12
Textiles in Eudes of Nevers’s Posthumous Inventory
A Meeting of East and West
Sharon Farmer
The textiles in Eudes of Nevers’s posthumous inventory are indicative of the degree to which Acre served as a meeting place of eastern and western goods in the mid-thirteenth century. Luxury patterned silks, cotton or linen buckram, and soft camlets arrived there from, or via, the Mongol Empire, and luxury woolens, practical woolens, linens, and union textiles (i.e., textiles containing yarns of differing fibers, in this case, wool yarns and linen yarns) arrived from various production centers in the West, most notably northern France, the Low Countries, and northern Italy.1 Some textiles on the market in Acre would have been produced in the Levant itself, but it is impossible to determine if any of these were among Eudes of Nevers’s belongings.2
In nearly all cases, we need to exercise caution concerning the provenance and nature of the textiles that are named but not fully identified in Eudes’s inventory. Medieval merchants, administrators, and consumers knew what textile terms meant to them, but in most cases they never bothered to spell out the specific characteristics that they associated with particular textile names. Guild statutes, account books, travel narratives, merchant manuals, and literary texts can help us narrow the analysis, but terminology and technical requirements could change from one town or region to another, or from one century to another.3 Moreover, in some cases, such as that of silk cendal, which I discuss below, important characteristics of textiles were never spelled out in the texts, and indeed, most consumers would not have understood those characteristics.
Additionally, ambiguity continues around naming practices related to place of production. One problem is that of extremely similar textile names that referred to textiles that were quite distinct. Some textile names associated textiles with a particular place of production, even if the place in question was extremely large, and even after other centers of production had started manufacturing the same textiles. We have the same phenomenon today with textiles such as “crêpe de Chine”—which is not always made in China. To complicate matters further, some scholarly traditions associate particular medieval textile names with particular places of origin, even when solid evidence for such connections is lacking. Nevertheless, there are strong indications that Eudes of Nevers possessed textiles from China or Central Asia, from India, and from western Europe.
Three of the textiles in the inventory—dras de tartais, boqueranz (English: buckram), and camelot (English: camlet)—were associated in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century European travel narratives with the Mongol Empire or with the Indian subcontinent. According to Giovanni di Pian di Carpine, the Franciscan friar who was chosen by Pope Innocent IV to lead the first European diplomatic mission to the Mongol Empire in 1245, the Mongols (or, more likely, members of the Mongol court) tended to wear tunics made of “bucarano, purpura, vel baldachino.”4 The first of those textiles was buckram (although we should not confuse modern buckram with the medieval textile), the second was a type of patterned silk, and the third—baudekin—was probably identical with dras de tartais.5
Dras de tartais—meaning “cloth of the Mongols”—shows up with some frequency in European inventories and account books from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and physical examples of textiles that have come to be identified with this name appear with relative frequency in western European church treasuries and tombs from the same period (see figures 19–20). Modern textile scholars have determined that dras de tartais—as well as baudekin—were extremely valuable patterned silk fabrics that were woven with a lampas weave (a luxury weave that includes both a simple background weft—usually in a taffeta weave—and a pattern weft), and employed not only silk but also gold or silver thread.6
In most cases in the thirteenth century these fabrics did indeed originate in the Mongol Empire, as the name suggests.7 By the early fourteenth century, however, the picture gets more complex, because silk weavers in Lucca, Italy, figured out the lampas weave technique of Tartar brocades, so fourteenth-century western account books—such as the 1317 account of the French royal wardrobe keeper, Geoffrey of Fleury—began to refer to “Tartar cloths of Lucca.” We know, in fact, that lampas-woven silk and gold brocades from Lucca could look and feel very much like Tartar cloths of gold that came from Central Asia.8 In Eudes of Nevers’s inventory, however, we can assume with relative certainty that mentions of dras de tartais refer to silk and metallic brocades from the Mongol Empire.
The medieval French, Italian, and English translations for Carpine’s “bucaranus” were boqueranz (as in Eudes’s inventory), bougran (French), bocarrama/bucherame (Italian), and bukeram (English). The modern English equivalent is “buckram,” but modern bougran/buckram bears little resemblance to the medieval textile. Some medieval texts suggest that buckram was made with cotton; others that it was made with linen.9 Whatever its fiber, twelfth- and thirteenth-century French literary sources associate the adjectives rice and chier with this textile, indicating that it was luxurious.10 Carpine’s description of Mongol dress also suggests that this must have been a luxury textile, since the Mongols considered it a suitable alternative to the luxurious patterned silks known as “purple” and “baudekin.”
