This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an article accepted by Taylor & Francis and

published in TEXTILE: Cloth and Culture on June 2017, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, pages 176-197. This
preprint has the DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.831627. The published version is available online:
http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/14759756.2017.129823.

Weaving as binary art and the algebra of patterns

Ellen Harlizius-Klück

Abstract
To refer to the Jacquard loom as a precursor of the computer is a common narrative in
histories of computing beginning with Ada Lovelace comparing the punched card operated
loom with the calculating engine designed by Charles Babbage: “We may say most aptly that
the Analytical Engine weaves algebraical patterns just as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers
and leaves.”
But this does not mean that Jacquard invented the algebra of patterns. He only
constructed the first widely known and used mechanism replacing the drawboy by punched
cards to feed pattern information into his mechanism.
To control a weave means to decide whether a warp thread is to be picked up or not.
Weaving has therefore been a binary art from its very beginning, applying operations of
pattern algebra for millennia. Jacquard’s cards were the end of this story rather than its
beginning, reducing the weaver to an operator who had to step on a single treadle repeatedly.
This article argues that algebra is already involved in operating shafts or heddles on
ordinary looms, that this algebra was applied tacitly until the first weaving notations were
developed, and that these notations make the tacit algebra of patterns recognizable to non-
weavers: inventors and engineers.

1
Jacquard loom and computer

“We may say most aptly that the Analytical Engine weaves algebraical patterns just
as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers and leaves”

This quote stems from Ada Lovelace’s notes on a paper describing Charles Babbage’s plans
for the Analytical Engine, the first machine that could do general-purpose computation
(Lovelace 1843, 696). Babbage’s earlier invented machine, the Difference Engine, could
tabulate polynomial functions but not general arithmetic. The Lovelace quote became a
famous soundbite in the history of computing (Essinger 2004: 141; Plant 1995: 50; Davis and
Davis 2005: 86). Perhaps as a result, it is now common to refer to the Jacquard loom as a
precursor of digital calculating machines. James Essinger states: “… in essence a computer is
merely a special kind of Jacquard loom” (2004: 87) or even that computers are “modern
incarnations of Jacquard’s loom” (2004: 263). The Little Book of Beginnings and
Breakthroughs in Science devotes a paragraph entitled “Weaving Algebraic Patterns” to Ada
Lovelace as “the world’s first computer programmer” (Verma 2015: 1843). Also Subrata
Dasgupta, in his account of the Genesis of Computer Science, has a whole chapter entitled
“Weaving Algebraic Patterns” (2014: 17-27). And he provides an explanation of the analogy:
In the Jacquard loom, each distinct pattern to be woven is defined by a specific encoding
of the pattern in a closed-loop series for punched cards. The loom reads this pattern and
weaves the cloth accordingly. By changing the batch of punched cards, the loom weaves a
different pattern. The same loom, a finite device, has the capability for, potentially, an
infinity of weaving patterns. In the Analytical Engine, computation of each distinct
mathematical function is determined by an ordered sequence of (arithmetic) operations
on the values of variables. These sequences of operation (in present-centered language,
programs) can be encoded as patterns of holes on punched cards. The machine reads a
particular set of punched cards, a different sequence of operations corresponding to a
different mathematical computation is performed. In the evocative words of Lovelace, the

2
 analytical Engine would weave ‘algebraic patterns’ much as the Jacquard loom wove
‘flowers and leaves’. (Dasgupta 2014: 21)

However, there have been objections to this analogy. An article written by a computer
scientist and a weaver aiming to tell the story in a factual way with regard to “the inner
natures of modern computers” (Davis and Davis 2005: 78) rejects it because the punched
cards are only “the peripheral devices that bring data into or out of the machine” and should
not be taken “for the computer itself” (Davis and Davis 2005: 79). The argument is made that
also for Babbage’s project “the punched-card reader would have been at most a superficial
component” (Davis and Davis 2005: 80). Similarly from the standpoint of loom technology,
Jacquard invented a peripheral device that brings data to the loom by punched cards, but in
fact any loom can be operated and any fabric be woven without such a device.
Sadie Plant writes: “Jacquard's system of punch card programs brought the
information age to the beginning of the 19th century. His automated loom was the first to
store its own information, functioning with its own software, an early migration of control
from weaver to machinery“ (1995: 51). Whatever we think is the true relation of loom and
computer—Sadie Plant makes a point that is worth considering: that control has migrated
from weaver to machine. Jacquard did not invent what Lovelace calls the algebra of patterns.
Neither did he invent the binary structure of the weave. What he did do was to construct the
first widely known and used mechanism that replaced the human being pulling the leashes of
a drawloom, the so-called drawboy, who thus controlled the pattern on behalf of the weaver.
Instead, Jacquard used punched cards to feed the pattern information into his mechanism.
However, the binary pattern algebra was already present in the operation of the drawloom.
The algorithms and programs were always there—just not in a manner visible to outsiders and
non-weavers. The punched cards simply made the pattern algebra of weaving perceivable to
someone interested in the construction of calculating engines on the basis of binary logic,
someone like Charles Babbage.
The whole history of loom technology is a history of the migration of binary control
from weavers to machines. Throughout this history, to control a weave meant to decide
whether a warp thread was to be picked up or not. Therefore, from the very beginning, “…
weaving is a binary art …”, as stated by the computer pioneer Heinz Zemanek (1991b: 33).

