FINDING THE THREAD RESTORATION OF A PROFESSIONAL WEAVER'S

Rabbit Goody

A special and unusual loom frame from the first half of the nine­ teenth century now in the collection of the Ontario Agricultural Mu­ seum, Milton, Ontario,1 has provided an opportunity to examine some of the specialized equipment used by weavers in the nineteenth century to weave cloth with speed, intricate geometric patterns, and/or accommodate longer lengths of cloth. Surviving examples of cloth have made it apparent that trained weavers, fancy cloth during the nineteenth century were using more complex equipment than that commonly associated with home produc­ tion. However, until now surviving examples of the equipment have been scarce. The museum's loom is one of a small number that can be linked to the production of the more complex cloths of this pe­ riod. At least, it has specialized equipment which professional weavers might choose to place on their . It is the most com­ plete example currently known. In their book, "Keep Me Warm One Night", Dorothy and Harold Burnham have identified this loom as being a professional weaver's loom because of its specialized features.2 It is being restored for the purpose of reproducing some of the more intricate cloth woven by professional weavers in the Niagara Peninsula. The survival of this loom frame, with its special features, has made it possible to set certain criteria for identifying other looms used by professionals and to corroborate the descrip­ tions of equipment and methods found in publications and manuscripts from the last half of the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century used to weave fancy cloth rapidly by profes­ sionals. Using the Agricultural Museum loom as an example, this article will describe one type of system used by early nineteenth century weavers to more easily achieve complicated geometric designs, greater speed, and accommodate long lengths of warp. This will help us to view similar loom frames and judge whether other extant frames could

ARS TEXTRINA 9 (1988), pp. 125-156 have been used by professional weavers or weavers interested in more than domestic production and consumption.

Defining a professional weaver. A mistake is often made, when a nineteenth century loom is set up in an historic setting, of assuming that the loom was used for home cloth production of simple goods such as sheets, rugs, towels, and blankets. On the other hand, it is often thought that home cloth pro­ duction was the only way a family was "clothed". Weaving fancier and more specialized goods, however, has been a trade or profession for several thousand years. Even in remote areas of North American settlement, trade weavers and available imported cloth provided much cloth and clothing diversity.3 The view of the home weaver providing all is inaccurate. Different criteria are often given for defining an individual as a professional weaver. (Here I am using "professional" as a twentieth century term, it was not used by weavers themselves.) A profes­ sional weaver may be an individual who actively undertook the study of fancy or complex weaving for the purpose of earning a living, generally through an apprenticeship. An individual weaving for a local or export market, simple goods, but for economic gain outside of the household would be considered a professional. The person who, although weaving simple cloths within the home, was weaving specifically for "putting out" or "hire", where a spinning mill through an agent or a storekeeper may have been providing yam and possibly equipment - thus controlling the production and marketing of the product - may or may not be considered a professional.4 Rather, this person may have been considered just wage earning la­ bor, however, the modifications made to the equipment to aid this type of weaver are different from modifications made or not made by home weavers on their equipment and we are interested in ex­ ploring the equipment, not the economics. In the Province of Ontario, weavers for hire worked as independent weavers providing cloth to their community. The level of complex knowledge might not have been high, but speed and volume would have been impor­ tant. Economic benefit would have been received on a per yard or

126 item basis.5 In contrast, the home weaver was not paid for time or materials. Home weavers used their time and materials for internal economic benefit. Speed, nor volume, nor complexity were desired goals, and often did not lead to modifications on loom frames, to en­ hance those goals. The inaccuracy of demonstrating only simple cloths on most looms in historic settings is generated, in part, by looking at the surviving loom frame itself as the determining factor in what cloths to weave, rather than using supporting research available through census fig­ ures, manufacturing records, newspaper advertisements, and above all, surviving cloth. If surviving cloth is examined, it becomes apparent that some weavers were working with looms equipped to weave intricate geo­ metric designs. However, the very equipment which would distin­ guish such a loom from one used to produce only simple cloth is easily separated from that frame leaving very little or no evidence, hi fact, the very survival of many looms into the twentieth century is due to the loom frame's versatility. Most could be modified for weaving simple cloth without altering the frame when the need for complexity, or speed, or volume was no longer important. Thus, many loom frames which might have been used by professional weavers survive as tools used for weaving less skillful pieces, such as simple rag rugs, well into the twentieth century.

