Which braids on this site are historically accurate?

I was recently asked which fingerloop braids on this blog are appropriate for 15th C. re-enactment. It made me realize I should have already made this clear! So I’m itemizing them below, with more detailed references and a lot of historical ‘tmi’ in the endnotes.

Loop braiding depicted in Mural from the Haus zur Kunkel, House of Distaff, Kanonikerhaus, in Constance, Germany, c. 1320

Loop braiding depicted in a 14th C. mural, Germany. Woman on right braiding, woman on left beating the fell to tighten the braid – a common strategy for making an extra-long braid. Identified as ‘braiding’ (in Middle German) in mural’s text.

Some of the braids I teach on this blog are known from 15th C. Europe, some are only known from the 17th C., a couple are from equivalent eras in Japan, some are logically inferable for those or other eras, and some I assume are modern only. [Update: I now also have a tutorial for a two-person braid from the Iron Age circa 500 BCE – 2,500 years ago.]

First off, the method I teach for making a particular historic braid may not be the actual method used in earlier eras in Europe, even if the resulting braid has the same structure. For example, the square braid method I teach here is the V-fell method that was traditionally used in Asia and the Pacific, India, as well as parts of Finland, Russia, and South America. It’s sort of the reverse of the A-fell method that was used in most of Europe, the Middle East, and (I think) Africa to make the same braids. And any solo-braider workaround methods for making two-person braids are obviously not the traditional way these braids were made. See the endnotes for sites that teach the A-fell square braid method.

Likewise, my materials* are not usually historically accurate – I love wool, linen and silk for braiding with, but most of the samples in photos on my site are cotton embroidery floss.

fingerloop braider, Japan, Kute-uchi, detail of a 17th C. copy of a 15th or 16th C. original.

15th C. Japanese loop braider with finger-held loops, likely using V-fell braiding moves. [from a 17th C. copy of an original illustration by Mitsunobu Tosa, 1434-1525 – Detail from an illustration in Masako Kinoshita’s book on Kute-Uchi]

Braids I teach here that are described in the 15th C. English loop braiding manuscripts*:

5-loop square braid (“A lace common round of 5 bows” – also the Edge pattern of this braid: “A lace bastonne, 5 bows”, and the divided version “An open lace of 5 bows”)
Lace Daunce (aka Dawns) and Lace Piole – 2 color-patterns for the same flat 8-loop braid (this is the flat variation of a square braid – you can learn a 5-loop flat braid in my 5-loop Square braid tutorial, see “inferred braids” below). For Daunce and Piole I teach the Asian/V-fell method for handling the extra loop – holding it on the thumb, rather than keeping two loops on the index finger.
Solid rectangle double braid of 10 loops (“A thick lace bordered of 10 bows, 2 fellows”) – The 15th C. name and directions are for a particular color-pattern for the solid-rectangle (double-square) braid. In my tutorial, I teach this same lengthwise-stripe color-pattern – I call it “Edge” – as well as some other patterns described for this braid in the 17th C manuscripts, and a couple of color-patterns that are not described in either set of manuscripts.

The several different braids that I term Double braids are made with almost the same braiding moves, the only differences are in which loops are turned vs not turned when making these moves. All double braids have 4 loop-transfers in each row, twice as many as a square braid. Traditionally, any of these would have been made by two braiders working together to make a larger, single braid. The solid-rectangle double braid is a combination of two square braids. Other double braids are hollow, flat, or several other shapes. This blog teaches two ways to make double braids – the traditional method in which 2 braiders cooperate on one braid, as well as my workaround method for making these braids by myself.

Hollow double braid of 10 loops (“A hollow lace of 10 bows, 2 fellows”)
8-loop spiral braid, (“Lace Bend Round”.) Variations with other even numbers of loops are obvious. (see Inferable Braids below) According to a report by Noémi Speiser in L-MBRIC, the 4-loop spiral braid I teach is described in a bound collection of 15th-16th C. German manuscripts. Speiser describes it rather than giving it a name: “Two loops mounted on each hand are made to cooperate crosswise through one another. RH upper with LH lower, then RH lower with LH upper.”

Braids I teach here that can be logically inferred for the 15th C. – even though they aren’t specifically described in the 15th C. loop braiding manuscripts: (Judging from the braids that are described. Historical evidence also exists, in the form of surviving braids on museum and ecclesiastical artifacts, but is hardly needed for most of these.)
3, 4, 6, and 7-loop square and flat braids, and the 5-loop flat braid
— on the basis of the 5-loop square braid, and the 8-loop flat braid (Lace Daunce and Piole). The other ‘sizes’ of square and flat braids would be obvious in a culture of braiders who could make those two. Surviving examples of many of these turn up on braided museum artifacts.* The original composer(s?) of the three known (and very similar) 15th C. loop braiding manuscripts probably saw no reason to describe the most obvious size variations of a square braid (3, 4, 6 and 7 loops). But the less obvious 8-loop version of a square (or flat) braid requires a tricky strategy for dealing with the extra loop on the right hand. The beautiful 8-loop flat braid color-pattern Lace Daunce makes it well worth that extra effort.
Flat Double braid – this double braid variation would have been obvious to any braider familiar with ‘regular’ (2-transfer) flat braids like Daunce and Piole, along with the three double braid shapes that are described in the manuscripts (Hollow, Solid Rectangle, and ‘Tube-within-a-Tube’ a.k.a. Couvert braids).
Side-slit Double braid – (Noémi Speiser calls this type of braid a two-layer braid with open selvedges.) This form is obvious and inferable, too – the method is sort of mirror-image of the hollow double braid method. It’s similar in appearance to the solid-rectangle double braid, though bicolor loop color-patterns are different. Historical evidence for it is strong.*

Other color-pattern variations of notated braids:
Some braid instructions in the 15 and 17th C. manuscripts don’t stipulate any particular colors. (“Hollow lace of 10 bows 2 fellows” mentioned above, for example) Others do, or there may be separate instructions for two or more color-pattern variations for the same braid type (structure).

