Nalbound mittens in 1917

28 June 20175 February 2023 stringbedLeave a comment

The 1917 volume of the Swedish periodical Fataburen includes an article by Maria Collin titled Sydda vantar. This literally means ‘stitched mittens’ and is an inversion of the term vantsöm (mitten stitch) seen in preceding posts. She discusses alternate designations at length, including a dialectal reference to a mitten that was “bound with a needle or needlebound” (bunnen med nål eller nålbönnen).

The article was a watershed both for research into regional forms of nalbinding and the practical description of the underlying technique. Mittens provide the point of entry into the discussion but it extends to other items that were traditionally nalbound. Collin’s approach to relaying information provided by tradition-bearing practitioners and then turning it into illustrated instructions, has been applied by almost all subsequent writers on the subject in Sweden.

Collin begins by reporting the first time she saw nalbound mittens, shown to her in Värmland as an example of a characteristic old craft of that province. (She was born in 1864 but does not say when the encounter took place.) She asked how the mittens were made and was told:

“They are called needled [nålade] mittens and it is old women who make them. They sew them on their thumbs but do not want to teach the art.”

Collin got no further in obtaining the desired information until a regional handicraft exhibition in Uppsala, in December 1915. Many exhibitors displayed what the catalog listed as stitched mittens (sömvantar or sömmade vantar), and she was taught how to make them. Despite the way the mittens were named in the catalog, she said that the makers spoke about them as påtade (a term that lacks a direct English equivalent, explained below). That word also appears in the introduction to the catalog with the parenthetical clarification that the designated technique is also called stitching, in precisely the same sense as in the title of Collin’s article.

The word påta (which may be a cognate of the English ‘putter’) has otherwise been broadly applied to various crafts over time. In the context of mitten making in 1915 it would normally be taken to designate slip stitch crochet made on a flat hook. (It retains that meaning but is also frequently applied to making i-cord on a small knitting dolly.) In fact, the catalog lists a number of påtade mittens, raising an interesting question about whether they were sömmade and the name was simply not normalized, or if some were slip stitch crocheted on a flat hook notwithstanding the introductory remark.

In the next post, I’ll provide more information about the overlap in the use of påta to name the structurally and technically different crafts of nalbinding and slip stitch crochet.

Looped Fabric

Nalbinding: stitch structures

19 June 201722 November 2021 stringbedLeave a comment

Margrethe Hald’s definition of nålebinding presented in the preceding post was intended to describe older textiles of Scandinavian origin. It covers a number of stitches that are named for the location where the earliest exemplar was found, or for a person with whom the stitch is strongly associated, all with predominantly Nordic representation.

Nålebinding is quite an apt term for a craft that is so strongly associated with the Nordic countries. There has, however, been some debate about it being equally appropriate as a generic designation for forms of looping with structural characteristics that don’t conform to Hald’s definition, or appear in a diverse array of craft traditions that have no particular tie to Scandinavia.

These structures include simple looping (aka buttonhole), loop-and-twist and cross-knit looping, which are frequently regarded as part of the nalbinding repertoire without being in any way specific to it. They can, and often are, made by other means other than leading the end of the working material through the burgeoning fabric with an eyed needle.

Regardless of how they are produced, these forms of looping differ from Hald’s nålebinding in a fundamental structural regard. By her definition, a stitch made by nålebinding is worked both into one or more loops in the corresponding stitch in the preceding row, and laterally into adjacent loops in the same row. With the other forms, the connection is with the preceding row only. (This is precisely the same structural detail that distinguishes crochet from knitting.)

Cross-knit looping, in particular, has a number of properties that differ from doubly interconnected nålebinding. For example, one of the salient characteristics of the latter is that its stitches don’t unravel when the fabric is cut, or the end of the yarn is pulled backward though and unsecured stitch. However, cross-knit looping unravels just as knitting does. Cross-knit looping can also be produced in different ways, of which nålebinding is one, and knitting either with needles or on a peg loom are others. The applied technique cannot be determined by examining the basic structure of a piece of fabric and can, at best, be ascertained by the presence of secondary characteristics that are specific to a single candidate technique.

There is no reason for practitioners to regard this as problematic. The tutorial literature distinguishes between simple and compound stitches, and generally categorizes them as Hansen does, by the path the working material takes laterally through the loops and the type of interconnection with the preceding row. Comparative research, on the other hand, often requires the description of fabric structures separately from the crafts in which they appear. If for no other reason, this is to avoid the conflation of structurally similar crafts that arose independently at widely separated times and places.

