Nalbinding

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Jim Smith
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Nalbinding

Postby Jim Smith » Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:39 pm

[url]Any evidence for this in C15 England.? Any evidence either way gratefully accepted.[/url]


"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and
insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any
way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli

User avatar
sally
Post Knight
Posts: 1806
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:31 pm
Location: Sunny Wales
Contact:

Re: Nalbinding

Postby sally » Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:53 pm

I have a feeling that the only confirmed piece of nalbinding in England is the Coppergate sock, which is 10thC and possibly an import. Its certainly not a common technique in Britain by the 15thC



User avatar
Jim Smith
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Re: Nalbinding

Postby Jim Smith » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:58 pm

Thought so Sally, but I reckoned I'd better check to make sure I hadn't missed something obvious. Thanks :D


"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and

insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any

way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli

FionaDowson
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:00 pm

Re: Nalbinding

Postby FionaDowson » Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:10 am

That really begs the question of how old knitting is.
The usual argument is that knitting superseded nalbinding because it's quicker.
I have read that there is evidence of knitting in Ancient Egypt but have yet to find a reference for this, or a definition of what constitutes knitting. If an archeologist found a piece of nalbinding they could well say, that's knitting, my nan used to do that.
My understanding of nalbinding is that it's still practiced in remote places like Iceland.
Certainly there's no evidence of crochet being more than C18 but Tunisian crochet/shepherd's knitting may well be older.
It's not like anyone went around interviewing shepherd's on windy hillsides to find out what they were doing is it?



Midland Spinner
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Nalbinding

Postby Midland Spinner » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:37 am

FionaDowson wrote: If an archeologist found a piece of nalbinding they could well say, that's knitting,
There have been a lot of pieces of fabric mis-identified over the years - that's one of the reasons why the history of knitting is shrouded in doubt & misinformation.

But Knitting and nalbinding are Topologically completely different. Most definitions of knitting say something along the lines of "a technique for making a piece of fabric by looping BIGHTS of a CONTINUOUS piece of yarn through itself using sticks or pins. The fabric is not a knot, rather a series of interlaced loops." (*OK, it becomes a knot the minute that you pass the end of the final stitch through itself as you cast off, but a fragment of knitting is not a knot.)

Whereas Nalbinding is "a Technique of making a piece of fabric by knotting SHORT PIECES of yarn through itself, splicing in new lengths of yarn as necessary." So a fragment of Nalbinding is a series of knots.

Knitting and nalbinding do look superficially alike to the the uneducated eye. But it would be indefensible to just look at a piece of archaeological fabric and say "hmm that looks like what my Gran used to make, so I'll call it knitting" without calling in an expert in non-woven fabrics. You wouldn't say "oh look there's a potsherd, it looks a bit like what Jim the Pot makes, so I'll attribute it to C15th" without calling in an expert. Especially as we now have so many non-invasive methods of looking at the structure inside finds without destroying them.




Return to “1100-1500”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests