though in a simpler variant. These are apparently used for palm oil.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this look into other traditional uses of the nalbinding technique. We so often think of it as used for mittens, socks, and hats that I find it fun to explore other uses. I’ve included a collection of links below to other Scandinavian nalbound strainers.

*Note: I tend to differentiate between “historical” and “traditional” era nalbinding. Generally when I say historical, I am referring to any time up to the early Modern Era. Usually pre-1600 AD or thereabouts. When I say traditional nalbinding, I am generally referring to more recent nalbinding. Anywhere from the 17th century to present day although the concentrations are more likely late 18th century through early 20th century.

**It’s not that hop/ale strainers are rare, just that nalbound ones are rare.

***Nordland, page 93.

****Nordland, page 109.

*****My translation.

Additional milk strainers:
A Sami strainer from Norway.
Additional hop strainers:

Tracking down a ?nalbound? sweater (spoiler: not entirely)

So many people have asked what the process of my research looks like. So this time I am taking notes and if this ever gets published, you’ll see the entire rough process. (Written October 2020 with edits November 2021)

Ever since I started to see the nalbinding community make its forays online, there has always been someone brave enough to make a sweater using the nalbinding technique. They are always fascinating examples of a very impressive amount of work. And yet, body garments for warmth just do not seem to show up in the archaeological contexts. We see lots of socks and mittens and some hats, lots of bags, and many many fragments whose original purpose is just unknown, but no hoods, shirts, or trousers outside of the full body ritual masque costumes of 19th & 20th century Central Africa. (Likely due to the efficiencies of woven cloth for those type garments.)

At the same time, while my most recent focus has been primarily on the Egyptian examples, I am interested in nalbinding worldwide and have been collecting interesting tidbits for a long while now. Some of those were just tantalizing glances at things I did not have ready access to at the time, but for which the world has since become more technologically savvy and interconnected. Objects for which I had perhaps only an out of focus photograph from what was likely a book in a language I didn’t read, are now having high resolution photographs uploaded online and machine translation, while not perfect, is helping to be able to get the gist of what is written about them.

Our Nalbinding Get Togethers* on Zoom, which we began as a social gathering of nalbinders around the world to help alleviate some of the isolation of the COVID-19 shutdown, have given us the chance to meet people across the world. Peruda Florit has been especially interested in Russian nalbinding given her current circumstances. When I first began researching nalbinding, getting information out of the then USSR was extremely difficult from here in the US. I could track nalbinding right up to the Karelian border from the Finnish side, but barely make any headway across. However, over time I had run into the finds from Novgorod and a few other places. Occasionally, I’d get snapshots of images from books etc. Peruda has been having me go through some of those old snapshots to try and find some pieces she may be able to go see in person.

That day, not long after talking about Yuko Hirata’s newest nalbound sweater design, all of which are amazingly beautiful, I thought I’d take a stroll through the old photo files to find some more Russian examples for Peruda. In doing so I ran across this “sweater.”

It’s a picture I collected sometime during or before 2011 of a photograph in a book. Probably found on VK’s nalbinding forum although I don’t remember exactly now. I believe this is the 2nd photo of it I had seen. The other being even smaller and less detailed. The image is not that clear, but the surface texture has the horizontal banding reminiscent of compound nalbound textiles. At the time, machine translation was not very good. I vaguely remember taking the time to translate the caption and look up the saint associated. As I knew that there was an extremely high likelihood of nalbinding in Russia being done at the time of the saint (15th century), I was not too surprised by the concept of it being nalbound. While I was very intrigued, my access to Russian sources was soo limited that I did not pursue it at the time.

With all the amazing sweater designs coming out of the modern nalbinding usage, and the ever present interest in history, running across this particular find again sparked a good bit of interest. My access to Russian speakers is much greater now than it was then. Machine translation, while in no way perfect, is much better and can help narrow down what pieces I want properly translated. And… there are others interested which helps motivate any search.

So step one of the search, I run across a potentially interesting photograph or tidbit of information. In this case, all the wording is in Russian and I’m on my phone (which is currently reducing my ability to find Cyrillic letters). I send the link to Peruda, who kindly transliterates it for me and runs it through the machine translation.

Saint Nilus of Sora’s hair-shirt. So we look him up. Saint Nilus, otherwise known as Nil Sorky, lived between 1433 and 1508. Very interesting. Early for a cardigan styled item of clothing, but hair-shirts don’t seem to have followed standard practices and I don’t know that much about 15th & early 16th century Russian clothing in detail.

