Overshot and nomenclature
|
I know we have some weavers here who like nomenclature to be used correctly.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Some of these are not Overshot, Halvdräll for instance, does this bother you? There is also a book making the rounds in rigid heddle land called Crazyshot, which has a lot of people mistaking a supplemental weft weave with Overshot. On the other hand the linked blog article is accurate, as far as I can tell Curious what this group thinks. marie Inga Marie Carmel An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe Begin forwarded message:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I communicate with a lot of newer weavers and they find the playing around with nomenclature along with incorrect usage confusing and frustrating.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
For example:, threadings, tieups, and treadlings, are not structures, but many use “twill” for straight draw, straight treadling, and diagonal tieups; “overshot” for threadings on which overshot can be woven (so can a lot of other structures). No one knows who came up with the incorrect name of “turned taqueté” for the structure that is “Jin”. Why on earth do we want to type 10 more letters, one with an accent? coeweaves.com e-weave-online.thinkific.com On Jul 21, 2022, at 2:45 AM, Inga Marie Carmel <ingamariecarmel@...> wrote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So this post from Gist bothers you?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
There’s also the use of “multi-shaft” to mean shaft loom (as opposed to rigid heddle). I’m seeing that more and more. But in the past it’s meant more than 8… which actually never made sense to me. Nomenclature changes and evolves but when it leaves a specific thing like Overshot without its own name, it’s a problem. marie Inga Marie Carmel An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe On Jul 21, 2022, at 13:44, margcoe <coe@...> wrote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
P George
After 5 decades as a handweaver, textile industry designer working in both industrial and handloom sectors, and teaching college students at several different schools….I’ve given up on specific terminology when explaining structures to students, production managers, or curators! There are too many excellent historical and modern sources that refer to exactly the same structure on graph paper, that vary by education, cultural or traditional background, or translation between languages.
When explaining overshot, brocade, or any other pattern system that a floating filling (weft) for the pattern to students, I use the term “supplementary weft”, then illustrate with a draft on graph paper or computer simulation (in both black and white for structure, and color for pattern effect).
Then, if the audience is still interested, we’ll discuss examples of common names for variations of the system ie: overshot, summer-and-winter, brocade, fil-coupé, etc, etc, etc.
There were certainly more than a few terminology discussions during the CW seminars in Knoxville last week…all enjoyable!
Patrice
From: <weavetech@groups.io> on behalf of Inga Marie Carmel <ingamariecarmel@...>
So this post from Gist bothers you?
There’s also the use of “multi-shaft” to mean shaft loom (as opposed to rigid heddle). I’m seeing that more and more. But in the past it’s meant more than 8… which actually never made sense to me. Nomenclature changes and evolves but when it leaves a specific thing like Overshot without its own name, it’s a problem.
marie
Inga Marie Carmel An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jayne F
And why should we expect the language of weaving to be any less fluid than the language of English, for instance? Words come and go, meanings can be the opposite within decades if not years. Patrice’s approach is the most logical and practical.
Jayne
From: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> On Behalf Of P George
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 9:02 AM To: weavetech@groups.io Subject: Re: [weavetech] Overshot and nomenclature
After 5 decades as a handweaver, textile industry designer working in both industrial and handloom sectors, and teaching college students at several different schools….I’ve given up on specific terminology when explaining structures to students, production managers, or curators! There are too many excellent historical and modern sources that refer to exactly the same structure on graph paper, that vary by education, cultural or traditional background, or translation between languages.
When explaining overshot, brocade, or any other pattern system that a floating filling (weft) for the pattern to students, I use the term “supplementary weft”, then illustrate with a draft on graph paper or computer simulation (in both black and white for structure, and color for pattern effect).
Then, if the audience is still interested, we’ll discuss examples of common names for variations of the system ie: overshot, summer-and-winter, brocade, fil-coupé, etc, etc, etc.
There were certainly more than a few terminology discussions during the CW seminars in Knoxville last week…all enjoyable!
Patrice
From: <weavetech@groups.io> on behalf of Inga Marie Carmel <ingamariecarmel@...>
So this post from Gist bothers you?
There’s also the use of “multi-shaft” to mean shaft loom (as opposed to rigid heddle). I’m seeing that more and more. But in the past it’s meant more than 8… which actually never made sense to me. Nomenclature changes and evolves but when it leaves a specific thing like Overshot without its own name, it’s a problem.
marie
Inga Marie Carmel An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ian Bowers
The discussion is an excellent adult example of ‘artists’ at work.
