I’ve had a bit of a health and family enforced break from blogging but have been reading and writing short posts for Facebook history groups in the interim. I mainly write posts for British Medieval History, The History Geeks Community and The Mysterious and Gory History of the British Isles. I’ve had the opportunity to think about the focus of this blog and how I can develop it to include the research I’ve been invited to do alongside two historians, David Gladwin and Sara Hanna Black .
David and I are working on the medieval monastic orders, that had houses in Medieval England and Wales, my focus will be to take an in depth look at four monasteries, Wigmore, Herefordshire; Strata Florida, Wales; Beaulieu, Hampshire and St Radegunds, Kent and explore how they used the wool trade to fund their activities. Wigmore and St Radegunds also tie into the work I’ll be doing with Sara, who is studying the Mortimer Earls of March. Two minor noble families have come to our attention through their marriages, the Poynings, who held lands in Sussex and Kent and the de Port/ St John family of Basing, Hampshire, who married into the Poynings and Mortimer families. Both families held lands that were particularly suited to farming sheep and through their feudal obligations served in many of the conflicts of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
This is a plan for a prolonged study, and apart from the research deadlines of my partnering historians, I’m not putting a time limit on it as yet as it may expand. The posts will not necessarily follow the order of the study plan, developed to identify the areas needed to expand my knowledge, and skills, it will be revised as my research develops, to include new areas and exclude superfluous study. I’m optimistic that this will be an interesting journey, and provide a valuable resource for future studies I plan to undertake.
The economy of England under Edward I – III, Richard II and Henry IV, with specific focus on their control of the wool trade with Europe.
Feudalism, affinities and knight service
Land holdings, both secular and ecclesiastic to include demense lands, moieties and advowsons
Religion and medieval lives
Textiles and rank – using clothing and decorative fabrics to denote status, sumptuary laws
Climate change, murrain and plague
A brief history of the monastic orders with Houses in Medieval England
The risks and benefits of “alien monasteries” on the South Coast
An exploration of the effects of the changing fortunes of supporting families on monastic houses.
In depth study of each of the named monastic houses, focusing on their income, the use of their demense lands and the role of sheep farming in supporting their economic activities
The impact of laws to control the export of wool, introduced by Edward I and III on the financial stability of monastic houses.
Poynings and St John Families
A brief history of each family and their land holdings
A focused study on the effects of the somewhat turbulent reigns of Edward I – Henry IV on the fortunes the Poyning and St John families
The relationship between the nobility and the Church, through the actions and wills of the Poynings and St John Families and their compatriots, with a focus on Church building, chantries and pilgrimage.
The feudal roles of the Poynings and St John families, their relationships with their liege Lords and their role in Parliaments. This will include exploring their military roles in the wars of all three Edwards and the rebellions against Edward III and Richard II.
The role of marriage in expanding the land holdings and improving the rank of minor nobility.
Factors leading to loss of rank and titles in minor noble families
The role of the Poynings and St John wives in managing their husband’s estates when they are absent or deceased.
Transcribed primary sources, including Domesday book, Monastic Cartularies, Estate Accounts, Wills, Inquisition Post Mortems, and the various Rolls of the Medieval Kings.
Secondary sources including Burke’s Peerage, studies of monastic life, studies of minor nobility, texts on diverse topics including: ecclesiastical history, social history, economic history and military history and Victoria County Histories
All posts will include references and bibliographies plus footnotes where required.
This post has been prompted by the appearance of portrait of Bridget of York across a variety of Social Media platforms recently. The growth of social media, has widened access to history for many of us but inexperience and lack of knowledge mean that images can easily be shared without acknowledging the source. This potentially creates misinformation and can lead to problems with breach of copyright. The aim of the post is to create a case study and tutorial that illustrates the importance of citing image sources, so that historical discussion and research remains accurate, adds value,and recognises the artist, photographer or other copyright holder.
INITIAL RESEARCH – IS THIS IMAGE WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE?
Observation of comments across a variety of social media platforms suggest that this is thought to be
“a medieval stained glass window, of Princess Bridget of York from possibly Dartford Priory.”
However there were things that didn’t seem quite right about the image and its attribution, so I began some preliminary research:
Who Was Bridget of York?
The youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydvil, Bridget became a Dominican nun at Dartford Priory in 1492 and remained there until her death in 1517. (Wikipedia).
A Google search for “medieval nuns stained glass” produced some images but they seemed to suggest that as Bridget was not an abbess, saint or anchoress, it would be unlikely to find her depicted in a window.
Where was the “Photo of the Window” Taken?
A Google image search for “Bridget of York, stained glass England” came up with this image and nothing else. The image was mainly linked to Pinterest pages with no sources given.
A Google search for Dartford Priory, the suggested location, revealed another problem. The priory was dissolved in 1559 and demolished, the site is now a shopping centre (Dartford Town Archive).