A quick poking about by Google search of Saint Nilus of Sora’s name, revealed a new picture of the hair-shirt on display: http://cultinfo.ru/news/2008/5/1096. A bit more and I find a book reference within a Pinterest pin which also has a slightly better quality photo: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/531495193517251984/ “Власяница и четки преп. Нила Сорского. Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь // Романенко Е. В. Повседневная жизнь русского средневекового монастыря”

And then, several more interesting hits. This one caused me to exclaim, “Captions, I need captions!” https://xtkani.ru/vlasyanica/ As there appears to be an additional interesting hair-shirt for which I have no date or place information. Peruda then sent me this link, with another image of the more dress-like hair-shirt: https://otzovik.com/review_5601725.html

Having not had much luck in my search using English, I shifted to the Cyrillic for St. Nilus of Sora and the word for hair-shirt. That got me the very interesting link to the Kirillo-Belozersky museum (whose name we had sussed out as likely to have it in their collection via the sources above, but had not yet reached out to) with a very nice photo of the hair-shirt in question that is of such high resolution one can zoom in to see details: https://kirmuseum.org/ru/object/vlasanica-iz-verbluzei-koricnevoi-sersti Much excitement ensued. Of interesting note, the image appears to be reversed from the printed ones above with what had appeared to be the left sleeve now on the right. (It’s not unheard of for an image to be flipped when printed.)

And at this point though, I’m questioning its designation as a nalbound textile.

Zooming into to focus on the rows reveals a texture on all but the bottom most rows that I have seen before, but in slip stitch crochet (SSC), not nalbinding. Looking closely at the neckline and cuffs and I can see loops pulled through loops. While it is possible to achieve that structure with end-led nalbinding as discussed in my NESAT presentation “But it looks like...,” the direction of work would be from the outside edge into the shirt, not working from the body out as one would with the loop-led slip stitch crochet. However, the surface texture was not an exact match for the SSC I had seen before. Both sides appeared to have the same texture, instead of dramatically differing textures, and the rows appeared to alternate between what would be produced by the technical front of back loop only (BLO) SSC and that produced on the technical back side of front loop only (FLO) SSC. It appeared to potentially be a match for working back and forth, instead of in the round or separate rows in the same direction. I immediately sent a copy of the link off to my friend Cary Karp who is researching the history of crochet and is the one that helped me learn to recognize SSC structures and surface textures. Cary tells me that this type of back and forth turned flatwork work in SSC is called a Rib Stitch in the 1840’s Victorian fancy work literature, but as a specialty stitch with nothing in any earlier literature.

Our web search did turn up some information about the provenance of this hair-shirt. It is attributed by legend to Saint Nilus of Sora. However, the first solid mentions are that it was displayed in the Tikhvin Cathedral in the 19th and 20th centuries where it was used for healing.

The Russian term Вязка is often translated as knitting, but in truth is a broader term that might be more appropriately translated as looping as the Russian language does not differentiate between the various looping techniques such as knitting, crochet, or nalbinding. Instead, if one is intending to be specific in Russian, a modifier is added that tells you what type of tool is used.

The Nalbinding Get Togethers (celebrating one and a half years now) are an interesting addition to my research. I used to fill that slot by reaching out to friends that had expressed interest (both casual and academic) in person or one on ones via phone or email/text/messaging. I still do reach out to certain ones specifically, though the in person option hasn’t been available. But as some of my most useful foils aren’t local anyway, those conversations have just continued as they always do.

But my usual process goes something like this: Either I find a hint or mention of a new to me find that might be applicable or I do one of my regular searches to see if something new to me shows up (or I stumble across something as I was looking for something else). I then go see what else I can find out about it. If what I stumbled on originally wasn’t a treasure trove of pictures, I go looking for images as the objects I’m interested in are not clearly and consistently described. In this process I am looking for as many images as possible. Presentation photos, documentation photos, conservation photos, right on down to someone’s terrible vacation photos as sometimes that’s all I can get and sometimes they just happen to capture something the formal ones don’t. I’m also looking for associated diagrams and any analysis that has already been performed. Mining bibliographies for previously published books and articles that relate to the object or its type.

All the while I’m comparing and contrasting with the corpus I already have. I may also start making test samples to help work out or confirm what I’m seeing on the surface structure shown. Then I start talking with others about this interesting thing. In person (my oh so patient husband who doesn’t understand the details, but loves to see me excited about a new tidbit. My mom, who does understand a good bit more) and online via messaging to my sometimes collaborator, to my mentee, to friends, to the get togethers (the group is intended to be a social space and sometimes all we do is chat and work on/show off/encourage our projects, but a big part of my projects is the research and the group is interested in the history of the craft).

Then I start working on in what format I want to share the info (and how detailed) to the broader world: blog post, popular media, peer-reviewed article, seminar presentation (academic or crafting), or multiples of varying depth. I may start formally teaching a particular craft portion at this point as an additional way to find out what words and order best express the concept. Eventually I may end up writing an instruction manual (that’s happened twice, but quite a while ago now as I had a break from the intensive analyzing part and some of the crafting part too due to health issues). And we’ll see where the whole ends up someday, because each new piece adds to the whole as well. I’m working with others on a cross technique standardization of language used to describe the specifics of structural details common across Looping techniques. Trying to see trends that can better improve the overall understanding as so many of these finds are still dated on art historical principles yet without a proper understanding of the specific corpus. Worldwide trends, both historically and where its usage has continued through to today.