There is no way a car or a domestic appliance could be constructed (let alone the James Webb telescope) without a common language and system defined, understood and used by all involved.
Perhaps it is time for a mature discussion of those involved to agree just what is what, and maybe agree to use the language of commercial weavers.
Best regards
Ian Bowers (Dr) Managing Director
GEORGE WEIL & SONS LTD, Old Portsmouth Road, Peasmarsh, Guildford, Surrey, GU3 1LZ tel: 0 (+44) 1483 565800 Follow George Weil:
From: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io>
On Behalf Of Jayne F via groups.io
Sent: 21 July 2022 14:09 To: weavetech@groups.io Subject: Re: [weavetech] Overshot and nomenclature
And why should we expect the language of weaving to be any less fluid than the language of English, for instance? Words come and go, meanings can be the opposite within decades if not years. Patrice’s approach is the most logical and practical.
Jayne
From:
weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io>
On Behalf Of P George
After 5 decades as a handweaver, textile industry designer working in both industrial and handloom sectors, and teaching college students at several different schools….I’ve given up on specific terminology when explaining structures to students, production managers, or curators! There are too many excellent historical and modern sources that refer to exactly the same structure on graph paper, that vary by education, cultural or traditional background, or translation between languages.
When explaining overshot, brocade, or any other pattern system that a floating filling (weft) for the pattern to students, I use the term “supplementary weft”, then illustrate with a draft on graph paper or computer simulation (in both black and white for structure, and color for pattern effect).
Then, if the audience is still interested, we’ll discuss examples of common names for variations of the system ie: overshot, summer-and-winter, brocade, fil-coupé, etc, etc, etc.
There were certainly more than a few terminology discussions during the CW seminars in Knoxville last week…all enjoyable!
Patrice
From:
<weavetech@groups.io> on behalf of Inga Marie Carmel <ingamariecarmel@...>
So this post from Gist bothers you?
There’s also the use of “multi-shaft” to mean shaft loom (as opposed to rigid heddle). I’m seeing that more and more. But in the past it’s meant more than 8… which actually never made sense to me. Nomenclature changes and evolves but when it leaves a specific thing like Overshot without its own name, it’s a problem.
marie
Inga Marie Carmel An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have no issue with language changing or being different in different places. I follow a lot of weaving groups on FB and cringe at ’treddles’ or ‘rolling the warp on’ etc. I don’t feel the need to correct those. But this is different. Not all supplemental weft weaves are Overshot, it’s not a catch all term. I can’t do anything about what people who learn to weave from Facebook groups and YouTube videos say, and I’m delighted that they are weaving. It does get under my skin that a company that caters to handweavers and is gaining a lot of support uses Overshot and supplemental weft interchangeably.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I don’t know who ’those involved’ would include.. there are a lot of weavers out there, and not all are connected. marie Inga Marie Carmel Instagram @ingamarie An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
Inga,
Just looked at the ad you mention - I once left a mild reaction to their recommendation about putting linen in the dryer and was "scorched" in a very unpleasant way as "just a disgruntled competitor". I recently saw some of their cotton linen yarn and was shocked at the looseness of the ply - pretty colors, but certainly not durable for household textiles other than nice clothing. That ad just put up a lot of patterns without any respect the weaving terms involved. You have a point that softening the use of terms by a company that sells kits and patterns is misleading and not helpful. Structure is the interlacement of a fabric - there are three types - plain, twill and satin. And combinations/variants thereof. Then there are supplemental warps and wefts. Also, a textile can be anywhere from warp faced to weft faced. Overshot is but one type of supplemental weft fabric. Too often - and Patrice pointed this out - those who weave and those who use fabric use different words. Those who don't weave tend to use descriptive terms for the fabrics like Oxford cloth, denim, dimity,corduroy, while those who weave more often include the structural elements in the names. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does it bother me? Yes. It's one of my weaving "pet peeves," and I will declaim against it to anyone who will listen. I find it incredibly irritating because slapping an incorrect name on a weave, or (even worse) giving it a new, whimsical name because somebody thought the original name was "inconvenient" (such as calling jämtlandsdräll "crackle") makes it that much harder for less knowledgeable students of textiles and textile history to understand exactly how a textile is constructed.
