|
Links Within This Section: |
|
|
|
|
I began researching the evolution of weaving and the history of loom development when I acquired, and restored, my great grandmother's old rocker beater loom as part of a master's thesis project.
I started out by reviewing the standard loom literature but was unable to find any reference to the rocker beater element. So, in an all-out effort to locate information on this component, I began contacting museums, loom authorities, and weaving guilds in the United States and abroad. I also began locating additional looms - which turned out to be a less difficult task than locating specific information on the style.
I found numerous rocker beater looms, but only three published references about them. The first reference was a newspaper article written by my great aunt concerning another old loom in our family, "The Lamb loom: Historic museum piece dates back to 1796," published in the Crittenden County Kentucky Press (October 11, 1979, p. 8). The second reference I found was in a 1968 magazine article, "Weaving at Locust Grove" from Handweaver and Craftsman, 19, p. 31, with a picture and the following statement "there is much we would like to know about it (the loom); if the rocking beater was an old world design or if it was designed in the Appalachian area." The third reference was a description of a rocker beater loom in Allen Eaton's Handicrafts of the Southern Highlands, "The old looms were of two general types: those in which all the apparatus was swung in the upper part of the frame; and a much less frequently used type called the cradle-rock loom, in which part of the mechanism, including the beating apparatus operated on a rocker below" (1973, p. 101).
The rocker beater loom is classified as a standing beater loom (as opposed to a hanging beater loom). Therefore, the development of the standing beater loom has also been part of my research. The loom most widely recognized as the first to include a standing beater, is Edmund Cartwright's power loom, patented by the British government in 1787. It is listed as such in current loom literature, and accepted as such by most loom authorities.
In doing extensive research, however, I eventually found a reference to an even earlier standing beater loom. A small handloom with a unique, "inverted," beater that won a Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (RSA London) award for British inventor, John Almond, in 1771 (some years before Cartwright's invention). John Almond's loom is documented in The History and Principles of Weaving, by Hand and by Power, an out-of-print resource by Alfred Barlow (1878, pp. 224, 245); this was an important find for me.
Eric Broudy's Book Of Looms provided an additional reference, a picture of an early American version of the standing beater loom, along with this explanation: "sometime during the nineteenth century … the beater, which had swung from an over-head bar since medieval times was flipped upside down and pivoted on pins in the lower side bars … called the 'little rocking loom' in the Southern Highlands of Appalachia, that became the prototype for the contemporary treadle loom used by most handweavers today." (Broudy 1979, pp. 160,161).
My search for additional rocker beater looms was, and continues to be, quite successful (50 as of September, 2006). I usually photograph and document the looms myself, and have found that most loom owners have very little background information on their looms, or on the style. The owners with the most information are those whose looms have remained within the original family -- and they usually have two things in common. First, their ancestors were either among the early settlers in southwestern Virginia, or they were from points east (typically Virginia or North Carolina) and passed through the area on their way to new states and territories that were opening to settlement during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Second, they had been told by a "loom expert" that the standing beater on their loom dated its construction to the late 1800s -- and any oral history passed down with the loom (concerning earlier construction and usage) simply could not be accurate.
I, too, ran into this argument early in my research, but the history of the two looms in my own family gave me the confidence to question this position. In doing so, I learned no actual research had been done with regard to the appearance of standing beaters on handlooms, and the late 1800s date represented a conservative estimate, at best. The discovery of John Almond's 1771 handloom negated that argument completely and provided a model so closely resembling some of the rocker beater looms that it gave rise to the theory that the Almond loom may have actually inspired the style. There were, however, major differences between Almond's loom and the American rocker beater looms -- the most important being that instead of having rockers, the legs of Almond's beater were simply pinned to the base of the loom frame.
I examined the western migration patterns in reverse, looking for "hot beds" of looms in eastern locations (i.e. North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania), to see if a geographic point of origin for the style might be ascertained. These efforts were largely unsuccessful until I discovered a "pocket" of three rocker beater looms (loom #13, loom #14, and loom #15) within the Blue Ridge Mountain Parkway system of Virginia. Inquiring after these looms led to additional sources of information, and eventually to: 1) an additional number of looms, 2) a theory that southwestern Virginia may have been the point of origin of this style of loom, and 3) a search for early loom patents that might provide after-the-fact documentation of the style and confirm the Virginia point-of-origin theory.
