Topic: Linen Smoother 1840 or 16th / 17th century - Gribdae Farm Kirkudbright

[flying free]

Sold by a Swedish Auction house - a ' Glättesten '  and listed as 18th century (no reference source).  Looks similar in design on one side (the indented snapped pontil mark side), and colour and shape to the ones without a handle depicted in the 1878 Antiquaries of Scotland proceedings but is quite domed on the opposite side to the snapped pontil mark.  It is actually quite a different shape on the domed side.  This doesn't appear to have any abrasions on either side but photographs can be difficult to see detail. It appears to have the indented snapped off pontil mark on the flatter side.

https://auctionet.com/en/1610799-glattesten-glass-18th-century

See pages 64 an 65 for the Antiquaries Proceedings engravings:
https://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/psas/article/view/5902/5872

This by comparison is the handled one from Gribdae (see page 192)
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Society_of_Antiquarie/ll52di4ljB0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gribdae+linen+smoother&pg=PA372&printsec=frontcover





On page 191 of the Proceedings of the Society 1880-1881 (dated April 11,1881) there is a recording of another donation from Edinburgh being made of an item similar to the Gribdae item / smoother.  It is listed as:
Quote
'There were exhibited:
(1.)  By J. Romilly Allen, F.S.A. Scotland
Implement of black glass obtained in Edinburgh its locality unknown.  It measures 5 1/2 inches in diameter and stands 7 1/2 inches in height.
It is more concave in the upper part and less symmetrically formed than the Gribdae specimen (described below), which it closely resembles in form and appearance.  Like it, also, this specimen has been a good deal worn on the convex side.  It has been presented to the museum by Mr Allen and is well shown in the accompanying figure.'  (I couldn't see an 'accompanying figure'  - perhaps recorded in an earlier Proceedings? and just the text copied over?)

I'll take two photographs of pages 191 and 192 in the text and add them here-
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Society_of_Antiquarie/ll52di4ljB0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gribdae+linen+smoother&pg=PA372&printsec=frontcover


Interesting to note the mention of the 'good deal worn on the convex side' which it says the Gribdae one was as well.  Mine is too as I've already mentioned.

[flying free]

and coming back to usage -  I can imagine holding this very early version with no handle in my hand with my hand over the dome shape and using the base curved edges to smooth linen (IF it was used that way then that might be why the pontil mark was depressed so as to ensure no snagging?)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glass_linen_smoother,_top_view_%28FindID_95028%29.jpg

But the one with the handle would have been shaped the other way up with the domed shape against the fabric.

This is a version from the book by Kent Andersson, Glass:From Romans to Vikings - Uppsala, Balderson Publisher, 2010
https://celeratheroman.wordpress.com/2020/08/24/blown-viking-linen-smoother/

It shows this particular green pointed linen smoother on a board and dome upwards.

I can imagine using the small handle-less bun shaped items to smooth linen.
I just can't imagine using the handled version to smooth linen. Unless it was for smoothing a very specific small area of line like a seam maybe? 
To try and explain what I mean, if you use a mouse for your computer, it's curved top flat base is very easy to hold and manipulate.  If that shape was heavier glass and was used for smoothing linen on the flat side I could imagine that.  Turn the mouse upside down and I cannot see how that small area of contact could be used. That is the small area of contact that is on my handled linen-smoother item. There is no flatter area, which there seems to have been on non-handled medieval slick stones/linen smoothers and where I could perhaps imagine using those slick stone items mostly on flat side but also the curved side perhaps used for specific area of smoothing.  The handled one does not have that option.  It's a huge chunk of glass to be used just to smooth down a seam on linen as well.  I would think a non handled version would be easier.


Note the information on page 191 above where it  mentions Cotgrave and his French dictionary where he translates the word lisse and makes mention of 'a rowler of massive glasse wherewith curriers do sleeke and glosse their leather'.

Could it just be that these handled versions are only similar to the slickstones of viking times because they have a mushroomy shape base with what would be an indented pontil mark on the top if the handle hadn't been attached? So they just look similar.
 Perhaps their function was very different?

I dont' know what Cotgrave's 'massive rowler' looked like.  Is 'rowler' a word for roller?  That implies round to me.  When I tried to look up using glass for leather it appeared to me the glass used was a flat rectangular piece of glass - I imagined a bit like a scraper kind of thing.

I thought I could imagine my handled linen-smoother item being used to smooth down seams on leather material.  However, actually now thinking about it, using that heavy glass and pressing down on linen or leather with a very small area of the glass taking all the pressure might damage the material in that area.  Needs more thought ...