I teach some of the color-patterns described in the manuscripts, though my examples may not be in the same hues. If you are interested in reproducing the exact colors used in swatches or specified in the texts of the original manuscripts for some of the braids, check in other sources, including online images from some of the original manuscripts, and investigate which natural dyes were available in the area and period you are interested in. (note: Certain colors in old braids may have faded or sometimes even completely changed – an originally dark green may now be sunny yellow, for example.)

Imo, specific color-patterns given for a particular braid type are examples of possibilities. I seriously doubt they were intended by the original compilers as prohibitions against other color-patterns, or that they somehow imply that no other color-patterns were known or used “in period” for that braid. For example, the 15th C. “a thick lace bordered” that I listed above – it’s the only color-pattern given in the three known 15th C. manuscripts for the braid-type that I call a solid-rectangle double braid. It’s a bicolor-loop color-pattern of lengthwise striping that would not be one of the first patterns you would happen upon simply by random color substitutions. That in itself suggests that it couldn’t have been the only color pattern known for the braid. Anyway, it would be extremely unlikely that only one or two patterns would have been used for any of the braid types, considering the many centuries and widespread use of loop braiding, along with the use of dyed fibers, that preceded these manuscripts, and the fact that color-pattern variations in loop braids can be found very easily by simple color-substitutions of the (relatively few) loops.

The specific color-patterns described for some of the braid types would have been ones the compiler considered useful to record*, or personal favorites. It wouldn’t be practical or even useful to cram a manuscript with every conceivable color-pattern variation for each braid type – especially a household manuscript such as these three, in which loop braiding was only one section within a compilation of several others (recipes, medicines, etc). For someone interested in recreating braids of a particular era it’s a personal choice how restrictive you want be. It’s certainly safe to use only the color-patterns specified in these 3 known manuscripts, but it’s very unlikely that all the braiders of that era did so. The braid types (structures) themselves, together with the dyes or dyed threads available at the time, would provide the limitations on, and guidelines for appropriate color-pattern variations beyond those notated in the manuscripts.

Not all loop braids had color patterns, btw – single-color bands and cords would have been common in any era.

Missing braids in the 15th C manuscripts:
This doesn’t actually apply to any of my tutorials so far, but just as a point of interest, some 15th C. braid structures that Noémi Speiser and Joy Boutrup have examined as artifacts or deduced from other historical evidence do not appear in the few known 15th C. manuscripts.

One example is a braid from the early 15th or late 14th C. that I call the “Sudarium braid” on this blog (not a good choice of name, sorry! Not to be confused with the “Uppsala Sudary” braid).

A probably more important group of missing braids are multiple-braider braids made with an ‘unorthodox’ type of loop exchange between the braiders that results in a different type of braided structure along the lengthwise ‘seam’ joining the work of the separate braiders. No braids with this type of loop exchange are described in the three 15th C. manuscripts, yet they they constitute most if not all the multiple-braider braids that Speiser and Boutrup have found from before the 15th C. (12th C. onward), and a significant number of braids from the 15th C. on through the early 20th Century.

This loop exchange is only mentioned in the 17th C. manuscripts (in connection with the Bucks Hornes braid among others). It’s a mystery why braids with this loop exchange weren’t mentioned in the three known 15th C. manuscripts, since the historical evidence suggests they must have been fairly common at that time. All a team of braiders would have to do in order to recreate these braids is learn a slightly different (actually easier!) way to exchange loops between co-operating braiders in making an otherwise ‘regular’ double or triple braid. The side-slit form seemed especially common, as well as doubled versions of the ‘broad lace of 5 bows‘ – the common A-fell unorthodox braid.

[NB: If you are interested in re-creating braids from earlier periods than the 15th C., Speiser and Boutrup’s research suggests that Pre-15th C. team-braiders likely only used that archaic loop exchange method, rather than the one described in 15th C. manuscripts, resulting in a different range of “2 or more-fellows” braid structures for those periods – see *endnote.]

Braids I teach that are known only from 17th Century manuscripts:
Letterbraids and the “7-loop Spanish” braid are described in 17th C. manuscripts, but not in any 15th C. manuscripts. (As far as I know, I’m the only online source of instructions for these braids. Noemi Speiser and Joy Boutrup’s publications were my sources, but the solo-braider methods I teach are my own.) Side-slit edges are first described in the 17th C. manuscripts, though possibly not in a standard double braid(?). (Side-slit edges are found in double and triple, etc braid artifacts from as far back as the 13th C.*) Square, flat, and double braids are described in both the 15th and 17th C. manuscripts.

Some further color-patterns for the solid-rectangle double braid are described in the 17th C. manuscripts – imo these color-patterns would be quite appropriate for the 15th C. as well, but that depends on how restrictive you want to be (see “other color patterns” above). In my Solid-rectangle double braid tutorial (below the videos), I teach 3 of these color-patterns: “Chevron”, “Edge” (17th C. term for “Bordered”), and “Crowns.” Fingerloop.org teaches these, and has instructions for another one they call “the waine/wave“.

Braids (and patterning techniques) in my tutorials that may not have been made in certain eras, or not in Europe:

Doug’s Braid (modern)
The 3-transfer “Square-and-a-half” braid, and the 5-transfer “Double-and-a-bit-more” braid (modern)

‘Normal’ loop-exchange between 2 or more braiders: Not documented before the 15th C. (This is the loop-exchange method taught in SCA classes, and in my Braid a 10-loop braid with a Friend! tutorial, as well as in my solo-braider double braid tutorials.) There seems to be no evidence for this “orthodox” loop-exchange prior to the 15th C. in Europe. It may have been a somewhat modern innovation when it was described in the 15th C. manuscripts. All the two-, 3-, and 4-worker braid artifacts from before the 15th C. that Speiser and Boutrup found in their extensive research had been made with a different method of exchanging loops between cooperating braiders – a method that results in a physical difference in the braid itself. That older loop-exchange method can’t be used to make hollow or flat double braids (including the Catherine Wheel braid). That older method did not disappear in the 15th C., btw – Noemi Speiser and Joy Boutrup encountered it in braided museum artifacts from through the 15th C. and later – even into the mid-20th C. in Norway.

Pick-up patterning done with smaller braids than the letterbraids: Not known from earlier centuries, though they would have been fairly obvious to 17th C. braiders of letterbraids. (my series of tutorials on pick-up patterning is based on the letterbraid technique, but done with simpler braids that don’t require 2 braiders, or using more than 7 loops.)

