Videos by Anne Decker
Presented at NESAT XIV on August 25th, 2021. Proceedings to follow.
The correct identificati... more Presented at NESAT XIV on August 25th, 2021. Proceedings to follow.
The correct identification of the structure of a fabric and the technique(s) used to produce it, are fundamental to the understanding of its historical context and significance. However, the surface textures of looped fabric cannot always be associated unambiguously with specific techniques and there can be several ways to produce a given primary structure. Illustrations of distinctive secondary structural attributes and how to recognize them are sparse. This presentation focuses on the cross over between Twisted Stitch Knitting & the Cross-knit Looping variant of Nalbinding and between Slip Stitch Crochet & speculative Nalbinding variants.
The diagnostic details include the direction of work as seen in the fabric structure, which can differ between candidate techniques. The same applies to increases and decreases, initial and final rows, pickups, joins, transitions between stitch variants, and outright errors. 5 views
Conference Presentations by Anne Decker
Textiles from the Nile Valley study group , 2019
Approximately ten percent of the recognized corpus of Roman-Coptic nalbinding consists of items w... more Approximately ten percent of the recognized corpus of Roman-Coptic nalbinding consists of items with fringe or stitch patterning as decorative elements. This paper will report on the results of a preliminary structural analysis of a number of such objects and place them in a broader museological context. These are three pairs of socks found in Gebel Abou Fedah by F. Cailliaud (1787-1869) now in the Musée Dobrée in Nantes, France and the single sock recently rediscovered in the National Museum of Denmark in an older unexamined lot. These socks will be compared with similar contemporaneous items such as: the image of a sock collected by T. Graf (1840-1903) of currently unknown location, the fragment collected by F.W. Kelsey (1858-1927) now in the Kelsey Museum of Archeology in Ann Arbor, the sock collected by C.T. Currelly (1876-1957) now in the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, and the fragments from Dura-Europos.
Reconstructing Textiles and Their History: Egyptian Fabrics from the 1st Millennium AD, 2022
Presented as part of the "Reconstructing Textiles and Their History: Egyptian Fabrics from the 1s... more Presented as part of the "Reconstructing Textiles and Their History: Egyptian Fabrics from the 1st Millennium AD online workshop" providing an update on the current status of research into the fringed brown nalbound sock currently in the National Museum of Denmark. This workshop and the subsequent online exhibition were organized in the framework of the project RECONTEXT: Reconstructing the history of Egyptian textiles from the 1st Millennium AD at the National Museum of Denmark. The stated aim of the project was "to establish a history of the Egyptian textiles collection at the National Museum of Denmark: reconstructing the way the objects are acquired, their provenance, as well as their original look and shape." The presentation included terminology, the basic characteristics of the sock, exterior and internal details, construction details, and areas of further research. Details included visible damage and wear, yarn used and information on additional fibers caught on the surface, construction details including number of stitches in the toes, heel cup details, and ankle details such as the button closure and fringe with braided edge attachment.
39th International Medieval Congress, 2004
Construction technique is a significant characteristic of any artifact and is also particularl... more Construction technique is a significant characteristic of any artifact and is also particularly important with regards to textiles. This paper identifies some of the specific differences between structures of nalbinding and other non-woven textile techniques. Nalbinding uses limited lengths of yarn, the end of which is completely drawn through at least one loop in the previous row and then crossed over itself. The cross is the basis that distinguishes this technique from other non-woven textile techniques. Open-loop knitting is easy to differentiate from nalbinding, as the open-loop structure does not include the crossover that is necessary for the integrity of the fabric in nalbinding. In general, the knitted rows create a vertical feel to the object and the purl rows a horizontal feel. On the other hand, nalbinding almost always shows horizontal ridging on both sides.
Some variants are more difficult to distinguish. Of particular difficulty is the difference between "Eastern crossed" knitting and the nalbinding variant known as "cross-knit looping." In the final product, these two completely different methods of manufacture create a fabric with exactly the same basic structure. The only way to tell the method of manufacture in fabrics of this structure is to closely examine the increases, decreases, joins, and mistakes. It is important to note that in a fabric of this structure, nalbinding "increases" will be seen as knitting "decreases" and vice versa, because the relationship of the working yarn to the V shapes formed by the structure is opposite in knitting and nalbinding.
