New Project

 Ceilidh is behind us and the Holidays loom near on the horizon, and I have a new project to plan and execute.  It focuses on that dreaded word...Research.  Thankfully not the dusty tome type--Hermione Granger, I'm not.  

This is a trip down a side road off of my St. Eligius display in 2023, where I introduced the research of Cary Karp and Anne Marie Decker into three items in the  Museum der Kulturen, Basel. (Initial trip mentioned in Anne Marie's blog here.  A Copy of Archaeological Textiles Review No. 64 in which their paper on their findings is here.)

My current question comes from:

 - Given: Nalbinding is a marvelous craft. Unlike knitting or crochet, an item made this way will not unravel if cut or develops a hole.

 - Given: Based on Cary Karp's and Anne Marie Decker's research, some nalbinding stitches look exactly like front-loop slip-stitch crochet.  It is only by examining the final project can one determine how the item was made.

 - Question: If they are similar in structure, then does front-loop crochet also not unravel?

 - Corollary Question: Does the nalbinding stitch that slip-stitch resembles also not unravel?

To test this question I will need to use 100% wool that is not Superwash.  As I don't have any at home I will be making a trip to the yarn store (Gasp! Not the dreaded yarn store!, says my wallet.)  I will probably get two colors to more easily identify each technique.

Then I will have to:

  > Create multiple samples of each technique

 > Cut one sample each and see what happens

But should I somehow give the samples some 'wear and tear' before cutting?  The assumption is that nalbinding which has developed a hole is, by definition, being used.  Does a newly created object not unravel.  Do all nalbinding stitches not unravel?  Is this nalbinding voodoo just hearsay?  Who first came up with this idea?  (Warning! Book Research ahead!)

I need to stop the flow of questions before I drown in them.

~ Marjorie

Braving THE city

I'm heading off to the Metropolitan Museum of Art this week, braving NYC by myself to see a special exhibit that ends January 10th: Fashion and Virtue Textile Patterns and the Print Revolution, 1520-1620.
 http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2015/fashion-and-virtue.

The main focus of the exhibit is the Met's collection of pattern books published during this time, supported by clothing, embroidery, paintings and other works of art of the time period.

I'm also going to look for this sculpture:

Master Heinrich of Constance (German, active in Constance, ca. 1300). The Visitation, ca. 1310–20. Walnut, paint, gilding, rock-crystal cabochons inset in gilt-silver mounts. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917 (17.190.724).

This is about 120 years past my main Period, but totally within the realm of my research.  I'm most curious about the difference in the veils.

Why the difference in headpieces? 

· Mary (on left) seems to have a decorative cord? chain? That is attached to veil, but how does the veil stay on?  Perhaps the chain clips onto both the veil and Mary’s hair? 

· Elizabeth (on right) seems to have a more traditional headband, decorated with embroidery?, and chin strap to which the veil would have been pinned.

Was the difference a part of perceived difference in rank between the two? 

· Religious status: with Mary being more important because she was considered the Mother of God.

· Societal status: With Elizabeth being the higher rank because she was married to a priest, while Mary was pregnant and unwed.

To me the chin strap would make the veil more secure and therefore be used by someone who works.  The lack of a chin strap for Mary indicates that the sculptor believes Mary to be of higher rank, someone who leads a sedentary, non-demanding life, as benefits the mother of our savior. 

This belief of the sculptor, if I am interpreting this correctly, is of course completely contrary to the Bible.  In the Bible, Mary is betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1:27), who was a carpenter, a manual laborer.  Prior to the event portrayed here, Mary had just traveled to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-43).  It’s a good bet she walked there, on foot, without the aid of a donkey.

I'll be lining my cloak so I can display it at the East Kingdom 12th Night  A&S Display/Popular Choice Competition.  That's all that's new in the world of sewing at this time.

~ Marjorie