Linking loops in a flat double braid to make color-patterns: Both types of linking were described in the 15th and 17th C. manuscripts to produce certain color-patterns. (1.”Changing twice”: exchanging loops twice between braiders at the loop-exchange move, and 2.”Turning twice: turning a bicolor loop twice – a 360° turn, instead of a 180° turn of the loop.)

However, alternating either or both of these strategies to produce a varying color pattern is another of the “conscious patterning techniques” that was only described in the 17th C. documents. (see “Comparison of 15th and 17th C. manuscripts” in endnotes).

I teach both types of linking in a flat double braid, and a flat 7-loop braid, whereas in the 17th C. documents they are only described for flat double (2-worker) Spanish braids. However, doing the same linking moves with a (simpler) double braid would have been totally obvious to braiders who could do this with doubled Spanish braids.

Turning twice” in an even simpler flat single-braider 7-loop braid would also have been completely obvious to any 17th braider, and any 15th C. braider familiar with Lace Parti of VII bowes (taught here on Silkewerke).

However,”Changing twice” (usually done during the loop-exchange of a double braid) is not obvious to extrapolate to a square or simple flat braid. I teach it in that 7-loop linking tutorial, but it is unlikely for earlier eras with 2-transfer braids like square braids. (This type of “Changing twice” linking can actually be done between any two loops that would otherwise pass through/around each other during the braiding process, it doesn’t have to be restricted to the two loops in the loop-exchange move of a double braid. I also demoed it in Color-linking in a 13-loop flat square braid, and the undulating braids in “Year of the Snake,” are double braids in which most of the “changing twice” linkages do not occur during the loop-exchange move, but during the loop transfers.)

9-loop Square (and related flat) braid – Known from Finland and China (1900’s) with V-fell braiding (see my tutorial); but not likely for most of Europe because European A-fell braiding requires holding more than one loop on a finger for braids of more than 7 loops, with consequent extra moves. 9-loop square and flat braids are possible with A-fell braiding. The braiding method for the two documented 15th C. European 8-loop flat braids Lace Daunce and Piole uses a 9-loop strategy for the loops of one hand. Using that strategy with both hands (2 loops on both the left and the right index fingers) would be a fairly obvious way to make a 9-loop square or flat braid. However, there isn’t a lot of incentive to do all those extra moves just for a slightly bigger square or flat braid! Especially if you can get together with a partner to braid a faster, easier, and stronger 9 or 10-loop double braid. There is an incentive to do those extra moves (on only one hand) with 8 loops: the cool color-pattern Daunce/ Dawns, only possible with 8 loops, and only likely as a solo-braider braid (see note further down.**)

Square braids of more than 8 or 9 loops (unlikely in past, see **note further down.)

Double braids of more than 14 loops – Not appropriate for earlier European eras. In Europe, braids of more than 14 loops were made by three or more braiders, and had other structures than “double” (ie “triple” like the Katheren Wheel braid, quadruple etc). In areas where V-fell fingerloop braiding was the norm, 18 loops would be the theoretical limit for two cooperating braiders (9 loops per braider x 2 braiders). In Japan the theoretical limit would be higher assuming the braiders used hand-held loops, but at that many loops it becomes structurally and aesthetically sounder to move to triple/ quadruple braids anyway.

Double Braids of fewer than 10 loops – Short version is “Not historically accurate” but this is gray area. They would be obvious to any team of braiders who could make a 10-loop ‘thick lace bordered‘, but in that case, if it has fewer than 10 loops, why waste 2 braiders on it? Why not figure out how to do it as a solo braider? – Which is probably how so-called Spanish braids came about. Double braids of fewer than 10 loops are similar or identical to later (17th C.) solo-braider braids called Spanish. There’s a 5-loop braid described in 15th C. manuscripts, called “a thin and broad lace of 5 bows, 1 fellow” (text instructions here on Silkwerk) that is almost the same as my 6-loop flat double braid. Speiser points out that the 15th C. braid is exactly the same braid (by a different method) as the 17th C. 5-loop Spanish braid, flat version, which she considers an easier way to make the braid. Speiser or Boutrup somewhere also refer to a 17th C. Spanish braid of 6 loops. That one is likely structurally identical to my 6-loop double braid. If you use only 5 loops to make my 6-loop double braid (I haven’t taught that variation here yet), the result is identical to that ‘thin and broad lace of 5 bows,’ and the ‘5-loop Spanish braid.’ With loop braids, there are often several ways to arrive at the same end result!

Triangle and D-shaped braids – these 2 unorthodox braids would only have been made where V-fell braiding was practiced, not in most of Europe. V-fell style loop braiding has been widely observed and reported in Asia, but specifics about historical braids are not well-documented, since no Asian equivalents to the English loop braiding manuscripts have been found. Masako Kinoshita seems to assume that the triangle braid would be the most common unorthodox braid wherever V-fell braiding was practiced. However, she cites a 5-loop example of the type I call a D-shaped braid on a Khanty (Western Siberian) coat (citation is in my tutorial), as well as two different 7-loop variations of D-shaped braids (braids no. 4 and 5 here) made by the Guajiro a.k.a. Wayuu Indians in Columbia. The Triangle-shaped unorthodox braid actually seems slightly ‘easier’ or more natural to come up with, but at the moment I can’t find a link or reference to point to a specific example. However, it is historically very likely on the basis of how common the equivalent A-fell “broad lace of 5 bows” is in A-fell loop braiding areas, including 7-loop variants*. (For unclear reasons, the equivalent A-fell unorthodox braids turn out with a different shape than the V-fell triangle and D-shaped braids)

Genji-uchi and Pseudo-Genji-uchi braids. (Not European) These are traditional Japanese braids made by a solo braider using 8 to many hand-held loops. These would probably be pre-1700’s in Japan, but I don’t know the exact eras of the known historic examples. From the 1700’s to the 1900’s braiding stands gradually replaced loop braiding in Japan. A similar-looking Kumihimo braid is now made, but according to Masako Kinoshita, the actual braided structure isn’t identical to either of the loop braided versions. (The Sudarium braid, traditionally made by two people cooperating, and known from a single museum artifact, is a very similar European braid).

