Wonderfully thorough. Perhaps a support for your conclusion, that imported patterned cloths (i.e. Chintz in England or Sits in the Netherlands) were worn far more than shown in contemporary paintings, is that the British actually banned the sale of Indian chintz during the mid 17th century as their sales were detrimental to the British textile (cotton) industry, which were then protected by legislation. Also, Interesting is that the Dutch painting you found to illustrate the use of Chintz/Sits actually comes from the Fries Museum in Leeuwarden, the province in which there are villages renowned for still incorporating chintz/sits into heir traditional attire.
Wonderful scholarly lecture! To avoid anachronisms, in the period covered of the 16th century, references to "Turkey" should be substituted with, for example, "Asia Minor and nearby". Also traders of silk and other commodities from that region venturing to Europe did not include only ethnic Turks, so references exclusively to "Turkish" traders are inaccurate. The avoidance of anachronisms is evident when references are made to regions in what has come to be since referred to as Europe. Doing the same for other regions requires reference to a broader range of literature.
Sorry, going to ,ok for other videos about lace as this flipping woman doesn’t know her notes and is constantly, irritatingly, saying “um, early on, um, it was put onto the um, elaborate um….”
