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.