That being said, weaving terminology has been in a constant state of flux for at least the past several hundred years, as weaving knowledge has migrated through geographic areas and languages. I work with historic weaving documents, and I've learned to keep track of terminology (in multiple languages) to better understand what knowledge the weaver was trying to preserve by writing it down. In some cases, such as hin found scattered throughout old pattern books, it's a single word, used as an abbreviation for a common threading/treadling (hin und wieder, or point twill, tromp as writ). In other cases, it's as above: a certain, very influential, weaving teacher in early 20th century America changed terms for her own (and, supposedly, her students') convenience. In still other cases, misnaming happens because a popular book of drafts is published that focuses on a design motif, rather than the structures used to create that motif, and the motif ends up being used to describe all the different structures. I have some hypotheses as to why this has happened, but that's for another discussion. Fortunately, there is hope. Some influential weavers and teachers are insistent on using terminology that is used throughout the world, and over time usage shifts again. I have watched this happen at least twice in the past 15-20 years: American weavers, for the most part, have, moved from referring to the frames holding the heddles as "harnesses" to "shafts"; and, thanks in large part to Margaret's championing of the word "Jin" in place of "turned taqueté," have dropped "turned taqueté" from their weaving vocabularies. Dawn Jacobson |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eileen Crawford
Nomenclature helps the reader to understand the writer's intended meaning. I would love to have a simplified dictionary of terms in weaving, using Irene Emery's work as the source. Will anyone please volunteer? I volunteer to assist in the research. It is not unlike using Latin to name all plants, versus the confusing common names for each one in different locations and languages. And it would be lovely to see the quote by Peter Collingwood that used to close each post in this group. It is related to the topic of nomenclature in weaving. I have not been able to locate it, and hope that someone will repost it. thanks, Eileen Crawford |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Helena Loermans
In the research and reconstruction of canvas in Old Master paintings, I am weaving the so-called hin und wieder patterns. The term is from Mark Zieglers book 1677. The 'oldest' canvas I have reconstructed until date is from Titian's Portrait of Isabella d'Este 1536. Another canvas from Caravaggio 1606 is in the begiterter Arbeit technique, (lace) These drafts are not in Ziegler's book and only two drafts in Nathaniel Lumscher's book 1708. Not sure if it's allowed to include pictures in this group... Helena Loermans 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As a newer weaver, I hope I can offer a bit of perspective. I have learned, trying to find the 'right' definition of things in weaving, that it really depends on who you ask, who they learned from, what era your publications were written and what language you speak. Who knows what these weaves will be called in 200 years? And is it important? Or is it important that people are still weaving? You might blame Gist for spreading misinformation, but maybe they got their definitions from The Islandic Textile Center which puts halvdrail as its first overshot pattern: https://gagnagrunnur.textilmidstod.is/en/moya/gallery/index/index/self-patterned-weaving/overshot-weaving What we are missing in this conversation is what Gist offers to the weaving community. For a long time, they were the only company to create high-quality and interesting threads that work well on a rigid heddle loom. Duet might look loosely spun or slubby on the onset, but for a rigid heddle weaver it provides an interesting texture and drape for simple weaves at 12.5 epi and when washed- it tightens up so we get a nice, textured cloth that finishes at 15-18 epi. And yes, it actually washes and wears beautifully. It's wonderful stuff serving a crowd that quite frankly, has been underserved for a long time. Beam is one of the softest and most absorbent cottons I have worked with (I tested it and it absorbed more water faster than Marice Brassard 8/2) They work with American Mills and American growers, so I kind of feel like holding their feet to the fire because they called halvdraill overshot (as is sometimes done by other people) is kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In addition, they compensate their pattern designers very well and they have dedicated at least $3,000 a year in scholarships to support community weaving projects. They are doing really good work investing in the future of weaving in America, in my opinion, and their success is important. They also have an aesthetic that I personally, really like. It might not be everyone's thing, but it's important to have diverse weaving styles to attract new weavers who might not really like the look of what is currently popular in the weaving community. And honestly. since when have we had too many weaving suppliers to buy from? We need our suppliers! I think if weaving wants a future of diverse voices from all walks of life definitions will shift and change, because language is organic by nature. Not everyone who weaves is online or in guilds or connected with a mentor or teacher, so they won't know what to call anything. The "Crazyshot" conversation is something Myra talks openly about- she is clear she didn't rename anything but she had to name her book "Supplemental Pick Up Weft Patterning on the Rigid Heddle Loom" just doesn't have the same ring to it, you know? She provides a history of the technique with examples from around the world and credits the people she learned from- she is clear she's not innovating anything- just teaching it and offering designs. I love that she defined the technique to open the world of complex and beautiful patterning to rigid heddle weavers. 