I was aware of another window that shows Edward IV and family so the search was modified to “stained glass windows daughters of Edward IV”. This is the Royal Window at Canterbury Cathedral, and depicts the York Princesses, except for Bridget. She was born in November 1480, and the window is thought to have been installed earlier that year.
What Do We Now Know?
Essentially very little, we have
“an image of unknown age, of a woman, said to be Bridget of York, in the style of medieval stained glass, made by an unknown artist, at an unknown time, in an unknown place.”
This leaves anyone sharing the image at risk of both perpetuating the stories growing up around it and breaching copyright, which potentially have serious consequences, (See Footnotes). Sharing the image responsibly, would require a little research to identify its age, original source and if relevant the photographer.
IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF AN IMAGE
This process has been developed by trial and error and I’m always open to suggestions on how to improve and hopefully speed up my searches.
1. Ask People Who Might Know – Save Your Fingers Some Work!
I fortunately have very helpful Facebook friends who are historians and art historians (see acknowledgements), so initially I posted the image on my timeline and gathered opinions, information and suggestions of sites to search, plus further histories of Dartford Priory and Bridget’s life and verification of my suspicions about the age of the image. I then used Google as a research tool as follows:
2. Google Reverse Image Search
This can be done on mobile phones and tablets as well a pc or laptop.
Open Google and search using “Bridget of York Stained Glass”
Select the images tab
Click on the image you want to open – the one of “our window”
Right click on the image and select “search for this image on Google”
Google will then bring up a list of sites, including that of the original artist, displaying the image – the site is called “Flickriver”.
RESULTS AND ACTIONS TAKEN
A simple search discovered that the “medieval window” was actually painted by Cantacuze in 2009 as part of a series of paintings of Plantagenet woman.
Adding The Copyright Details to Posts
Now we have the source of the image, we need to find the following information: artists name, a date and the correct title for the image. Some sites do make this harder to find than others, which is where the problem with our painting of Bridget, might have arisen.
Finding Source Information on Flickriver:
Hover your mouse over the bottom right of the portrait,
Click on the ‘i’ icon that appears in the bottom right of the image, as per the diagram posted on the left
Each time you post the image, credit it as follows:
Image Title, Creator’s Name (c) Date e.g. Bridget de York by Cantacuze (c) 2009.
IS THERE A PORTRAIT OF BRIDGET FROM HER LIFETIME?
Bridget’s wikipedia entry, had an illustration, from a manuscript in the British Library but the link was broken. I eventually found it within a manuscript listed as “Kings 395” and described as a “Biblical and genealogical chronicle from Adam and Eve to Edward VI (the Longer English genealogical chronicle of the kings of England). However it is dated C 1511 with later additions before 1553. The text of the chronicle ends with Richard III on f33, but the dynastic tree on f32v contains rough sketches of Edward IV, Elizabeth Wydvil and their family, but due to the date its unlikely that the scribe saw Bridget in life.
1. Image search with Tineye – upload an image or give the URL or internet address of the image. If you want to know the URL, right click on the image and select “copy image address. Paste this into the search box on tineye and it does all the work for you. It can be installed as a browser add or used via the website https://www.tineye.com/.
All images online belong to someone, be it the artist, photographer or in some instances both.
Failure to cite a source lead to anything from an easily fixed problem to an expensive legal process.
For example I share portrait of Bridget on Pinterest board and write about her on my blog but fail to share the source “Bert Bloggs Artist” emails me and askis me to either credit him or remove the image. I add “Original artwork (c) Bert Bloggs 2016, the problem is resolved. But I’m a crafter and I love the image so much I design and start selling cross stitch kits based on the image, without consulting or crediting “Bert”. He’d consult the lawyers and I’d end up with a bad reputation, huge bill and a lot of unsaleable kits.
3. Copyright, Manuscripts and Artefacts
Copyright is slightly different here, for example copyright doesn’t apply to a medieval manuscript or work of art but there are 2 things to be aware of:
Images made from medieval originals, are still subject to copyright as the image is owned by the person or organisation who made it. The British Library has an excellent guide for the use of their scanned manuscripts, which are shared under a creative commons licence: http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/reuse.asp.
But if I upload my photo of Romsey Abbey’s Saxon Rood to social media, the copyright is mine, as I took the photo. So if sharing images in groups, always ask the original poster if they are happy for you to share and credit them.
4. Collections of manuscripts, artworks and artifacts, whether in libraries, universities, museums or private collections will also be governed by various policies and you should ensure you abide by them before downloading images or making your own.
I would like to thank, Jennifer Gentle, Heather Millard, Sophia Connor, Elizabeth Hopkins, Natasha Coombs and Ann Victoria Roberts for their kindness in sharing information, expertise and providing advice and opinions on the painting that prompted this post. It certainly saved me a bit of time and a few grey hairs when searching for the information I needed in order to compile it.
NB: There will be posts from time to time, that span several hundred if not a thousand years, simply because the principles of how something was achieve remained fairly constant until technological advancement drove change. These posts will mainly be about practical subjects, where processes remained valid, often until the early modern period or later.
