Wednesday, April 02, 2014

iron spindles

see ART OF WEAVING f BY HAND AND BY POWER, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNT OF ITS RISE AND PROGRESS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. fOR THE USE Of MANUFACTURERS AND OTHERS. BY CLINTON G. .GILROY/

page 11 of the introduction.

Don't like it?  Argue with the Gilroy, not me.

14 comments:

William Cobbett said...

So? That was an account of spinning in 19th century India (if the reference is from the 1820 book, although the identity of the 'learned writer' isn't entirely clear), and nothing that anybody ever denied except in your delusions. The claims which you made which were disputed due to lack of evidence were for the Bronze Age, and for a deeply flawed design proposed only by you. No argument with Gilroy, except where he's mixing fact and fiction in his references. You still haven't supported your wild speculations.

Einar Svensson said...

That reference to iron spindles was contemporary to when the book was written (in 1844) since it is stated in the present tense and makes reference to what these women earn reckoned in dollars. It said nothing about the use of iron spindles in the iron age.

You have still found no proof of the use of iron spindles in the iron age.

Stacey Barber said...

Congratulations, you've pointed us to a description of a spindle similar to a tahkli and a machine similar to a charkha.

What is your point?

Anonymous said...

REALLY? A xenophobic, imperialist reduction from 1844? THIS is your source? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Aaron said...

I got to metal spindles because they work much better than wood. It is the tool that a professional would use. Thus, my point was that archaeology should look for them. (Modern archaeologists tend to see the history of spinning through the lens of modern recreational spinning and thereby miss the fact that metal spindles work very well. My clue was that fiber buyers in Chaucer's time used metal "twisty sticks", and it made sense that the buyer would use the same tool that the spinner would be using since the value of the wool depended on how many hanks per pound the spinner could produce.

However, archaeology had already found them, and I am vindicated.

They work. Try them.

I do not worry about cites, I am only interested in what works.

Einar Svensson said...

Hello. Maybe you didn't get my comment that I thought I sent earlier. Page 11 of your reference refers to yarn being spun at the time the book was written in 1844, not to iron age spinning, so it does not proove your point about iron spindles at that time.

I understand that citations are not important to you, but if your interest is only in what works, maybe you should not make any historical claims at all.

You say "Modern archaeologists tend to see the history of spinning through the lens of modern recreational spinning". You tend to see the history of textiles and industrial production through the lens of modern textiles and industrial production. This lens is as false as the one you claim for archaeologists.

Anonymous said...

If you don't worry about them, why do you keep providing them? And if you're going to bother providing them, why not provide current ones that reflect a century and a half of archaeological work you know nothing about?

Ah, there's the key. You don't want to learn - even if it keeps you from having to reinvent the wheel. You don't read, in fact. You search for keywords to support the ideas you already have. Are you too cheap to buy a book? Too lazy to learn?

You don't even look at current work that's easily accessible online. Do you have any idea how many people are already recreating ancient textiles? Many, many professionals and skilled amateurs do the experiments you only talk about - and they do their research, too. And they collaborate.

I know your social skills are limited; we've met more than once. Nevertheless, if you approached a group of historical weavers with respect and courtesy, you'd be amazed what you could learn. They're a generous lot.

Avery said...

If you're not worried about citations, then why would you even bother with this post? You contradict yourself with every other word.

Aaron said...

Stacy,
In modern practice, tahkli are used as supported spindles for silk - a low twist application.

Take your metal twisty-stick and do thigh rolls with one hand as you long draw with the other hand, e.g., one roll to twist and the roll back to wind the copp - and you will find that a metal shaft spindle can spin high twist woolens faster than you would believe.

The thinness of the shaft (blade) allows higher speed. Wood that thin becomes fragile. I went to metal spindle blades because my wooden spindle blades were breaking. Metal wire (copper, bronze, iron, or steel) works better than wood for high speed spindle blades. A hook on the end is easier and faster than a half-hitch, however fast the spinner.

Tell me again why spindle blades have to be wooden. Was it because the Egyptians plying linen used wooden spindles?

I am not plying linen.

Aaron said...

I am not interested in recreating historical textiles, I am interested in making better textiles.

Groups recreating historical textiles are all wound up in historical authenticity. However, they look at historical authenticity through a lens of modern hobby textile production.

I do not care about authenticity, I want better. I look to history for what can be done, and how things can be done better. I have different goals.

I look at 15th century weaving and see that they were weaving shirting. That tells me that I need to be spinning shirting. I look to the groups recreating historical textiles, and ask if they are spinning shirting (e.g., 40s)? How many modern hand spinners do you know that are actually hand spinning enough shirting to actually warp a loom, and start weaving?

Oh, I read, I just do not believe everything that I read. The first week of ChemE there was a quiz on our reading assignment. The correct answer was "there is a math error in the assigned textbook!" Students that regurgitated the erroneous material from the text flunked out of the program, then and there. 95% of the class flunked that day. Most of the 460 students that flunked that quiz, went on to take and pass chemistry for science majors and many of them actually became medical doctors. To this day, I do not trust medical doctors to be able to do serious math. I do not trust 99.9% of the population in the US to be able to intelligently use statistics, and like it or not, history is a matter of statistics. Whether an artifact or manuscript survives is a matter whether the critters, or corrosion, or fire or mold get there first.

Civilizations come and go. As they come, they obliterate what was before. As they go, the critters, mold and fire comes. Either way, history changes. The Victorians and the Black Death epidemic of 1402 both changed our knowledge of the origins of Florentine textile technology.

I find a huge amount of regurgitated material in textile history. Such regurgitated material is no more useful in textile history than it is in ChemE.

I like Google books because everybody can read them. I like old references. I trust Mary Thomas, even though I know that she made some whopping big errors. Remember, I am not interested in "authenticity" , I am interested in doing it better. And, some of those old timers were closer to craftsmen that actually did it better.

In fact, I think that the only book that I have never found an error in is "The Art of Electronics" by Horowitz and Hill.

Anonymous said...

You say that modern tahklis are used to spin silk - a low twist application.

This is untrue. A tahkli is a high speed spindle, quite possibly the fastest there is. It is fast because it is used to put a high amount of twist into the thread quickly. Silk is spun with high twist to bring out as much of the natural shine as possible.

It's a good idea to check the these things before you post them, this is why people have a hard time crediting anything you say. There are a great many hand spinners who can can be contacted online and would be very happy to teach you these things if you are willing to learn.

Aaron said...

Most hand spinners do not do the math of twist.

My studies of drive belt slip tell me that spinners that count are way off. And, a recent phone conversation with one of the great spinners our time warns me that "intuitive" spinners working with spindles are even farther off. I know she has a strobe, but it is packed away. My digital tachometer is always within arm's reach.

Bitsy said...

Wow, you get a lot of cranky comments.
Thanks for the comment about getting speed from a Tahkli.

I highly admire your math. And sound logic. B

Bitsy said...

Oops, didn't mean to hit enter.
Meant to say, "But I admire your Logic and applied Practice more."