3
Jacquard’s cards were the end of this story rather than its beginning, reducing the weaver
from a coder of weaves, to an operator who had to step on a single treadle repeatedly.
This article intends to shed light on the algebraical patterns and codes of weaving
before Jacquard. It states that the idea of coding weaves was the crucial step towards the
invention of automated loom control mechanisms, no matter if they used pegs on cylinders or
holes in cards. By this I want to widen the view that seems to be fixed upon the Jacquard
mechanism. Instead I want to look at practices of weaving and geometrical patterning which
engage algebraic thinking and ask how these were implemented. I will argue that a sort of
algebra is already involved in operating shafts or heddles in ordinary looms, that this algebra
was executed as a tacit inference until the first weaving notations were developed, and that
these weaving-notations resemble the respective loom parts and make the tacit visual algebra
of patterns recognizable to non-weavers and in particular: inventors and engineers.
In this article I bring together research results from (1) the investigation of a weaver’s
journal and sketchbook from the 18th century and (2) the history of weave notation in which
the sketchbook is embedded as well as (3) investigations of a loom control device from the
17th century possibly connected to these early notations and the development of early binary
loom control. [1]

From drawloom to computer control—the common story

In order to challenge the common story of the invention of digital looms, we first need to
introduce it. The most common loom works with shafts and treadles and is good for weaving
plain or striped fabric. But it also can weave checkers, stars, lozenges or color and weave
effect patterns like dogtooth or meanders that result from a certain weave structure combined
with a specific order of colored threads. For more complex patterns it is necessary to lift
individual warp threads and this is done with a drawloom—a device that was probably
invented in China. The lifting of the warp threads was not done by the weaver but by an
assistant standing at the side of the loom: a drawboy or liseuse. The history of computing,
when referring to looms, tells a story of their improvement focusing almost entirely on
subsequent inventions by French engineers, whose main interest was to spare the drawboy or
liseuse necessary for pattern control on the drawloom. The usual list of inventors includes
Bouchon, Falcon, Vaucanson and culminates with Jacquard.

4
Bouchon and Falcon
In her comprehensive book on the media history of punched card weaving, Schneider gives a
short overview on drawloom improvements in the eighteenth century (Schneider 2007: 125-
130). In 1725, Bouchon is named as the first to replace the work of the liseuse. But only later,
when cooperating with Falcon, was he recognised by the city council with an award for his
invention: “Commandments: of 1,000 livres to Basile Bouchon, master in silk work, to
compensate the expenses he had in seeking the secret to mount and work looms without the
help of warp creel and draw-girl.” [2]
Bouchon started to use perforated paper tape running over a perforated cylinder. Hooks
selected single warp threads when their straight end falls through a hole in the paper and the
cylinder. Bouchon’s invention is said to be “the first, albeit basic, programmable loom
available for weaving silk” (Fava-Verde 2011: 1), however, his control mechanism never
made it past the prototype stage. The number of warp threads that could be controlled was
quite small and the whole paper tape needed to be replaced when one hole was torn.
Bouchon’s assistant Falcon in 1728 solved this problem by using a loop of smaller punched
units that could be replaced separately when torn. Becker writes that Falcon’s progress was to
use “pasteboard instead of Bouchon’s paper.“ (Becker 2009: 336) But according to Ganzhorn
and Walther, Falcon’s “punched cards” actually consisted of wooden slats (Holzbrettchen,
1975: 34 and 1984: 43). Also the question of the spared drawboy or -girl is a source of
confusion. While Bouchon’s loom is workable without, Becker says that Falcon’s loom still
needed a drawboy and that Vaucanson’s loom was the first to spare it. Davis and Davis,
however, say that Vaucanson’s mechanism still needed a drawboy (2005: 79), which leaves
the laurels for Jacquard. An explanation for this confusion could be that the looms often
needed extra operators that were sometimes counted as drawboys and sometimes not. [3]

Vaucanson
Becker resumes: “Falcon’s loom was never generally used. Presumably it did not function
with sufficient precision, and a drawboy had still to be employed.” He then comes to the loom
constructed by Vaucanson in 1745 that “could be operated by the weaver himself without the
assistance of a drawboy. Vaucanson also utilized punched cards and took them over a barrel
placed uppermost on the loom. The weaver could move the barrel stepwise with a long
treadle. This loom likewise never obtained any practical success” (Becker 2009: 341). While

5
Becker thus describes the patterning device invented by Vaucanson as punched cards, Farva-
Verde writes: “In the 1750s, Jacques de Vaucanson replaced the perforated card with a
wooden cylinder which used a pattern of raised pins to control the shedding” (2011: 1).
Essinger similarly talks about “a metal cylinder with spokes in it, basically a large version of
the spoked metal cylinder used in the music boxes” (2004: 18).
It is true that Vaucanson used metal cylinders with pegs, pins or spokes for the androids
and automats he is famous for: the Flute Player or the Digesting Duck. But for the loom the
cylinder was made of wood with a grid of drilled holes, and needles coming from the harness
scan this grid. Patterns are introduced by punching cardboard that is then wrapped around the
cylinder. [4] The clear disadvantage of this invention is that the pattern has to fit to the
cylinder’s circumference; otherwise a new cylinder is needed.

Jacquard
According to the way the story is usually told, Jacquard’s invention was the first to overcome
this disadvantage. Instead of a cylinder, he used a four-sided prism with a grid of drilled
holes. Each side of the prism had the size of a punched card. The cards were then knotted
together to form a long and flexible chain running stepwise over the prism that could be used
with any length of the card chain.

1 Jacquard prism. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Munich.

Albeit everyone is talking about “the Jacquard loom”, it is important to stress that Jean Marie
Jacquard (as well as Bouchon, Falcon and Vaucanson) did not invent a new loom, but a

6
mechanized harness operating with punched cards replacing the drawboy or liseuse. [5] He
was not the first to use a harness which was probably invented in Persia almost two thousand
years earlier, nor was he the first to use punched paper for this, or the first to spare the
drawboy, but his was the only machine that made it beyond the prototype stage. [6] It is “the
Jacquard loom” that entered the history of computing only because Charles Babbage and Ada
Lovelace, as well as some subsequent computer pioneers, use this expression to indicate an
invention where highly complex algorithms for weaving flowers and leaves are controlled on
the basis of punched cards storing binary information.