According to Marco Polo, fine buckrams were produced in Arzingan, in greater Armenia, in Abyssinia, and along the Malabar coast of the Indian subcontinent. Tana and Cambaet, in India, also exported buckrams, but, Polo claimed, “the most beautiful and refined [buckrams] in all the world, and those of the greatest value” were produced in Mutfili (Motupalli), in southeast India. Throughout the world, he continued, “there is no king or queen who wouldn’t wear [the buckram of Mutfili] on account of its greatness and beauty.”11
But not all buckram was luxurious. In Tibet, Polo claimed, the people dressed poorly, “in skins, canvas, or buckram.”12 Moreover, not all buckram was produced beyond the confines of Europe. By the thirteenth century, and perhaps even by the twelfth, cotton buckrams were being produced in Italy; in the mid-fourteenth century both Boccaccio and Pegalotti identified Cyprus as a center of buckram production.13
The uses of buckram varied in the medieval West and evolved over time. French records from the 1320s and 1330s indicate that it was used to make fine garments trimmed with miniver, chapel and bedroom hangings, and quilts—some of which were embroidered, as was the case with one of Count Eudes’s buckram textiles.14 Fourteenth-century accounts and literary sources also indicate that buckram was used to make quilted doublets and aketons, which military men wore as protective undergarments.15 By the late seventeenth century, the names buckram and bougran had come to be attached to a textile that is associated with those names today: a form of gummed open weave canvas that is used to stiffen garments and book bindings. In 1838 Marie-Armand d’Avezac de Castera-Macaya, who wrote the preface to the first modern edition of Carpine’s Ystoria Mongalorum, suggested that the etymology for boqueranz/bougran/buckram pointed to the town of Boukhara, in modern Uzbekistan, as the location where the textile must have first been produced. Many scholars have since subscribed to that theory—but with no solid evidence other than the resemblance of the names.16
Yet a third luxury textile in Eudes’s inventory—camlet, or camelot—seems to have originated in regions of East Asia that were under Mongol rule in the thirteenth century. According to Marco Polo, the best camlets in the world were made of camels’ wool and were woven in the city of Eriqaya/Ningxia (modern Zhongxing, in northwest China). He also reported that camlets were woven in Tibet.17 In all likelihood the textiles in question were made with fur from the undercoat of the Central Asian Bactrian camel, as is the case today with high-quality camel-wool textiles. By the early fourteenth century, some camlets were identified as coming from Tripoli, and by 1333 Venetian weavers were apparently making them in Armenia. Toward the end of the fourteenth century, moreover, some camlets were identified as being produced in Reims.18
It is not always clear what fibers were used to make the later camlets: one English royal wardrobe account from 1328 specifically identifies a piece of camlet as being made of silk, as does the fifteenth-century posthumous inventory of the possessions of Jacques Coeur. But most sources suggest that camlet was woven with a soft, warm fiber—not only with camels’ fur, but also, as suggested by later sources, with mohair, which comes from the fur of the Angora goat, which was originally from Turkey.19
Some scholars have assumed that camelot and camelin were identical textiles. Camelin, however, was a type of wool cloth that was produced in various towns of northern France and the Low Countries—if not in other locations as well.20 The thirteenth-century author John of Garland suggested that the name referred to the “camel-like” color of the cloth, but this was not always the case, since some inventories and guild statutes refer to both brown and “white” camelin.21 In Eudes of Nevers’s inventory the word camelin is used only as an adjective, perhaps indicating that the cloth in question—a piece of tiretaine—was a particular shade of brown.
