244) and it can, if you like, be regarded as a double over hand knot, tied around an object. ![]() It is in fact the same knot, which also is known as fish-hook-knot (”metkroksknut”) (Fig. in Stockholm Archipelago) eel-knot (eel-hitch?) and is excellent. Starting translation on line 5, when talking about figur 78. Dfred 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Reply I will try: If someone wants to provide a complete translation of the relevant paragraph, it would still be appreciated. Thanks! - Dfred 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Reply I had this verified elsewhere and removed request in article. The Constrictor knot is definitely not one of the illustrated knots, but I'm assuming the text probably describes the Constrictor and is what Budworth was referring to in his book. Om Knutar is available in photographed form at Projekt Runeberg ( ) with the specific reference to the timmerknut apparently on page 78. Dfred 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Reply Īs noted in the Notes and references section of the article, verification of the claim that the timmerknut discussed in Om Knutar is actually the constrictor is requested from a Swedish speaker familiar with knots. Dfred 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Reply During a fairly major rewrite of the page I included some of the relevant info from above. Personally I'd think the latter would be more appropriate, with additions to the article proper noting the information from Budworth and giving proper credit to Ashley for reintroducing it in modern times. I propose that origin be changed to either "Ancient, reintroduced by Clifford Ashley" or "Unknown". ![]() It was re-discovered and popularized by Clifford Ashley in 1944. The ancient Greeks may have used it for surgical slings, and it could well be the "gunner's knot" that in later centuries seized the necks of flannel-bag gunpowder cartridges. These are regrettably not illustraed but have been interpreted to include the overhand knot, reef (square) knot, the clove hitch, a noose, a fisherman's loop knot, the jug, jar or bottle sling, Tom Fool's knot, a cat's cradle, the true lover's knot, and - quite possibly - the constrictor knot Budworth further expands on this and comments on Ashley's role with regard to the contstrictor knot's origin on page 159 where he's describing the constrictor itself: Preserved in the medical collections of the 4th century AD Greek physician Oreibasius of Pergamum are 18 knots, originally described three centuries earlier by Heraklas as surgeons' knots. As far as "predating references", Geoffrey Budworth (co-founder and past president of International Guild of Knot Tyers) in The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Knots & Ropework ISBN 4-0, says on pages 12-13: (2/3/34) Another original bend." It is a more complex, novel knot which he both listed the date of his invention as well as specifically claimed originality. Contrast this with his description for knot #1452, which he left unnamed but which is now universally referred to as the Ashley bend which starts out: " 1452. Given the Constrictor's similarity in form and method to a number of similar binding knots, particularly the Strangle knot (#1239) and Miller's Knot(1) (#1241), it is reasonably clear why he used the word "evolved". Then the knot shown here was evolved, which proved in every way adequate. For a while seizings were employed, which served the purpose well but took too much time to tie. At the time when the sinnets of Chapter 39 were being made there was no knot that would hold secure the large number of strands that were required for some of them. And so, regarding the specifics of this case, here's what Ashley has to say about the constrictor knot at its main entry, #1249 (caps original):ġ249. ![]() Since only a very small proportion of the world's knotting activities over the millennia has ever been written down, no other claim to 'originality' is likely to be valid. Just about all that anyone can hope to claim is that the knot has not been published in any common knotting publication. There is nothing new under the sun! Modern claims to have been the first to have invented a simple knot are difficult to sustain. My guess would be that every simple knot possible has already been tied somewhere, by someone, at some time, very likely many times. ISBN 981-02-2469-9, chapter two "Why Knot? Some Speculations on the Earliest Knots", page 28, Charles Warner writes: Too Old 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Reply While I don't entirely resist giving Clifford Ashley some credit, I think for such a simple knot the issue of origin is more nuanced than one purely of first published reference. Unless, of course, someone can give a reference predating Ashley. In view of the meticulousness of Ashley in researching and giving credit, I think he must be given the benefit of the doubt.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |