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:
And here is
a second mesh, sewn to the band. Front, top and rear
view. Unfortunately, due to bad weather, it had not bleached before the
wedding.
Front
Top
Back
Next I plan
to make a cap from hand spun linen thread (already purchased ;) ) and later maybe a rich cap made of silk.
Rafał Szwelicki