This is why so many generic designations for this form of looping have been put forward in scholarly contexts: looped needle-netting, knotless netting, one-needle knitting, etc. However, there has never been any general agreement about a single preferred term. My own initial preference was the straightforward translation ‘needlebinding’ and I’ve never quite understood why it failed to gain traction. I abandoned it after a discussion with someone with expert understanding of closely related crafts who clearly had no idea what I was talking about until I starting calling it nalbinding, at which point comprehension was instant.

Irene Emery, whose book The Primary Structures of Fabrics has been regularly cited in this blog, adopted Hald’s definition for her own preferred generic term ‘interconnected looping’ (with ‘single interconnected looping’ being the closest specific match to Hald’s ‘looped needle-netting’) and then strongly criticizes one pre-existing suggestion.

“…the expression knotless netting is hard to justify because knotless netting is used as a general term for a somewhat indefinite group of structures of undefined characteristics and only remotely related to the general concept of netting.”

And then another:

“Needleknitting is one of the terms ‘coined’ to express the idea of a fabric that is not really knitting although it looks like it. The term has been widely used in English publications on Peru in spite of many objections to it… Needleknitting is a term which non-specialists find particularly misleading and confusing. It is used to designate the cross-knit structure in whatever form it occurs in Peruvian fabrics.”

Emery does not use the term nålebinding in any of its alternative spellings but parenthetically notes that looped needle-netting is called vantsöm (lit. ‘mitten stitch’) in Swedish. It is the only time she uses a foreign term to designate a looped structure. It is included in Hald’s definition, to which Emery closely adheres, but reclassified and rephrased to fit into her broader framework. This suggests that she regarded its Scandinavian aspect to be worth retaining.

The term was carried forward by Annemarie Seiler-Baldinger in her book Textiles: a Classification of Techniques, which is a frequently cited complement or alternative to Emery, especially where a purely structural perspective is insufficient. The 1994 edition includes the following category.

“Pierced interconnected looping: As in simple pierced looping the thread is also drawn through the loop of the preceding row in the interconnected version. The more distant the loops which are interconnected, the more complex the structure becomes. These methods are known collectively as ‘Vantsöm.’”

Seiler-Baldinger then lists terms used for this by other authors, including nålebinding. Given how firmly established that term had become in the craft literature by 1994, Selier-Baldinger placing it subordinately to vantsöm seems noteworthy, although she may simply have been maintaining consistency with Emery and Hald. In any case, vantsöm figures prominently in early–20th-century Swedish writing and remains a key theme in recent descriptions of the craft’s history.

Looped Fabric

Nalbinding: derivation and description

10 June 201715 February 2023 stringbedLeave a comment

Analytic studies of older textiles began to recognize the difference between knitting and other forms of looping that it resembled toward the end of the 19th century, using a number of different terms to mark the distinction. The descriptive terminology became a focus of study in itself. Egon H. Hansen reviewed one facet of this in a paper read at the NESAT III symposium in York, in 1987. It is titled Nålebinding: Definition and Description and presents his system of structural notation, which is now in widespread use.

Hansen repeatedly uses the name of the technique in his native Danish, nålebinding, noting that the prior literature includes numerous other designations for it. He credits his compatriot Margrethe Hald with the “only absolutely firm definition” of its structure, but prefaces his remarks on English nomenclature with the disclaimer:

“Unfortunately my knowledge of English is not extensive enough for me to judge whether the expression ‘looped needle-netting’ used by Hald fully covers the definition above…”

Hald was the reigning Nordic scholar on the topic (and devised a classification system for nålebinding that is still applied) but Hansen proposed nonetheless that the craft be given a Scandinavian name in English discourse.

“I suggest therefore that in future research in this kind of textile we use the modern expression nålebinding, bearing in mind that Märta Brodén, who was the first to use this word, was also the first to make this almost forgotten technique known among needlework people today.”

That suggestion had the intended effect but is in error on a few important points of fact (nor was Hansen the first to make it). The most glaring in the present discussion is a failure to acknowledge Hald’s prior use of the word naalebinding. (In the Danish orthography of the time, “å” and “aa” were equivalent.) She included it in a Swedish article about a mitten published in 1945 and again the following year in the Danish journal Acta Archaeologica, in an English language article comparing early Egyptian and Scandinavian textile techniques.

“…there is a rather special sewing technique which in Scandinavia is usually spoken of under the name of ‘Naalebinding.’”

Hald uses the term yet again in her book Olddanske Tekstiler from 1950 (presented as a doctoral dissertation the year before), not just in the running text but also to head two sections. This includes a detailed English summary, in which the term appears in the form cited by Hansen.

“‘Looped needle-netting,’ (in Sweden called vantsöm). In this variant the new stitch not only loops around the corresponding stitch in the preceding row, but also back through the neighboring stitch of its own row, or sometimes through several of the last-sewn stitches of this row.”

