Projekt Chłop: Reconstruction of 17th cent sprang cap.

I've long been trying to do a sprang cap. I’ve collected materials and knowledge, made a frame, and finally this summer managed to save some time to weave. The impulse for action was also the wedding of my friend. I decided that the cap would be an interesting gift to the bride. In the old days there was a ritual during wedding called “oczepiny” (lit. “coifing” – putting a coif) . The bride threw away the wreath - the symbol of the maiden status, and then the married woman put a coif or hairnet on her head – symbol of married status.

Let's go back to the reconstruction itself. It is not a copy of any particullar object, nor an attempt to create something we know of iconography. The problem with hairnets is that they are often hidden under wrappings or headkerchiefs. Sometimes light mesh caps were worn around the house and other headgear was worn outside the home. Net caps are mainly known from inventory and descriptions from era. There are also some 16th-17th silk caps from Russia. We also know some 19th early 20th cent. sprang caps from the area of former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth preserved thanks to the efforts of ethnographers. More information can be found in this post (in Polish).

1. Typology of sprang caps

So what was basis for my reconstruction? First let's take a look at the typology of sprang caps. The cap may consist of a net (In which case it is hairnet) or a net sewn to a textile band. Band can also be decorated with embroidery, lace etc.

In the case of caps made of net alone (hairnets), we distinguish between two basic types - caps with a meeting line and without this line. When making a cap or other object in sprang we get two twin nets. We can connect these meshes (in several ways, the detail at that moment irrelevant) to one object, having a meeting line, or end each half separately and cut to get two twin nets. The oldest items made with sprang technique have a meeting line (eg Borum Eshoj cap), while the latter are usually without it. In addition, the caps without the meeting lines can be divided into two types - with headpiece (“naczółek” – lit. something that covers forehead) and without headpiece.

In the case of caps with a band, we can distinguish two types - with a mesh sewn horizontally and with a mesh sewn vertically. In both cases, the mesh is constructed exactly the same way and looks like in a cap without a band, meeting line and headpiece. They differ only by how to sew the mesh to the band. Look at the diagram below. The sides of the grid are blue, and the threads are interlaced through the top and bottom to allow for the removal of the cap. The hats with a grid sewn horizontally both upper and lower threads are pulled tight. One becomes the front and the other the back of the cap, while the blue sides are sewn around the circumference of the band. In hats with a mesh sewn vertically one of the parts (usually the top, which for structural reasons is more stretchy) does not pull, but it is sewn around the perimeter. The sides of the mesh are stitched together, and the bottom lower thread is pulled tight and closes the top of the cap.

In the case of caps without a band, the caps without headpiece were formed like those with a band and a horizontal mesh - two ends were pulled tight. String is normally pulled over the sides to control the size of the cap. Those with headpiece were formed rather specifically. The bottom of the grid was pulled tight and formed back piece of a cap. Through the sides and top of the headpiece tread was pulled to stabilize size of a hairnet, while the sides of the headpiece and the top of the main mesh (marked in green) were sewn together.

The caps with the meeting line were archaic and I do not know examples of such caps from 17th cent so I’ll skip their construction.

2. Extant caps

There are some extant Russian caps from the 16th and 17th centuries (волосник - volosnik). All of them have bands. Most have vertical mesh, although there are some examples of caps with horizontal mesh.

From the area of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, there are only extant examples from the 19th and 20th century. These are Lithuanian caps (kykai) and caps from Podkarpacie and Carpathians. The Lithuanian caps have a band and a net placed horizontally. From the description of Lepner we know that sprang caps were made in Lithuania already in the seventeenth century. Probably their form, as the name, did not change. They would resemble Russian caps.

Podkarpacie and Carpathian caps are usually bonnets without a band. However, it should be noted that in these areas, there are familiar also caps with a band, but these were not made in sprang technique. Instead of sprang, the net of the cap was crocheted. It is possible, however, that the crocheted lace mesh replaced the earlier sprang one, and the sprang mesh survived only in caps without a band in which case it was more suitable than the lace.

It seems therefore that for the 17th century cap from the Polish area, the most appropriate form will be cap with a band and mesh sewn either vertically or horizontally.

3. Pattern and motifs

As we can see from the above statement, part of the 16th and 17th century Russian and Lithuanian capes repeats the same motifs - diamonds of larger mesh, with the background of smaller mesh. In Podkarpacie ethnography dense background is called "płócienko" (lit. “canvas”), while larger eyes are called "siateczka" (lit. “net”). Interestingly, the same pattern is present on the extant silk sprang sashes from 17th century. Thus, the pattern of diamonds made with a larger holes on a dense mesh background is very likely for the net caps from Poland from the 17th century.

4. Reconstruction

Having all these data, I decided to make a mesh without meeting line. This decision was straightforward - the preserved caps with the meeting line are archaic, and all the caps from era and later ethnographic have no join.

As for the form I decided to make cap with a band. Firstly for that we know such caps from that period, from neighboring areas (Russia); secondly, because this form survived in Poland until the 19th century, it is probable that it was previously known and used. I chose a mesh arranged horizontally. In general, both types of meshes were known in the 16th-17th centuries in Russia and both are equal. In favor of a horizontal grid, there is a strong presence of such bonnets in Lithuanian ethnography.

When it comes to design I decided to make a pattern of diamonds made with a large holes on the background of smaller holes - a pattern known from the 17th century Polish sashes and Russian caps, also present in ethnography.

The cap was made of natural linen yarn, on the looms that were based on loom from Kańczuga region described by Olga Mulkiewicz. While making a mesh, I used the technique of weaving characteristic of Carpathians and Podkarpacie. Generally, the mesh pattern on the canvas background can be obtained in two ways. The basic "western" way is to make double holes in successive rows. However, in the Carpathians, Podkarpacie and Ruthenia ethnographers met with another method - the "Ruthenian" method. In the Ruthenian method large eyes are formed by undoing the mesh of the previous row. The final effect is very similar, although I do not know if identical (if it is possible to distinguish mesh made with the "western" method from one made mith the Ruthenian method). I will try to make a sample and check it. This ruthenian method is described by Collingwood in “Techniques of sprang” on p. 141-142.

As in the case of nets without a meeting line, I received two twin meshes. Below one of them exposed to the sun for bleaching: