The use of tabletweaving in various items of apparel is well-documented. Spies provides an excellent overview of the uses to which bands were put (Spies 2000, Appendix A), and there are historic finds of tabletwoven headbands and fillets. Her analysis was conducted only on brocaded bands, but it is entirely plausible that less wealthy folk would have used bands that did not contain expensive metal thread in a similar fashion.

This is borne out by the finds of non-brocaded tabletwoven girdles and fillets in a number of places in England (Crowfoot et al 2001, p130-133). The authors make specific mention of six bands woven wholly from silk, 'produced in double-faced weave'. Four of these bands are dated to the 14th century and two to the 15th, and were apparently used as either fillets, girdles, or spur leathers.

One of the 14th century bands was definitely used as a fillet; the fragments found were still attached to a false plait of hair. This band was woven plain-faced, with a solid colour on each side. Another of the bands was woven with a double-faced lozenge pattern, and from the photograph the fourth band looks like it might be a type of hopsack with vertical stripes in alternating colours. (See Appendix B for a photo of the bands).

I got excited for a moment with the third band because the catalogue summary states that it is 'a double-faced weave with a diagonal twill effect'. Unfortunately a close examination of the photograph reveals that the structure is clearly a basic double-face with a solid colour on each side, not a 3/1 broken twill.

However, although I have not found any direct evidence of fillets woven in 3/1 broken twill, the existence of fillets woven using the closely related basic double-face method leads me to believe that it is not unreasonable to assume that someone, somewhere might have made a fillet in broken twill. I have thus attempted to reproduce such a fillet using patterns and styles that would have been common in 14th/15th century Anglo-Norman England.

Material: Silk was a favourite material for those who could afford it; it was both lightweight and strong. The fillets described by Crowfoot et al were woven with quite fine silk thread, with 22 to 26 picks/cm; I used 60/2 silk as a close approximation thereof (±18 picks/cm).

Tools: A simple warp-weighted loom, a wooden beater and shuttle, and cardboard tablets.

Method: I used the one-pack method for broken twill described by Collingwood. I wish I could say that was because I think it is the proper period method (well, I do think that), but actually I used it because it seemed the easier one to learn. (And to be quite honest, I have not yet adapted my software to deal with the two-pack technique, so I can only generate patterns for the one-pack method).

Weaving: Due to utter absent-mindedness I threaded all tablets Z instead of S, but fortunately it was easy enough to adjust the patterns with my software. Including warping, the whole weaving process took approximately 20 hours.

Finishing: As can be seen from the texture, I started and ended the fillet using the basic double-face method. These ends are intended to be either cut off or sewn under when it comes to finishing the fillet. I have intentionally left the ends loose so that it easier to display the whole length of the band. Once I have decided who to give the fillet to, the ends will be trimmed to the correct length, folded over and sewn together to prevent fraying.

Um, Errors. Um.
Twill direction: When I designed the first set of patterns I did not realize how the change in the twill direction would influence the pattern. Thus for the first half (the right side) of the fillet the twill direction of the background warp reverses itself on the left side of most of the motifs, and there are clear marks where I idled tablets or made double turns to return the tablets to their starting position so that I could start the next motif. Also, the twill lines in the solid parts of the animals are not consistent but vary between S and Z twill.
Weaving errors: There are a couple of small weaving errors; counting from the right (the side on which I started):
1. In the first tree, at the top of the trunk.
2. In the first bird, in the head and in the wing. I lost track of the tablet positions and had to make some hasty adjustments.
3. In the second lion there is a gap in the front leg.
Band width: While I would not exactly call the 2mm width variation an error, it is nonetheless a touch more than I could have wished for. I had not worked properly with such fine thread before and it took me a while to adjust to it.

Note: Well, this being my website I won't show the pattern details here but just give a link to each pattern.

Notes

1	The line patterns show the turning sequence for the tablets, beginning on the right hand side and working towards the left. The tablets must be threaded for the one-pack method described by Collingwood. indicates a forward turn and a backward turn.
2	I used a horizontal rather than the usual vertical orientation of the patterns here to conserve space.
3	Although I wove the band using Z-threaded tablets (by accident more than design), I decided to provide the patterns for a S-threaded warp, this being the more commonly used method.
4	All images except for the heraldic pictures were produced by my software.

English Silk Bands Origin: England, 14th Century Material: Silk Type: various double-face Pattern Tablets Width A lozenge 33 or 35 12mm B plain 12 8mm C weft-wise stripes 12 no data Source: Crowfoot et al, p133