The U.S. Patent Office first began issuing patents in 1790. According to early index records, three loom patents were issued between 1812-1814 to two inventers in the southwestern area of Virginia. Unfortunately, the original models and drawings were not available, having perished in the 1836 U.S. Patent Office fire. The following year the U.S. Congress made funds available and an attempt was made to reconstruct the early records by having patents resubmitted. The National Archives was able to provide numbers for the patents I desired: x1816, x2065, and x2117. An extensive search was conducted but no trace of these particular patents could be found, leading to the conclusion that they had not been resubmitted. It was suggested that my only recourse was to search for duplicate copies, which might have been retained locally by the inventors.
As my academic deadline approached (June 1998), the influx of information greatly increased, fostering new theories and making revisions unavoidable. In an effort to minimize revisions, I decided to the limit the loom analysis to the first 20 loom found. However, when last minute information and pictures were received concerning rocker beater loom #24, with legs loosely pinned to the side of the loom, I could not ignore it. The discovery of this loom, along with the drawing of Almond's loom and the Smith Family loom (an old pinned beater loom housed in the same museum as one of the rocker beaters), gave rise to two theories: 1) that Almond's loom may have inspired not one, but two Appalachian handloom styles -- the rocker beater loom and also the "little rocking" (or pinned beater) loom, and 2) that in all probability, the loom with pinned legs came first with rockers being added as a later development.
I then asked William Ralph, a retired engineer and specialist in antique textile tools, "but why add the rockers at all?" He contemplated the question from an engineering standpoint and the following theory immerged -- the outside curve on the rocker would provide a shifting pivot point for the relatively short beater leg, and thereby improve the parallel motion of the beater reed. With cane reeds and mamual brake systems this motion would be especially advantageous to the weaver, being more gentle on the warp and allowing a longer portion of weaving to be done between advancements of the warp. Ohio University professor of Mechanical Engineering, Kenneth Halliday, generated a computer simulation to test the theory. Characteristics for both pinned and rocker legs were entered into the computer and a graph was generated for each. The figures were set in motion and the positions of the numbered points (at the upper ends of the legs where the reed would be) were charted. The resulting lines showed considerable osculation from point 12 (the pinned beater) but almost none from point 20 (the rocker beater) -- proving the parallel motion theory correct.
Other theories would not be as easy to prove, and my thesis concluded with a number of recommendations for further study:
1) Continue the search for origin of rocker beater
2) Increase style awareness of the rocker beater feature through channels of publication and presentation
3) Continue the search for looms (and family histories) and document findings
4) Conduct "on site" research at known and probable locations in southwestern Virginia
5) Expand the patent search for early loom inventions in southwestern Virginia
6) Investigate possible links between John Almond's loom and the two Appalachian standing beater loom styles -- pinned and rocker.
Since publication of the thesis in 1998, I have devoted a significant amount of time and travel to address the above recommendations. In an effort to increase style awareness I have: 1) placed a copy of the thesis with each known loom, 2) developed an educational brochure for distribution in museums housing rocker beater looms, 3) written numerous articles for weaving and historical publications, and 4) given public presentations to various weaving and historical groups. As a result of these efforts, the number of known looms has more than doubled since the original study. I continue to document and photograph looms, as they are located, and assemble background histories for those that have remained within their original families.
With reference to on-site research in southwestern Virginia. For a number of years I spent several weeks each fall in the southwestern cluster of counties known to have produced either rocker beater looms or early loom patents. I found additional rocker beater looms in the immediate area, and several old pinned beater looms. I gathered information on early textile production in the area, and information on John Heavin and John Sprinkle -- the two men from the area who submitted early loom patents -- but I was unsuccessful in finding local copies of the models and drawings that perished in the U.S. Patent Office Fire.