This post provides an overview of the methods employed to extract fibres from a variety of trees and examples of the use of bast cordage. Wayland-Barber (1994) and Hardy 2008, note that string was an important aspect of human development, helping early people construct shelters, fashion nets, bags and baskets, and make attachment lines for spears. Whilst finer threads allowed the production of a rough cloth, and the development of more fitted clothing by joining hides with a needle.
Cordage is defined as “a string, thread or rope, almost indispensible in a survival situation” (Brown T 1983).Originally, cordage was made from vines, sinews and plaited or twisted grasses. However during the paeleolithic, the European archaeological record describes the emergence of cords, made by man, from the fibrous material found underneath the outer bark of a tree, the bast.
The earliest of these cords was accidentally discovered, as a fossil in clay, by Abbe Glory, who was catalouging the cave paintings of the Lascaux Caves, France. Leroi-Gourhan (1982) analysed the fossilised rope, discovering that it was made of plant fibres, was 30cm long and 7mm in diameter, and comprised 3 twisted cords. Bender Jørgensen (1992), identified the spun yarns or cords as s-plied, whilst Wayland -Barber (1991), thought that the that the rope itself was s plied and the cords z-plied, and likely made of bast. The significance of the s and z plying is that the cords were twisted together in the opposite direction to which they were originally spun, as this keeps the fibres together in the finished rope. Glory theorised that the rope was a guideline used to help people navigate the dark cave system. (Wigforss 2014)
What is Bast and Where is it Found?
Trees have 2 sets of tubes, phloem and xylem, that form a rudimentary circulatory system. Xylem transports water and minerals to the leaves and hardens to form the wood.Phloem transports sugars, synthesised in the leaves, around the plant and is soft, permeable and strong, making it a useful source of twine. It is harvested by peeling bark from either living trees or cut branches. It is obtained by peeling, or extracted by retting, soaking peeled bark in water until it begins to rot, or boiling the bark in lye .
Using Tree Bast
Wayland -Barber (1994) theorises that paelolthic and mesolithic women, might have first used barks from various trees to weave the baskets they needed to gather berries, nuts and seeds to support their hunter-gatherer lifestyle. From here, its possible that someone started to peel the inner bark and twist the relatively weak fibres, to make a stronger string or twine, like those seen on the string skirts of the Venus statues.
Bark is harvested by peeling long strips from either the living tree or cut branches, in Spring, suggesting that bark was possibly preserved until needed throughout the year. Brown (2013) has conducted some experimental archaeology, drying and rehydrating bark, soaking it until sufficiently soft to peel the bast fibres from it or retting. Some barks give up their fibres more easily if boiled in lye or fire ash water, whilst others could be peeled and . The cordage can then be prepared for use and seems to retain its properties. Some species such as the wych elm, will produce a slime when rehydrated that is rich in sugars, this is simply rinsed off, but in the past has meant that some barks were a useful food source in times of famine.
The table below gives an overview of the trees more commonly used to extract bast from, best methods of extraction, the uses of the prepared fibre and the earliest appearance in the archaeological record. A further post will look at retting and cord making in more detail. There’s a useful video here from Ray Mears, showing the whole process of making cordage from willow
This is the most commonly used tree
Peel off bark, rett, spin and twist into cords
Rope / cords
pliable, low weight, water
absorbtion and extensibility. Stronger than most
European trees but does wear. Also used as weft thread for some textiles, Budd (2007) reports spinning threads 0.7mm diameter
Used to make rough clothing – Otzi the Iceman had lime bast in his cloak. Swiss Lake Textiles also contained lime
Used until 15th C when superceded by hemp
Peeling, twisting, strongest when wet
Rope, extremely durable
Sunken log boat
As for Lime
Ropes on viking era ships (Toddy 2005).
Elm / Wych Elm
Retting and peeling or boiling in lye / ash water
Forms cords, ropes and even fine sewing threads
Ropes on viking era ships (Toddy 2005). Used by Menomini People in N. America for twine, ropes etc.
Peeling or retting
Rope / cords
willow (Toddy 2005)
Peeling or retting
Makes strong cordage and bindings
Gathering and Using Bast an Observation of A 20th Century, Primitive Hunter-Gatherer Tribe
Mackenzie (1991) describes the method employed by primitive tribes in New Guinea, for making string from tree bast as follows:
Bark was stripped from the tree, normally by men. The bark was then softened
either by immersing in water or by gentle heating over a ﬁre. This enabled the outer bark to be peeled off, following which the bast was dried, possibly on a smoking rack. The sheets of bast ﬁbre were sun dried for a few days then stored in the rafters and smoked until they were dry, which took around one to two weeks. They could then be stored indeﬁnitely. Before actually working the ﬁbres, they needed to be re-moistened. This was achieved in different ways: they could be left outside overnight to absorb dew or be chewed by women. The simplest form of string-making and the technique used among the women of highland New Guinea was to roll two ﬁbres together on the thigh and add new ﬁbres in when these were ending thus extending the length beyond the limit of one ﬁbre
Wayland Barber (1994) suggests that this is how string was made in Europe until drop spinning appeared in the Neolithic. Mackenzie estimates that it took somewhere between 60 and 80 hours to make enough string to create a bag, and another 100-160 hours to loop the string to make a bag, which according to Sillitoe (1988) implies that women spent 85% of their time engaged in these activities. This seems to suggest women spent most of their time sitting around plying cord and making bags. However,observation of cultures still employing these methods shows that these activities are engaged in “on the hoof”, hence the women are multitasking the majority of the time. Ingold (2000) suggests that as these activities are learned as a girl and as she grows and matures, they become intrinsic and automatic.
