How do I tell a weave from a pattern?

I'm trying to make a list of weaves, but keep finding patterns, especially overshot patterns. Sometimes if I can find the draft I can tell that it's an overshot pattern, but then there's things like Rose Path, sounds like an overshot pattern but isn't, but is it a 'named' twill? But then again just about everything that isn't tabby, repp, basket weave or leno or otherwise manipulated tabby, could be classed as twill couldn't it?

I suppose at the end of the day, I'm looking for weaves or named patterns that aren't oversot. :S Any help appreaciated. Thanks in advance. :)

Comments

Sat, 09/14/2013 - 13:18

ReedGuy

The book 'Warp and Weft' lists a lot of them.

rosepath

monk's belt

overshot

crackle

halvdrall

block damask

satin

satine

twills and variations

rickrack

cord

honeycomb

waffle

droguet

M's and O's

doubleweave

color effects (shadow, corkscrew)

crepe

lace

spot

lisere

lampas

taquete

damask

 

 

Sat, 09/14/2013 - 15:53

laurafry

Just wondering why you are wanting to know the distinction? Some people maintain that there is plain weave, twill and satin and everything else derives from those three. I'm not sure I completely subscribe to that theory, especially when you get into more complex structures... There are a number of books which break structure into categories, others which attempt to define them. PM me if you want a list or visit Handweaving dot net for lots of different drafts. Cheers Laura
Sat, 09/14/2013 - 21:32

JPMorabito

In general, when it comes to weaving (anyway), I have always viewed a "pattern" to be a layout variation for a construction. The construction details which yarns are used and how they are interlaced. The pattern would tell us how those interlacements are laid out or arranged. But my vocabulary and veiwpoint comes from industrial weaving, which might be different from how you're looking at things. 

Hand weavers, historians, and industrial weavers seem to speak three different languages. Depending on who you're talking to, the same weave/structure will be referred to totally differently. For example, summer and winter is classified as a tied unit weave by hand weavers, a compound weave by historians, and a bi-pick by industrial weavers. So considering the source and the final audience is important. 

I would recommend looking into more theoretical books rather than how to books. I think On Weaving by Anni Albers and The Primary Structures of Fabrics by Irene Emery are excellent sources for weave and construction classification. As far as I'm concerned, Emery's text is without peer when it comes to classifying textile structures. Some other books to look at might be Oelsner's A Handbook of Weaves, The Key to Weaving by Mary E. Black, and Mastering Weave Structures by Sharon Alderman. Hope that's helpful.

 

Laura, would love to see which books you would refer to. 

Sat, 09/14/2013 - 21:53

laurafry

JP, I would recommend Irene Emory's, Dorothy Burnham's Warp and Weft (I think it's called), Doris Goerner, Ashenhurst, and I'd have to check my library for the older books I have that are more industrial based.  For the hand weaver who is looking to categorize weaves, Sharon Alderman, Madelyn van der Hoogt. Marianne Straub, John Tovey, S. A. Zielinski, and Helene Bress' The Weaving Book for the more common 4 shaft weaves.  Mary Black, Margaret Atwater, Harriet Tidball and M.P. Davison for hand weavers working in the 30's to 60's.  

It sort of depends on what the weaver is looking for.  Some smaller publications look at one type of weave (shadow weave, lace weaves) while others take a broader view.  

cheers,

Laura

Sat, 09/14/2013 - 23:53

Sara von Tresckow

A weave ceases to be a weave when it is not the result of two thread systems at right angles intersecting to form a fabric.

Otherwise, naming conventions in textiles, as already mentioned, is as varied as naming flowers in the garden. What one refers to as a "weave" is used by another as a "fabric quality". Laura's list is an excellent one.

Mon, 09/16/2013 - 00:55

JPMorabito

Thanks, Laura. It's always so interesting to see what texts other weavers refer to. Although, I think many of us refer to a lot of the same sources. I've been compiling a bibliography of history/theory/practice for contemporary weaving. So any new sources are always fantastic ;)

Mon, 09/16/2013 - 03:11

laurafry

There are so many good books out there - we just have to know about them.  ;)  The other set of books I like is Grosicki's Watson's.  Probably too 'industrial' for most but good for people with more than 4 and an interest in weave structure.

cheers,

Laura

Mon, 09/16/2013 - 13:56

sally orgren

I attended a lecture at Complex Weaver's Seminars in 2012 on this topic, presented by Chris Spangler. It was a really good introduction for me, and she provided a handout with the structures laid out visually.