It is not clear why Hald brought the Swedish language into the discussion, especially in light of her use of naalebinding in the English article from 1946, but vantsöm (lit. mitten stitch) was a common designation at the time. It remained a preferred term for a number of researchers through the 1960s and she may have been recognizing its status. Nonetheless, a Swedish study from 1934 included in Hald’s 1950 bibliography, lists alternate designations for vantsöm, including nålbundna vantar — needlebound mittens. Another Swedish text in her bibliography, from 1917 (discussed in detail in a separate post), makes a similar dialectal reference to a mitten that was “bunnen med nål eller nålbönnen” — bound with a needle or needlebound.

An expanded English translation of Hald’s book appeared in 1980 as Ancient Danish Textiles from Bogs and Burials. The introductory definition includes the Danish term exactly as it appeared in the earlier edition.

“…a special sewing technique known as ‘looped needle-netting’, naalebinding…”

The captions to the photographs in the English edition are bilingual, using nålebinding throughout. (The preferred Danish orthography changed from aa to å between the two publication dates.)

Märta Brodén was Swedish and published her book titled Nålbindning in 1973. A Danish translation appeared three years later with the title Nålbinding. Neither of these is the word Hansen ascribed to her. It is difficult to understand why he didn’t directly credit Hald’s far earlier use of precisely the term he recommended unless he was unaware of her initial Danish publications (which would be peculiar enough).

Hansen’s paper further cites the work of the Norwegian, Odd Nordland, whose Primitive Scandinavian Textiles in Knotless Netting from 1961 also discusses Hald’s terminology (and presents yet another classification system).

“…a technique which Margrethe Hald calls by its Danish term ‘nålebinding’ ‘needle-binding’…”

Additionally, Brodén was not the first to use the explicit Swedish word nålbindning (disregarding the inflected forms already noted). A review (in Swedish) of Nordland’s book, published in 1963 by Inga Wintzell begins:

“Nålning [lit. ‘needling’] or nålbindning is a textile technique that has been of great interest both from the perspective of textile research and more generally oriented research into cultural history.”

Wintzell then criticizes Nordland for translating (her preferred term) nålning as “knotless netting.” She also states that the English term introduced by Margrethe Hald — “needle binding” — would have been less prone to misunderstanding as it clearly designates both the tool and the technique, whereas knotless netting designates neither. However, Wintzell does not indicate the context in which Hald used the term needle binding. Its appearance in the snippet of Nordland’s text quoted above would otherwise seem to be his own translation of Hald’s Danish term, but he and Wintzell may both have been referring to a source that I haven’t located.

It is also worth noting that the term knotless netting first appeared in late-19th-century German texts to designate a fabric structure seen in archaeologically recovered Egyptian head coverings before the associated craft was recognized as sprang. This is a major topic in Hald’s article from 1946.

The standard reference work on Swedish handicraft, Hemslöjd, was published in 1968 by Anna-Maja Nylén. It includes a section headed Nålbindning, which says the term was one of several regional names traditionally given to the craft. The 1976 English translation of her book, Swedish Handcraft, calls it ‘needle looping’ and places nålbindning on a list of “different local terms.”

Regardless of how it is spelled in the Scandivanian languages — nålbindning in Swedish, nålebinding or nålbinding in Danish and Norwegian — the anglicized form that transforms ‘nål’ to ‘nal’ has become firmly entrenched. In fact, ‘nalbinding’ was on the path toward common use by the time of Hansen’s presentation.

An unpublished doctoral dissertation from 1981 by Helen M. Bennett titled The Origins and Development of the Scottish Hand-Knitting Industry includes a review of the history and development of the earlier technique. It is a typescript produced on a typewriter that did not have an å. The rings were drawn in above the base letter by hand at many points where they were needed but several were overlooked. These include the pivotal list of Scandinavian designations, which thus became:

“…nalbinding (Norwegian), nalebinding (Danish), nalning or vantsöm (Swedish).”

Bennett then comments on the array of generic English designations that had previously been put forward and concludes:

“None of these names has proved entirely satisfactory and, in the absence of international agreement, the use of the established Nordic term — of which I shall use the Norwegian form — seems preferable.”

She applies the correct native orthography in the very next sentence:

“The history of nålbinding has been particularly well documented in Scandinavia…”

Richard Rutt acknowledged and adopted Bennett’s approach in his A History of Hand Knitting, published in 1987 (the same year as Hansen’s presentation). However, he either failed to note the typographic inconsistency or found the unintentionally simplified form to be convenient. His own discussion of “nalbinding” installed what began as a proofreader’s oversight, into the core literature of the history of knitting. It has, however, yet to be universally accepted in scholarly publication about the eponymous craft, where the alternatives noted above and others still appear.

