Tag: Direction of Work

One of the best things about researching any topic is that continued research will always bring further insights; be that greater clarity on a particular detail, proof of a particular theory, proof that a particular hypothesis was wrong, correcting a technique misidentification, new design details, new stitches, new dating, and more artifacts to examine. Hypotheses get developed and sometimes they are supported and possibly proven. Sometimes they are disproved and new hypotheses are born.

Add to that, things that are true of our modern esthetics in the craft may prove to be constant throughout the historical record, or they may prove to be recent inventions. Care should always be taken to ensure that we are not making assumptions, even based on our prior knowledge, and allowing our biases to hide the new data. Insights may come from the most unexpected sources and even experts can be proven wrong. I have had thousands of theories that have been made or dashed with arrival of new data. It’s exciting!

I’ve discussed several examples of this process on this blog previously,¹ but today, I’d like to add a few additional examples.

Direction of work:

Nalbinding is predominately worked left to right, regardless of whether the work is dependent from the working row or hung above. Both of which leave telltale, but different, signs in the resultant fabric. Obviously, there are exceptions: lefthanded people often work in the opposite direction, and of course, there is the option of an esthetic choice to work in the non-dominant direction for a variety of reasons; including opposing spirals or flat work for example.

So the question becomes, how often do we see nalbinding worked in the non-dominant direction, when, where, and can we tell why? This is not an easy question to answer as so little research published has included this important detail about the artifacts.

Several of the artifacts that initially appeared to be worked in the non-dominant direction have turned out to be more likely found with the technical back to the outside. For example the Egyptian sock now in the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh.² This could be accomplished by working in the non-dominant direction, but is more likely simply a case of the creator or wearer deciding that they preferred the texture of the technical back to the outside. In the case of the sock in Edinburgh, it seems a common trait of socks made in that particular stitch. In the case of the pair of socks from Sudan,³ only one is “inside out.” This could be a case of the wearer not noticing, the person dressing the dead not noticing, or some cultural reason of which I am not aware.

In both cases, and in fact in all of the 115 or so known Egyptian socks, the socks are worked from the toe up to the ankle. The hats from the tip down. Up until very recently, all of the pre-17th century handcoverings I’ve examined have been worked from the tip of the fingers to the wrist. And yet, last year I had the opportunity to examine a beautiful glove from medieval Kalmar that surprised me in several ways. One was the particular stitch used as I had never seen its like before. And the other, was that it was clearly worked from the wrist towards the fingers. More research as to the direction of work of thumbs (and fingers on gloves), especially in relation to the associated handcovering, is desperately needed.

Wrist Bumps:

I once had a idea that wrists that showed a prominent bump in the spiral might have been started at the wrist. Examinations of artifacts has consistently proven me wrong so far on that hypothesis. It was my modern esthetics that had given the the incorrect impression that the maker would always smooth out the final spiral.

Now, we do have examples where the final spiral ending is rather smooth. The Oslo mitten gives the appearance of a smooth ending. However, looking at the rows above it, one can see that it has been pulled and distorted such that the result is the edge currently looks like it was smoothly finished, but in fact it was a rather short transition that now significantly distorts the row to which it connects.

Lace:

Another example. In 2004, I was approached by someone with a lace shawl they had that they wanted to know if it could be nalbound or not. The pictures they sent showed that an individual row had a structure we know can be produced by a particular nalbinding stitch, but the connections between rows were unclear, so we were missing important secondary construction details that can be vital to understand which particular technique produced the particular structure fabric.

I allowed as how it was possible that it might be nalbound, but that if it was that brought up many additional questions that would have to be answered. Such as, how would the connections be made in such an openwork structure without falling apart? In 2005, another was brought to my attention. My friend, Virginia Miller, became quite interested in the lace shawls and set about trying to find their source.

Around this time, many other examples of this particular type of shawl were apparently being examined at a variety of locations. Others were recognizing the structure of the chain as being a possible nalbound structure, but the specifics of the secondary constructions details that would reveal their true construction technique would not be recognized until the details of a related structural cross-over were discussed.⁴ These details show that there are a significant number of miss-identified examples in museums around the world.

Virginia, having tracked down the origin of at least some of the shawls, kindly managed to procure one for me. Being able to examine one in detail up close has led to an understanding that allows me to understand details that while I had seen them before, had not revealed their relevance. Now, given sufficiently clear photos, it is easy to determine that these shawls are a form of crocheted chain lace. Rather similar in structure to the earliest forms of crochet that been identified.⁵

Another example of this structure’s construction technique being misidentified is a lovely pair of baby booties in the V&A Collection. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O136095/pair-of-bootees-unknown/ The Simple Looping in cream on the ball at the top of the tassel at the ankles is a form of nalbinding (and also a form of needlelace), but the green lace are these open worked crocheted chains. Once again, it’s the connections between the chains that reveal the technique used.

Hypotheses come and go, but that is in many ways the fun part of research. We are always learning new things. Theories become proven. Hypotheses are dashed and formed again. All of which leads to a better understanding of the entire corpus of both nalbound textiles and related looped textiles, their origins, transmission, development, traditional uses, and influences on the modern craft.

Speaking of exciting new opportunities and artifacts to examine, I have recently learned of new excavated socks to add to the corpus of nalbinding that have never been examined before.
Unfortunately, my travel budget to go see them is rather dry. If you’ve enjoyed my research and would like to be a part of my support team, I sincerely appreciate any assistance you are willing to send my way. You can use the one time donation link in the menu or become a monthly Patron.
Patrons on Patreon receive priority requests, early access previews, and occasional extra details.

1. https://nalbound.com/2021/11/09/tracking-down-a-nalbound-sweater-spoiler-not-entirely/ and https://nalbound.com/2021/09/03/but-it-looks-like/ and https://nalbound.com/2021/02/21/coole_socke/ ↩︎
2. https://nalbound.com/2020/05/10/egyptian-sock-in-edinburgh/ ↩︎
3. https://nalbound.com/2020/01/02/medieval-nubian-nalbinding-in-sudan/ ↩︎
4. Collaboration with Cary Karp to better understand the structure of the slip-stitch crochet artifacts from Egypt in Basel led to our article in ATR, https://nalbound.com/2023/01/31/newest-issue-of-atr-contains-our-article/, and influenced my presentation to NESAT: https://nalbound.com/2021/09/03/but-it-looks-like/ ↩︎
5. https://loopholes.blog/2019/12/diamond-mesh/ Accessed 30 March 2024 ↩︎