A remark on the efficiency of the new machines

It is another standard idea in connection to Jacquard’s mechanism that it “speeded the
process” of weaving (Davis and Davis 2005: 79). However, the technical capacity of
mechanical looms was not convincing in the beginning of the development of such devices. In
the famous Encyclopedia of Diderot and D’Alembert we read that the mechanism of
Vaucanson was “as useless as it was costly” (Schneider 2007: 130). In fact, still around 1840
which is the time when Babbage and Lovelace cooperated on the idea of the Analytical
Engine, the increase of production in using a Jacquard machine or any other mechanical loom
instead of a handloom was only triple—and only then when the loom worked without thread-
breaks or glitches, which was not the rule. Calculated from the production rate of a whole
day, Paulinyi (1989) comes to a number of real picks between 70-90 per minute. The huge
factories in Manchester at that time introduced a handloom with a system for gradually
winding up the warp that was operated at a speed of 80 shots per minute. Paulinyi concludes
that the big mechanical looms were technically inflexible and without cost benefit (1989: 84-
85).
With the above in mind, the often-bemoaned resistance of weavers against the
mechanical looms appears in a different light. To operate a loom with a Jacquard machine is
not easier for the weaver. Much more strength and energy is needed to step on the one and
only treadle, which nevertheless needs to be done with care. “When the weaver releases the
treadle the considerable number of weighted leashes causes the inner part of the machine to
fall heavily” writes Becker (2009: 345). And the body suffers from the unilateral strain of
using only one foot (Bohnsack 1993: 38). [7]

7
 It is true that the Jacquard machine immensely speeded up the preparation of the loom,
which, in former times, was achieved by a complex system of threads operating on various
levels of order in combination with the harness. This was the most time consuming part, and
the reason why patterns were rarely changed. The chance to keep up with the pace of fashion
was therefore out of the question for drawloom-patterned silks.
The history of technology is full of stories on patents and inventors like Vaucanson,
Jacquard or Babbage. But still craftsmen made a lot of improvements in the traditional sector.
In a study of innovation in the eighteenth-century British textile industry, Griffiths et al.
(1992) compared patented and non-patented innovations from 1700 onward. The authors state
that “that the majority of additions to the stock of productive knowledge over the eighteenth
century, even in a technologically sophisticated industry such as textiles, were not patented”
(Griffiths et al. 1992: 886), and they assume that “any index constructed from this one source
is likely to furnish a partial and ambiguous record of inventive activity and technical change”
(Griffiths et al. 1992: 889). “Furthermore, substantial additions to the stock of economically
significant knowledge continued to be made anonymously and privately over the course of the
century.” (Griffiths et al. 1992: 896)

Charles Babbage and the Idea of a changeable Binary Code

According to Essinger “Babbage had toyed with the idea of programming his new machine by
using a revolving drum featuring little raised studs as a mechanical means of inputting data
and operating the machine”. [8] But Babbage then hit upon the idea of using punched cards,
like the Jacquard loom. On the 30 June 1836 Babbage wrote into his notebook: “Suggested
Jacard’s loom as a substitute for the drums.” (Essinger 2004: 85; misspelling in original
quote)
As we already heard, the advantage of the cards lies in the flexibility of the length of the
repeat. A chain of punched cards is potentially limitless whereas a revolving drum repeats
itself by nature (Essinger 2004: 86). But both the revolving drum, as well as the punched card
chain, work on the basis of a binary code. So, if the binary coding of weaving information is
the essential knack that links looms and computers, there is no reason to prefer Jacquard’s
mechanism for the essential idea even if Babbage preferred it.
The main improvement of Jacquard’s mechanism was the prism, that provided a
possibility to quickly and easily change the pattern, and support any length of punched card

8
chain. But a device used by weavers of Upper Austria implemented this idea already in the
17th century. Its principle is described by Heinrich Kinzer in a German handbook on Jacquard
weaving as a “canvas-machine” (Leinwandmaschine, cf. Kinzer 1900: 5; cf. later Glafey
1937, 485). With reference to the drum of Vaucanson he writes that in case of patterns with a
large repeat, the drum would be too large, unhandy, and costly. Therefore a small wooden
cylinder was used and an endless (circular) linen strip was wrapped around, carrying wooden
pegs glued onto it, which could then be stored for later reuse. Kinzer observes that “Out of
these preceding inventions developed the up to date unique Jacquard machine.” (Kinzer 1900:
5).

2 Scheme of canvas-machine published by Kinzer 1908.

In the area of upper Austria, the machine that was in use “before the new ones came from
Lyon” [9] was known under the names “peg-machine” (Stöckelmaschine) or “crumb-
machine” (Bröselmaschine). The German word Brösel can denote a small part of something
(cf. Harlizius-Klück 2012: 63), usually a crumb of bread, or it can be a short form of the name
Ambrose (Ambrosius). Accordingly, there are two explanations of the name of the machine.
Some say it stems from the pegs crumbling from the canvas strip during use, and others that it
is a short form of the inventors’ given name. Heinz Zemanek was the first to mention the
machine in a publication on the history of computing as early as 1976, but the machine never
found its way into the standard story.

9
The crumb-machine
Heinz Zemanek was himself a key technologist, building the first transistor computer on the
European continent. He was the first manager of the IBM Laboratory in Vienna, where he
prepared the computer science exhibition established in 1974 in the Technical Museum
Vienna, and was also involved in the exhibition at the Deutsches Museum, Munich (1988). In
this latter exhibition the Bröselmaschine is mentioned (Zemanek 1992: 47): a local Austrian
device for sparing the drawboy given as part of the prehistory of computing, based in an area
where weaving was once a major craft, the Mühlviertel (lit. mill quarter). [10]
Stating that we “tend to underestimate the skill and wit of our ancestors” (1976: 15), in a
paper presented at the National Computer Conference in New York, Zemanek presents the
cogwheels as digital as the score and nature of music [11] and points to the Salzburg Bull
from 1502, a drum driven organ with more than 200 pipes (cf. Adam 2004 (1973): 128). He
mentions many other mechanic and automatic chimes from that area, rarely occurring in the
history of automata probably because the names of the inventors are unknown, and they have
not been awarded patents and prizes.
When referring to the prehistory of processing information Zemanek states: “Weaving is
of more interest for information processing than we attach to it. That it is binary stems from
the fact that each crossing of two threads means a natural digital-point. Many folkloristic
weaving devices–in Europe, but also in Africa and Asia–are implementations of or tools for
programmed processes.” (1976: 16) This analogy is not drawn just because of the binary idea.
Zemanek goes farther in making weaving a source of knowledge for Computer Scientists by
saying that “weaving is in particular important in our present day advance from serial to
parallel processing; weaving, in contrast to mathematics, is a naturally parallel process and
might give us more ideas than we think.” (1976: 16)
For Zemanek, the Bröselmaschine is a prime example of the digital nature of weaves, of
which “... there are two programming units in existence, both in the province of Upper
Austria. [12] They were made around 1740, and there are good indications that the invention
was made between 1680 and 1690. [13] Wooden bars are glued on a closed loop strip of
linen, and the bars operate the weaving device” (1976: 16).
Zemanek does not give details either of the location of the machines or of the sources he
is uses for the dating and description of them. From his account, it all appears to be hearsay

10
from the discovery of an Austrian friend. This might be the reason why the machine never
entered the English-speaking history of computing. [14]
Besides the works of Zemanek (1976: 16, 1991a: 47, 1992: 33), there are however some
German and Austrian publications on the theme where the crumb-machine is mentioned and
shown. The book of Ganzhorn and Walter was published by IBM in 1966, 1975, and 1984,
and by the last edition includes the machine and a picture (1984: 45). [15] From this
publication it is clear that the device is located in the Weaving Museum in Haslach (today
Textile Centre Haslach), and that the main source of information is an article of Fritz Kreindl
(1935) in Melliand Textilberichte (misspelled “Melliard” in the list of sources).

3 Crumb-machine (Bröselmaschine) from 1740. Weaving Museum Haslach, Upper Austria.

Photo Ellen Harlizius-Klück.

11
4 Detail of crumb-maschine with cylinder and vertical hooks. Photo Ellen Harlizius-Klück.

5 Detail of the pattern input strip for the crumb-maschine in the Weaving Museum Haslach.
Wooden strips and pegs are glued onto the linen band. One peg is lost and the linen is visible.
Photo Ellen Harlizius-Klück.
12
A manuscript in the State Museum of Upper Austria from 1799, containing patterns for looms
using up to forty shafts, mentions a method to weave drawloom patterns without a drawboy
(cf. Adam 1973: 134). [16] This is taken as testation for the use of the crumb-machine. But
the author, Franz Xaver Friepes, does not give any description of the device applied with this
method. In his book on pattern and loom Becker states that our knowledge of loom
development in the 18th century outside France is scarce. The reason might be that
technological and craft-related knowledge was usually a secret of the weaver guilds (Hilts
1990a: 13). We therefore find no technological descriptions until the beginning of
industrialization. In Italy “the weaving centers were rival business houses, each guarding
inventions and technical improvements as business secrets. On the other hand silk-weaving
factories in France (Tours and Lyon) were state-subsidized and it was considered useful that
the technical inventions should become known to as many craftsmen as possible” (Becker
2009: 334).
In Southern Germany and Upper Austria of the 17th century, weavers and non-weavers
started to tinker with looms, patterns, and notations and cross the boundary of weaving
patterns towards weaving images without using the huge drawlooms in use in the Italian and
French workshops. [17] From this time and area stem the first printed weaving pattern books
and the “first published technical description of a drawloom” (Hilts 199b: 9). Birgit Schneider
in her overview on weaving as technical image processing asks whether this context was
necessary to develop a weaving notation that could be used as data fed into a control
mechanism on the loom (Schneider 2007: 121).

Coding weaves: The development of binary pattern notation and control

For millennia, pattern weaving was done without notation. Skilled weavers clearly did not
make plans in advance, developing each and every step of the process and documenting these
single steps in writing. The loom parts, like heddles or shafts, store most of the necessary
information and skilled weavers can read bindings and patterns directly from fabric. Fabric
samples were probably the best and most commonly used memory or storage for patterns.
Patricia Hilts, who prepared and commented on the facsimiles of the first pattern books in
print, mentions such a sample book in Nuremberg. It is dated to 1693, belonging to a
Barchent weaver. She knew of only two earlier manuscripts with notations: one dated to 1658
written by Thoman Lins, weaver in Tyrol, [18] and another undated manuscript from Lucca in
13
Tuscany, described and published by the historian of mathematics Gino Arrighi (1986). This
Italian manuscript shows mainly notations with integers on lines resembling a musical score.
Occasionally they are accompanied by pattern samples woven from narrow paper strips.

The first two printed books on pattern weaving

Parallel to the figural and botanical motifs woven with the huge drawlooms in Italy and
France, there was a tradition in Southern Germany, Switzerland and Austria where linen
fabric was woven with complex geometric motifs. We already, in the context of the crumb-
machine, heard of a fabric called Schachwitz, a block patterned linen damask (Hilts 1990a:
21). Another typical patterned cloth type was Kölsch or Golsch, a linen cloth with a warp
usually colored blue and with a white weft (Hilts 1990a: 23, note 71), a type of setup that
makes it easier to control the design. Where the treadling is straight, the tie-ups for a Kölsch
pattern resemble the point-paper drawing (cf. Hilts 1990a: 30). This is not the case for the
color-and-weave-effect patterns where the draft does not show the color effect but only the
structure of the weave. The technology for weaving Schachwitz and Kölsch is the context in
which the standard for coding patterns was then developed.
In 1990, the Charles Babbage Research Centre in Winnipeg, Canada, published two
facsimiles of the earliest printed books on weaving technology (Hilts 199a: 13) accompanied
by a comprehensive comment by Patricia Hilts (1990a and 1990b). The two books were
written and printed in Southern Germany not very far from the area of the crumb-machine,
and among others refer to the cloth type called Schachwitz that is assumed to be woven with
the machine. [19] The first one was written and published by Marx Ziegler, a weaver from
Ulm, in 1677. According to Hilts there are three extant copies in Ulm, Augsburg and
Jerusalem (Hilts 1990a: 9). [20] The second book was a revised and extended version by
Nathanael [21] Lumscher, bookbinder from Culmbach in South Germany, published in 1708
and reprinted in several editions until at least 1736. [22] For this book Hilts states that only
two copies exist worldwide: one in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London and one in the
Deutsches Museum, Munich.
6 Page from the book of Ziegler 1677
6 Page from the book of Ziegler 1677
6 Page from the book of Ziegler 1677
6 Page from the book of Ziegler 1677

