My recent visit to the Museum der Kulturen in Basel included a stop at their library to fetch a copy of a visitor’s guide to an exhibition of the Fritz Iklé collection of textiles, displayed at several locations in Switzerland during 1935. It was titled Primäre textile Techniken (Primary Textile Techniques) and the accompanying booklet includes an essay by Iklé on the way he grouped the objects according to the techniques of their manufacture. He labeled one of the groups “Looping a single working thread” (Verschlingung eines Arbeitsfadens) and another “Working multiple threads” (Verarbeitung vieler Fäden).
Kristin Oppenheim placed Iklé’s categories and terminology in a more rigorous framework in the Systematik der textilen Techniken (Systematics of Textile Techniques), published in 1942 (discussed in detail in a previous post noted below and reviewed briefly here). She expanded this text in 1948 in collaboration with her husband Alfred Bühler, who was the director of what was then the Museum of Ethnography in Basel. Their joint work on systematics was part of a catalog of the Iklé collection, which he bequeathed to the museum.
The Bühler-Oppenheim classification system was separated from the listing of the objects in a revised edition from 1973, prepared by Annemarie Seiler-Baldinger. This retained the title Systematik der textilen Techniken and was expanded again in 1991. An often-cited English translation of that edition appeared in 1994 as Textiles: a Classification of Techniques.
During the interval between the initial Bühler-Oppenheim edition and the Seiler-Baldinger revision, in 1966, Irene Emery published her equally well-known The Primary Structures of Fabric: an Illustrated Classification. This presented a comparable classification system but was ordered on the basis of the structural detail of fabric, rather than by the techniques used for producing those structures. Emery acknowledged the works of Bühler, Iklé, and Oppenheim cited above, but as they all rely on the same basic elements, it is not clear how far Emery was influenced by her predecessors.
Seiler-Baldinger then included Emery’s terminology in the first two editions of her own book, in lists of foreign language equivalents appended to the definitions of individual German terms. However, the English and German vocabularies are not fully concordant and Seiler-Baldinger didn’t always have semantically equivalent terms to choose from. The resulting imprecision was not resolved as carefully as it might have been when her German text was subsequently translated into English.
The conceptual framework underlying the entire sequence of German publications makes a categorical distinction between Kettenstoffe and Maschenstoffe, literally meaning “warp fabrics” and “stitch fabrics.” The latter comfortably embraces the loop-based structures produced by crochet, knitting, nalbinding, and other techniques, without using the name of any specific one of them to label the category itself.
There is no directly equivalent English term for Maschenstoffe. Seiler-Baldinger uses “mesh fabrics,” which otherwise designates an attribute shared by both knit and woven fabric. The more widely used “non-woven fabric” also includes structures that are not loop based, and is beset by the systematological weakness of categorizing something by what it is not.
In his seminal text, Iklé discusses distinctions between various forms of looping, plaiting, and weaving. He organized his exhibition accordingly but expresses no particular concern with a systematic classification of the represented techniques. However, he ascribes an interesting property to Maschenstoffe that might be worth consideration in the growing discussion of how the terms ‘stitch’ and ‘knitting’ should and should not be used.
Iklé recognizes an array of loop-based techniques but separates knitting from the others.
“Knitting (the true stitch) [die echte Masche] is treated as something entirely different from the others, even when its results can bear a superficial resemblance to a plaited stitch.”
He is describing the basis for the arrangement of the material on display, placing knitting in a historical rather than structural niche of its own. Nonetheless, calling it “the true stitch” suggests that he saw some additional hierarchical distinction. Whatever that might have been, it reasonably equates Maschenstoffe and Kettenstoffe to ‘knits’ and ‘wovens’ in the familiar fabric-store sense.
Folding that back into a formal classification scheme, plain knitting and plain weaving (as defined by Emery) can serve as structural archetypes based on the comparability of their respective simplest forms. The warp and weft of plain weaving correlate to the wales (columns) and courses (rows) of plain knitting, each forming a right-angled grid. Although compound nalbinding does not easily fit into that model, slip stitch crochet can readily be described in such terms.
When seen in this light, its consistent early characterization as “a species of knitting” makes a good deal of sense, as does the subsequent Victorian renaming to “plain crochet.” I’ll illustrate the relationship between the structure of plain crochet and that of plain knitting in a separate post. It’s doubtful that new descriptive terms are necessary but slip stitching could also be described as asymmetrical compound knitting, if not as a handcraft correlate to the warp knitting that is otherwise regarded exclusively as a facet of industrial knitting.
* * * *
- Other texts by Fritz Iklé appear in a number of previous posts.
- More information about the classification systems that follow the groupings in his exhibition guide follow a detailed discussion of slip stitch crochet here.
- Terminological aspects of the description of knit fabric are considered at length in several articles in the current issue of the Archaeological Textiles Review.