3 years ago, it was rare to see anyone use their rigid heddle for more than yarn scarves and thick, Sugar and Cream dish towels, and then her book came out and people are now producing beautiful pieces with quite a lot of skill and excitement. I have been doing various fiber arts for almost 40 years, and seeing this kind of growth and adaption is exciting for me. Sometimes it feels like "you aren't a real weaver" until you get all the things right, and many new weavers end up feeling bullied out of established weaving groups and guilds because they are afraid of using the wrong terminology and receiving an eye roll from an older weaver. And yes, I do agree that correct terms can help clarify techniques in writing, and it's very important especially when we talk about weaving from other cultures (like defining Navajo Rugs as a very specific origin and technique to keep people from appropriating and mislabeling indigenous work) but I feel like weaving goes beyond words and language and sometimes our need to define exactly what is what puts boundaries on who has access to an art form that is expansive, modern, and ancient and most of all, beautiful and essential for human survival. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
Carly,
As a business owner and published author, I can only say that when I publish material, teach, or sell merchandise, I feel a personal responsibility to present weaving as correctly as possible within the scope of what has been for centuries a skilled apprenticed trade and now an industry. Knowing the standard ways shortens the learning curve. In published material, I always include a bibliography and definitions based on reputable literature. That allows those I work with or sell to to continue learning using standard methods and terminology - and allows them to proceed in their own creative direction. I definitely do NOT label what I do with my name, as it is pretty much always information that is readily available. Have never put out cute names or put my name on standard information. That is not bullying, it is, in my eyes, standard mainstream academic practice allowing others to move forward with their weaving. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
I think we'd be hard pressed to figure out what the "correct terminology" consists of, let alone figuring out how to police it. I do like how the cute name a weaver gave to a structure is canon if it was 200 years ago, but the ravings of an upstart if it was less than 100. And I also like how we're expected to use terms in foreign languages we don't speak or understand. :D
I agree that consistency is useful. But there isn't the consistency among standard references that has been implied. I would rather we approach this with the goal of communication and cooperation. The advertisement was not meant as an academic tome, so why hold it to that standard? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
"Standard" terminology includes many terms for things that have several
options. That is not "correct" terms, but standard ones, as in the names of plants and animals. The Latin terms serve as a communal attempt to standardize, yet many local variations and common names exist - all of the above counting as standard usage. Centuries ago weavers did not invent cute names - the terminology evolved and was taught to apprentices who carried it forward. The modern set of terms that has come forward is included in many comprehensive weaving books, in several languages. I could give you a list of excellent books to help you along, knowing what your preferred loom type is would help. Books like that are usually less than $35 and well worth the investment - they serve as a guide to understand what is out on Pinterest, Instagram and other "net" places. WeaveTech was founded over 25 years ago as a forum for discussing weaving in commonly accepted terms - see the Collingwood sig line that I posted earlier. It is an inclusive group, but has always discouraged using terms that are like "thingy" "doohicky" or "that thing I saw on someone's loom". Either one asks what the term is by a good description or uses the standard word so as many listers as possible can understand what is being discussed. It is kind of like Ace Hardware wouldn't send out a flier advertising "new, miracle tool to shorten the green stuff in front of your house" when they could simply say "we have plenty of lawnmowers in stock". When I advertise something, it is using terms that as many as possible will recognize, not something cute. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joe P
Hi Everyone and Sara Von T.
I enjoyed reading your post to the list a great deal
I have a great old school book that is about weaving terms and the names if a great many weavings, structures It is not a lot of money Encyclopedia of Hand Weaving by S. A. Zielinski, I have a signed copy I have had the book for a while I bought off e-bay around
$20.00 with shipping. I checked the index of the book, whatchamacallit is also not a listed weaving term.
If I may add a weaving mistake is not design element. A design element is planned. A mistake is an unwanted surprise.
Keep Weaving
Joe Bear In WI U.S.A.