14
6 Page from the book of Ziegler 1677

Both books reflect the development of weaving notation for the specific situation of
Southern Germany. The block patterned twills and damasks of Kölsch and Schachwitz
“required a distinct set of concepts and techniques”, says Hilts (1990a: 42) where the shafts
were divided into subsets, which then controlled units of weave structure — a notion that
“was foreign to drawloom weavers” (1990a: 44). Patterns could be determined by a complex
interaction of loom-parts and drafts (cf. Hilts 1990a: 32; Schneider 2007: 93) “or even by
drafts and treadlings alone.” (Hilts 1990a: 32) As an advantage of this system Hilts points to
the drafting method of Ziegler that “allowed development of intricate large-scale patterns with
a relatively small number of shafts” (1990a: 36). The weavers clearly took this chance to
extend the possibilities of the looms considerably.
“Ziegler and Lumscher included some patterns for looms with as few as eight shafts, but
most of their patterns required twelve or sixteen shafts, and some called for as many as thirty-
two shafts” (Hilts 1990a: 27). The concept matured with the development of a draft notation
that is today called profile notation. (cf. Hilts 1990a: 44) Lumscher was most likely the one
introducing this way to mark the threading of a whole unit of a weave structure by a vertical
stroke in a staff. The result in the words of Patricia Hilts: “Most important, profile notation
15
freed weavers from thinking in terms of single threads and allowed them to think entirely in
terms of units of structure.” (Hilts 1990a: 44)

7 Page with profile notation from Lumscher’s book (1708). Scan of copy from Deutsches
Museum Munich, no. 34.

Here we have not only a close connection and interdependence of notation and
production, but also the idea of a composition of draft parts producing a variety of patterns in
the algebraical manner that Lovelace had in mind in her famous quote. However, the larger
class of drawlooms does not work this way.

Lumscher and the drawlooms

Lumscher considerably extended Ziegler’s book and among other new chapters included a
description of weaving on small and large drawlooms as well as a how-to for constructing the
small one. Both looms had shafts in the pattern harness and, as Hilts states, “they differed
from drawlooms ordinarily pictured in eighteenth- and early nineteenths-century works.
Lumscher’s first or ‘small drawloom’, was a loom having only a pattern harness. His second
or ‘large drawloom,’ had both a pattern harness at the rear of the loom, and a ground harness

16
with a set of five treadle-operated shafts at the front of the loom.” (Hilts 1990b: 12) Within
such compound mountings, the two harnesses served two different functions: the ground
harness provided the structure of the weave and ensured that the fabric would hold together
whereas the pattern harness lifted warp threads to define the pattern (Hilts 1990a: 29). Ziegler
and Lumscher accordingly distinguish between Boden and Bild: Boden indicating the weave
structure and Bild the design. The terms roughly correspond to the meaning and distinction of
“(back)ground” and “image”.
Although both looms were used for weaving damask, Lumscher furthermore
distinguished carefully between the point paper patterns for the two different looms. For the
small drawloom it was necessary to mark all binding points of the woven structure, whereas
for the large drawloom only marking the pattern of the image was necessary because the
overall satin structure of the weave was provided by another harness (cf. Hilts 1990b: 15).
Hilts spent some time on comparing the copies in London and Munich coming to the
conclusion that the copy in the V&A in London is in the original state only missing a point-
paper. For the facsimile, she took this point-paper, a depiction of Abraham’s Offering, from
the copy in Munich that she calls incomplete.

8 Point-paper of Abraham’s Offering from the Munich copy.

17
 She furthermore states that, because of the copy being re-bound, the placement of the
point paper is not clear. “For convenience, I have placed “Abraham’s Offering” at the end of
Lumscher’s weaving patterns.” (Hilts 1990b: 16) To Hilts, it is the only drawloom pattern
provided by Lumscher (1990a: 32). However the Munich copy also included a point paper for
a small drawloom that Hilts does not mention: the daffodil. [23]

9 Point-paper with daffodil from Lumscher’s book. Scan from Munich copy.

18
 The two point-papers represent the two different ways to provide a design for a small or
large drawloom. The daffodil includes a representation for each thread whereas Abraham’s
Offering shows only the threads that have to be lifted additionally by the draw mechanism
that cooperates with the basic weave that was probably a twill or satin setup.

The Munich copy: A weaver’s journal

That this point paper was part of Lumscher’s book and not inserted by the owner of the
Munich copy is clear from the fact that we today know of two further copies in German
libraries. During my investigation of the Munich copy, I found them in the Germanic National
Museum, Nuremberg, and in the University Library, Göttingen. In both copies both point-
papers are included and the daffodil is incorporated between the plates 36 and 37. It also is
included at the same position in the 1709 edition that was not known to Hilts. From this it is
clear that the point paper with the daffodil was part of Lumscher’s book and not inserted by
the owner.
The London copy misses not only the two point papers but also the patterns g-m.
Furthermore plate 32 is included twice, plate 36 is turned by 180 degrees and the vignette at
the end of the first part is different compared to all other copies including the 1709 one. [24]
We usually buy books with cover and a binding that keeps the pages and chapters in a
predetermined order. But this was not the way books were sold in 17th century Germany.
From the pagination style and the catchwords [25] of the Lumscher copy we learn that the
book was sold in sections that could be patched together by the customer as he found it
convenient. Such sections were sold in envelopes or interim covers and their order was not
predetermined as it is the case today.
The Munich copy is very special in yet another sense. The book got its present binding in
1748 with blank pages in between. The weaver, Johann Georg Thaller from Oberschwarzach
in Lower Frankonia and two subsequent generations of weavers, made their own designs and
notations on these additional pages. It was also used as a workshop journal including dyeing
recipes, short reports on political and private events like births of children, prices of daily
goods etc. It even records a darkening of the sun in 1783 that caused a hot summer, so much
good wine that there were not enough barrels to store it, and a cold winter with a lot of snow
and subsequent flooding. [26]

19
10 Page with notations from Johann Georg Thaller in the Lumscher copy in Munich (scan no.
75).

