As I've noted, my commonplace book of a blog has become more of a diary than an actual commonplace book. That function, gathering together useful bits of information, has been taken over by Google Drive. I really like Google Drive.
But in looking back on my posts (both of them) I saw that I had started talking about backgammon and tables games and never really finished. I have finished. I've compiled a bunch of references and learned quite a lot about tables games in the Middle Ages. Long before playing cards make their appearance in the 14th Century and become wildly popular in the 15th tables games were cock of the walk. Chess, being entirely based on skill, was popular primarily with the upper classes. Dice, being entirely based on luck (unless you were cheating), was popular primarily with the lower classes. The relative costs of the gaming equipment required helped to cement this. Tables games, on the third hand, combined elements of chance and skill in varying degrees and were wildly popular with both segments of the population.
I've compiled the rules for 19 distinct tables games (which includes Backgammon) and an additional 5 variations on those games. My list is by no means exhaustive but I think I've hit on the more common games and variants for which rules are available. Rather than type everything out, again, I'm just going to point you to the booklet I prepared:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B15SAMYZtejMV3VVNllCME95U2M/view?usp=sharing
And now I'll offer some random comments:
-Although it seems strange, I really like the games that allow you to declare your rolls rather than actually rolling dice. While this eliminates chance from the game, it's very interesting to occasionally play tables games as exercises in pure skill.
-I was fascinated to discover that people would set up tables game problems, like chess or go problems, and then wager that people couldn't solve the problems. These were, again, pure skill puzzles and trying to understand and solve them seems like an exercise in touching the middle ages.
-Although the booklet doesn't cover game boards, I think finding the wide variety of gameboards out there was one of the bigger pleasures of my research. They varied from humble scratchings on wood and ivory to massively inlaid treasures. The variations in design were also interesting to see.
-The sheer variety of games, and the complexity of the rules, was astounding. The booklet was less an attempt to share my research than it was to make a document I could refer to in order to refresh my memory when I wanted to play a game. In looking at these games, and early playing card games, I am struck by how much time the players must have been taking. In general it seems that the idea of a quick game was known but not entirely popular.
-Fallas threw me for a loop. I didn't understand it at all until I realized it's a game that's played to not lose rather than to win. I've never played a game of this that ended with someone getting all their pieces off the board. Positioning yourself to have lots of moves, and to take away your opponent's ability to move, is the object of the game and players who realize this tend to win.
-I *REALLY* want to find a documented game from the Islamic Middle Ages. We know the game was played (my favorite reference is a poet establishing his bad-boy cred by boasting about how he whiles away the days of Ramadan playing tables games) but we don't know the exact rules of any of the games they played. I used two modern games with long established (18th Century) roots and one game I made up by using common rules and a starting position found in a 14th Century Persian illustration.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Monday, June 15, 2015
More playing cards. Paper, again.
Remember how I said the paper in playing cards was linen? Yeah, about that... With the caveat that we're talking about a very large geographical area and time frame: I was wrong. Linen is only number two on the list of materials. It appears that hemp is number one on the list. I thought that linen rags constituted the largest ingredient that went into making paper but in fact it's the hemp material from sails and, more importantly, ropes that constituted the largest ingredient.
Again, big time frame and geographic area, but it appears that hemp is far and away the primary ingredient, supplemented by linen, and then by various other materials. In every case the materials that went into paper were waste materials from other processes or products. Mulberry material has been found in some papers, for example, and this was probably waste from the silk industry in Southern Europe. Cotton fiber is mentioned as an ingredient, but the tow (the short fibers) rather than the long fiber material (called flax fibers) used for making clothing. This from a source on Islamic paper composition. I've even heard allegations, but not yet seen the references for myself, that hair and other waste fibers from animals went into paper production.
While the natural inclination, okay, my inclination, would be to assume that such paper would be rough and very much off-white and possessed of numerous irregularities this was apparently not the case. Pulping was a very organized, if labor intensive, process with strict quality control. Bleaching was a known process and was practiced. Water was filtered to prevent contaminants from entering the process. Paper was pressed, rolled/polished, and even given surface finishes using chalk. One of the English conservation organizations I looked at noted that medieval paper, when new, bore a strong resemblance to 80gsm white printer paper in appearance and texture. Colored paper was even in use.
Yeah, I know, you want references. This blog isn't really about those; it's more of a place where I collect and share some of my thoughts and ideas. Here are a few links:
http://paper.lib.uiowa.edu/european.php
https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199903/revolution.by.the.ream-a.history.of.paper.htm
http://www.islamicmanuscripts.info/reference/books/Gaur-1994-Calligraphy/Gaur-1994-Calligraphy-032-055.pdf
http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/collectioncare/2015/04/making-islamic-style-paper.html
http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/COMST/Bulletin1/pp69-70.pdf
I've been working with playing cards for several years now and I'm approaching what I consider a position of enlightened ignorance (I'm becoming aware of just how little I actually know). I have experimented with techniques and I continue to experiment with techniques and I'll share some of the results here when I have the time and inclination. For the past few years I've sort of been confined to doing print on demand using modern printers and modern materials. Now I'm looking at moving past that and producing cards that are printed on paper that's more closely authentic. In that search I've been looking for hemp, linen, and cotton papers of 300gsm that's not a brilliant white and is mostly smooth/polished. It's been difficult to find at reasonable prices. There are any number of high-end craft manufacturers out there who have been in business since the 17th or 18th centuries and will charge you accordingly (or so it seems) but more affordable paper has been hard to find. Still, I keep looking.