Sometimes proper dating is useful as a starting point. All the cross-knit looping socks in Egypt seem to be dated from the second to the sixth centuries AD. At the same time there are also artifacts of a more complex form of nalbinding, one of the interconnected looping variants. However, no artifacts of true knitting are found contemporaneously. Dating is not as useful as one moves later into the medieval period, during which both techniques are found.
Another place to look in order to differentiate textile techniques, which is valid for all nalbinding variants, is splices. If the yarn has many splices, then the use of a continuous thread technique, such as knitting, is unlikely. In those yarns where splicing is inconvenient, it is possible to look for a doubling of a stitch at a fairly regular interval. Conlor changes can also be useful for identifying technique.
Some nalbinding variants are easily determined not to be knitting. The can, however, sometimes be confused with both sprang and crochet on a superficial basis. Structurally they are very different, even though the surface textures can sometimes be seen as similar.
The structural analysis of an object is just as important as proper dating in recognizing, to the fullest extent, the significance of an artifact. However, there are still many artifacts whose structure has yet to be analyzed. Until this is accomplished, their true contribution to the study of nalbinding, non-woven textile techniques, and textile history cannot be fully recognized.
37th International Medieval Congress, 2002
Nalbinding is often incorrectly identified as knitting, crochet, sprang, and weaving, etc.,
depen... more Nalbinding is often incorrectly identified as knitting, crochet, sprang, and weaving, etc.,
depending on its variant stitch and the technical textile production knowledge of its identifier. In addition there are many different names used to refer to nalbinding. Some of which can cause a piece to be unrecognized as nalbinding in a translation. The most basic structure of nalbinding is the detached buttonhole stitch. Variants are formed by different interlacements within the row and with previous rows and these give many different looks to the final fabric. Using examples primarily from the 10th - 14th centuries AD, I will demonstrate how different variations can easily be confused with each other and with other fabric techniques. In addition, I will give a brief summary of extant nalbound objects and thier stitch variants, if known, from the 10th-14th cent. AD.
Current Research in Textile Archaeology along the Nile, 2019
Extant Romano-Coptic nalbinding from the Nile Valley and surrounding regions provides one of the ... more Extant Romano-Coptic nalbinding from the Nile Valley and surrounding regions provides one of the most statistically significant populations of such material, consisting of over 100 specimens.
The technical variant used in approximately half the objects is misleadingly called Coptic or Tarim stitch. A preferred established term is cross-knit looping and personal examination of the Tarim basin finds has not revealed its presence there. The misnomer derives from the misinterpretation of a brief note in a broader work, compounded by unawareness of the variant’s oldest known occurrence from the Nahal Hemar cave.
The term Coptic stitch reflects a greater understanding of naming conventions for nalbinding variants. However, recent research indicates that multiple finds labeled as Coptic actually date to the Roman and Late Roman Eras. The nominal association with the Coptic Era is additionally misleading because half of the designated corpus displays a range of more complex variants.
This paper addresses the terminological imprecision, confusion about underlying fabric structures, and effects of provenance irregularities. It also presents an initial collation of available images and mapped locations of the Egyptian finds as part of a comprehensive catalog of nalbound objects prior to 1600 currently being compiled.
Papers by Anne Decker
"Archaeological Puzzles in a Museum" online exhibition, 2023
Case Study 8 provides more detail regarding the fringed brown sock which is part of the National ... more Case Study 8 provides more detail regarding the fringed brown sock which is part of the National Museum of Denmark's 112 textile fragments from Roman, Byzantine, and Early Medieval Arab Egypt, comprising the richest ensemble in Denmark. The aim of the online exhibition “Archaeological Puzzles in a Museum” is to give an insight into the history of the collection and the textiles therein. It is also an opportunity to present some of the problems a researcher encounters when trying to “reconstruct” this history, and these issues apply not only to the Egyptian textiles at the National Museum of Denmark, but also to the vast majority of museums worldwide with collections of ancient fabrics. The methods used in this type of research have much in common with putting together a jigsaw puzzle from different boxes, with mixed up elements from various images, and always with pieces missing. Thanks to the interaction of specialists from various fields, we can present the history of the collection and its objects as seen from different perspectives. However, this is not a definitive history; research on some aspects will continue and new data will certainly emerge.
Teaching Documents by Anne Decker
Catalogue - Archaeological puzzles in a museum, 2023
Page 61 of the catalogue, 32 of the pdf, includes Catalogue number 22: sock.
The catalogue of th... more Page 61 of the catalogue, 32 of the pdf, includes Catalogue number 22: sock.