From: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> on behalf of Sara von Tresckow <sarav@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 6:08 PM To: weavetech@groups.io <weavetech@groups.io> Subject: Re: [weavetech] Overshot and nomenclature "Standard" terminology includes many terms for things that have several
options. That is not "correct" terms, but standard ones, as in the names of plants and animals. The Latin terms serve as a communal attempt to standardize, yet many local variations and common names exist - all of the above counting as standard usage. Centuries ago weavers did not invent cute names - the terminology evolved and was taught to apprentices who carried it forward. The modern set of terms that has come forward is included in many comprehensive weaving books, in several languages. I could give you a list of excellent books to help you along, knowing what your preferred loom type is would help. Books like that are usually less than $35 and well worth the investment - they serve as a guide to understand what is out on Pinterest, Instagram and other "net" places. WeaveTech was founded over 25 years ago as a forum for discussing weaving in commonly accepted terms - see the Collingwood sig line that I posted earlier. It is an inclusive group, but has always discouraged using terms that are like "thingy" "doohicky" or "that thing I saw on someone's loom". Either one asks what the term is by a good description or uses the standard word so as many listers as possible can understand what is being discussed. It is kind of like Ace Hardware wouldn't send out a flier advertising "new, miracle tool to shorten the green stuff in front of your house" when they could simply say "we have plenty of lawnmowers in stock". When I advertise something, it is using terms that as many as possible will recognize, not something cute. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
The problem is that "standard" weaving terms are exactly unlike plants and animals. There is no International Commission/Code on Zoological/Botanical Nomenclature for weave structures. There are just the cute names that weavers made up centuries ago (you don't think names like "hopsack" or "huckaback" or "overshot" or "huggabug" are cute???) in different regions and at different times. Just because it was apprentices who carried them forward, rather than Pinterest, doesn't somehow change their nature. We have a whole bunch of uninformative names and terms whose usage varies among regions and languages (examples of informative names would be in Irene Emery's The Primary Structure of Fabrics). They mostly only have meaning by convention, which unfortunately can vary.
I appreciate your offer to suggest reading material. But I may be more widely read on the subject, given that I already recognize that "comprehensive weaving books" do not all say the same thing. So referring me to your individual favourites doesn't solve the problem (again - who gets to decide that?). Just because you have a classification system in mind, when you talk about weave structures, does not mean that whoever you are communicating with will have the same system in mind. And it isn't a matter of whether or not there are is a set of master weavers we can refer to for a final answer (which I presume your condescension was meant to convey). There are substantial differences among well-recognized experts in the field. I would suggest that instead we humbly recognize that whatever classification system we each have in mind, through reference to "comprehensive weaving books" and other material, is unlikely to be universal. So rather than attempting to communicate with the assumption that you (the general "you") are using the "correct nomenclature", and that given enough knowledge your listener will understand (so the fault is in the ignorance of the listener, not with your personal classification system), we should learn to recognize where there is variation in convention and define our terms. And that just because many WeaveTech participants have settled on some conventions for ease of communication, these are not going to be universal among all participants, let alone outside of WeaveTech. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
hunter.roseholle
See Ulla Cyrus-Zetterstrom in her book "Manual of Swedish Handweaving" on page 72 of the 2nd edition - "Overshot (Swedish simplified drall, "Monksbelt"and "Upphamta". Halvdrall is considered a simplified drall as well as Jamptlandsdrall (Crackle in USian), and Kuvikas (Summer & Winter). She gives an excellent explanation of the threading and treadling systems for each and explains how simplified dralls differ from true dralls (satin based). In that respect, Gist isn't taking liberties by including Halvdrall as a type of "overshot". It would be better to classify that collection as "simplified dralls" according to the classification I learned from Cyrus-Zetterstom. The Crazyshot book uses the word "overshot" in the subtitle which isn't an accurate use of the word "overshot" with her pick-up method. She should have omitted the word "overshot" from the subtitle to avoid misleading people. Davison (The Green Book) in chapter 8, page 71 gives what I've found to be the best explanation for name changes over time. "Thus Dr. Fuller in "Worthies" says: Expect not I should reckon up their several names, because daily increasing, and many of them are binominous, as which when they begin to tire in sale, they are quickened with a new name". Jan |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
CIETA is an international organization that serves as a reference point for
textile terms. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
I don't usually find CIETA particularly useful. Perhaps in the field of ancient textiles it can be referred to as a standard. But it doesn't seem to have definitions for most of the nomenclature used among handweavers. For example, it doesn't include "overshot" or "halvdräll" in its vocabulary (so it wouldn't be of any use in this thread). And even when I've used it for the structures it does define, the definitions are too basic to answer any of the nitty gritty questions which are usually under discussion. For example, here is the definition for "huck" or "huckaback":
"A self-patterned weave, with a tabby ground with small motifs in offset rows formed by short floats of the warp or weft (or both)." https://cieta.fr Can that be used to tell if what you are looking at should be called "Huck" vs. "Swedish Lace"? I'm not suggesting that you aren't free to refer to it, though, if that is your preference. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