Notation, Code, Pattern, Image

Schneider as well as Essinger are especially interested in the coding of pictures and the
drawloom provides a precursor for technical image processing. Schneider observes in
Ziegler’s notations that already the tie-ups show which patterns could be woven (Schneider
2007: 96), which makes them distinct from the Italian or French ones. Where we see integers
on lines accompanied by samples in the Italian manuscript and a sort of mechanical
instruction in the French encyclopedia, no depiction of the pattern itself is included. [27] The
German weavers started to employ a binary drafting technique where the image is visible as
tie-up or Bild, which literally means ‘image’.
However this is only true for the special case of the Schachwitz and Kölsch fabrics with
blue warp and white weft and a straight treadling. This way to set up a loom, with distinct
colors of warp and weft, is not the usual way for checkered or patterned fabrics.

20
 The early books on weaving are not only important for notation and storage of patterns
but also for the development of drawloom mechanisms different from the line of the French
inventors. A weaver could build these devices by himself (Hilts 1990b: 12) or ask a local
carpenter.
Patricia Hilts concludes that the book of Ziegler has been published at the beginning of a
period of rapid development in multi-shaft treadle-loom weaving that took place 1677 to 1708
(Hilts 1990a: 10, 32, 45). That Ziegler’s book appears at the beginning of this period suggests
that it could have even made this development possible by introducing notations that referred
to special loom parts, making it feasible to connect the design process to the mechanism
installed in the loom. Crucially, the fact that the weavers worked on both the weaving of
images and of patterns in one fabric makes their story important for the later development of
mechanisms that simply use the draft-paper for controlling the loom directly — such as the
punched paper control of the French looms.
The books of Ziegler and Lumscher document a highly complex and intellectually
demanding development of shaft weaving with draw mechanisms and harnesses. When the
Jacquard loom prevailed, this tradition lost importance and was only carried on locally.
Jacquard’s loom can weave anything, patterned or not, and by this he has put an end to the
highly algebraical weaving method of Kölsch or Golsch.

The Algebra of Patterns

Manipulation of symbols is what algebra means for us today. It is mostly seen as a
generalization of arithmetical rules. [28] Algebra allows doing arithmetic in an algorithmic
way. Simple algebraic notations are for example 2n denoting any even number (where n is a
natural number) or 2n-1 denoting any odd number. A similar generalization happens on the
loom when two sheds are used for making plain weave. All odd-numbered threads are
collected in one shaft and all even ones in the other. That this sort of algebra is indeed what
weavers have to execute might be illustrated by an instruction to calculate satin weaves for
given repeats. In this case there is an equation system with two unknown integers to solve:
progressing number and slope number. The instruction reads: Factorize the repeat in two
integers fitting to the following conditions:
1. no number is equal to 1
2. the numbers are not equal to each other
21
 3. the numbers are prime to each other
4. the numbers are prime to any third number. (Hauptmann 1952: 15)
Weavers had to “calculate” like this and satin weaves store this sort of algebra in their
structure. [29] Ziegler’s block pattern principle furthermore allows a sort of calculus for
patterns being constructed by repeats, reverting and mirroring of pattern parts.
In fact, the Jacquard machine does not work algebraically. It is best known for the
possibility of addressing each and every warp-thread singularly. It is this feature that makes
the machine perfect for weaving portraits—like the famous portrait of Jacquard himself to
which Babbage referred when presenting the idea of the Analytical Engine of one of his
soirées (cf. Essinger 2004: 1-5). Such portraits contain no repeats—besides the structure of
the binding that is now included in the one-to-one address of the machine and not a result of
the addition of several shafts with particular groups of warp-threads.
Schneider in her account of the idea behind the punched card mechanism points to the
fact that the draft notations enable a seamless connection of formalism and mechanism: The
order of the holes in the punched cards could be directly derived from the notations on point-
paper. But this means that the possibility to code a loom depended on the notation developed
by the shaft loom weavers. As we heard, these notations were not only meant as store or
memory for patterns but also served as an instrument for pattern generation. The block system
notation parts could be combined to compose new patterns in a systematic way with building
blocks adding up to bigger units (Schneider 2007: 112). [30] The treadling and the tie-up
stand also for themselves and reflect geometrical properties of the pattern like symmetries and
rotations that will be composed from parts of the blocks by using only part of the treadling
sequence in a special order (Schneider 2007: 112-113). This close connection of code or
design and loom construction was also stressed by Hilts: “Loom-controlled pattern weaving is
a distinct branch of design in which art and technology are closely interrelated” (Hilts 1990a:
27).
Schneider is interested in weaving notations from the viewpoint of the prehistory of
technical image processing and image coding. However, her remark on the block system
makes it obvious that weavers understood and took advantage of the algebraical aspect of this
system. Ada Lovelace mentioned such an algebraical approach to the patterns in her famous
notes to the Menabrea paper as a possibility to improve weaving. She was aware that the
Jacquard machine as it stood was not able to perform reverse or mirrored operations:
22
 The mode of application of the cards, as hitherto used in the art of weaving, was not
found, however, to be sufficiently powerful for all the simplifications which it was
desirable to attain in such varied and complicated processes as those required on order
to fulfill the purposes of an Analytical Engine. A method was devised of what was
technically designated backing the cards in certain groups according to certain laws. The
object of this extension is to secure the possibility of bringing any particular card or set
of cards into use any number of times successively in the solution of one problem. (…)
The process is alluded to by M. Menabrea in page 680 and it is a very important
simplification. It has been proposed to use it for the reciprocal benefit of that art, which,
while it has itself no apparent connexion with the domains of abstract science, has yet
proved so valuable to the latter, in suggesting the principles which, in their new and
singular field of application, seem likely to have algebraical combinations not less
completely within the province of mechanism, than are all those varied intricacies of
which intersecting threads are susceptible. (Lovelace 1843: 796)
So, according to Ada, backing and reverting the card chain was a necessary improvement of
the Jacquard principle to be useful for the Analytical Engine. She then argues that this could
be fed back into the art of weaving and help producing repeated and reverted patterns.
However the block patterns of the South German weavers and the crumb-machine of Upper
Austria already implemented such variations which are not typical for drawloom weaving and
not essential for weaving pictures like the Jacquard portrait. Ada was not a weaver and
probably not acquainted with the various methods of pattern weaving. Presumably she
thought of drawlooms as the most advanced of their kind, which they are not when viewed
under the perspective of pattern algebra. Both, Babbage and Lovelace seem to have admired
the Jacquard loom for its capacity in weaving realistic images, but images like portraits do not
need repeats or symmetry. There is no pattern and no algebra.