The catalogue of the online exhibition, "Archeological puzzles in a museum," presents 30 selected fabrics, arranged according to the four stages of the collection's history. This section also contains detailed information on how and from whom the various objects were acquired. The given dating of the objects in the Catalogue is approximate and is based mainly on stylistic criteria.
Uploads
Videos by Anne Decker
The correct identification of the structure of a fabric and the technique(s) used to produce it, are fundamental to the understanding of its historical context and significance. However, the surface textures of looped fabric cannot always be associated unambiguously with specific techniques and there can be several ways to produce a given primary structure. Illustrations of distinctive secondary structural attributes and how to recognize them are sparse. This presentation focuses on the cross over between Twisted Stitch Knitting & the Cross-knit Looping variant of Nalbinding and between Slip Stitch Crochet & speculative Nalbinding variants.
The diagnostic details include the direction of work as seen in the fabric structure, which can differ between candidate techniques. The same applies to increases and decreases, initial and final rows, pickups, joins, transitions between stitch variants, and outright errors.
Conference Presentations by Anne Decker
Some variants are more difficult to distinguish. Of particular difficulty is the difference between "Eastern crossed" knitting and the nalbinding variant known as "cross-knit looping." In the final product, these two completely different methods of manufacture create a fabric with exactly the same basic structure. The only way to tell the method of manufacture in fabrics of this structure is to closely examine the increases, decreases, joins, and mistakes. It is important to note that in a fabric of this structure, nalbinding "increases" will be seen as knitting "decreases" and vice versa, because the relationship of the working yarn to the V shapes formed by the structure is opposite in knitting and nalbinding.
Sometimes proper dating is useful as a starting point. All the cross-knit looping socks in Egypt seem to be dated from the second to the sixth centuries AD. At the same time there are also artifacts of a more complex form of nalbinding, one of the interconnected looping variants. However, no artifacts of true knitting are found contemporaneously. Dating is not as useful as one moves later into the medieval period, during which both techniques are found.
Another place to look in order to differentiate textile techniques, which is valid for all nalbinding variants, is splices. If the yarn has many splices, then the use of a continuous thread technique, such as knitting, is unlikely. In those yarns where splicing is inconvenient, it is possible to look for a doubling of a stitch at a fairly regular interval. Conlor changes can also be useful for identifying technique.
Some nalbinding variants are easily determined not to be knitting. The can, however, sometimes be confused with both sprang and crochet on a superficial basis. Structurally they are very different, even though the surface textures can sometimes be seen as similar.
The structural analysis of an object is just as important as proper dating in recognizing, to the fullest extent, the significance of an artifact. However, there are still many artifacts whose structure has yet to be analyzed. Until this is accomplished, their true contribution to the study of nalbinding, non-woven textile techniques, and textile history cannot be fully recognized.
depending on its variant stitch and the technical textile production knowledge of its identifier. In addition there are many different names used to refer to nalbinding. Some of which can cause a piece to be unrecognized as nalbinding in a translation. The most basic structure of nalbinding is the detached buttonhole stitch. Variants are formed by different interlacements within the row and with previous rows and these give many different looks to the final fabric. Using examples primarily from the 10th - 14th centuries AD, I will demonstrate how different variations can easily be confused with each other and with other fabric techniques. In addition, I will give a brief summary of extant nalbound objects and thier stitch variants, if known, from the 10th-14th cent. AD.
The technical variant used in approximately half the objects is misleadingly called Coptic or Tarim stitch. A preferred established term is cross-knit looping and personal examination of the Tarim basin finds has not revealed its presence there. The misnomer derives from the misinterpretation of a brief note in a broader work, compounded by unawareness of the variant’s oldest known occurrence from the Nahal Hemar cave.
The term Coptic stitch reflects a greater understanding of naming conventions for nalbinding variants. However, recent research indicates that multiple finds labeled as Coptic actually date to the Roman and Late Roman Eras. The nominal association with the Coptic Era is additionally misleading because half of the designated corpus displays a range of more complex variants.
This paper addresses the terminological imprecision, confusion about underlying fabric structures, and effects of provenance irregularities. It also presents an initial collation of available images and mapped locations of the Egyptian finds as part of a comprehensive catalog of nalbound objects prior to 1600 currently being compiled.