References and Bibliography
Bender Jørgensen, L. (1992). North European textiles until AD 1000. København: Aarhus University Press. IN Wigforss E (2014) Perished Material – Vanished People Understanding variation in Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Textile Technologies, Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lunds University [online]http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4388457&fileOId=4388462 Accessed 17/9/2014
Brown P (2013) Wych Elm or Scotch Elm Cordage from Dried Bark [online] http://www.badgerbushcraft.com/flora/wych-elm-or-scotch-elm-cordage-from-dried-bark.htm Accessed 26/09/2016
Brown T & Morgan (1983) Making Natural Cordage, Mother Earth News, Issue 79 [online] http://wildwoodsurvival.com/survival/cordage/men79/index.html Accessed 26/09/2016
Budd D (2007) How to Process Elm Bark, thread 9. [online] http://www.manataka.org/page75.html accessed 26/09/2016
Hardy K, (2008) Prehistoric String Theory. How Twisted Fibres Help ed to Shape the World. Antiquity 82(316) · June 2008 Online https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247936139_Prehistoric_string_theory_How_twisted_fibres_helped_to_shape_the_world Accessed 17/9/2016
Harris S (2014) Flax fibre: Innovation and Change in the Early Neolithic A Technological and Material Perspective. University of Nebraska, Lincoln [online] http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1904&context=tsaconf
Harris, S. (2014) Sensible dress: the sight, sound, smell and touch of Late Ertebølle Mesolithic cloth types. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 24(1), pp. 37-56. [online] http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/116075/7/116075.pdf
Ingold T (2000) Of String Bags and Birds Nests IN Ingold T(ed) The Perception of the Environment London Routledge
Leroi Gourhan, A. (1982). The Archaeology of the Lascaux Cave. Scientific American Publications. IN Wigforss E (2014) Perished Material – Vanished People Understanding variation in Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Textile Technologies, Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lunds University [online]http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4388457&fileOId=4388462 Accessed 17/9/2014
MacKenzie, M. 1991. Androgynous Objects: String Bags and Gender in Central New Guinea. Philadelphia: Harwood Academic.
Sillitoe P (1998) Made in Nuigini. British Museum Publications IN Wigforss E (2014) Perished Material – Vanished People Understanding variation in Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Textile Technologies, Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lunds University [online]http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4388457&fileOId=4388462 Accessed 17/9/2014
Smith HH (1924) The Ethnobotany of the Menomini [online] http://www.manataka.org/page75.html. Accessed 26/9/2016
Wayland Barber, E, J. (1991). Prehistoric Textiles. The development of cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze ages with special reference to the Aegean. Princeton: Princeton University Press IN Wigforss E (2014) Perished Material – Vanished People Understanding variation in Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Textile Technologies, Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lunds University [online]http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4388457&fileOId=4388462 Accessed 17/9/2014
Wayland Barber, E. J. (1994) Women’s Work: The First 20,000 Years: Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times, W. W. Norton and Company.
Wigforss E (2014) Perished Material – Vanished People Understanding variation in Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Textile Technologies, Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lunds University [online]http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4388457&fileOId=4388462 Accessed 17/9/2014
The articles on this blog are researched and written by Beverley Newman (c) 2016
According to Vavilov (1987), flax was domesticated independently, in Africa and Asia, from the same wild parent plant Linum bienne, to create the domesticated Linum usitatissimum. He suggests that natural selection lead to the development of the long and short stemmed varieties, used for textiles and food respectively. These differences were created by the plants’ response to the ambient climate. Fibre flax, growing in the cooler North and food flax in the warmer south. Ivanov (1926) demonstrated this experimentally by moving the fibre plants south and seed plants north. The results showed that the fibre plants became shorter and bushier, with an increase in the yield of seeds and quality of seed oil. Whereas the seed plants grew taller, and were less bushy, yielding fewer seeds and a low quality oil. So this demonstrates that once cultivars were available, it was geography and not breeding that created the two forms of the plant.