Hand-held kute-uchi braiding for 5-loop square and flat braids – Not ‘historically accurate’, I just teach them as an intro to hand-held loops. According to Masako Kinoshita, 5- and 7-loop square and flat braids would always be made with finger-held loops, not hand-held loops. Hand-held loop braiding was used only for braids of more loops, or with structures that are more complicated than two layers, like 4-layer braids and Genji-uchi. See illustration near top of page, of a 15th C. Japanese braider using fingerloop braiding during the time when hand-held loops were also widely used (a period of over 1000 years, according to Masako Kinoshita!).

**Why 2-transfer braids (Square braids, etc) of more than 9 loops would be unlikely in past eras:
It’s much more efficient for two people to collaborate on a braid of that many loops. In earlier eras, loop braiding wasn’t a solitary hobby, it was an important craft for making necessities of daily life that many people knew how to do.

Then why wouldn’t 2 braiders work together to make square braids of more than 9 loops?
2-transfer braids like square braids are not impossible to make as a 2-braider team, but it’s much more natural for two braiders to each braid two transfers, and then combine their two halves together into a single 4-transfer braid (a.k.a. “double” braid). Plus, this type of 4-transfer braid is stronger, more interwoven and has a neater appearance than a square braid of the same number of loops.


The tutorials on my site cover a fairly small percentage of the braids in the 15th and 17th C. English loop braiding manuscripts. You can find many of the 15th C. manuscript braids on fingerloop.org and even more (maybe all of them!) on silkewerk.com. (My workaround methods for braiding two-worker braids as a solo-braider can be applied to many of those braids.) So far I have no tutorials for any twined braids, which is a large category of braids in the 15th C. manuscripts.

[Twined braids are the braids often called ‘bends’ or ‘chevrons’ in the 15th C. manuscripts, in which you twist all the loops before (or after) pulling the taken loop through them. Judging from the 15th C. manuscripts they were very popular then, but they are almost absent from the 17th C. manuscripts. That makes it seem as if twined braids are older, but oddly, Speiser and Boutrup’s European Loop Braiding series of monographs on surviving European braid artifacts from as far back as the 10th C. barely mentions any twined braids! I only noticed a single reference – in Part III on the Bridgettine convent braids. The other three monographs in the series are specifically focused on non-twined types of braids, so that explains why they aren’t covered in detail there, but I assume the authors would at least have mentioned if they had come across many twined braids in their research into old European braid artifacts. Twined braids are slower to make than the more woven-type loop braids (oblique twill, plain-weave, and ‘unorthodox’ structures). That doesn’t mean that they weren’t made, though. Twining is an ancient, worldwide technique – done both ‘on the diagonal’ as braids, and horizontally like woven textiles. Many or most ancient Peruvian flat braids were twined, also a significant number of Japanese braids.]

Braids from the 17th C. manuscripts are another story. I don’t know of any other sites with instructions for braids or techniques that are only described in the 17th C. loop braiding documents. I have video tutorials for two of these (the ‘7-loop Spanish braid‘, and my solo-braider workaround method for the Nun’s Book letterbraid), as well as a text how-to for my workaround method for another (the 14-loop letterbraid). My site teaches color-work techniques (pick-up patterning and variable color-linking) that were only described in the 17th C. manuscripts as far as I am aware. I don’t know of any other online sources for these techniques as loop braiding techniques, though there may be some by now. (note: I don’t necessarily teach these techniques using the exact same braids or color-patterns of the 17th C. manuscripts – other than the letterbraids). There are several interesting 17th C. braids that are only taught in Noémi Speiser’s Old English Pattern Books for Loop Braiding.

* 15th C. English loop braiding manuscripts: Each of these is a section entitled “Laces” (loop braids) within a larger household volume of recipes, cures, and other useful minutiae. Until 2005 there were only two known 15th C. manuscripts that included a section on loop braids. They are usually referred to as ‘Harley‘ and ‘Tollemache.’ They seem to be closely related, maybe both copies of another manuscript? Harley is available online. It contains fewer braid instructions than Tollemache, which is a privately owned manuscript, not available to the public (except as very expensive copies), though Noémi Speiser analyzed it for her book OEPBforLB.

A third manuscript was discovered (to braiders) around 2005: the very similar ‘Lady Serene‘ manuscript a.k.a. Natura Exenterata (Nature Unbowelled) – printed in the 17th C. but with strong indications that it was copied from a 15th C. source. (Speiser and Boutrup cite it as a 15th C. source.) Accessible online as a pdf copy (of the needlework sections, scroll to find ‘laces’). The full digitized manuscript is accessible here if you are a member of a participating institution. “Serene” includes some very intriguing extra braids that were not listed in Harley or Tollemache.

Most or all of the braids from the three 15th C. sources are described on Cindy Myers’ silkewerk.com site, with text instructions and beautiful recreations of the braids. She has a great chart comparing all the 15th C. braids across the three manuscripts.

There are a few known German manuscripts or manuscript fragments with incomplete instructions for loop braids (one seems to be for a Catherine Wheel-type openwork braid), but so far these three 15th C. English manuscripts along with several from the 17th. C. are the most comprehensive records. These and some Japanese manuscripts decoded by Masako Kinoshita are the only written recordings from peak periods of what was probably once a world-wide technique. Other recordings are mostly just the many scattered world-wide brief references to observed loop braiding, along with a few detailed ethnographic records in recent times. (See especially within L-MBRIC issues 8,9,12 for Indonesian, and issue 10 for Columbian (Wayuu people of the Guajira Penninsula) loop-braiding traditions, both of which once included multiple-braider braids.)

17th C. Manuscripts: There are many more extant loop braiding manuscripts from the 17th C. than the 15th C. It’s not clear to me exactly how many, but probably 10. Noémi Speiser analyzed nine for her two books on braiding. (A digitized version of one of them is now available online: Lady Bindloss’s braid book, and fingerloop.org has a transcription/translation of it here.) Probably the two 17th C. manuscripts that fingerloop.org cited (prior to their transcription of the Bindloss manuscript) as their sources for some 17th C. braids were two of these nine manuscripts. Another 17th C. manuscript (the Nun’s Book) was discovered to braiders in 2007, when members of the Braid Society visited the Pitt River Museum in the UK. Previously it had only been known to the Museum by its title, as a work on “Weaving Watch Strings.”