The anatomy of a loom. We must understand the basic components of the loom frame in or­ der to understand the importance of the specialized pieces which survive with the loom at the Agricultural Museum, and to understand the versatility of loom frames in viewing other surviving looms today. No two loom frames, made by hand outside of a , are exactly alike. Lack of standardization is so prevalent that it appears that loom construction was carried out by individual general crafts­ men, rather than by specialists, and often modified by weavers themselves.

127 In general, loom frames have certain recognizable parts. Frames from the first half of the nineteenth century usually have four up­ right posts which form the corners of the frame. Post size and height may vary greatly. Generally, however, post sizes are greater than four inches by four inches and are referred to as timbers. Hence, the name timber frame or barn frame loom (note: called so because of size, not because they were used in a barn). From these posts, side pieces and cross pieces connect and give a firm structure allowing the positioning of the working parts which actually manipulate the lengthwise threads (warp) while weaving a piece of cloth. There are infinite variations on this theme. Some looms have additional timbers which rest on the ground and provide a place for the posts (sills) much like house frames. Other looms have only two back posts and braces allowing a cantilever cross member to hold the working parts. Regional style seems to play a more important role in frame construction than function. For ex­ ample, Dutch and Palatinate Germans, settling in the Mohawk Valley of New York, used a timber framing style for their barns which is perfectly mimicked in the loom frames documented from the area. Rounded extended tenons with keys are the hallmark of that con­ struction. English style bams and English style looms tend to have flush tenons which may be half dovetailed and which lock into place and are then wedged. The actual working parts of the loom are the harnesses (shafts), (laith), gearing, treadles, and brakes. The harnesses control the raising and lowering of the warp, which is stored on the loom and runs through the and beater. The beater holding the or sley maintains the density of those threads by keeping them equidistant. The beater also allows the crosswise thread or filling to be packed into place evenly at a particular density. Gearing refers to all the cording and connections between the harnesses and the trea­ dles which activate the harnesses. Generally, harnesses and gearing do not survive intact with the loom frame but show up as an uniden­ tified dusty bundle of string, cord and sticks which bear little resem­ blance to the ordered mechanism used to weave cloth. This is not surprising because a loom frame being so versatile can carry a vari-

128 ety of harness and gearing at different times and weavers may have changed their harnesses and gearing to accommodate different types of , and different pattern complexities, and wear. The harness and gearing were meant to be removed and stored -separately. There is no permanent attachment between the harnesses and the frame. It is probably this situation which has made it possible to lose physical evidence of the specialized systems used to operate more than four harnesses when weaving complex cloth. There is written evidence describing the special system used by professional weavers to weave complicated cloth on more than four harnesses but the actual equipment, so easily separated from the loom has not survived in its entirety on any one loom frame.6 The Ontario Agricultural Museum loom frame with so much of the original equipment intact, therefore, represents an important physical document. If we can suspect that professional weavers made different demands from their equipment than home weavers, those might be summed up as the need for speed, the ability to accommodate volume efficiently, and sometimes the ability to make intricate designs. Three separate features added to a loom frame would accomplish those desires: a flying ; an adjustable warp beam; and a dou­ ble lamm system of gearing. Were any one of those to be found on a loom frame, it might be assumed that the loom at one time was used by a professional. The desire for greater speed was a concern of the weaver for hire, as well as the weaver of intricate design. Weavers probably added or built special beaters with a mechanism to mechanically send the shut­ tle from side to side, modeled after the invention of John Kay (although there is some question about whether it is MacKay or Kay) in 1733. The was certainly known to trained weavers and written documentation about the flying shuttle was published in a book written by J. and R. Bronson in 1817. "The Domestic Manu­ facturers Assistant" seems to have been well read by weavers.7 In her foreword to the Dover reprint of the Bronson book, Rita Adroska feels that it was widely read, although published in Utica,

