hang on a sec. this belt was, in all likelihood, not formed by knitting, but by nalbinding.
nalbinding is sometimes called “one-needle knitting,” and they do look very similar, but the method of construction is completely different. nalbinding uses a single needle (more like a large, blunt sewing needle than a knitting needle) to loop shorter lengths of yarn onto itself. it’s hardier and less prone to unraveling than knitting, since nalbound stitches are almost like knots.
[ID: a diagram showing the method of construction of the nalbinding “coptic stitch,” the stitch that most resembles knitting.]
so why do i think this example is nalbound instead of knit? because as far as i can tell, the earliest extant example of knitting dates to the 12th century AD at the very earliest. nalbinding goes at least as far back as the 3rd-5th century AD. here’s an article from the victoria & albert museum explaining just that.
plus, i think the hardier nature of nalbinding would be better for a belt anyway. this belt appears to be constructed in a tube—if it were knit, this would probably be far stretchier than you’d want for a belt. nalbinding would hold its shape better, imo.
the louvre caption does state that the method of construction is tricot, which google tells me is french for knitting. (i’d love to know from someone who speaks french if tricot is also the term for nalbinding.) but as i said before, they really do look very similar until you get into them & examine the structure, & it’s not uncommon for even museums to make this mistake.
anyways…… if anyone has evidence that this actually is knit, lmk because that would set the development of knitting way earlier than is currently supposed. but if not—nalbinding is cool, too, check it out!!
yousharknotpass
pixelskylines
gummygunk
tangentwithtanner
romaincrisis
ellievsbear