Comparison to 15th C. manuscripts: With the exception of the Serene document mentioned above, the manuscripts from the 17th C. are much slimmer volumes (though one anomalous one is in the form of a scroll!), focused on loop braids (no household remedies, etc), do not describe as clearly how to make the braids (the descriptions seem more like personal reminders to the writer, omitting basic information as understood), use very different terminology for the fingers and braiding moves from the 15th C. works, and have a different though overlapping assemblage of braid types.

For example only one of the the 17th C. manuscripts (the Nun’s Book) has any twined braids (five), or any “loop exchange” braids like the Spiral braid (lace bend round – which is the only one it has). The Nun’s Book is an interesting exception to the others in this.

The 17th C. loop braiding manuscripts contain many instructions for ‘color-pattern manipulation’ for lack of a better term – braids in which the braiding moves don’t remain the same the whole way through the braiding procedure. The letterbraids are an extreme example. A simpler example is the “Crown and Staffe” (= Crown and Edge) double-braid color pattern. It’s really just an alternation down the braid of two patterns: “Crowns” and “Edge”. But in order to braid your way between these two patterns you must turn (or not turn) loops based on the desired resultant color-change, rather than based on the normal “turn-all-loops” rule for making a solid rectangle double braid. I call this turning strategy pick-up patterning. This and several other types of variable braiding moves were sketchily-to-poorly described in all the 17th C. braiding manuscripts, but not described in the 15th C. manuscripts.

(Personally, I would guess that skilled 15th C. braiders may well have used “conscious” color-pattern transitions, too. This type of braiding strategy is extremely difficult to describe clearly, even though it’s not hard to do – it doesn’t require any new moves or physical skills. I can easily imagine that the writers of the clear and succinct 15th C. loop braiding manuscripts would have zero interest in documenting braiding methods that are impossible to describe clearly and succinctly, whereas the writers of the 17th C. manuscripts were obviously not constrained by that at all!)

The 17th C. manuscripts contain very similar – often identical – braids as well as phrasing, as if they may have all been copied or passed down from one source or a few related sources. (A 17th C. version of “class notes”?) One of them, the Lady Bindloss’s manuscript, has some unusual and eccentric ‘takes’ on the standard phrasing of the other manuscripts, which occasionally helped Noémi Speiser and Joy Boutrup to figure out their meaning.

Even though the 15th C. loop braiding instructions were written in a much older version of English (Middle English), they are actually easier to follow than the 17th C. loop braiding instructions, because they describe the whole procedure clearly and completely, without glossing over or omitting important details. I’ve heard of people who have learned to braid directly from the 15th C. manuscripts, which paradoxically isn’t really possible for 17th C. loop braiding manuscripts. Noémi Speiser decoded them by reverse-engineering – analyzing the accompanying swatches and using them to figure out the meaning of the text.

*European braids in a larger historical context: It’s unclear how old loop braiding is in Europe, but it’s much older than the 15th C. A photo in Part IV, page 44 of Speiser and Boutrup’s 4-part monograph series on European Loop Braiding shows a beautiful ecclesiastical purse known to be from the late 900’s with loop braided drawstrings, and flat braids applied to the surface of the purse. According to Speiser and Boutrup, several loop braided artifacts are known from 1100’s (12th C.) to 13th C., and most of those are complex braids made by two or three braiders working together, so the technique was already very advanced at that time.

Most of those very oldest braids Speiser and Boutrup were able to study had been carefully preserved over the centuries in religious or state treasuries of clothing and textiles. Narrow textiles don’t tend to survive in the European archeological record from earlier than that, they decay fairly quickly.

Update: Réka Tóthné just contributed this reference to an archeological paper on two Iron Age braid fragments found in the Hallstatt Salt Mine site in Austria! Joy Boutrup is one of the study authors. These braids were only recently carbon-dated and found to be from between 756 and 414 B.C.!!! (the oddly year-specific dating is apparently due to a necessary mathematical adjustment to the initial carbon dating results). The braids were determined to have been loop braided based on clues such as the way the two strands of each pair stayed in strict order throughout the braid, and the way they ‘turned the corner’ on the selvedges – would only make sense if the paired strands had been held as loops. My summary of the study is here (in comments below)

Update 2: I now have a tutorial on this blog for one of the two Iron Age braids in the study.

In the Middle East, a very rare actual intact cord – a square braid fragment – from 1200-1400 BCE (middle Bronze Age) was discovered in the 1990’s in an ancient Egyptian copper smelting site (located in a very dry area of what is now Israel), and was categorized as a loop braid by the project archeologists, though it’s unclear how the archeologists made that determination. (No loops were present on the fragment, but loops are rarely present, even on whole, intact loop-braided artifacts, as they are often trimmed off after a braid is finished, or worn apart from use or decay.) The Middle East apparently had a strong tradition of loop braiding up until very recently, including hand-held loop braiding as well as finger-held (see references in OEPBforLB and L-MBRIC.) Unfortunately, most archeologists aren’t even aware of loop braiding, and up to now I don’t think they delved much into the construction method of ‘strings’ found in excavated sites. That might be changing now – I gather that textiles in general are increasingly regarded as important artifacts in archeological research.

Loop braiding was apparently an important and widely known technique in earlier eras. Braided cords and bands were items of daily necessity, not just details on treasured items. Utilitarian braids were not necessarily crude or “plain”, btw! Textile items of daily necessity are often very well-made and ornamented, as can be seen in many European folk traditions.

Noémi Speiser and Joy Boutrup have done some of the most extensive research and analysis of old braided European artifacts, and Joy Boutrup told me (at Braids 2012 in Manchester, England) that by the time of their joint publication, after closely examining and analyzing all those braids, she and Noémi Speiser suspect that almost all European braids made before the advent of braiding machines were loop braided (I assume meaning textile braids, not leather or straw).

Loop braiding in Asia has been studied by Mari Omura, she and others have found evidence for it there going back at least a couple thousand years BC. (More on this in the footnotes of A-fell, V-fell, and Slentre.)