129 N.Y. The Berkshire Agricultural Society recommended its reading in 1818.8 It is not inconceivable then, that the Bronsons' strong feelings about the flying shuttle was widespread among the professional community. The common fly shuttle loom differs but little from the common hand loom, and that is in the laith (beater) and the shooting shuttle. The laith of the former one is moved with the left hand, while the other hand, by the help of a cord, jerks or drives the shuttle through the piece. This manner of weaving is more easy and attended with less hard labor than that of the hand loom in particular from this plan allowing you to set upright where as in weaving with the hand loom, you have to reach forward to throw the shuttle.9 ...during several years past, there have been many kinds of looms invented and offered to the public as improvements on the old constructed fly shuttle and hand loom... it is very reasonable to suppose that the common fly shuttle loom is to be preferred before the other kinds yet invented...10 Advertisements by individual professional weavers mentioning the weaving of blankets in one breath and indicating that they have just come from Scotland, or have the latest patterns from Scotland, might also indicate the knowledge and use of the flying shuttle. On the other hand, it is doubtful that flying shuttles were used in homes where simple domestic cloths were being produced. Certainly few survive. The know-how to construct a fly shuttle beater was gained through training, and exposure. They require a bit more space, some expertise in building and using, and different shuttles and bobbins. The presence of a fly shuttle beater on a loom frame indicates that speed was important. This was appealing to those making some eco­ nomic gain from their labors. Few fly shuttle beaters survive in the States. There are three beaters in the collection of the Museum of American Textile History in North Andover, Mass.,11 and one in the collection of Old Sturbridge Village, Sturbridge, Mass. 12 Two

130 looms at the Agricultural Museum have fly shuttle beaters, as does a very interesting loom at Black Creek Pioneer Village in Toronto. John Campbell's adapted jacquard head loom in the Toronto Science Center has a fly shuttle beater but the loom may have been brought from the States. The number of surviving fly shuttle beaters is few compared to the number of surviving loom frames. By itself, sur­ vival of the flying shuttle beater might indicate that a professional used the loom fame. A less clear, but another important indication that a loom was used for other than domestic production is the ability to adjust the height of the warp beam. The warp beam stores the length of yarn to be made into cloth. Weaving by its nature is designed to be more effi­ cient if long lengths are woven. The longer the length of cloth to be made, the larger the roll of stored yarn. In most timber framed looms, from medieval times to changes made for mechanical heads and water power systems, the warp comes directly from the storage beam to the eyes of the heddles in the harnesses. The angle from the warp beam to the eyes is important for a good clear or sepa­ rating of warp . As the yarn is used from the beam, the cir­ cumference of the beam is diminished. The ability to adjust this an­ gle by adjusting the height of the beam during the weaving process, that is, easily, would allow long lengths of warp, greater than fifty yards, to be woven maintaining a good shed line. This adjustment is not necessary on modern looms, or looms where the warp passes over another bar or beam before it enters the eyes. But, the addition of a separate bar or back beam on an old loom frame may indicate that the warp line was critical and any variation undesirable. This is especially true with the addition of mechanical heads such as jacquard attachments to loom frames. Mechanical heads were being added by some professionals during the nineteenth century to allow for complex patterning. 13 The ability to adjust the height of the warp beam, on one hand, may be evidence that the loom was used for long lengths and the additional evidence that a bar or back beam were added, at some later time, might be an indica-tion that the frame was used by a professional for a mechanical head. Two looms show this well. One loom at the Agricultural Museum in Ontario has been altered from having a trammel warp beam adjustment to having

131 an added back beam. There is no mechanical head left on that loom but there is a fly shuttle beater. The other loom is John CampbelTs loom in the Science Center in Toronto. The warp beam adjustment has been superseded by a back beam. The jacquard head is still in place. Weavers for hire might have been inclined to take advantage of an adjustable warp beam for volume production. Fancy cloth weavers might have taken advantage of adjustable beams to compensate for shed, or opening problems with more complex harness systems. Fancy cloth weavers, whether they made choices for speed and length, had methods of making complicated designs using more har­ nesses than the two or four used for simple weaving. Specialized systems were recorded in several contemporary manuscripts and published sources and are still in use on modern Scandinavian hand looms.14 Until now, however, the system has been undocumented in artifact. The loom under restoration in Milton, though unfortunately not complete, has several of the parts necessary to document this system. The method written about and used by some professionals for controlling the movement of the harnesses is called a double lamm system, or countermarch(e). This system allows harnesses to be moved individually, or in any combination together either up or down. No harness, however, can remain stationary when a treadle is depressed. This differs from the simple counter balanced systems in which those harnesses being physically pulled down are connected to the treadles and those not being pulled down are raised as a conse­ quence of being counter-balanced. In jack systems, those harnesses being raised are connected to treadles and those not being raised re­ main static. The working parts of the double lamm system include a couper or lifter box which sits across the top of the loom and rests on the two side rails. Lifters, or coupers within the box connect to the upper harness sticks and to the long lamms underneath. These lifters allow the harnesses to be raised with a lever action. There are two variants of this system: one having one lifter per harness; the other having