We know domesticated flax, spread across the globe over time, and archaeological remains can help us explore the process by examining finds including: seed and pollen analysis of soil samples, and preserved flax thread or linen remnants. Breniquet (2015) says that cultivated flax was grown in ancient Mesopitamia between 12 & 8000 BC; co-inciding with the appearance of both twined and woven textiles, such as basket weaving, spinning and cloth weaving cloth. This was noted to have preceded the domestication of wool producing animals and production of woollen textiles, which appear when settled, agricultural communities formed in the neolithic period. Evidence from Eastern European sites suggests that bast fibre textiles emerged during the late paeleolithic (Sankari 2000), whilst flax and linen are evident in Northern Europe by C4000BC. The British Museum’s collection of Swiss Lake Dwelling Textiles, has given researchers the opportunity to examine and analyse these ancient fibres, with finds indicating processes for harvesting and extracting the fibres, through to spinning to dyeing and weaving (Higget et al 2011).
Although today Britain is an island, it was part of mainland Europe until rising sea levels cut it off, around 6000 BC. Whilst evidence found on the mainland, suggests that Britain did not make the transition to settled, agricultural communities until 4000 BC; ancient plant DNA recovered from the underwater Boulder Cliff site, in the Solent, shows wheat was grown there, before it was submerged. It is thought seeds were obtained through trading goods and skills with “advanced” societies in Southern Europe (Allerby 2015). Allerby suggests that only lowland areas were actively engaged in farming at this time, but Clay (2001) notes that flax seeds and lime tree pollen were found in late mesolithic and neolithic settlement deposits in Buxton, Derbyshire, which was much further inland. However as no textile remnants have been found so there is no evidence for how flax was used.
Yet despite the evidence of the spread of cultivated flax we don’t really know how it happened. Was knowledge spread by word of mouth, trade or some form of proto-marriage, that created opportunities to share knowledge between tribal group. We don’t know who first discovered that the retted or rotted flax plant, contained a fibre that could be stripped out and used to make cloth, or why they tried to do so. Who first twisted the fibres? Invented the drop spindle and spun the fibre ever more finely? Wove with it? Built the first looms for weaving? For a plant still used today, that lead to the development of technologies for preparing and creating textiles, created global trade, funded wars, peace, education, religions, and other important facets of later societies, it seems a pity that its origins are lost in time.
Higget C, Harris H, Cartwright C, Cruickshank P (2011) Assessing the Potential of Historic Archaeological Collections: A Pilot Study of the British Museum’s Swiss Lake Dwelling Textiles. British Museum Technical Research Bulletin Vol 5 (pdf)
Ivanov MM (1926) Variation in the Chemical Composition of the Seeds of Oleiferous Plants in Dependence on Geographical Factors IN Vavilov NI, Dorofiev VF (ed) (1987 published post huomusly) (translated Love D (1992)) Origin and Geography of Cultivated Plants, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sankari H (2000) Towards Bast Fibre Production In Finland: Stem And Fibre Yields And Mechanical Fibre Properties Of Selected Fibre Hemp And Linsehttps://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/20759/towardsb.pdf?sed Genotype, Academic Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry of the University of Helsinki. [online] accessed 24/07/2016
Vavilov NI, Dorofiev VF (ed) (1987 ) (translated Love D (1992)) Origin and Geography of Cultivated Plants, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
(Floating mills on the Seine, Paris, 1310. Francais, 2092, 37v. Bibliotech National de France)
The joy or sometimes drawback, of studying history is the number of rabbit holes one can disappear into without warning, diverting attention from the main topic of study. My current diversion is the floating flour mills, of the great rivers of Europe, from the 6th C onwards. I discovered them in a fascinating book, about the travels of 12th Century student and would be etymologist, Alexander Neckham, between England and University in Paris. I’m reading it to add depth to a local history study I’m doing, following the fortunes of a 12th C, Southampton Merchant, Gervase le Riche, who was involved in trading fleece and wool with European merchants. One intriguing aspect of his story is a journey he undertook, to deliver his contribution towards Richard I’s ransom, in exchange for lands. I’ll share more of his story as my research progresses. During his journey Gervase, like Alexander, would have seen, and remarked on these floating mills, as a curiosity. They were not used in 12th C Britain, and trials in the early modern period were unsuccessful (Langdon 2004).
Throughout the medieval period mills were owned by the feudal overlord of a manor, the King, a noble, barons or monastery. The peasantry paid a fee or banality to the miller to grind their grain, which he collected on behalf of his Lord. Peasants would try to avoid fees by using their own quern stones or handmills, or using the mill of cheaper, nearby manor.However as evidenced by this quote from a 12th C document, granting a mill and its rights to a local priory, this resulted in high penalties:
Wherefore no other mill, by any other man, maybe made in the said town, save by the will and concessions of the said canons. Nor may they (townsmen) have handmills. If nevertheless, anyone of the said town should refuse to come to the said mill, I an my heirs shall compel him to follow (attend) it; and if any be found attending another mill, the sack and corn shall be the canons, and the horse [carrying the same], as well as the penalty shall be to me and my heirs.