Two groups of textiles in Eudes’s inventory—orfreys, which were patterned woven bands with metallic threads, and tapestries—could have been created either in the West or in the East.22 The remaining textiles—several varieties of woolen cloth, linen cloth, linen tablecloths, tiretaine, and cendal, which was a tabby-woven lightweight silk—were probably woven in western Europe. Only two of the textiles, however, were identified with a particular center of production or commercial activity: one piece of striped wool was identified in Eudes’s inventory as being from Provins, which was a major center for the production of striped woolens; and one piece of linen, purchased in Troyes, could have been produced in any one of a number of centers of linen production in France and England.23
Eudes’s woolen textiles ranged from an extremely valuable piece of wool known as “scarlet” to a less luxurious wool textile known as serge, or saie. “Scarlets” were heavy, fulled, woolen broadcloths that were woven with expensive, greased, short-stapled wool and dyed with kermes, an extremely valuable red dye made from parasitical insects that were harvested from the leaves of oak trees around the Mediterranean. Despite the name and the color of the expensive dye, however, not all “scarlets” were red in color: the one in Eudes’s inventory was, in fact, identified as having a color (“poonace”) that resembled the iridescent purple of pigeons. Serges—or saies—were usually woven with a warp of ungreased, long-stapled wool, known as “worsted” in English, and with a weft of “greased” short-stapled wool.24 However, one of Eudes’s saies is described as “black serge mantel of beaver [saie noire de bievre],” suggesting that beavers’ fur may have been used to create the yarns for either the warp or the weft.
Two additional textiles in Eudes’s inventory—a union textile known as tiretaine and a lightweight single-colored silk known as cendal—were also, in all likelihood, made in western Europe. Both were favored for summer wear. In both cases, moreover, it is difficult to come up with an appropriate modern English translation. In the mid-thirteenth century and well into the fourteenth, the Italian city of Florence was a major center for the production of tiretaine; and by the end of that period Paris was emerging as a center of production as well. We know that tiretaine was a textile made with two fibers: one for the warp—linen, cotton, or silk—and another, almost always wool, for the weft.25 Tiretaine was thus a “union textile.”26 One possible English translation would be linsey-woolsey, because linsey-woolsey was, like many tiretaines, woven with both wool and linen yarns. But we often associate linsey-woolsey with homespun cloth from colonial North America, and that association would degrade the value and quality of many medieval tiretaines. Indeed, it appears to us in the inventories of kings and queens and in the account books of the highest level of the French aristocracy, and it often sold at extremely high prices. Preserving the medieval term, tiretaine, is most useful here.
Retaining the medieval term cendal also makes sense, despite the fact that fifteenth-century sources defined it as a particular type of taffeta.27 Like taffeta, cendal was a silk textile that was woven with the simplest of weaves, the one-over one-under weave that we call tabby, linen, or indeed, taffeta weave. Before the fifteenth century cendal and taffeta were clearly distinguished from one another: the posthumous inventory of the French queen Clemence of Hungary, for instance, who died in 1328, included some garments that were lined with cendal and some that were lined with taffeta.28
What, then, distinguished cendal from taffeta, or from other forms of taffeta? First, it was a lightweight silk fabric, frequently used as the lining for summer clothing; and, second, it was always dyed in a single color. Guild statutes from Lucca indicate, moreover, that the dying of cendal always took place after the cloth had been woven, rather than immediately after the yarns had been created, as was always the case for patterned silks, but is often the case as well for crisp, tightly woven taffetas.29
Through the use of highly magnified images of the yarns that constituted medieval cendal, textile archeologist Sophie Desrosiers has determined that while the warp yarns of cendal silk were lightly twisted, the weft yarns had no discernable twist at all. The absence of any discernible twist on the weft of cendals provides the key to understanding why they were always woven before they were dyed: because in order to properly dye silk fiber one needs, first, to “cook” it—to run it through a hot bath treatment in order to completely remove the gummy substance called sericin that the silkworm had produced in order to hold the cocoon together. When silk yarns have no discernible twist but have not yet been woven into a textile, it is the sericin that holds the yarns together. If one were to attempt to cook untwisted yarns and dye them before weaving them, the filaments that constitute the yarns would simply fall away from each other and turn into a tangled mess. It is the weaving that provides stability to the untwisted yarns, so that they can then be cooked and dyed.
Most twisted silk yarns, by contrast, were—and are—cooked to remove the sericin right after they have been twisted into yarns, then they are dyed before being woven into a textile. In cendals, the cooking process that followed the weaving removed 25 percent of the weight of the fiber, leaving discernible spaces between the yarns. Hence, the lightweight, extremely supple nature of the fabric. Many taffetas, by contrast, are not so much “supple” as they are crisp. We know, in these cases, that the yarns are tightly twisted and that they have been cooked and dyed before being woven. Thus, these kinds of taffetas have body.