132 two. The harnesses are not substantially different from other systems except that they are hung from their extreme ends and in this loom have a specialized quick adjustment with a slot and cord. The slot and cord system of hanging the harness sticks from their extreme ends is, in itself, interesting evidence that the countermarch system was being used. In counterbalance weaving shaft sticks are hung from points usually several inches from the ends of the sticks. In the system which uses lifters or coupers, the ends of the harnesses are the upward pulling points. On the loom at Milton, the surviving harness sticks had a vertical and horizontal slot in their ends, and cord coming down from the coupers went through the vertical slot, made a turn up and through the horizontal slot to lock the cord in place without a knot, allowing fast adjustment. This system appears also on the other loom in the Agricultural Museum which had the adjustable warp beam, back beam, and fly shuttle beater. The countermarch system is also substantially different in the lamm system from a counterbalanced system. Lamms are the intermedi­ aries which provide the connections between the harnesses and the treadles so that many harnesses can be tied to one foot treadle. The countermarch or double lamm system has two lamms for each har­ ness. One set controls the movement of the harnesses upward and connects to the lifters in the box at the top of the loom. The other set controls the motion of harnesses downward and connects directly to the lower harness sticks. Often the lamms are two different lengths, short and long, and sometimes are set at two different heights, one a few inches above the other between the treadles and the bottom of the harnesses. In a loom carrying sixteen harnesses, thirty-two lamms would be necessary, sixteen short and sixteen long arranged alternately in one bracket or separately in two brackets, one above the other. The lamms from the loom in Milton did not survive so their exact shape is unknown. However, only one bracket is located on the loom frame for their attachment. While contemporary published sources provide written proof of this system, they show only schematic diagrams rather than measured

133 drawings. No entire system has yet been discovered. French sys­ tems differed from English systems in style but not in the essential mechanisms. Diderot's "Encyclopedia", of the eighteenth century, clearly illustrates the use of a double lamm and couper system. Ree's "Encyclopedia", a little later but English style, shows a similar system. Why so few of the more specialized parts survive, is a matter of opinion. Frame looms were meant to be taken apart and stored when not in use. Many pieces such as lamms or coupers are small and likely to get lost if they become separated from the frame. Pieces were probably removed from looms when stored, or when the loom was scaled down in later years to be used for less demanding or ambitious work. Such is the case with the loom in Ontario. Al­ though it remained in the same family for a number of years, it was used in this century for the weaving of rag rugs by a descendent of the original owner.15 At some point, its more elaborate gearing was modified to carry only the two harnesses necessary for weaving plain cloth. The few pieces that do remain of the more elaborate system indicate that the double lamm system was in use. It is unclear, however, how many harnesses the frame carried. The frame has the following evidence of professional use: it has a flying shuttle beater with a great deal of wear; the shuttle accompa­ nying the loom fits the beater mechanism well. There is a great deal of wear on the picker with which the shuttle actually comes in con­ tact. The warp beam, made from the same wood as the frame, which appears to be a close grained soft wood similar to other textile tool construction of early pine, has a very easy, well engineered, ad­ justing system with eight height choices. In addition, there are fixed flanges on the beam to establish a fixed warp width; very handy for long warps. The fixed distance is forty-two inches. The couper box which sits across the loom top fits the loom perfectly although not attached to it. It shows evidence of wear but has only three coupers remaining. These appear to match the style and wood of the frame. To date, no other North American nineteenth century