(Translation of charter, 1150, granting the mill of Silsden to the priory by Cecilia de Rumelia, Lady of the Manor of Silsden) (Bennet and Elton, 1898)
Floating mills, were also under feudal ownership and spread through Europe, following their invention in Rome, where they were invented in around 537AD. The invading Goths, smashed the aqueducts carrying fresh water to the city’s fountains, also removing the supply to the water mills, along their length. According to Procopius,the resourceful citizens, attached milling apparatus to boats and anchored them in the Tiber, building a bridge between them for access and to delivery of grain & collect flour by donkey. This provided the means to produce flour, bake bread and withstand the siege. The number of mills grew over time, within the protective city walls and finally became obsolete in the early 19th Century (Caggia and Gwynn). The mills were versatile as they could operate under bridges, as in Paris or in open water, as in Germany and Eastern Europe. The Parisians employed men in boats to deliver grain and collect the flour (Holmes 1952), whilst the Germans and Eastern Europeans constructed jetties between mill and shore, for this purpose (Panorama SK 2014). During floods or when ships needed to pass the mills could be towed to shore and when drought reduced the depth of a river, one horse could easily tow one upstream, to a more favourable site.
Model of a Byzantine Ship Mill, on display at the Museum of History, Science and Technology, Istanbul, built on a similar pattern to the French design.
There appear to be 2 different designs for the mills, the simpler and more versatile one hull, pictured above, which worked as described by Holmes below:
The wheel is over the side; the millstones and operator are on a cupola shaped platform with peaked roof, which is build amidships on each hull. A ladder leads up to this. Sacks of grain are being brought in small boats and passed up to the millers. Each miller pours the grain into a funnel which is over the stone. The milled flour is pouring into sacks beneath the platform.
(Daily Living in the Twelfth Century, Based on the Observations of Alexander Neckam in London and Paris, pp103 -104)
and the more complex two hulled ship, illustrated below, which was designed with a specific mooring in mind, and used similar technology:
Schiffmuhle by H Ernst 1805
Ship mills have a key advantage over static mills, because they float the wheel is always in the correct position in water, so their operation is unaffected by the usual range of changes in water levels, ensuring a constant supply of flour. The only restriction on their use was making sure there was sufficient clearance between the wheel and the river bed, to prevent fouling or breakages.The mills are powered by the relatively inefficient, yet ideal for purpose, undershot wheel, designed to turn when water hits the bottom paddles (de Decker, 2010). de Decker, claims this also made them useful as tide mills, but further research is required to confirm this. Static mills, have an overshot or breast shot wheel that sits at a preset height above the river.If the river level rises significantly, the wheel becomes inoperable, so flood was a very real problem. In addition a separate water supply is needed to turn the wheel, so water is collected in a weir or millpond, at a higher elevation than the mill, and a leat is then dug to convey the water to mill wheel. Water flow and speed is controlled by sluice gates. Whilst these wheels are larger and more efficient, their use requires a specific situation and a great deal of labour in both construction and maintenance (de Decker); hence the popularity of ship mills:
Location of Ship Mills on Major European Rivers
This is not an exhaustive list and I hope to add to it as I learn more:
Dates if known
From 1493 to 19th C
Last known 1911
10th C to 1930s
Mainz, Koln – known as “Rheinmulen”
9th to 12th C
6th to 19th C
(Source: Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_mill)
However, ship mills were not without their own problems and could be potentially lethal, as described by Caggìa & Gwynne:
The mills floating on the Tiber were at the mercy of the unpredictable river currents. A heavy rainfall in Umbria or northen Lazio would swell the river and rise the water level in Rome, while periods of continuous rain would cause disastrous floods. Often the moorings were insufficient to resist the violence of the waters and the mills would be carried off by the swift tides often with people still inside. Examples of mills crashing against bridges (causing further damage to both bridge and mill); or wedging in the arch of a bridge damming the river and thus causing the waters to rise higher have also been recorded. Moreover, the artificial barriers used to direct the water onto the wheels would make the situation worse in the case of flood by impeding the flow. Floating mills were also a hazard for rowing boats and bathers. Indeed the tradition of children diving after watermelons thrown into the Tiber on Saint Bartholomew’s day was later banned because of the number of accidents.
It is also of note, that the hull had a lifespan of 30- 50 years, due to the variable quality of construction, and constant battering from the waters. The wheels needed replacement every 10 years or so (de Decker). However it is likely that this was less costly than building and maintaining a fixed mill. In later centuries they would also become a nuisance to shipping and could not compete with the improved technologies offered by the industrial revolution.
So ship mills faded out of use between the late 18th and early 20th C, mainly because a mill moored alongside is not productive, efficient or financially viable. However trials are now taking place, with some success, in Germany, using a modern version of a ship mill to generate hydroelectric power, whilst other replicas are being used as irrigation systems for municipal parks (Wikipedia, Germany). They are also tourist attractions with museums installing replicas across the rivers of Central Europe, including this beautiful example, at the Floating Mill Museum, Koloravo, Slovakia, which includes the longest, roofed, wooden bridge, for access to the mill, in Europe:
I would like to thank the members of the British Medieval History and European Medieval History Facebook groups, who kindly shared their knowledge with me, and gave me pointers as to sources and resources used in creating this post, many for whom English is a second language.
References and Biblioography
Bennet R, Elton J (1898) History of Corn Milling, Vol II. Simpkin, Marshall and Co Ltd, London p211
Caggia S, Gwynn P (undated) The Mills on the River Tiber, In Nerone, The Insiders Guide to Rome. [online] http://www.nerone.cc/nerone/archivio/arch72.htm. Accessed 16/08/2016
De Decker K. (2010) Boat Mills, Water Powered Floating Factories, Low Tech Magazine [online] http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/boat-mills-bridge-mills-and-hanging-mills.html
Holmes UT, Jr (1952 ) Daily Living in the Twelfth Century, Based on the Observations of Alexander Neckam in London and Paris, The University of Wisconsin Press, London pp103 -104
Langdon J. (2004) Mills in the Medieval Economy, 1300 -1540, Oxford University Press, Oxford
In my previous post, the use of bast fibres for textile production, net, rope and basket making, was noted to be a feature of cultures towards the late paelolithic period. This seems to imply that the plants were cultivated for this purpose, in an era well before formal agriculture was known; which in turn implies that late paelolithic and the following, mesolithic people were possibly more settled than their hunter -gatherer lifestyle implies. However it is also possible that the areas the people roamed in pursuit of foodstuffs were actually rich in the various plants that bast can be harvested from. So settling in a place for a season where those plants were ready to be harvested and prepared, could also allow them to produce fine textiles, during the summer months when the period of daylight was longer. Harris (2014) suggests that plant fibre was used before sheep or goat wool for producing a yarn to make textiles, this will be explored in a later post.It is however worth noting that there are many similarities between the processes used to prepare plant fibre and wool for spinning and weaving, suggesting that if Harris is correct, Neolithic man would have applied the learning of his ancestors to the creation of this “new” fibre.
Whilst we will be looking at how the fibres were prepared and used in a later post, its important to note that for the extant examples of finely woven and embroidered textiles found in late paeleolithic and mesolithic site to exist, high quality fibres were required. Weaving a fine textile demands a high level of skill and a finely and evenly spun thread, with few if any slubs or spinning errors. The weft and warp are well matched, with few, if any errors in the weave. Therefore, according to Ranson (2015), the plants used for linen textiles had to be specifically grown for fibre. The uncultivated plants produce both fibre and seed, and the bast from “seed flax” is short, coarse and uneven, due to the large number of side stems, bearing a great number of seed producing flowers. The stems of “fibre flax” have few disruptive side stems in order to produce a fine, even and long bast.
However it is possible that the fine linen and embroidery threads were not obtained
from flax, but from other bast producing plants such as nettle. Nettle is a common wild plant throughout the British Isles and produces a long and silky fibre, which is finer than flax. According to Heise (2003), it is not possible to determine the fibre content of linen without first chemically testing a sample, so it could be that the “linen” discovered in paeleolithic sites, could have been made from the long nettle fibre. One can imagine though that harvesting the nettles must have been a somewhat painful operation unless the workers had some form of hand covering. Nettles were also used for rope and fishing nets, with archaeological remains of neolithic cloth and rope being found in Denmark and Britain (Quinion 1996)
Tree bast was also useful for making cordage from the coarse fibres of the inner bark (Wigforrs 2014). Trees native to Britain that can be potentially used in this way include:
Linden or Lime Tree
One the fibres had been stripped out they could be spun and plied. However this would suggest that some way of tensioning the cord would have been required, unless only small lengths were made to serve a given purpose (Barber 1994). Potentially there could have been clearings made in forests to produce a rough approximation to a rope walk if long cords were produced, with a substantial tree used to anchor the cords to be plied and the person making the rope walking backwards as he twisted the cords together. Alternatively he could have tied the cords to a heavy stone or even his big toe and leant backwards in a sitting position to ply and tension the rope, perhaps using a stick or “ten” as suggested by Wigforss… something we will probably never know.
References and Bibliography
Barber, E.W. (1994). Women’s work: the first 20,000 years: women, cloth and society in early times. New York: W.W. Norton.