Taffetas come in various weights and with various kinds of yarns, and fifteenth-century sources indicate that it is indeed appropriate to label cendal as a type of taffeta. But if we subsume the term cendal into the word “taffeta” we lose the specificity of the textile. So again, my preference in dealing with this textile is to preserve the medieval name.
Eudes of Nevers’s inventory is illustrative of the peculiarity of the era of the crusades, when French aristocrats in the Levant and in Europe consumed a wide variety of textiles from Europe, the Mongol Empire, and the Indian subcontinent. Before this time, by contrast, silk textiles from Byzantium had dominated much of the luxury silk textile market in the West, and Egypt had been a major center for the production of fine linens.
But centers of textile production and international textile markets changed dramatically in the intervening period. By the early thirteenth century, the Egyptian linen industry was in rapid decline, and the Byzantine silk industry would experience a similar loss of prestige due, in large part, to the fall of Byzantium to western crusaders in 1204.30
Almost simultaneously with the demise of the Byzantine silk industry in the early thirteenth century, the rise of the Mongol Empire led to unprecedented contacts between Central Asia and Europe. As a result, textiles and other consumer goods from Central Asia, East Asia, and the Indian subcontinent became more readily available in Europe and the Levant than ever before. Those contacts between East and West would suffer as the political unity of the Mongol Empire began to wane, especially in the second half of the fourteenth century. In the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, textiles from Central Asia and Asia appeared with far less frequency in Mediterranean and European markets than they had during the thirteenth century, and Italian silk and cotton textile production expanded to fill the gaps.
1. On shipments of western textiles to Acre and the Levant, see Patrick Chorley, “The Cloth Exports of Flanders and Northern France during the Thirteenth Century: A Luxury Trade?,” Economic History Review 40 (1987): 349–79; and Eliyahu Ashtor, Levant Trade in the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), 4–5, 153, 155, 326.
2. For examples of Syrian silks from this period, see Sophie Desrosiers, Soieries et autres textiles de l’Antiquité au XVIe siècle: Musée National du Moyen Âge-Thermes de Cluny-Catalogue (Paris: Editions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 2004), 284–85, nos. 152–53; also Francesco Balducci Pegalotti, La pratica della mercatura, ed. Allan Evans (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1936), 209; and Ashtor, Levant Trade, 204, 323.
3. Françoise Piponnier, “À propos des textiles anciens, principalement médiévaux,” Annales: Economies, sociétés, civilisations 22 (1967): 864–80.
4. “Tunicas vero portant de bucarano, purpura, vel baldachino,” Giovanni di Pian di Carpine, Storia dei Mongoli, edizione critica, ed. Enrico Menestò, Italian trans. Maria Cristiana Lungarotti (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1989), chap. 2, 233.
5. On the nature of baudekin, see “Baldachin,” “The Lexis of Cloth and Clothing Project,” University of Manchester, accessed December 6, 2021, http://lexissearch.arts.manchester.ac.uk/entry.aspx?id=280; and Elizabeth Coatsworth and Mark Chambers, “Baudekin,” in Brill Encyclopedia of Medieval Dress and Textiles Online, ed. Gail Owen Crocker, Elizabeth Coatsworth, and Maria Hayward (Leiden: Brill, 2012), https://doi.org/10.1163/2213-2139_emdt_SIM_000814.
6. Anne Wardwell, “Panni tartarici: Eastern Islamic Silks Woven with Gold and Silver (13th and 14th Centuries),” Islamic Art 3 (1988–89): 95–173; C. Y. Watt and Anne Wardwell, When Silk Was Gold: Central Asian and Chinese Textiles (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1998), chap. 4.
7. Wardwell, “Panni Tartarici”; Watt and Wardwell, When Silk Was Gold, chap. 4.
8. “Tartaires de Lucques,” “tartaires changeans de Luques”: “Compte de draps d’or et de soie rendu par Geoffroi de Fleuri argentier du roi Philippe Le Long en 1317,” in Nouveau recueil de comptes de l’argenterie des rois de France, ed. Louis Douët-d’Arcq (Paris: Jules Renouard, 1874), 2, 5; Anne Wardwell, “The Stylistic Development of 14th- and 15th-Century Italian Silk Designs,” Aachener Kunstblätter 47 (1976–77): 176–226. For physical examples: Tamara Boccherini, ed., The Prato Textile Museum (Milan: Skira 1999), 34; Desrosiers, Soieries et autres textiles, cat. no. 186, pp. 48, 342–44.