134 loom frame has been found with a matching couper box, or surviv­ ing coupers. Their presence indicates that the double lamm system was being used. The treadle bracket which has survived with the loom does not match the frame in style or wood. There are modern saw marks, some of the treadles are hardwood, and there are twentieth century screw eyes added, and although two of the treadles appear to be old, the treadle bracket and remaining treadles are of twentieth century man­ ufacture. Eleven treadles have survived altogether and there are places for sixteen treadles in the bracket. The width of the bracket matches the loom frame but there is no evidence that the treadle bracket was mounted to the frame. It might have been floor mounted in front or behind the loom. The assumption, if the treadle bracket matched the loom frame, would be that the loom carried sixteen harnesses. It is difficult to determine for certain whether or not the loom held sixteen harnesses. Given the couper size, the couper box width, and the lamm bracket width, it seems terribly unlikely that sixteen har­ nesses would fit without changing the width of the lamm bracket and the couper box. The pins holding the couper box together appear to be original. When removed they showed appropriate wear and marking from the unchanged width of the couper box. Modifications during the looms history have contributed to the ambiquity. At some point an automobile license plate from 1918 was added to the side of the frame to reinforce the cloth beam bracket. Twentieth century screw eyes were added to the treadles. Four eyes were placed in a line on the top of each treadle. These may have been helpful for easy tying between the lamms and the treadles but would have been helpful for only four harnesses. According to Dorothy Burnham, in her book,16 many professional weavers had both multiple harness and four harness looms to com­ plete their work. No specific mention has ever been made as to whether those four harness looms would have been run with a coun­ termarch system. In Bronsons' book, the schematic drawing for the double lamm system illustrates only four harnesses, but this may

135 have been for convenience. The present couper box could accom­ modate, using the existing coupers for size, eight harnesses.

Restoration of the loom at Milton. Part of the intent, when the restoration began, was to restore this loom in order to weave some of the more intricate cloth produced by the professional weavers in the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario. The other part of the restoration was the documentation of the specialized features of this loom to use as models for understanding other sur­ viving loom frames. The presence of the couper box regardless of the number of harnesses was the most significant artifactual evidence of countermarch systems being used pre-water-power in North America. Sixteen harnesses would have been an appropriate number to allow for the weaving of many of the complex designs documented in the Niagara Peninsula. The treadle bracket indicated that this may have been the case. However, when this was attempted, the couper box had to be expanded and the lamm bracket had to be replaced with a larger one to accommodate the number of coupers and lamms neces­ sary. Once these were in place, it became obvious that with the given treadles and their arrangement on the floor in front of the loom frame, no mechanical advantage could be derived to actually raise and lower that number of harnesses. The extreme changes to the frame suggested for certain that this frame, although a double lamm system was never intended to have sixteen harnesses. The treadle bracket probably was not original to this loom frame and the couper box and original lamm bracket accommodating eight har­ nesses at most were replaced. With eight harnesses the loom worked remarkably well and was warped and threaded to reproduce a summer and winter coverlet documented from the Niagara Peninsula. Although more research needs to be done to document loom frames we now have three features which can be directly linked to the needs of a professional weaver and which, when found by themselves, or in any combination on a loom frame can help to determine the use of

136 the frame and the substantiation systems for creating complex cloth. The flying shuttle beater shows us that speed, sometimes width, and possibly ease of work with a ground and pattern system was consid­ ered desirable by some weavers. Long lengths are better handled when the warp beam is adjustable during the weaving process, and so, evidence of an adjustable warp beam would help to determine that lengthy warps were being woven on the loom. Additional back beams added later to a loom with an adjustable warp beam might make identification of loom frames which carried mechanical heads, both jacquard and , possible. Evidence of a double lamm system, with any of its parts surviving, would give us more indication that complex cloth weaving in North America took advantage of the systems written about in manuscripts and publications of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