Loop braiding in other parts of the world is discussed in many issues of L-MBRIC (Masako Kinoshita’s online loop braiding journal); in Noémi Speiser’s books; in my page on A-fell, V-fell, and Slentre braiding; and in my blog-post Rodrick Owen and the Braids of the Mummies (Pre-Incan loop braiding from areas in and around what is now Peru).

* “Useful” color-patterns: If I had to pick just one color-pattern to note down for a square or double braid I would probably pick “Bordered / Bastonne” (a.k.a. “With the Edge”) too. The bicolor loop set-ups in two-layer braids that result in lengthwise striping aren’t obvious at all, so it’s very useful to have a record of them. The resulting patterns are striking, and they make great starting points for other striking color-pattern variations (like the one called Chevrons, as well as two others in my first double braid tutorial).

*One example of evidence for the inferable 4-loop square and flat braids (I’m sure many more exist for these and the other ‘obvious’ braids): pp 12 and 33 in Part iv of the Speiser-Boutrup series European Loop Braiding deals with the pursestrings of a 14th C German purse in the V&A Museum. The ends of the pursestrings on each side are 16 loops that divide into a very long ‘fringe’ of four 4-loop braids. Each of these 4-loop braids has a different braid structure. (Seems that the maker was having fun with these! The braids are so narrow, no one but the maker would likely even notice the differences). One was a 4-loop flat braid, one a 4-loop square braid, and two others that were too fine for the structure to be determined exactly – Noémi Speiser provides a theoretical analysis of all the possibilities (a few variations of unorthodox braids, as well as the 4-loop spiral braid.)

Here, as well as in Part IV of European Loop Braiding, Joy Boutrup and Noémi Speiser discuss a collection of medieval purses having 6-loop unorthodox braids associated with them (as well as other larger braids), not explicitly described in the loop braiding manuscripts, but obvious based on the broad lace of 5. Six loops is an “odd” number for a braid as it creates an asymmetrical structure, but just as with the flat 8-loop braid Lace Daunce, an even number of loops allows symmetrical color-patterns that are not possible with an odd number of loops. (Actual braiders in earlier eras seem not to have been as concerned about perfect structural symmetry as Noémi Speiser, as she herself admits!)

Indications from more recent times of ‘obvious and inferable’ braid types: Here’s a real time-machine video! – a Norwegian history museum’s wonderful documentary footage of some traditional textile crafts that were still being practiced in Norway in 1940 (it shows spinning, naalbinding and weaving as well as loop braiding). At 2:31 a woman is braiding a 3-loop square braid using A-fell braiding (using 2 fingers to hold single loops!), and taking the loop from below to turn it. At 4:20 a woman is braiding a 7-loop unorthodox braid, also using A-fell braiding. She uses her (bare) index finger to reach through the neighboring (B-finger) loop, and then fetches the little finger (D) loop of the other hand. The 7-loop braid she is making isn’t notated in any of the 15th or 17th C. documents, but it’s an obvious corollary to the “Broad lace of 5 bows“. (There’s more loop braiding footage @ 3:35: two women cooperating to braid an extra-long 5-loop braid, using the ‘start from the center’ technique and braiding simultaneously, one on each end. This is a very different strategy from the one shown in the image of loop braiders in a 14th C. German mural up at the top of this page). If you click on the uploader below the youtube video, you can find other interesting footage from this museum. (It’s been a few years since I checked these out, but I think I remember one that showed a woman warping or weaving on an upright warp-weighted loom.)

*Side-slit braids: Apparently, there are several references in 17th C. loop braiding manuscripts to the ‘string with edges open’ i.e. a 2-layer multi-braider (“double” or “triple” etc) braid with a shallow slit/opening between the upper and lower layer along the 2 edges of the braid. They aren’t mentioned in the few 15th C. manuscripts, but the Side-slit double braid method is a very obvious corollary to the Hollow double braid method that is described. However it turns out that side-slit two-person braids probably preceded the hollow double braid in Europe by at least a couple of centuries. Noémi Speiser and Joy Boutrup mention side-slit double braid artifacts of ‘orthodox twill’ like a square braid (though with an unorthodox loop exchange between the two or more braiders) from as far back as the 13th C. [Part 1, page 33 of European Loop Braiding] through the 17th C. Hollow double braids aren’t possible with that unorthodox exchange, which seems to have been the first and longest-lasting method in Europe for making multiple-worker braids – known from even before the 13th C. with unorthodox braids (individual braiders making the ‘broad lace of 5‘ type braid).

Re the 15th C: Part IV, page 29 of the same series deals with the pursestrings of a 15th C. purse in the Textile Museum in St. Gallen, Switzerland. The purse’s carrying strap is a 10-loop 2-person double braid with “open selvedges” – this is what I mean by a side-slit double braid – though this particular braid had more going on than a basic double braid. For one thing it probably had the archaic type of loop-exchange between the two braiders mentioned above. Also, the center of the braid was embellished with countertwining, probably by a third braider (creating a design like the one that runs down the center of the Barleycorn or Gren dorge braid, and obscuring most of the loop-exchange area). Speiser also reported on this purse in Issue 10 of L-MBRIC (scroll down page to find report.)

* Archaic/ unorthodox type of loop exchange between cooperating braiders: The discovery of this mysterious archaic European loop-exchange method is the main topic of Part I of Noémi Speiser and Joy Boutrup’s 4-part series: European Loop Braiding: Investigations and Results–Parts I, II, III, IV.

When Noémi Speiser was writing Old English Pattern Books for Loop Braiding, she had noticed a structural anomaly along the central area of some of the braids in the 17th C. manuscripts, apparently created by an unusual type of loop exchange between the two braiders. She came up with an almost-but-not-quite theory of how the loop exchange had been done for those braids. Only later on did Joy Boutrup ferret out the actual method. Meanwhile, in doing extensive research of older braids in museums and private collections (including some very old ecclesiastical artifacts), they discovered that the method was not a 17th C. anomaly! Instead, it appeared to be the original way all multiple-loop / multiple-braider braids had been made in Europe.