It came as a surprise that experienced handweavers were challenging some of her classifications. Hearing the discussion on why they were challenging the classifications was enlightening (and also a bit confusing if you aren't familiar with the details of some of the structures.)

I wish this kind of information was posted someplace where it would be easily accessible. It is the kind of information weavers need to return to from time to time, as their skills build. And you learn more "keywords" to use when searching for weave structures other than overshot.

Tue, 09/17/2013 - 12:12

Woodburner

Thanks Reed Guy that's a very helpful list. What 'Warp and Weft' book are you meaning? I can't find the one that Laura mentions, only one by Mariana Eriksson et al. I might get that though. Odd thing is, I'm sure I've actually seen a copy in the flesh as it were, and not liked it, but looking at the preview in Amazon, it looks like just what I want!

Laura, to a certain extent I agree with the idea that there is plain weave and everything else is a variation of twill, but twill variations are so incredibly diverse that they really need to be subdivided in order to understand them.

I'm also interested in the early development of weaving, and weaving equipment, up to the early middle ages, so on that level I am inclined to divide weaves according to the equipment needed to make them, and on the ease of actually weaving them. With that in mind, I have been trawling through publications on handweaving.net, and there are so many drafts in them (NOT the draft archive- not interested in 99% of those) that I keep wondering, is this a variation of *** or the same as *** but with another name. And on another level again, I don't like being 'tied' to a recipe or a knitting pattern, I always adapt them to suit what I want and what I have, so knowing what the 'rules' are, means I can adapt a weave to my own intentions, and still be able to say what it is if I get stuck!

And last but not least, and as Sally says, more keywords to use when searching for weave structures other than overshot. Thanks all.

Tue, 09/17/2013 - 14:24

tommye scanlin

Here are a few books you might like to see if you're interested in early development of weaving equipment:

Warp-Weighted Loom by Marta Hoffman

The Book of Looms: A History of the Handloom from Ancient Times to Present by Eric Broudy

Studies in Primitive Looms by H. Ling Roth

A History of Textiles by Kax Wilson gives a broad overview of not only equipment but the textiles produced.

Tommye

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 19:14

JPMorabito

If there is an interest in the development of the craft and technology of weaving I would recommend both of Elizabeth Wayland Barbers texts: Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years and PreHistoric Textiles - both are a discussion of the development of weaving technologies during ancient times, particular foucs is given to the Aegean development of the warp weighted loom. Both texts discuss not only the looms and the development of the craft, but also the socio-economic implications of those developments. 

Let me know if you have any interest in the industrialization of weaving (i.e. the systematic stripping of artisan autonomy) and the development of automated looms and the jacquard loom - I have a long, long list of books I can recommend.

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 19:49

laurafry

Trying to categorize textiles is...challenging.  From what viewpoint are your definitions going to begin?  Others have mentioned this but there are the 'pure' interlacements, generally given as plain weave, twill and stain, with all else derived from these three.  I'm not sure I entirely agree, but...

There are also the motif names, most often seen in overshot but also some twills (M. P. Davison).  There are the hand manipulated weaves - leno can be loom controlled but often is hand twisted - the 'embroidery' techniques - i.e. Danish medallion and so on.  Not to mention tapestry, which could also be described as weft faced discontinuous...

Then there are all those names for qualities of cloth - broad cloth, fustian and so on.  And sometimes the same word can apply to different aspects of cloth - felt being just one of them.

The complexity of the creation of cloth from individual threads is what keeps me fascinated with the craft.  It is a never ending journey of discovery.  When you change one thing, everything changes....

cheers,

Laura

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 20:16

Sara von Tresckow

First, there is some agreement that there are 3 basic weave bindings (for a single warp system used with a single weft system) - plain weave, twill and satin. These structures are such that they cannot be derived from one of the other two bindings.

Beyond that, weaves are derivative from the three ground bindings. In some cases the derivatives are easy to identify, but in other cases, it is possible to arrive at a particular binding that can be started from either a twill or a satin, and the result has no clear naming.

The weaving books out there do attempt to clarify these derivatives, but it becomes difficult to standardize. In addition to the binding (this is the diagram of the intersecting threads), there is also fabric "quality" that is often used. Muslin is just plain weave in a standard binding, but the use of certain unbleached cotton threads and the sett used makes the fabric a muslin.