137 Footnotes 1 The Ontario Agricultural Museum is operated as a public museum and run by the Province of Ontario Ministry of Agriculture. 2 Dorothy and Harold Burnham, "Keep Me Warm One Night: Early Handweaving in Eastern Canada", Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1972, p. 24. 3 Barbara Livingston, Textile Availability in Cooperstown, N.Y. from 1795 to 1850, unpublished senior research paper for the Cooperstown Graduate Program, 1985. 4 S.R. Goody, North Stonington, Connecticut Cottage Weaving, 1817 to 1845, research paper G.W. Blunt White Library, Mystic Seaport Museum, 1975. 5 One of the looms in the collection at Milton has a family history of being used to make cloth for the residents of the community, al­ though no actual records of transactions survive. In North Stonington, Connecticut, approximately six hundred weavers were weaving for hire in a thirty year period. They received a per yard credit in the store of 1.5 to 3 cents, and wove lengths of eighty to one hundred yards. 6 H. Tidball, "Thomas Jackson Weaver: 17th and Records", Shuttlecraft Monograph number 13. HTH Publishers, Santa Anna, California, 1964, p. 15. 7 J. and R. Bronson, "The Domestic Manufacturers Assistant and Family Directory in the Arts of Weaving and Dyeing", Utica, N.Y., 1817. Dover reprint with introduction by Rita Adroska. "Early American Weaving and Dyeing...", New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1977. 8 Ibid. p. 5. 9 Ibid. p. 9. 10 Ibid. p. 10.

138 11 Of those that survive at the Museum of American Textile History in North Andover, Mass., none are intact with their fly boxes. 12 The loom at Old Sturbridge Village has evidence of a shuttle race, and fly box but the boxes didn't survive. The loom is marked Wilder, Keene, New Hampshire, c. 1810. 13 John Campbell's loom in the Science Center, Toronto, Canada, has an adjustable warp beam which has been superseded by a back beam. It has a flying shuttle, and a jacquard attachment. John Campbell was a known professional weaver. A second loom in the collection of the Agricultural Museum in Milton has an adjustable warp beam which was also later superseded by a back beam but if a mechanical head ever existed on the loom it has not survived. This loom, too, has a flying shuttle. 14 Glimakra, Toika, Levard, and Varpa are manufacturers of modern hand looms using countermarch or double lamm systems. 15 Although sketchy, the loom in question was maintained in the family until donated to the Halton County Museum. It was then given to the Agricultural Museum. Family history puts its possible arrival or manufacture between 1810 and 1820. 16 Burnham, op.sit., p. 13, Figure 2.24, John Fichen, "The New World Dutch Barn", Syracuse, N.U.: Syracuse University Press, 1968, p. 120, 128. Figure 7, 7A, Denis Diderot, "Recueil DePlanches. Sur Les Sciences, Les Arts, Liberaux et Les Arts Mechanques", Paris, France. MCMLXVI (1766), PL XXXI vol. 6 (Tome). Figure 8, Abraham Rees, "The Cyclopedia or Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature", Phila.: Sam Bradford & Co., 1810-1824 vol. IV, Plates. Miscellany Plate VIII Figure 1. New York Sjate Historical Association P.O. Box 800, Lake Road Cooperstown, New York 13326 U.S.A.

139 o

Side view of harness sticks with quick height adjustment New frictioniction brake added to warp beam

141 Lamms in place in a new lamm bracket

142 Extended rounded tenon from German or Dutch style, Mohawk or Schoharie Valley

143 Two sets of lifters or coupers on Milton loom

144 Couper box with new coupers or lifters

145 Original lamm bracket Adjustable warp benm and beam flange

147 Fly Shuttle picker with shuttle

148 Side view of harness sticks with quick height adjustment

149 Rounded extended tenons on New World Dutch Barns From John Fitchen, The New World Dutch Barn: A Study of Its Characteristics. Its Structural System. And Its Probable Erectional Procedures (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1968). By permission of the publisher.

150 B

Rounded extended tenons on New World Dutch Barns From John Fitchen, The New World Dutch Barn: A Study of Its Characteristics. Its Structural System. And Its Probable Erectional Procedures (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1968). By permission of the publisher.

151 Denis Diderot, Plate XXXI, Vol. 6 Double lamm on single bracket Single couper system

152 ESI J'lfci'alion ftff/iit'li'iiffi' i/f/ci I'lii'tu''inifi'/'icii/'c XK

Denis Diderot, Encyclopedia of Arts & Science Plate XXXIH Double lamm single couper system

154 Drjpsn L ooa

fyt.

Rees, Encyclopedia, 1810 -1824 shows use of coupers and lamms but is schematic

155