The oldest (12th C.) European double (or triple, etc) braids that they were able to examine had been braided with the “broad lace of 5 bows” type of unorthodox braiding moves (for each individual braider), and with their newly-discovered but very archaic “unorthodox” loop-exchange move between the braiders. By the 13th C. there were also examples of multiple-worker connected square or divided braids (as opposed to ‘broad lace of 5 bows’ braids), but still connected by the archaic loop-exchange. I gather that this unorthodox loop-exchange was the only type of multiple-braider loop-exchange Speiser and Boutrup found in extant braids from the 12th through the 13th C., and maybe even through the 14th C.. Even after the newer type of loop exchange was described in the 15th C. manuscripts, the old method continued to be used all the way into the 20th C. (til the 1940’s in at least one part of Scandinavia!)

The archaic loop exchange is apparently quite easy to do, and furthermore might somewhat widen and strengthen the overall braid because it adds its own sunken lengthwise ‘ridge’ or braid column to the center of a double braid. It essentially ties down the upper and lower braid layers, which precludes many of the possible double-braid shapes (the hollow form, and the double-wide flat form of the braid, for example). It doesn’t preclude the side-slit form.

The newer type of loop exchange described in the 15th C. manuscripts allows for more variety of double braid shapes. But the older method apparently had its own benefits, and even some idiosyncratic color-pattern possibilities, so it survived well, and crops up in described braid types in the 17th C. manuscripts.

To recreate multiple-worker braids from periods before the 15th C., the exchange method described in Part I of European Loop Braiding apparently would produce more authentic results than the 15th C. manuscripts’ double braids (“2 fellows” braids) methods. The hollow double braid and the flat double braid are not possible with the archaic exchange (including the lacy Cattorn Wheel braid). A two-fellow/ doubled version of the broad lace of 5; 5-loop square braid, or 5-loop “flat” braid (divided on outer edge, turned on side nearest other braider, for a side-slit end result) would be very appropriate, and so would some unusual 3-fellow combinations of orthodox and unorthodox braids, connected together with the archaic loop exchange.

Materials: None of the braids on my blog are historically accurate if you judge by materials. I tend to use cotton embroidery floss as my go-to thread for making samples (which is what I mostly make!).

In Europe up through the 17th Century cotton was almost unknown, and the most common fibers used in textiles, presumably including braids, were wool and linen, either in their natural colors, or dyed with natural dyes. These could be soft to very vivid but were not the same range of colors used in modern commercial dyes.

Linen is a very practical (and beautiful) fiber for cords and bands as it is very strong. It comes in two forms: tow linen is rougher/ hairier-looking, and makes nice rustic-looking braids; line linen is much longer-staple, strong, smooth to almost silky. (It’s also often identified as “wet-spun,” however this term can be misleading – I believe line linen is always wet-spun, but tow linen can be dry-spun or wet-spun). Both forms soften up with laundering or use, but remain strong. Nowadays, linen can also be ‘cottonized’ as part of its processing, in preparation for blending with cotton, I don’t know much about this, but I betcha it results in a weaker fluffier yarn, more like cotton. Hemp looks and behaves very much like linen (hemp yarns usually look more like tow linen than like line linen). I don’t know how prevalent hemp was in earlier eras in Europe. Both hemp and linen are made from the stems of tall plants (the definition of a ‘bast’ fiber) which is why they are stronger than cotton (made from the fluff that carries a seed in the wind). (But stay away from jute! See warning re jute bottom of page)

Wool is very good for braiding too – worsted-spun wool that is, not the soft, puffy woolen-spun wools that modern yarn stores are so full of (even knitting yarns described as “worsted-weight” are usually woolen-spun, not worsted-spun). Wool tapestry and weaving yarns are usually worsted-spun. Only worsted-spun wools are strong enough to be warped on a loom. In earlier eras very fine quality worsted wool yarns were common throughout Europe, of any weight down to as fine as thread. I would guess that wool was probably the main fiber used for braiding by rural people producing their own clothing.

Silk was used in precious fabrics and cords. That’s one of the main reasons that silk is misleadingly over-represented in extant braided artifacts from earlier eras in Europe – surviving artifacts tend to be those that were protected and hoarded rather than actually used or worn. Another factor is that the English urban dump sites where archeologists have recovered so many examples of medieval textiles (that had actually been used and worn out) have very acidic soils, which totally dissolve cellulose yarns like linen. So there too, silk braid remnants are disproportionately over-represented.

From “Set on Yowre Hondys: Fifteenth-Century Instructions for Fingerloop Braiding,” by Elizabeth Benns, in Medieval Clothing and Textiles, Volume 3 excerpt below fr p. 141: [“laces” in the text means braided cords and bands.]

…The archaeological evidence would suggest that it was mainly the simpler laces that were common, although many of them appear, from the number of loops involved, to have been made by two or even three people. An examination of extant artifacts is outside the scope of this paper, but I have noticed the more complex laces on surviving purses and ecclesiastical items. (*23) This difference is, perhaps, not surprising. Artifacts that have been preserved are more likely to be heavily ornamented, valuable items rather than everyday laces discarded once they were worn out. Similarly, the lack of linen laces from the London sites is probably more a reflection of the unfavourable conditions for their preservation than a suggestion that there was a preponderance of silk over linen laces in use. [my emphasis]

Types of silk:
The silk thread used in European silk loop braids up through the 17th C was filament silk, never spun silk. According to Noémi Speiser, most of the silk thread of the old manuscripts’ surviving braid swatches was not even ‘thrown’ or twisted together. It was composed of many strands of fine filament silk reeled straight from the cocoon, aligned together in floss-like untwisted bundles. Some silk threads were 2-ply, of loosely thrown (twisted) filaments.

The most common silk yarn and embroidery thread these days is spun silk, which is cheaper to produce than reeled silk. It’s not reeled from a cocoon in one long filament. Instead cocoons and/ or silk waste bits from reeled silk are chopped up into short lengths, washed and processed to degum, then dried and spun into yarn, like cotton or wool. Spun silk is rarely labeled “spun”, but is easy to identify by appearance and feel. It’s softer, fuzzier and less shiny than filament silk. It abrades more easily and doesn’t have the same tensile (pulling) strength. It’s easier to work with because it’s not as silky/slippery.