9. Henry Yule, The Travels of Marco Polo: The Complete Yule-Cordier Edition (New York: Dover, 1993), 1: 47, citing Villani’s Chronicle of Florence; Victor Gay, Glossaire archéologique du Moyen Âge et de la Renaissance (Paris: Librairie de la Société Bibliographique, 1887), 1:189.
10. See texts quoted by Francisque Michel, Recherches sur les étoffes de soie, d’or et d’argent pendant le Moyen Âge (Paris: Imprimerie de Chapelet, 1852; Typographie de Ch. Lahure, 1854), 2:29–30.
11. Marco Polo, Le divisament dou monde, chaps. 175 (direct quote), 22, 183, 185, 186, 193: Marco Polo, Milione: Le divisament dou monde; il Milione nelle redazioni Toscana e franco-italiana, ed. Gabriella Ronchi (Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1982), 325, 563, 583, 586–87, 604; Marco Polo, The Description of the World, trans. Sharon Kinoshita (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2016), 16, 163, 174, 176–77, 186.
12. Polo, Le divisament, chap. 115, ed. Ronchi, 464; trans. Kinoshita, 102.
13. Maureen Mazzaoui, The Italian Cotton Industry in the Later Middle Ages, 1100–1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 89–90, 93; Boccaccio, Decameron, Eighth Day, Novella 10, trans. J. M. Rigg (London: A. H. Bullen, 1953), 2:252; Pegalotti, Pratica della mercatura, 36, 108.
14. “Chronique de Valenciennes,” cited by Gay, Glossaire archéologique, 1:188; Arras, Archives du Pas-de-Calais, Centre Mahaut d’Artois, Series A, 428, described by Jules-Marie Richard, Inventaire-Sommaire des archives départementales antérieures à 1790, Pas-de-Calais, Archives Civiles—Série A (Arras: Imprimerie de la Société du Pas-de-Calais, 1878–87), 1:344; “Inventaire de Clémence de Hongrois [1328],” ed. Douët-d’Arcq, Nouveau recueil de comptes, 74–76.
15. “Inventaire des biens de feu Raoul de Nesle Connétable de France,” ed. Chrétien César Auguste Dehaisnes, in Documents et extraits divers concernant l’histoire de l’art dans la Flandre, l’Artois et le Hainaut avant le XVe siècle (Lille: L Quarré, Libraire et Editeur, 1886), 1:139; Li romans de Bauduin de Sebourc, IIIe Roy de Jhérusalem: Poëme du XIVe siècle publié pour la première fois d’après les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale, ed. M. L. Roca (Valenciennes: Imprimerie de B. Henry, 1841), chant xix, lines 310–11, 2:194; cited by Michel, Recherches, 2:32.
16. M. d’Avezac, “Notice sur les anciens voyages de Tartarie en général et sur celui de Jean du Plan de Carpin en particulier,” in Relation des Mongols ou Tartares par le frère Jean du Plan de Carpin … première édition complete publiée d’après les manuscrits de Leyde, de Paris, et de Londres, et précédée d’une Notice sur les anciens voyages de Tartarie en général et sur celui de Jean du Plan de Carpin en particulier par M. D’Avezac (Paris: Librairie Géographique de Arthus-Bertrand, 1838), 128. On the influence of d’Avezac’s theory, see Paul Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo: Ouvrage posthume publié sous les auspices de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres et avec le concours du Centre national de la Recherche scientifique (Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1959), 1:111.
17. Polo, Le divisament, chaps. 73, 116, ed. Ronchi, 397, 465; trans. Kinoshita, 61–62, 102.
18. Camlets from Tripoli: “Compte de draps d’or et de soie rendu par Geoffroy de Fleuri,” 3, 5, 6, 19. Camlet production by Venetians: document copied in the collection of Amadeo Svajer, and cited by Jacopo Filiasi, Memorie storiche de’Veneti primi e secondi, Edizione seconda (Padua: Presso Il Seminario, 1812), 6:59n2, and again by Victor Gay, article on “Camelot,” Glossaire archéologique, 1:263. Camlet production in Reims: “Compte de Guillaume Brunel, argentier du roi Charles VI (1387),” ed. Douët-d’Arcq, Nouveau recueil de comptes, 240.