[flying free]

good photographs here
I think this was dated 1628-1631? but I'm never quite sure when trying to translate information:
from
Smålands museum


https://digitaltmuseum.se/021028255716/glattesten

A whole collection of them here:
https://digitaltmuseum.se/search/?aq=descname%3A%22Gl%C3%A4ttesten%22&o=0&n=60

[Ekimp]

Could the big heavy ones be doorstops? The Bonhams one looks like it has a ring of wear at the widest point where it would contact a door. I have a 3kg dome shaped victorian dump “doorstop” that is not very easy to move without a handle, unless you kick it.

[flying free]

It did occur Ekimp.  I mean 25lb of glass is pretty big and a handle would mean it could be manouevred or rocked across the floor/ground more easily to move it out the way.  Food for thought.

In the meantime this is a discussion on another board regarding the item with a handle.  On another thread on there, there was a link to the digital museum saying all the linen smoothers were no handle apart from one in the collection.
Here is the link to the thread:
https://www.precisensan.com/antikforum/forum/forum-antikt-retro-design/glas/vrigt-glas/32028-orginellt-och-ovanligt-glasf-rem-l

And the link from the thread to the online museum digital collection Norway I think showing the one glass item with handle, all the others without.  There was discussion on the thread about whether it was used for paint (the translation said 'stripping' but I wonder if that was about mixing or grinding paint and something lost in my translation?)
https://digitaltmuseum.no/search/?q=glattestein&o=0&n=108

[flying free]

I have found this - a report of the actual words used in the letter of the original description of the Kirkcudbright linen smoother with the handle, very like my linen smoother.
I've attached the evidence having photographed it off screen as it's too long to type up.

Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, One Hundred and First Session, 1880-1881 - on page 192 a report and picture of the linen smoother from Gribdae, By George Hamilton, Kirkcudbright, F. S. A. Scotland.  It's dated Proceedings of the Society, April 11, 1881:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Society_of_Antiquarie/ll52di4ljB0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gribdae+linen+smoother&pg=PA372&printsec=frontcover




I also need to correct my comment in Reply #11 where I said the author in the article said they weren't used in Scotland.  Further in the article he comments that someone present said the smoother  had been in use 'long ago' in their household and went and searched for the smoother and found it,  so it was engraved for that article in Fig. 21, 22, 23 (see page 64 of link):
https://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/psas/article/view/5902/5872

I thought I'd look up the lady who mentioned an item (flat bun shaped round one - not the handled item) had been used in her house 'long ago' and sent search out to find the item which was then engraved in the above Proceedings. 
It was a Miss Henderson of Stemster of Caithness who had been present when he was showing the item to someone else and it was she who said it had been used in her house 'long ago'.
https://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/psas/article/view/5902/5872

I think Miss Henderson might have come from quite a big house with a very long history! - see link.
https://fionamsinclair.co.uk/genealogy/Caithness/Stemster.htm

Is this the house?
https://www.stemsterhouse.com/

The Proceedings were written in 1879. 
She could have been one of the four daughters of Alexander Henderson who also had five sons.  She was a Miss. 
Of the daughters it's noted : Margaret died in 1879 unmarried, Johanna died 1880 unmarried. There was a Cecilia, and another  sister Mary who married.
Then she could also have been a daughter of Alexander's successor David as he had three sons and four daughters and died in 1859.  So she could have been quite old in 1879 (daughter of Alexander?) or a bit younger (daughter of David?).

OOOH HANG ON - EDIT forthcoming!
On here page 64 it says 'When showing the relics from the Ballinaby graves to Mr  J. H. Chalmers of Aberdeen, a Fellow of The Society, Miss Henderson of Stemster in Caithness, who was also present ....'
https://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/psas/article/view/5902/5872

The history of the Stemsters says there was a Mary Stemster (daughter of Alexander) married to  a Charles Chalmers from Aberdeen. 
Mr J. H. Chalmers was Mr Charles Chalmers' son:
https://www.myheritage.com/names/charles_chalmers
Which explains the link as to why  a Miss Henderson of Stemster was present at the meeting.



Anyway, if this is the case, I can imagine that item might have been in her house for a long time - 'long ago' is very non-specific in terms of being able to pin down whether she meant 20 years ago, or 200 years ago really.  The story of how it was used might have been conveyed to her verbally rather than her actually seeing the item in daily use if you see what I mean?

Although they were discussing the non-handled version my point is that in 1879 none of them knew what it was until she recognised it as from 'long ago'.
And the handled version had sat in the museum since presumably pre 1861 with even at that point no-one knowing what it was.