Trying to classify fabric by the type of loom used is not going to be terribly successful. The basic weaves and their not terribly complex derivatives can be woven on most loom types. Instead of shafts on the horizontal loom, extra heddling bars were not only possible, but widely used on warp weighted looms. The same holds true of upright 2-beam looms with multiple heddling bars.

The modern assumption that looms of antiquity were only tended by artisans is a false one. Already the Egyptions in Pharaoh's times used workshops to manufacture textiles. Paintings show clearly the number of workers needed to prepare fiber, spin it and weave it. Greek vases also attest to the multitude of persons needed to make a piece of fabric. Just because the looms were powered by humans does not make each weaver an independent producer. Long before the Middle Ages there were systems for producing fabric that amounted to "distributed manufacturing". In that sense, the attempt to distinguish between "handwoven" and "industrial" is perhaps wasted effort. Fabric is fabric. The late Al Fannin was quite adamant that cloth is cloth and yarn is yarn - whether is is made by us as "artisans" or by a machine - the resulting yarn or fabric should be judged and analyzed on its own merits - particularly in terms of bindings and qualities. 

 

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 20:56

laurafry

Tis true, I can equally weave the same item on either my 4 shaft or 16 shaft looms and once cut off the loom no one would be able to tell which loom I'd used.  In fact I just finished a run of scarves, the proto-type of which was woven on my four shaft counter balanced loom.  I then revised the threading and did the rest of the run of scarves on the AVL.  If I didn't tell someone which was which (or you haven't read my blog!) it would be impossible to tell which loom produced which of the scarves.

However, we all must define our tems in the way that best suits our purposes, which is why I asked that question in the beginning...  :)

cheers,

Laura

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 21:09

kerstinfroberg

but: what is an "artisan"?

So often I have heard about (what Sara refers to) "antiquity [...] artisans [...] workshops [...]" (and I have read some of the books, too). What I often miss is the aspect of the "lowly" fabrics, those made for necessity.

In several books I have found statements along the lines of "handspinning [-weaving, whatever] died out ...", while probably in reality it never did. My old friend who claimed to have re-introduced spindle spinning to Sweden - respect her as I did, I could never really believe that *nobody* knew how to do it for about 100 yrs, until...

The same goes for weaving - of course I believe in Barber's "proto-industrial" weaving  - but at the same time I doubt that the bulk of "lowly" weaving (everyday fabrics for the poor/peasant community) came from workshops.  I doubt it for several reasons: cost (to "buy" one has to have means of paying, regardless of currency); means of distribution (there may have been roads etc, but the peasant community, at least in Sweden of not-so-old, did not have access to them - also cost: again one had to have means of paying) ...

My point is: the poor peasants always had to fend for themselves, and that included fabric. They may have bartered among the local community, but I don't believe in the early industry for the "commoners" until very late. (Sources: "holes" in etnographical texts - texts that essentially describe what is going on out-of-doors - which thus sometimes describes how to milk a cow with so many words, but then just skip over the making of cheese with "and then the cheese was made")

(Of course this is only my opinion - I may be wrong :-)

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 21:33

laurafry

I don't think weaving ever died out completely - in Canada it was alive and healthy in Quebec in the rural areas.  In the US it was alive and well in the Appalachias.  I imagine it was similar in Europe, pockets in the rural areas where people still knew how to weave and therefore wove what they needed, when they needed it.

I do think that the big difference in NA at least, is that weaving is now largely an avocation, done out of interest not necessity.  There are some who approach it as an intellectual pursuit, some as a hobby.  A very few who actually try to earn an income, one way or another (if not weaving, then by teaching/writing about weaving).

There was a rather amusing (at least to me) article written in the late 1800's saying that poor people should be taught to weave to, essentially, keep them out of trouble - and prison!  :D  

Oh well.  We each approach weaving from our own interests.  At least the internet connects those of us interested in all sorts of aspects of cloth construction so that we can communicate more easily.  :)

cheers,

Laura

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 22:04

ReedGuy

Woodburner, that's the book. It also has info on tie-ups of counter looms and on reading drafts. However, it's not a beginner book until you begin to understand how to weave and set up your loom. But, you'll very quickly go to this book once you gain some understanding. One of my favorite books. Some weaves are more complicated than others and may require a couple different warps or wefts. Sometimes you scratch your head a little, but warp the loom accordingly, and then... magic. :)

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 22:08

Sara von Tresckow

There were definitely plain goods weavers and fancy goods weavers. However, it was always impractical, even for the lower end fabrics, to have the weaver do the entire process. The weaver was the skilled person who made the yarn grown and spun by others into cloth. In many cases, even very early on, that cloth then went to others in the area for various finishing processes.