John Heavin, the man who submitted two of the three early loom patents, was born and raised in Montgomery County, Virginia. He was the prosperous owner of Lovely Mount Tavern, a wayside inn on the Wilderness Road, about a mile east of Ingles Ferry. Between 1806 and 1817 he patented eight inventions -- including the two looms (one in 1812, and the other in 1814). In 1827 the family left Virginia and migrated to Indiana. They were easy to trace because the immediate descendents played a significant role in the early development of central Indiana area. One of John's granddaughters married Reuben Ragan, Indiana's first horticulturist. Another granddaughter married Abram Ridpath, and produced two of the state's early historians: Gillum Ridpath, the first official historian of Putnam County, and John Clark Ridpath, who was instrumental in the development of DePauw University and became well known for his History of the United States, Prepared Especially for Schools. A statement from an article by John Clark Ridpath in an early Greencastle newspaper was of great interest to me. It concerned the family's move from Virginia, and read "... Into the big wagons the Heavins put everything they thought absolutely essential. Including a loom and parts for a new sawmill and a new gristmill, which he (John) planned to build. These inventions which remained in his family for generations were a great source of pride to his descendants." I traveled to central Indiana in hopes that John's descendants might be traced and his loom, or loom patents, found. I was able to locate the original Ragan homestead, and several Heavin descendents, but was unable to discover any sign of the loom or loom patents.
My hope of finding patent information was briefly revived, in 2004, by an article in the New York Times (August 9, pg. C2). The article stated that prior to the fire of 1836, patents were referred to by name and issue date only, and it was only after the fire that the Patent Office began assigning patent numbers. The article continued " As the patents lost in the fire were restored, they also were assigned sequential numbers starting with 1, and an "x" was added to distinguish them from the post-1836 patents." According to this article the patents I sought should have been in the archives along with the other restored patents -- since the National Archives had been able to provide me with patent numbers (x1816, x2065, and x2117). Regrettably, the article proved to be incorrect. I talked with Jim Davie, the Patent Office history buff quoted in the article. He said he had been misquoted, and that the X-Patent Index had been generated by combining several existing versions together. He assured me the sequential numbers had been assigned according to the original patent issue dates -- not the resubmission dates. He suggested I peruse local county court records, since inventors sometimes registered their patents at the local courthouse. I did make a second search of the Montgomery County, Virginia, courthouse records and found several references to John Heavin, but none in connection with loom patents.
Nevertheless, what I have learned from the research leads me to think the rocker beater loom style was fairly well established in Southwestern Virginia by 1794, almost 20 years prior to 1812 (the date of Heavin's first loom patent). Even if the missing patents are eventually located, and found to document the rocker beater, it would not prove that he was the original inventor. It would only prove he had made changes to the product and was familiar with the patenting process. In all likelihood, the origin of the rocker beater will continue to be a mystery, but patent information would help fill in certain parts of the overall puzzle.
I have yet to make any serious efforts in establishing a link between the two Appalachian standing beater styles (pinned and rocker). I have, however, received numerous requests for information from owners of old pinned beater looms, and have begun collecting interesting pinned beater loom pictures. These photographs can be can be viewed by going to either the Location of Looms page, or the far right column of the Loom Picture Album Index.
The link between John Almond's loom and the Appalachian standing beater loom styles is a matter of supposition. Early in the research process I learned the prevailing theory of the standing beater was that it had been developed as a part of the power loom technologies of the Industrial Revolution. This prompted me to investigate those technologies in light of the date John Lamb migrated to Kentucky (1794). The first patent on a power loom with a standing beater was issued in Great Britain to Edmond Cartwright, in 1787. That date, along with the lack of resemblance between Cartwright's power loom and the rocker beater loom, made it seem unlikely that one could have anything to do with the other. Further research, however, led to the discovery of Almond's loom, an earlier non-patented standing beater loom, which in terms of both time and appearance seemed a more likely source of inspiration.
In 1771 John Almond, a British weaver from the village of Great Easton, Leicestershire, exhibited a handloom to a committee of England's Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce and received an award of 50 guineas. The society, now known as the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (RSA), was founded in 1754 as a public service organization, primarily to stimulate developments that served the public good. Premiums were offered to encourage inventions that would increase textile production, because the job opportunities created would benefit the working classes. John Almond's design was a radical departure from the hanging beater loom of his day, and is thought to be the first use of an inverted (standing) beater. According to RSA records, Almond left his loom with the society "for the use of the public together with the web, shuttles, and everything now used in and belonging to the working of it." This statement originally led me to believe the design may have then been put into production and distributed by the society; however, the current RSA archivist, Nicola Allen, assured me that production and distribution of inventions would have been the responsibility of the inventor.
