crochet-FAQ

This document is also available in: text or RTF formats.

crochet-FAQ - 9/23/01

"Crochet & It's Origins - FAQ" by lady Christian de Holacombe. The case against

crochet being period.

************************************************************************

NOTICE -

This article was submitted to me by the author for inclusion in this set

of files, called Stefan’s Florilegium.

These files are available on the Internet at:

http://www.florilegium.org

While the author will likely give permission for this work to be

reprinted in SCA type publications, please check with the author first

or check for any permissions granted at the end of this file.

Thank you,

Mark S. Harris

AKA: Stefan li Rous

stefan at florilegium.org

************************************************************************

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

C R O C H E T & I T S O R I G I N S -- F A Q

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

THE EVIDENCE (OR LACK OF)

The earliest *physical* evidence of any kind for the thread technique we now know as crochet dates to about 1800. If crochet was done earlier, we would expect to find *some* actual examples somewhere -- in old collections, from tombs, from archaeological digs. I've never heard of any that have been examined by textile-knowledgeable people that have proved to actually be crochet -- they are all something else. (Usually naalbinding, a completely different technique.)

POSSIBLE ORIGINS

There are some very faint indications that some sort of "chained trimming" was made around 1580 (it's mentioned once in _Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd_, for instance). But this seems, from the context, to have been some type of cord, which was probably sewed down onto fabric like an ornamental braid. (The commonest meaning of the word "lace" at that time was "a cord for tying," as in "shoelace.")

A single loop, drawn through with a hook, is sometimes used in bobbin lace to attach one piece to another. However, there's never more than one loop at a time, and they are a very minor part of the pattern (less than 1%).

Lis Paludan, in her excellent book _Crochet: History and Technique_ (Interweave Press, 1995, ISBN# 1-883010-09-8, about $35) also discusses a primitive-looking form of crochet called "pjonting" which is basically a slip-stitch fabric. The earliest examples seem to date from about 1820. (She only has a few pages on the early history of crochet, but it's more than anyone else has. )

It's fairly clear that crochet as we know it doesn't begin to be commonly seen until sometime after the mid 1700s, when tambour embroidery (a chain stitch done with a small crochet-like hook) reached Europe. At present, the leading theory for the origin of crochet seems to be that it began when someone realized that chains worked in a pattern would hang together without any background fabric. Historians refer to this theory as "tambour in aria," since it's very much like the way the needle-lace technique "punto in aria" developed from Reticella embroidery on fabric.

Santina Levey in her excellent _Lace, a History_ mentions "cheyne lace" and says it was made with a hook, though she doesn't say how she reached this conclusion. She presents a sample of a primitive sort of chained net from the late 1700s, which shows what early crochet could have looked like.

QUESTIONABLE CLAIMS

You do fairly often see claims that such-and-such a piece from an Egyptian tomb (usually) is "exactly like" crochet. So far all the ones I've seen and heard of have turned out to bear only a superficial resemblance. When you follow the path of the thread, it is quite different.

You also hear claims that "nun's work," done for centuries to ornament church linens, is crochet. Again, if that's what "nun's work" was, we'd expect to see some examples, since there are certainly examples of many other types of work (needle lace, bobbin lace, knitting) from those same centuries. Still no crochet examples, though. (And church textiles seem to stand a better-than-average chance of being preserved.) It appears likely that the idea that "nun's work" equals "crochet" arose sometime in the 19th century and has been uncritically copied from older books by later authors. It is far more likely that the term simply meant any ornamental work done by nuns.

Hooks and hooked needles do not necessarily have anything to do with crochet. There is often a hook at the top of the shaft of a drop spindle, for instance, to hold the working thread. Hooks of various sizes and shapes have many uses, and it can't be assumed that a "hook" mentioned in an inventory has anything to do with needlework, even if it is in with other needlework tools or clothing. For instance, Queen Mary Tudor's inventory mentions "hooks" that turn out to be short curved pieces with no handles, like the small hooks we hang pictures on. Knitting needles too have often been hooked, and in some cultures still are.

It's been argued that crochet is a "simple" technique and "surely must" have been discovered earlier. I'm sympathetic to this feeling, but the fact remains: no pieces at all survive. Considering how much we have in the way of surviving examples of other techniques from the same time periods, this seems to most textile historians to be a very strong argument that crochet did not exist before about 1800.

_________________________________________________________

O (Lady) Christian de Holacombe

| Chris Laning <claning at igc.org>

+ Shire of Windy Meads - Davis, California

_________________________________________________________

Permission granted for republication in SCA-related publications, provided

author is credited and receives a copy.

If this article is reprinted in a publication, I would appreciate a notice in

the publication that you found this article in the Florilegium. I would also

appreciate an email to myself, so that I can track which articles are being

reprinted. Thanks. -Stefan.

Stefan's Florilegium

crochet-FAQ