Filament silk thread is available nowadays as sewing and beading thread – sometimes labeled ‘silk twist’ – also in divisible bundles of fine threads called ‘ropes’ for kumihimo braiding. But modern filament silk thread has a tightly twisted construction that looks quite different from the floss-like filament bundles that Noémi Speiser described. Probably the most accurate look for recreating early era silk braids would be to use kumihimo silk (I haven’t tried this), or alternatively, many strands of ultra-fine silk twist thread combined together. This actually isn’t as hard to do as it might sound. You just wind around something several times for each loop. I use my C-clamp as one end and the back of my kitchen chair as the other. (I do own some warping pegs but they never seem to be handy when I want them!) This adds some time to the loop set-up but is not impossibly fussy. Might be best to start with a simple braid or two before tackling a big project, to get used to the logistics. Any roughness to nails or fingertips (take note, guitar or cittern players!) might need to be filed smooth first. I usually tie multi-strand loops at the bottom (where my fingers will be inserted) so they don’t separate while I’m braiding.

If you will be using kumihimo silk or imitation silk, see Michael Hattori’s helpful video here showing how to untwist it. Kumihimo silk comes in ‘ropes’ of strands twisted together to be more manageable, but they have to be untwisted before dividing the ropes into smaller amounts for braiding.

[Side note: Jute is also a bast fiber, and is quite strong at first. But its strength is very short-lived. Unlike hemp or linen, jute decomposes very quickly. This fact is covered up by the industry, though you can find some oblique references. According to my mother who was a textile artist, avant-garde textile art pieces made of jute in the 60’s and 70’s eroded and fell apart in a matter of a decade or two, even important museum pieces. There’s a good reason why historically jute has been used mainly for temporary products (burlap bags are made out of jute), and nowadays in environmental applications where it is intended to decompose quickly.]

Last updated Oct 13, 2019

© 2019 Ingrid Crickmore

11 thoughts on “Which braids on this site are historically accurate?

      • I had a kind of a hidden agenda sharing it:). I would appreciate if you did – sometime later, when you have more time – a manual how to do it, or at least tell me which type of braid is it. I would like to recreate them for our clothes in our celtic reenactment group. Thank you

        • Got it! Well, what I gathered on a quick skim was that the example that the authors seem sure is a loop braid isn’t the most interesting type (to me) because it’s the kind where loops are not pulled through loops but between loops. So each loop functions as a single unit, which results in a much simpler braid. There’s a braid like that in the old manuscripts too. So that particular artifact has strong indications it was made with loops because of how ‘regularly’ the doubled elements lie together. That type of loop braid has been very popular worldwide, btw! I shouldn’t be so dismissive about it! But the paper refers to a lot of other braids (or they might call them plaits?) too – that’s why I want to read it over more carefully. Could any of those be loop braids? big clue is if there are an even number of elements. Best clue is typical mistakes in braiding that only happen with loops, but these pieces I gather aren’t intact enough to find those. The age of these is really exciting, they hadn’t realized how old they were until they were (radio carbon? forget) dated. Also lots seem to have color-patterning!

          • Thank you:)! I am interested in the ones they made schematic drawings about. Yes there are simple plaits as well – loop braiding , plaiting and tabletweaving were techniques Hallstatt people used to make the edges of the clothes stronger. I do tabletweaving, but totally new to loopbraiding. So is there a tutorial among the many you have on your site that could teach me about this specific technique? If not, I am patiently waiting:). I do not need a replica of the braids (schematic drawings) , but I would like to learn the technique.

            • Ok, on a more thorough reading, I was mistaken – there really are only two braids in this study. One has 15 ‘ends’ meaning braiding elements. The other has 10 ends. Each end is actually a pair of strands, presumed to be a (finger-held) loop because the two strands stay in exactly the same parallel configuration for the whole length of each braid. Also because of the way they “turn the corner” at the selvedges. These are apparently flat single-layer braids. The structure is plain weave in the center of the braid, and a 2/2 twill on the outer sections. As the authors state, there are a lot of ways this can be done even as a loop braiding technique! The braids could also be made with free ends by a single braider (though the two strands wouldn’t stay as perfectly parallel in the braid). Their trials showed free-end braiding resulted in a less firm braid than the examples, though that isn’t necessarily conclusive – the other clues seem more convincing to me.

              [side note – if the 2 strands of each pair actually stay in the exact same left-right orientation the whole way along, it might imply palms-down loop braiding (like Slentre). See here in A-fell, V-fell, and Slentre braiding. If the 2 strands never twist all the way, but do occasionally vary from left to right of each other, that might imply palms-facing methods like A-fell and V-fell. New note: Two braiding buddies of mine have now tried this braid, and without having seen this side note they ended up using a palms-down method, even though neither of them had done any Slentre braiding previously. (I will post pics of their results soon). Thinking it over, it seems to me that a team would probably end up doing this type of over-under team braiding either palms-down or palms-up, not really “palms-facing,” at least not during the actual braiding moves.]

              They give one possible method for the 15-end braid (for two braiders cooperating) on p 43, column 2. L1 and R1 refer to the left braider’s left and right hands. L2 and R2 refer to the right braider (braider 2)’s left and right hands. (this has the potential to be confusing, I would write it out in full for myself if I were following these instructions!)

              Btw, I don’t think there is a textile definition of “plait” as being any different from “braid” so I’m not quite sure why the authors used both terms without defining them. I’m guessing that maybe “plait” has been a commonly used term in the field of archeology even though it doesn’t mean much as a textile term. Maybe to archeologists it just means “narrow braided textile of some kind.” Could be loop-braided or not – the words plait and braid aren’t limited to any particular braiding methods.

              Contact me through my email form (under the About menu tab) if you want to discuss it some more. I’d love to see how it turns out if you make it!

  1. Dear Ingrid,
    What an excellent compilation of thoughts, observations, insight and knowledge! Makes me wish your blog was an actual book I could hold in my hands. Best wishes, Katia

  2. I’ve been following your posts for a long time and often thought I should check which braids are more suitable within a historical context. Thank you so much for this brilliant guide to your posts and to historical braids! Absolutely love it ❤

    • Aaw, thanks Christine!!! I should have done this a long time ago, it’s such an obvious question since my tutorials really are a hodgepodge of different braids with no faithfulness to any one period.

Comment here:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s