Very early in history, fibers were spun into yarn and transported to weavers - working at home rather than in a workshop - who wove the fabric and passed it along to the market chain, whatever that was.

Whenever I look at drawings of archaeological digs, there are loom weights found in only a fraction of the houses examined, but spindle whorls in nearly every one. Weaving required more skill than handling a spindle, so that weavers were very early in history specialized persons who produced a product that was then sold or bartered for other necessities. In that sense, weaving was "industrial" in the sense of a specialized worker creating product not only for himself, but for others in return for that which he did not create. Having lived near some museums in N. Europe, the village model where there were specialized persons engaging in barter and perhaps trade outside the village predates our concepts of industrial textiles. In that context, the weaver was similar to the shoemaker, barrel maker, blacksmith - the skilled persons who made village life functional. Maybe it wasn't organized manufacturing, but the idea that every farm or cottage made cloth is an idealized picture. Cloth was made by the weaver and distributed as commercial goods - even the sacking and plain fabrics.

Also, cloth was precious enough until recently to have it recycled by passing it down to lower class persons until it wore out completely. I recall seeing patches on bog skirts in Schleswig that had patches on the patches - and there were 3 fabrics involved.

 

 

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 22:24

ReedGuy

Kerstin, an artisan is someone skilled in a craft or trade, or called a craftsman. Antiquity, is considered the early period of history, ancient times.

In Sweden, I here they make cheese with moose milk. No lie. Now of course not all is moose milk cheese, they do have cows or goats I'm sure. :) You do know a moose can be domesticated, they are dumber than a horse though, and not as pretty. ;)

I have a Youtube video of a dozen moose or so in the back field here. Just carrying on like horses in a pasture of course. They just run wild around here.

Wed, 09/18/2013 - 22:42

ReedGuy

Division of labour is a phrase that comes to mind. You can't do it all, so a number of people do certain tasks.

As far as recyling, the woolen mill here always has taken used wool garments or  bedding and recycle it over to make yarn again. Have for a very long time. My grandmother always sent in old warn wool textiles to be recycled.

During the depression, fabric was precious. My grandmother sewed flour bags together to make blankets. We just discovered some after my uncle died last fall. They were in an old trunk. Of course mother tossed them as they were old and who knows how many mice crawled through them in 80 years. ;) In the depression years you worked for store pay, especially for lumber co's, there was no cash. This also happened to coal miners in the US, they were basically slaves. And the store always figured you owed them more than you earned.

Thu, 09/19/2013 - 00:08

JPMorabito

Cloth production has always been riddled with labor problems. I would agree that a textile is a textile regardless of the means of production. As someone who often works with industrial looms, I do not find hand woven cloth to be inherently superior (or inferior for that matter). However, the quotidian nature of textiles demand an examination of that production. 

Historically there have always been labor issues connected to cloth production. I believe Barber sites the Egyptian workshops as being powered by slave labor. Textile history has never been clean. However, with the advent of automated production there was a massive shift (at a global scale) in the value accorded to skilled hand labor and a near utter erasure of cottage industry. Hand weavers were put out of work, for good, replaced by a system with NO value for tacit knowledge that can displace any worker on the slightest whim. This was not an erasure of hand weaving itself but instead marked a break (for the most part) with economic benefits and a public role. That the craft persists in the domestic sphere speaks of its importance and potency. I'm just skeptical of allowing the deep knowledge handweavers possess exist as some proto-victorian relic - which is the way things seem to be at the moment. I wonder at the possiblity of reinvigorating the textile industry with the knowledge and ethic of the craftsman. 

Thu, 09/19/2013 - 01:02

sarahnopp (not verified)

JPMorabito: Have you discovered The Textile Reader, edited by Jessica Hemmings?

Thu, 09/19/2013 - 04:11

JPMorabito

It's an excellent source, she has a really great veiwpoint regarding writing about textiles, one that really champions clarity. Hemmings also put out a book of her own writing, Warp and Weft: Woven Textiles in Fashion, Art, and Interiors. It's excellent, if you haven't discovered it I would highly recommend it.

Thu, 09/19/2013 - 04:24

laurafry

Thanks JP. I will look for those books. Cheers Laura