Conclusion
Besides the line of French inventors culminating in the Jacquard machine, there have been
successful tools developed by Austrian and Southern Germany weavers to transform the
drawloom with drawboy into a drawloom that could be operated by the weaver alone. The
crumb-machine is the result of a mutual development of looms and weaving notations that
culminated in the block-weaving methods with their algebraic way to organize threads in
23
groups and subgroups piling up to geometrical symmetries. The notations make the
interaction between machine parts and the sets and groups of threads visible.
It occurs that the mechanisms forming the historical line culminating in the one from
Jacquard are all more or less failures, stored in collections devoted to tinkering mechanisms
of inventors like Vaucanson’s duck or his androids. On the other hand we have the cheap,
self-made, working and therefore outwearing mechanisms with untranslatable names invented
and used by nameless regional weavers for weaving strange-named fabrics like Kölsch or
Schachwitz. Such tools do not enter the collections of national museums as long as they are in
use, and afterwards they hardly ever survive.
On one hand, the books of Ziegler and Lumscher made the art of weaving public, and its
notation became standardized and common. With the notation close to the machine they
furthermore facilitated mutual understanding of the interaction between pattern drafting and
loom parts for non-weavers and through this enabled engineers and inventors to play around
with the mechanisms finally leading to an automated loom.
On the other hand it is also true that the inventive work that weavers did day by day was
and still is overshadowed by the new tools and the new masters taking the credit without
being weavers. All the algebra that weavers did is buried and covered, hidden and
misunderstood as a mere binary reading of something that is done better and easier by a
mechanism scanning punched cards. This is the reason why it is necessary to object to the all-
too-prominent Jacquard-“loom” as ancestor of the computer.
Finally, the weavers’ way to think algebraically entered the engineering of calculating
mechanisms. Punched cards are the means by which this algebraic thinking was transferred
from the brains of weavers to calculating engines. This means that it is the invention of
coding algebra that really matters. The reason why the loom control was so successful for
mechanic computation is that the punched cards made the binary basis of weaving obvious to
non-weavers and, looking at the fabric in the second step, made them aware of the
possibilities of such an approach with regard to algebra as a science of numerical patterns.
Weaving, Music Machines and Census have prepared as many ideas for the computer as
calculating devices. Only part of the history of ideas is collected and described in
publications of our days and in our language. A lot remains to be done. (Zemanek 1976:
19)

24
Notes
[1] A Scholar-in-Residence Grant of the Deutsches Museum conducted in the year 2006
allowed me to investigate the weaver journal. I am grateful to Helmut Hilz, head of the
library, for hints and information on the background of book selling in the 17th century.
Wilhelm Füßl made some wonderful weaver’s sketchbooks with block pattern notation
accessible from the archives of Deutsches Museum. Christina Leitner from Textile Culture
Haslach gave me the opportunity to work in the Haslach archive for the sources on the crumb-
machine and made it possible to see it in operation, to make photos and videos. The Arts and
Humanities Research Council funded the cooperation with the computer scientists and live
coders Alex McLean and Dave Griffiths on the weaving-coding connection that finally led to
this article (Grant ref. no. AH/M002403/1).
[2] “Mandements: de 1000 livres à Basile Bouchon, maître ouvrier en soie, pour l’indemniser
des dépenses qu’il avait faites en cherchant le secret de monter et faire travailler des métiers
sans le secours du cantre et de la tireuse” (Schneider 131, note 13; translation by the author.)
It should be mentioned that the loom still needed to be operated by two persons: the weaver
and someone pushing forward the punched cards (Bohnsack 1993: 31).
[3] Cf. Bohnsack 1993:31 and http://history-computer.com/Dreamers/Bouchon.html without
further reference.
[4] Cf. Schneider 142; cf. also http://history-computer.com/Dreamers/Vaucanson.html
4.3.2016 13:09.
[5] It is often said that Jacquard as a child had to work as a drawboy himself in the workshop
of his father. However, there is no direct evidence and some of the stories about his youth are
legends (Schneider 263). It is documented, that his mother, Antoinette Rive, worked as
tireuse, liseuse du dessin and faiseuse de lacs in the workshop of her husband who was a silk
master weaver operating three huge drawlooms. For biographical information on Jacquard cf.
Schneider 263, note 12, and Essinger 2004: 22-25.
[6] “He took the idea of holes in paper as means of transmitting information from Bouchon,
the punched cards and the hooks from Falcon, the idea of a self-acting machine from
Vaucanson and its implementation as an additional device from the drum machine and thus
also from Vaucanson“ (Bohnsack 38; translation by the author).