I'm updating this because I've done more research but I don't want to start a new post. I read a good analogy: Trying to describe paper-making during the Middle Ages is like trying to describe cheese-making during the Middle Ages. That really sums it up. Indications are that paper-making was a sophisticated process (which means it had a lot of techniques to choose from and lots of ways those techniques could be varied) and the products produced by paper-makers could vary widely, even from the same manufacturer. The documented sorting of fibers meant that manufacturers typically produced at least three grades of paper. Treatment options for rags prior to pulping could lead to large variations in color. Variations in sizing (soaking the paper in gelatin and, possibly, other substances) could lead to differences in appearance and the way the paper reacted to inks. And post manufacturing treatments such as burnishing could produce different textures. All of this means that there's no effective way to say what paper for Medieval playing cards should have looked like.
I'm updating this again. Remember, kids, always check the references. Always.
http://paper.lib.uiowa.edu/index.php#
This website has a link to their collection which has a large sampling of historical papers from the 14th Century on.
http://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/cdm/search/collection/paper/order/date
In looking through this I find that the average thickness of 14th-15th Century papers is: 0.22mm
Now I can check that with a reference source on paper weight (thickness).
http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html
That tells me the paper in question is about a 199gsm
For comparison that's a modern cardstock. That's almost as thick as the cardboard that makes up a box of breakfast cereal. Because it is paper, not cardboard, however, it is considerably less stiff. This is not as thick as premium calling-card stock, for instance. By way of comparison, common copier/printer paper is usually around 70gsm. That means these historical sheets of paper are almost three times as thick.
Again, big time frame and geographic area, but it appears that hemp is far and away the primary ingredient, supplemented by linen, and then by various other materials. In every case the materials that went into paper were waste materials from other processes or products. Mulberry material has been found in some papers, for example, and this was probably waste from the silk industry in Southern Europe. Cotton fiber is mentioned as an ingredient, but the tow (the short fibers) rather than the long fiber material (called flax fibers) used for making clothing. This from a source on Islamic paper composition. I've even heard allegations, but not yet seen the references for myself, that hair and other waste fibers from animals went into paper production.
While the natural inclination, okay, my inclination, would be to assume that such paper would be rough and very much off-white and possessed of numerous irregularities this was apparently not the case. Pulping was a very organized, if labor intensive, process with strict quality control. Bleaching was a known process and was practiced. Water was filtered to prevent contaminants from entering the process. Paper was pressed, rolled/polished, and even given surface finishes using chalk. One of the English conservation organizations I looked at noted that medieval paper, when new, bore a strong resemblance to 80gsm white printer paper in appearance and texture. Colored paper was even in use.
Yeah, I know, you want references. This blog isn't really about those; it's more of a place where I collect and share some of my thoughts and ideas. Here are a few links:
http://paper.lib.uiowa.edu/european.php
https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199903/revolution.by.the.ream-a.history.of.paper.htm
http://www.islamicmanuscripts.info/reference/books/Gaur-1994-Calligraphy/Gaur-1994-Calligraphy-032-055.pdf
http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/collectioncare/2015/04/making-islamic-style-paper.html
http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/COMST/Bulletin1/pp69-70.pdf
I've been working with playing cards for several years now and I'm approaching what I consider a position of enlightened ignorance (I'm becoming aware of just how little I actually know). I have experimented with techniques and I continue to experiment with techniques and I'll share some of the results here when I have the time and inclination. For the past few years I've sort of been confined to doing print on demand using modern printers and modern materials. Now I'm looking at moving past that and producing cards that are printed on paper that's more closely authentic. In that search I've been looking for hemp, linen, and cotton papers of 300gsm that's not a brilliant white and is mostly smooth/polished. It's been difficult to find at reasonable prices. There are any number of high-end craft manufacturers out there who have been in business since the 17th or 18th centuries and will charge you accordingly (or so it seems) but more affordable paper has been hard to find. Still, I keep looking.
I'm updating this because I've done more research but I don't want to start a new post. I read a good analogy: Trying to describe paper-making during the Middle Ages is like trying to describe cheese-making during the Middle Ages. That really sums it up. Indications are that paper-making was a sophisticated process (which means it had a lot of techniques to choose from and lots of ways those techniques could be varied) and the products produced by paper-makers could vary widely, even from the same manufacturer. The documented sorting of fibers meant that manufacturers typically produced at least three grades of paper. Treatment options for rags prior to pulping could lead to large variations in color. Variations in sizing (soaking the paper in gelatin and, possibly, other substances) could lead to differences in appearance and the way the paper reacted to inks. And post manufacturing treatments such as burnishing could produce different textures. All of this means that there's no effective way to say what paper for Medieval playing cards should have looked like.