In July, 2005, I traveled to the United Kingdom, to learn more about John Almond, and to explore possibilities that he (or someone with knowledge of his loom) may have relocated to America or to Glasgow, Scotland, where in 1806 a man by the name of John Austin was residing when the RSA awarded him a gold medal for harnessing three hundred "Almond-type" looms to a power source.
I found Great Easton to be a small, picturesque, Leicestershire village. Many of its stone cottages date back hundreds of years, and immaculate thatched roofs add to the character. The land on which the town stands had been donated to the Abbot of Peterborough, around 700 A.D., who in turn leased it to Rockingham Castle for a fixed rent. Villagers could own land and houses through 'copyhold' -- an ancient and complicated arrangement with the Baron. Members of the Great Easton History Society helped me gather information during the course of my week there. Pictured here are those directly responsible for most of what I learned: Ena Meechan, Anne Wallis, Jean Crathorne, myself, and Jean Rands (whose great-aunt was an Almond). Anne Wallis and Ena Meechan were recently occupied with two BBC "Time-Team Digs" -- a long-running British TV series featuring archeological digs in various UK locations. And to Ms Meechan, who was in the process of computerizing village historical records and stopped to create a comprehensive family tree plotting the Almonds of Great Easton -- beginning with Richard Almond (baptized in 1600) and ending with Jean Rands' great-aunt, Harriet Ann Clark Almond (buried in 1936) -- many thanks!
John Almond was born into a textile-producing family. His grandfather, Leonard, was a wool-comber by trade; his father, also named Leonard, was a weaver; and John was listed as a weaver as well. No local records indicate he was an inventor -- that is a fact known only through the RSA records. According to Parish records John's particular branch of the Almond family appears to have died out when he was buried in 1823, at 82. His grandfather, Leonard the elder, died at 36 in 1729, leaving Leonard the younger (age 10) and two small daughters. Leonard the younger lived to the age of 80, and had two sons, John and Charles. Charles was buried at the age of 20, on December 16, 1770, less than a month prior to John's being given the RSA award (January 8, 1771). According to local records, John and his parents lived in the Little London section of Great Easton. There is no evidence he ever married, relocated, or put his loom design into production. The home his family is thought to have shared is pictured here. In 1771, Great Easton was a self-sufficient village and everything needed for living was produced locally. Out-of-town travel was not uncommon, though many did not venture as far as London. John's trip to London may have been been his first, and the 50-guineas he received as prize money would have been equivalent to a full year's wages. With no male heirs to carry on his branch of the Almond family name/history/business, and no close male relatives who might have been traced to America, it is unlikely the link between John's loom and the Appalachian standing beater loom styles will ever be confirmed. Without such evidence, the British connection will continue to remain a supposition.
I also spent a week in Glasgow Scotland, conversing with the West of Scotland Guild of Weavers, Spinners, and Dyers and seeking information on John Austin. RSA records contain no drawings of the "Almond-type" looms Austin harnessed to power, but they do include references to buildings constructed at a Mr. J. Monteith's spinning-works, for the purpose of housing his looms (the first contained 30 looms and the second about 200). It also mentions the model submitted for RSA inspection had been improved so that "from 300 to 400 of these looms may be worked by one water-wheel or steam-engine, all of which will weave cloth, superior to what is done in the common way." In Glasgow I found several local references to Mr. Montheith's business, and the Muirs (my Scottish hosts/tour guides) took me to see the long-abandoned spinning-works site. I was unable to find any local drawings of the looms; I did, however, find a notice that John Austin died November 26, 1806, just eight months after receiving his RSA award.
My search for additional information on the origin of the rocker beater loom style is one of the main purposes of this webpage. Any reader with information is encouraged to contact me at deanp@ohio.edu.
|
Links To Other Web Site Sections: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