[flying free]

Johanna died in 1880 so after the meeting took place. Her sister Margaret died in 1879 (year of the writing of the Proceedings)
Their sister Mary was married to Charles Chalmers who died in 1877. No death for Mary yet so it could have been Mary born 1796 who was with her son at the meeting.
Or it might have been Johanna who was present at the meeting with her nephew Mr J.H. Chalmers.  Johanna would have been fairly old at that point. She died a year later and her sister Mary was born in 1796. 
So 'long ago' could have meant turn of the 1800s.

[flying free]

Could the big heavy ones be doorstops? The Bonhams one looks like it has a ring of wear at the widest point where it would contact a door. I have a 3kg dome shaped victorian dump “doorstop” that is not very easy to move without a handle, unless you kick it.

Ekimp, iirc somewhere in the Proceedings of the Society for Antiquaries Scotland (maybe 1879/80 when the handled item was shown in the letter from the Stewartry museum? ) there was also a letter from someone in another museum I think(??) saying they had a 25lb version and did they think that was a linen smoother. I'll search through again later and see if I can find that reference.
 
I think if it was a doorstop wouldn't someone have recognised it as such? 

This is all so odd that in 1880 ish no one recognised these objects. And even in 1861 or before re the handled one.

[kerstinfroberg]

And the link from the thread to the online museum digital collection Norway I think showing the one glass item with handle, all the others without.  There was discussion on the thread about whether it was used for paint (the translation said 'stripping' but I wonder if that was about mixing or grinding paint and something lost in my translation?)
https://digitaltmuseum.no/search/?q=glattestein&o=0&n=108

swedish speaker here: "grinding paint" (pigments) is the right translation here

Kerstin from Sweden

[flying free]

Cagney thank you for that further information.  Much appreciated.  I think what I'm a bit surprised about is that neither the Stewartry museum nor the author of the Scottish Antiquaries proceedings written in 1878 had ever come across either the viking article or the one from Gribdae farm and did not know what either were.

It also seems that when the handled one was donated to the Stewartry museum (presume pre 1861 as the donor was dead by then) no one knew what it was then either. 
So if these were in such normal every day use as linen smoothers I might have presumed they would have known what they were. 
The donators father (who had died in 1835) had been using it to grind sugar and salt and even if one assumes the story about the cairn find might not be true he surely wouldn't be donating a well known item for the era and pretending it was something else - surely someone would have realised?

And I do think the donor obviously thought it was something interesting and special otherwise why would he have taken it to the museum? He obviously donated it decades before the viking article was written about so it wasn't to do with jumping on a bandwagon.  The description of his farm sounds as though he was quite well off and the farm was very large.  I know that memories can be opaque and the wording of the Stewartry letter to the Society does appear to put 2 and 3 together and come up with 4 to make the situation fit a 'viking' cairn find but it could well be that William Bell did find it under a heap of stones.  Just that it wasn't a viking find.

Correction and apologies.
I think the William Bell who donated this might have been a F.S.A. and might have been the son of the father William Bell who died 1861.
Detailed information here on William Bell and his Father William Bell

http://www.kirkcudbright.co/kirkcudbright/lands.asp

and some here

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/136491675/william_bell

So the donation may have been recent to  Hamilton (1881 ish when his letter was written to the Proceedings).  Hamilton wrote in his letter to the Proceedings in present tense I think.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Society_of_Antiquarie/ll52di4ljB0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gribdae+linen+smoother&pg=PA372&printsec=frontcover

And given I think William Bell might have been a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, it could well have been a 'ah, I have something like that at home!' moment after he'd seen the information from Dec 1878 re the medieval one without a handle.
Anyway, the son William Bell was born in 1845 and so was possibly 36 if it was donated to the museum in 1881 by him.
He was 15/16 when his father William Bell died in 1861. If we assume the account of the find was given by W.Bell the son,  to Hamilton in 1881 ish and he accounted that it had been found 40 or so years ago that would have been before he was born. 
He also accounted that he remembers his father using it to grind sugar and saltpetre - so a memory of before he was 16 in childhood but that was potentially only 20 years prior to the donation (assuming 1881).
He also apparently accounted that it was found digging a drain but the account from Hamilton does say Bell remembered talk about another drain being found on Gribdae.  It all sounds a bit apochryphal on re-reading  the letter from Hamilton.

I'm a bit confused about the sugar and salt petre mixing using the same implement but then I'm not a chemist.