Clarke R, Merlin M. (2013) Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany. University of California Ltd, London. online [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=poenY6QMq8UC&printsec=frontcover] Accessed: 29/7/2016
Harris S (2014). Flax fibre: Innovation and Change in the Early Neolithic A Technological and Material Perspective.University College London. Online [http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1904&context=tsaconf] Accessed: 29/7/2016
Heise J.A. (2002-3) Hemp and Nettle, Two Food/Fibre/ Medical plants in use in Eastern Europe. [Online] www,gallowglass.org/jadwiga/SCA/hempnettle.html Accessed 5/8/2016
Quinion M (1996) Fibres from the Earth [online] http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/fibres.htm Accessed 6/8/2016
Ranson R (2015) Linen Flax – Flax plant for spinning and weaving. [online] https://permies.com/t/47529/plantfiber/Linen-Flax-Flax-plant-spinning. Accessed: 29/7/2016
Wigforss E (2014) Evidence for a Stone Age fibre technology – a closer look at the prehistoric String Theory Lunds Universitet [online] http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4252370&fileOId=4252375 Accessed 6/8/2016
Yorkshire Hemp (2016) History [online] http://www.yorkshirehemp.com/pages/hemp_history.php Accessed 6/8/2016
The aim of this post is to explore current knowledge about the evolution of pins and needles in the early or old”stone age”, a time with no written records, and scant archaeology, due to the mobile nature of its peoples. Therefore a variety of sources have been used to gather information for this post, including archaeological findings, theses, journal articles and books, coupled with the work of experimental archaeologists and re-enactors. Whilst it is impossible to give a definitive answer to how these tools came about, or the idea of taking plant fibres and animal sinews to make twine and thread, we can develop a rough timeline of their development, using the available records.
The Ancient History Encyclopaedia defines the “Stone Age”, a 19th C construct, as starting approximately 2.5 million years ago, when stone tools began to appear in the archaeological record and ending in approximately 3300BCE, with the appearance of metal tools. The paelolithic period runs from 2.5 million years BCE to 9,600 BCE. It is notable for increasingly complex stone tools, which show more evidence of the stone being worked and fashioned to purpose as time passes. The discovery of ceramic spindle whorls, stone loom weights and impressions of extant textiles in paeleolithic sites, suggest that sewing, spinning, weaving, netting and some form of knitting or twining threads into fabric, developed during this period (Soffer et al 2000).
Studies suggest that, in Europe, pins and needles appeared in the Auriganacian culture
around 28,000 years ago, following on from the use of stone, bone or antler awls, to make holes in skins that were laced together with raffia, sinew or twine (Biessel Needles 2015). These first needles did not have an eye, but a slit in the top where the thread was held. If you have ever used modern self threading needles, which work on a similar concept, you’ll have sympathy with the stitchers in the tribes, as the thread was likely to keep escaping the slot. And although purely speculative, this is probably why the eye was developed, around 17500 BC, by the Gravettian people, as it provided better security for the thread. These “new” needles resembled their modern descendants with an eye at one end and a tapered end (Apparel Science.com).They were fashioned, from bone or antler in the main, although ivory examples also exist; long thorns or substantial fishbones are thought to have served as pins. This video demonstrates the process of making bone needles, I would suggest not trying this at home unless you have experience in using the tools. It is of note that these bone needles remained in use until the 17th C , when the manufacturing costs and purchase price of the metal needle became significantly reduced, due to the industrial revolution ( Katz 2012a).
Extensive evidence has been found in cave systems in Europe for the joining of panels of textiles made from plant fibres, using a whip or over stitch seam (S0ffer 2004). This co-incides with the emergence of finer bone and ivory needles, that are too fine for working hides or leather. This suggests that the people had the ability to obtain the bast fibres from plants, spin them, ply them and use them to weave textiles on early, non heddle looms, with some skill. Bast, is a plant fibre, obtained from the flax, hemp, ramie and jute plants. Sinkari (2000) states that linseed and flax were both cultivated by early man, at this time. The fibres were also plied more thickly to used to create baskets, twine and cordage, as evidenced from impressions on Gravettian ceramic female statuettes, the “dressed venus figurines” (Soffer et all 2000). Katzman 2012 and Stocker 2009 describe the discovery of ivory tools for tamping down a row of weave . Soffer et al (2000), also suggest that simple decorative embroidery, began to appear with these finer tools.They argue that the skill level of textile production and useage, suggests that this is not an emergent craft but that it is building on expertise passed down through generations.It is thought that some textile imprints on clay point towards the production of clothing such as skirts, shirts and shawls, as well as more complex items such as bags.
References and Bibliography
Beissel Needles (2015) Needles in 28000 [online] BC http://www.beisselneedles.com/blog/tag/aurignacia/ accessed: 5.7.2016
Sankari H (2000) Towards Bast Fibre Production In Finland: Stem And Fibre Yields And Mechanical Fibre Properties Of Selected Fibre Hemp And Linsehttps://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/20759/towardsb.pdf?sed Genotype, Academic Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry of the University of Helsinki. [online] accessed 24/07/2016
Soffer, O (2004) Recovering Perishable Technologies through Use Wear on Tools: Preliminary Evidence for Upper Paleolithic Weaving and Net Making, Current Anthropology200445:3, 407-413
Soffer O, Adovasio J.M., and Hyland D.C. The “Venus” Figurines Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status in the Upper Paleolithic, Current Anthropology Volume 41, Number 4, August–October 2000 [online] http://www.unl.edu/rhames/%EE%80%80courses%EE%80%81/current/venus1.pdf, accessed 24/7/2016
Stocker, T. (2009) The Paleolithic Paradigm. Author House. Bloomington