In colloquial usage within the reenactment and craft communities the term nalbinding has led to the coinage “nal” as a designation for what is believed to be a characteristic form of needle used in historical practice. This is despite much extant nalbound fabric having far finer-gauged stitches than can possibly be produced with the imagined archetypal nal. (If nothing else, this gainsays the notion of a single type of needle having a characteristic association with the craft.)

Where the native orthography is the starting point, the first component of the form used by Hald — nålebinding — is often shifted to “nale” and then “nail.” The latter part of the compound designation has similarly spawned the participle “binded” as a replacement for “bound” despite a complete lack of grammatical warrant or need. This has led to a by no means uncommon discussion of “nail binded” objects, which is not reasonably a borrowed representation of the original term. Both binding and binded are also frequently pronounced with a short i, as in “tint,” further distancing the word from recognizability.

Given the total absence of lexicographic rigor in the genesis of the anglicized nalbinding and its widespread corruption, it can reasonably be suggested that “needlebinding,” “needle-binding, ” or the fully assimilated “needle binding” (cf. needle knitting, needle lace, loom knitting, etc.) might have been preferable alternatives. In a publication venue with a strong Scandinavian language identity it might even be justified to retain the native nålebinding (or nålbinding or nålbindning) as an italicized term in text otherwise presented in English.

Looped Fabric

The double-ended tricot hook

7 June 201722 November 2021 stringbed2 Comments

The long cylindrical hook normally associated with Tunisian crochet doesn’t differ physically from a hook-tipped knitting needle. The past few posts have considered evidence of that tool having been co-opted for some form of crochet before the first descriptions of Tunisian stitches were published. In contrast, the double-ended hook appears to have been taken into the yarnworker’s toolkit specifically for Tunisian crochet, if not devised outright for it. (This is not the same implement as an ordinary crochet hook with different-sized heads at either end of a shorter, often contoured shaft.)

The first mention I’ve thus far located of a double-ended tricot hook is in an instruction for an “Infant’s Afghan” published in 1904 by Anna Schumacker in the 5th edition of The Columbia Book of the Use of Yarns. It is made with a “Fancy Tricot Stitch” requiring a “Wooden Double End Crochet Hook, 20 in., No. 13.” The stitch is described in relation to an “afghan stitch” illustrated under the heading “Fancy Stitches in Crocheting” but worked in what is recursively termed “tricot style.” This is now widely called the Tunisian Simple Stitch and the fancy version is similarly well known as the form of TSS produced with a double-ended hook.

The 1st edition of the Columbia Book was published in 1901 but I haven’t located a copy and don’t know if the same instruction appeared in it. Nonetheless, if double-ended tricot hooks were available in a range of lengths and gauges in 1904 and prescribed without any indication of their being either difficult to obtain or in any way novel, it seems certain they had been in use for a while prior to that date. This suggests, in turn, either that earlier descriptions remain to be located or that crocheted fabric requiring a double-ended hook was being produced for an indeterminate period before appearing in the fancywork literature. (NOTE: I have since found an earlier reference and described it in a subsequent post.)

The Columbia Book was expanded more or less annually. The 8th edition was released in 1907 and includes the same instruction for an infant’s afghan. The only difference is that the fancy tricot stitch is called a double-hook afghan stitch. It is described in additional detail, together with an illustration of a double hook in a separate section on “Detail Stitches of Afghans” that includes both ordinary and long-hook crochet stitches.

The 8th edition includes a second instruction using the double hook (which may also be in the 6th or 7th eds., that I haven’t examined, either). This is for a “Men’s Golf Vest” using both the basic afghan stitch and the double-hook afghan stitch, worked on a “bone crochet hook, 12-inch, No. 6” and a “double-ended crochet hook, 12-inch, No. 7” respectively. (Some authors make a clear distinction between tricot hooks and crochet hooks, but Schumacker is not among them.)

Skipping over another sequence of revisions, the 17th ed. published in 1916, makes no mention of the double ended hook. However, it does appear in the 19th ed. from 1918, used to produce one of a number of “Detail Stitches of Afghans.” This “Double Hook Afghan Stitch” is not presented as being in any way noteworthy. It is identical to the “fancy tricot stitch” published in 1904 and had apparently moved toward a more central position in the repertoire of crochet stitches in the interim.

Other instructions in the earlier editions of the Columbia Book still call the basic long-hook stitch a tricot stitch but do not invariably prescribe a long hook for it, sometimes calling for a “crochet hook” and leaving its length to individual preference. The inverse situation also applies and ordinary crochet stitches are illustrated on far longer hooks than they intrinsically require. This may be for the sake of pedagogical clarity rather than describing everyday practice. However, as noted in the preceding post and will be further exemplified in a coming one, an illustration of someone using a long hook does not conclusively demonstrate that they are engaged in Tunisian crochet.