Case in point, a comment on a picture that was posted in the Sprang group asking if the item was sprang work (it wasn’t) provided me with a search term that opened up a whole area of current traditional use of nalbinding in South America that I hadn’t known about which I can tie back to historical records of the region and can help with understanding working techniques, direction, etc. Very much fascinating. I’ve lost more sleep again. Bit frustrated at one of the museums because a number of great photos pop up in searches, but they don’t have an organized online search their collection function. Those photos are just from photos they’ve used in illustrating their exhibition announcements etc. A blog post has been drafted, though I don’t know when I’ll finish it. More information has been added to the corpus in my head with very interesting ties across the world.

Sometimes I get the opportunity to see the object in person which leads to object reports for the museums with my aggregated analysis of the object, what’s previously published, and how it fits into the broader corpus, and further potential publications.

I’ve had people comment on how I seem to find so many interesting artifacts. They wonder and ask how do I keep finding so much nalbinding when it is hidden, mislabeled, or in areas one just doesn’t think of nalbinding existing. The answer is quite simple. I keep looking.**

  • * The Nalbinding Get Togethers are currently still occurring each weekend on Zoom at 8pm Eastern Saturdays and 10am Eastern on Sundays. Sessions generally run for two hours, sometimes more. Drop me a note via the contact page for the link or find us on social media (Facebook is easiest).
  • ** If you’d like to help support my continued search, a link to my Patreon is on the side bar menu.

Lady with Red Socks

The other weekend we had the opportunity to head up to New York city to see, amongst other things, an old painting of a Lady with Red Socks! I was soo excited to finally see her in person!

Now some of you will immediately know which Lady I’m referring to, but for those that have not yet been introduced, she is the “Woman wearing a Fringed Tunic” painted on a Roman Era, c. 170-200 AD, Egyptian linen shroud, perhaps from Antinoopolis, that now hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Anne Marie Decker standing in front of the Shroud of a Woman wearing a Fringed Tunic in the MET: Rogers Fund, 1909 (09.181.8). Photo credit: Anne Marie Decker

Her socks give us an idea of how the split toed nalbound socks may have been worn. It is important to note, however, that the painting is not so detailed as to reveal the technique used to make her red socks and we do have extant socks with split toes from a similar time frame in Egypt that are made of cut and sewn woven cloth and a different pair of felt. All three kinds, woven, felt, and nalbound, appear to have very similar characteristics with slits at the ankles (necessary in the less flexible techniques, optional in nalbinding) and ties at the top.

Close up of the Shroud of a Woman Wearing a Fringed Tunic showing her red socks.

If you look closely you can see that the artist has drawn lines at the back of her ankles that appear to indicate that the laces were tied at the back. One on each side of her right foot (showing on the left) and also at the back of her left foot.

One of Anne Marie Decker’s nalbound socks based on the pair in the V&A held at a distance away from the Shroud of the Woman Wearing a Fringed Tunic in the MET.

You can also see that the socks are relatively thin as the artist did paint some definition of her toes, besides the slit for her sandals.

I did have to bring my own pair of red socks, just because I could not pass up the opportunity. The reason that my ties are as long as they are is because I had seen pictures of this Lady before I made them.

My thanks to Matthew Pius for letting me know that she was out on display and sending my first close-ups.

Ruth Decker standing next to one of the Late Republican Era, c. 50-40 BC, Roman wall paintings from the Reception hall of the villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale now in the MET: Rogers Fund, 1903 (03.14.5) This painting is of a woman playing a kithara.

While I was there, I also got to get a close look at some Roman wall paintings (and lots and lots of Roman/Greek statuary feet). One of which became very interesting… a detail I had not noticed in photographs before. Her foot is not painted in the same color as her skin. I cannot say definitively that it is a sock, more research into Republican Era painting styles and clothing/footwear is necessary, but it is an intriguing detail. Please let me know if you run across any other potential depictions of socks.

Close up of the foot of the woman playing a kithara. The yellow is not the color used to paint her skin. It is also showing the same yellow above and below the line for some form of strap.

While we spend much of our time in the Roman and Greek areas of the MET, we did take a quick look at the Medieval, Egyptian, and passed through areas of paintings on our way to the Medici exhibit that was on temporary display. I could not pass up the opportunity to see Eleanore of Toledo’s red velvet dress in person as who knows when I will get to return to Florence.

Eleanore of Toledo’s red velvet gown on loan to and on display at the MET for The Medici: Portraits & Politics, 1512-1570 exhibit that just ended October 11th.
Mom and I enjoying our dinner outside on a perfect day for outdoor dining. Looking forward to getting a bit more “big city” time again soon.

After a very exciting, but very very long day, mom and I had a wonderfully relaxing and restorative dinner at an amazing restaurant just two doors down from the hotel. Which was absolutely necessary given that I have not walked over 14,000 steps in a long, long time.

Our trip ended after a tour of the Garment District and St Pauls on one day and Coney Island and the Aquarium on the next. I was so glad to have to be back to work on Monday after nearly 40,000 steps in three days. But, we are very much looking forward to being able to travel again. We learn so much.

While at the MET, I picked up several books on art and textiles of Central Africa. I’ve been really enjoying getting a glimpse into an area with which I have been unfortunately less familiar. It’s fascinating to see the very strong traditional usage of nalbinding in the region. There are a variety of stitches, ranging from simple variants to lacework in compound variants, in a variety of garments and other usages.