I'm updating this again. Remember, kids, always check the references. Always.
http://paper.lib.uiowa.edu/index.php#
This website has a link to their collection which has a large sampling of historical papers from the 14th Century on.
http://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/cdm/search/collection/paper/order/date
In looking through this I find that the average thickness of 14th-15th Century papers is: 0.22mm
Now I can check that with a reference source on paper weight (thickness).
http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html
That tells me the paper in question is about a 199gsm
For comparison that's a modern cardstock. That's almost as thick as the cardboard that makes up a box of breakfast cereal. Because it is paper, not cardboard, however, it is considerably less stiff. This is not as thick as premium calling-card stock, for instance. By way of comparison, common copier/printer paper is usually around 70gsm. That means these historical sheets of paper are almost three times as thick.
Faux Ivory Inlay
The 14th Century (The One, True Century) was the ivory age. Just about anything that could be made of ivory was. If it wasn't made with ivory it was adorned with ivory. There are a lot of fascinating political and economic insights to be drawn from this but that's not what I'm here for. I'm going to talk about some of the difficulties this presents in recreating aspects of material culture and I'm going to talk about some ways to overcome this.
If you are a strict recreationist you need to stop reading now. You see, all faux ivory is plastic. There are exceptions, tagua nut makes a fine ivory alternative and so does bone. Tagua nuts are small and really unsuitable for inlay or larger works. Bone is the preferred alternative and was in the middle ages. There are even laws prohibiting people from passing bone off as ivory. So if you really want to be highly accurate in your portrayals/recreatons, bone is the way to go.
I have found bone to be difficult to work with. The dust needs to be kept out of your eyes and lungs, the smell of it when cutting is unpleasant, and it's a fairly brittle material particularly when you cut it very thin as you need to do for inlay. It's quite durable once it's inlaid, but getting it to that point... I lack the skill and patience. Plus, bone comes in very narrow sheets. If you want to make a larger piece you're going to have to join several sheets to make a large enough sheet to work with. This is authentic. And a pain in the ass.
Remember how I said that all faux-ivory products are plastic? Yep. You can buy very nice sheets of the material from many sources. But it's plastic. You can cast in ivory resins. Again, plastic. And you can use putties. Plastic again. But I find the putties are generally superior to all of the above because you can create the striations and imperfections of color found in real ivory rather than getting a uniform 'ivory white' plastic. The trick is to look for the online tutorials on making faux ivory using Sculpey modeling clay. You will find multiple approaches to this.
The technique I have used the most often involves inlay. Simply put: I used a laser to make a channel in the piece of wood. I then applied a thin bead of epoxy (super glue) within the channel. Then I pushed my ivory colored sculpey clay into the channel. I let the sculpey air dry hard then sanded the excess away. I baked the piece in an oven at low heat to harden the sculpey and I oiled the piece with linseed oil straight out of the oven to avoid cracking/warping.
This produces a very nice faux-ivory inlay in small applications. Here's a comb I made using this technique for the inlay.
If you are a strict recreationist you need to stop reading now. You see, all faux ivory is plastic. There are exceptions, tagua nut makes a fine ivory alternative and so does bone. Tagua nuts are small and really unsuitable for inlay or larger works. Bone is the preferred alternative and was in the middle ages. There are even laws prohibiting people from passing bone off as ivory. So if you really want to be highly accurate in your portrayals/recreatons, bone is the way to go.
I have found bone to be difficult to work with. The dust needs to be kept out of your eyes and lungs, the smell of it when cutting is unpleasant, and it's a fairly brittle material particularly when you cut it very thin as you need to do for inlay. It's quite durable once it's inlaid, but getting it to that point... I lack the skill and patience. Plus, bone comes in very narrow sheets. If you want to make a larger piece you're going to have to join several sheets to make a large enough sheet to work with. This is authentic. And a pain in the ass.
Remember how I said that all faux-ivory products are plastic? Yep. You can buy very nice sheets of the material from many sources. But it's plastic. You can cast in ivory resins. Again, plastic. And you can use putties. Plastic again. But I find the putties are generally superior to all of the above because you can create the striations and imperfections of color found in real ivory rather than getting a uniform 'ivory white' plastic. The trick is to look for the online tutorials on making faux ivory using Sculpey modeling clay. You will find multiple approaches to this.
The technique I have used the most often involves inlay. Simply put: I used a laser to make a channel in the piece of wood. I then applied a thin bead of epoxy (super glue) within the channel. Then I pushed my ivory colored sculpey clay into the channel. I let the sculpey air dry hard then sanded the excess away. I baked the piece in an oven at low heat to harden the sculpey and I oiled the piece with linseed oil straight out of the oven to avoid cracking/warping.
This produces a very nice faux-ivory inlay in small applications. Here's a comb I made using this technique for the inlay.
You can see the inlay worked particularly well against the darkness of the walnut. With care this process could be used for larger pieces such as tables boards (backgammon). I don't think this would be suitable for items that stand alone. The clay is significantly lighter than real ivory and lacks some of the feel. It's also substantially less durable and prone to snapping. This isn't an issue when it's inlay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)