Papers by Anne Decker
Teaching Documents by Anne Decker
The catalogue of the online exhibition, "Archeological puzzles in a museum," presents 30 selected fabrics, arranged according to the four stages of the collection's history. This section also contains detailed information on how and from whom the various objects were acquired. The given dating of the objects in the Catalogue is approximate and is based mainly on stylistic criteria.
The correct identification of the structure of a fabric and the technique(s) used to produce it, are fundamental to the understanding of its historical context and significance. However, the surface textures of looped fabric cannot always be associated unambiguously with specific techniques and there can be several ways to produce a given primary structure. Illustrations of distinctive secondary structural attributes and how to recognize them are sparse. This presentation focuses on the cross over between Twisted Stitch Knitting & the Cross-knit Looping variant of Nalbinding and between Slip Stitch Crochet & speculative Nalbinding variants.
The diagnostic details include the direction of work as seen in the fabric structure, which can differ between candidate techniques. The same applies to increases and decreases, initial and final rows, pickups, joins, transitions between stitch variants, and outright errors.
Some variants are more difficult to distinguish. Of particular difficulty is the difference between "Eastern crossed" knitting and the nalbinding variant known as "cross-knit looping." In the final product, these two completely different methods of manufacture create a fabric with exactly the same basic structure. The only way to tell the method of manufacture in fabrics of this structure is to closely examine the increases, decreases, joins, and mistakes. It is important to note that in a fabric of this structure, nalbinding "increases" will be seen as knitting "decreases" and vice versa, because the relationship of the working yarn to the V shapes formed by the structure is opposite in knitting and nalbinding.
Sometimes proper dating is useful as a starting point. All the cross-knit looping socks in Egypt seem to be dated from the second to the sixth centuries AD. At the same time there are also artifacts of a more complex form of nalbinding, one of the interconnected looping variants. However, no artifacts of true knitting are found contemporaneously. Dating is not as useful as one moves later into the medieval period, during which both techniques are found.
Another place to look in order to differentiate textile techniques, which is valid for all nalbinding variants, is splices. If the yarn has many splices, then the use of a continuous thread technique, such as knitting, is unlikely. In those yarns where splicing is inconvenient, it is possible to look for a doubling of a stitch at a fairly regular interval. Conlor changes can also be useful for identifying technique.
Some nalbinding variants are easily determined not to be knitting. The can, however, sometimes be confused with both sprang and crochet on a superficial basis. Structurally they are very different, even though the surface textures can sometimes be seen as similar.
The structural analysis of an object is just as important as proper dating in recognizing, to the fullest extent, the significance of an artifact. However, there are still many artifacts whose structure has yet to be analyzed. Until this is accomplished, their true contribution to the study of nalbinding, non-woven textile techniques, and textile history cannot be fully recognized.
depending on its variant stitch and the technical textile production knowledge of its identifier. In addition there are many different names used to refer to nalbinding. Some of which can cause a piece to be unrecognized as nalbinding in a translation. The most basic structure of nalbinding is the detached buttonhole stitch. Variants are formed by different interlacements within the row and with previous rows and these give many different looks to the final fabric. Using examples primarily from the 10th - 14th centuries AD, I will demonstrate how different variations can easily be confused with each other and with other fabric techniques. In addition, I will give a brief summary of extant nalbound objects and thier stitch variants, if known, from the 10th-14th cent. AD.
The technical variant used in approximately half the objects is misleadingly called Coptic or Tarim stitch. A preferred established term is cross-knit looping and personal examination of the Tarim basin finds has not revealed its presence there. The misnomer derives from the misinterpretation of a brief note in a broader work, compounded by unawareness of the variant’s oldest known occurrence from the Nahal Hemar cave.
The term Coptic stitch reflects a greater understanding of naming conventions for nalbinding variants. However, recent research indicates that multiple finds labeled as Coptic actually date to the Roman and Late Roman Eras. The nominal association with the Coptic Era is additionally misleading because half of the designated corpus displays a range of more complex variants.
This paper addresses the terminological imprecision, confusion about underlying fabric structures, and effects of provenance irregularities. It also presents an initial collation of available images and mapped locations of the Egyptian finds as part of a comprehensive catalog of nalbound objects prior to 1600 currently being compiled.
The catalogue of the online exhibition, "Archeological puzzles in a museum," presents 30 selected fabrics, arranged according to the four stages of the collection's history. This section also contains detailed information on how and from whom the various objects were acquired. The given dating of the objects in the Catalogue is approximate and is based mainly on stylistic criteria.