19. Silk camlet: Lisa Monnas, “Silk Cloths Purchased for the Great Wardrobe of the Kings of England, 1325–1462,” Textile History 20 (1989): 286; “Extraits inédits de compte de la vente des biens de Jacques Coeur,” ed. Pierre Clément, in Jacques Coeur et Charles VII, ou la France au XVe siècle: Étude historique (Paris: Librairie de Guillaumin, 1853), 217, cited by Gay, Glossaire archéologique, 1:263. Mohair camlet: description of goats of Cyprus by Sebastian Münster, Cosmographie Universelle, French trans. François de Belleforest (Paris, 1575), part 2, col. 765 (cited by Gay, Glossaire archéologique, 1:264); and description of the goats of Cogne (Konya), in Cilicia, Anatolia, and the camlets made with their wool by Pierre Belon, Les observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses memorables, trouvées en Grèce, Asie, Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays estranges (Paris, 1555), bk. 2, chap. 112, 167 (cited by Gay, Glossaire archéologique, 1:264).
20. Le livre des métiers d’Etienne Boileau, ed. René de Lespinasse and François Bonnardot (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1879), 96, chap. L: sections 22 and 24; “Compte de l’argenterie de Geoffroy de Fleuri,” in Comptes de l’argenterie des rois de France au XIVe siècle, ed. Louis Douët-D’Arcq (Paris: Jules Renouard, 1851), 22.
21. Piponnier, “À propos des textiles anciens,” 866–67. For white camelin: “Inventaire de Clémence de Hongrois,” 71, and Livre des métiers d’Etienne Boileau, 96, chap. L: section 22. (refers to both brown and white camelins).
22. For examples of patterned bands with metallic thread from Paris, see Desrosiers, Soieries et autres textiles, 162–65, nos. 75–77; for examples from Cologne: Desrosiers, Soieries et autres textiles, 258–62, nos. 137–41; for an example from Central Asia, Desrosiers, Soieries et autres textiles, 312, no. 166. The most prestigious European centers for tapestry weaving were Paris and Arras: Sharon Farmer, “Biffes, Tiretaines, and Aumonières: The Role of Paris in the International Textile Markets of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,” in Medieval Clothing and Textiles, vol. 2, ed. Robin Netherton and Gale R. Owen-Crocker (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2006), 80. See “Inventaire des biens de feu Raoul de Nesle,” 140, for a reference to a “tapis d’outremer.”
23. On striped woolens from Provins, see Chorley, “The Cloth Exports of Flanders and Northern France,” 363; on English and French centers of linen production, see Farmer, “Biffes, Tiretaines, and Aumonières,” 78–81.
24. On “scarlet” as a type of woolen cloth rather than a color, see John H. Munro, “The Medieval Scarlet and the Economics of Sartorial Splendour,” in Cloth and Clothing in Medieval Europe: Essays in Memory of E. M. Carus-Wilson, ed. N. B. Harte and K. G. Ponting (London: Heinemann, 1983), 13–70; on the differences between “woolen cloth,” “worsted,” and “serge,” see John H. Munro, “Medieval Woolens: Textiles, Textile Technology and Industrial Organisation, c. 800–1500,” in Cambridge History of Western Textiles, ed. David Jenkins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 1:181–227.
25. Piponnier, “À propos des textiles anciens,” 873; Farmer, “Biffes, Tiretaines, and Aumonières,” 75–78.
26. Elizabeth Coatsworth, “Tiretaine,” Brill Encyclopedia of Medieval Dress and Textiles Online.
27. Piponnier, “À propos des textiles anciens,” 871–72.
28. “Inventaire de Clémence de Hongrois,” 70–71.
29. Sophie Desrosiers, “Sendal, Cendal, Zendado: A Category of Silk Cloth in the Development of the Silk Industry in Italy, 12th–15th Centuries,” in Crusading and Trading between West and East: Studies in Honour of David Jacoby, ed. Sophia Menache, Benjamin Z. Kedar, and Michel Balard (London: Routledge, 2019), 340–50; Desrosiers, “Scrutinizing Raw Material between China and Italy: The Various Processing Sequences of Bombyx mori Silk,” L’atelier du Centre de recherches historiques: Review électronique du CRH 20 (2019): https://doi.org/10.4000/acrh.10323, sections 9, 10, 28.
30. Ashtor, Levant Trade, 203; Angeliki Laiou and Cécile Morisson, The Byzantine Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 190–91.