25
[7] Almut Bohnsack was professor for Textile Studies at the University of Osnabrück and
installed a complete Jacquard workshop in the University premises with card supply and
punching machine. I had the opportunity to work on the loom myself. Without regular
operation the loom gets stiff and unworkable and a lot of effort and technical knowledge is
needed to make it ready for take-off again.
[8] Essinger 2004: 85. He goes on: “This type of drum was, of course, the basis for the control
system of Jacques de Vaucanson’s loom.” But this is wrong. As we already heard,
Vaucansons cylinder was perforated all over and a sheet of punched paper was wrapped
around, scanned by pegs that lifted the respective warp threads.
[9] The Jacquard loom became known in this area as “Lyon machine” from around 1825
onwards.
[10] The term ‘mill’ refers to the watermills of the area and not to textile factories.
[11] The seemingly clear distinction of digital and analog is a result of a long debate ending in
a convention not to talk about states in-between (cf. Pias 2005). This then enables a distinct
definition as well as the often-stated higher precision of digital signals. In the information
sciences and technology a signal is called analog if it transmits the information by means of a
proportional ratio. Signals are digital and containers of information when they are solely
coded as natural numbers (Serres and Farouki 2001: 175). Often the difference of digital and
analogue clocks is used to explain this allegedly fundamental distinction. But analogue clocks
use gears that are discontinuous and work with the escapement to cut the continuous time into
countable pieces: tick-tock. Even Norbert Wiener once stated: “Every digital device is really
an analogical device” (cf. Pias 2003: 158).
[12] Zemanek gave no source. The two units are (1) in the Museum of Weaving in the Textile
Centre Haslach, Austria, and (2) in the State Museum of Upper Austria, Linz.
[13] Randell, in a short summary of the article of Kreindl, misunderstood the date of
invention. The machine presented by Kreindl was made in 1740, but it was one of the last of
its kind and the invention must have been made considerably earlier. Kreindl suggests a date
around 1680 and not „in or before 1740“, as Randell says (cf. Randell 1982: 484).
[14] Only Randell when referring to Bouchon as the first to use perforated tape for
ornamental patterns mentions the article of Kreindl (1935) in a footnote (1982: 4). The
machine is not discussed but the annotated bibliography gives a short summary (cf. note 13).

26
[15] Ganzhorn and Walther call the parts of the programming mechanism “wooden pegs”
(Holzbrettchen) similar to the ones in Falcon’s machine (1985: 45; cf. for Falcon 1975: 34
and 1985: 43).
[16] The manuscript was written by the weaver Franz Xaver Friepes around 1799 and
contains an introduction, more than 300 threading drafts, more than 400 tie-ups and around
200 draw-downs for weaving Schachwitz, a fabric decorated with flowers and ornaments in
the typical geometrical style of the region (cf. Oberösterreichischer Musealverein 1937: 29-
30).
[17] Essinger wrongly assumes that the drawloom is the first loom „that made it possible to
create a pattern“. (2004: 10) Obviously, he employs the term ‚pattern’ with the meaning of
‚image’. Patterns can of course be created with simple shaft looms. And to weave repeated
‚images’ that is: patterns hat depict something like stars or flowers, is also possible with shaft
looms.
[18] Cf. Library of The Austrian Museum of Folk Life and Folk Art, Vienna.
[19] Cf. Adam 1973: 134 and note [16]
[20] The catalogue of the exhibition ‘Textiles Open Letter’ pretends to present a copy of
Ziegler’s book from 1677 on pages 242 and 243 belonging to the CSROT library of Seth
Siegelaub. However, as the title page presented in the catalogue shows, this is a late edition of
Lumscher’s book from 1725 (Frank and Watson 2015: 242). There is no depiction of a loom
in Ziegler’s book.
[21] Throughout the two publications Hilts misspells the name as „Nathaniel“.
[22] Patricia Hilts knows the editions from 1708, 1711, and 1720 and argues that Lumscher
refers to these when he writes in the edition of 1725 that 4000 copies were sold in three
editions. However, there is also an edition from 1709 and an edition with minor corrections
from 1708. If we do not consider the last one as an edition in itself, the first editions from
1708, 1709 and 1711 span over only three years which makes the sales an even better success.
[23] The copy in Munich is listed in the library catalogue with Marx Ziegler as author and
Nathanael Lumscher as publisher. The whole book and manuscript is presented online at
http://digital.bib-
bvb.de/webclient/DeliveryManager?custom_att_2=simple_viewer&pid=2398723. A short
introduction and overview gives Harlizius-Klück 2007.

27
[24] Dorothea Peters suggests that the V&A vignette was printed from a fragile woodcut that
broke and subsequently was replaced by the more sturdy one we see in the other copies and
also later in the 1709 print (oral conversation at Deutsches Museum in 2007).
[25] On the text pages the first word of a page is printed at the end of a separate last line on
the preceding page (in German: Kustoden).
[26] The transcription reads: “Im Jahr 1783: ist die Sonn den Somer so Verfinster / =t
geweßen und einen Nebell und gehab daß es einen / schrecken un der dem Volck gemacht
habe und war / ein solges thüres Jahr daß Mann glaubte es müste / Nun alles Verterben und
war ein so gutes Wein / Jahr daß Nun Faß Zu Wenig waren einzuthuen / Der Eimer habe
gegolten .2. gulten .2. taller und war / so gut daß die trauben wie die Roßinen geweßen seynt /
geweßen dar auff ist Nun erfolgt ein so differ / schnee den Winder Zum Denck mahl ist Bett
stund an / gestelt worten Zu Besorgen ein großes Waßer wie / Nun auch”. Obviously this
refers to the effects of the eruption of the Laki, a volcanic fissure in Iceland that caused eight
months of emissions of sulfuric aerosols and ash blown southeast as a fog so thick that ships
could not navigate. The book clearly demonstrates that local weavers were not as poor and
illiterate as some histories of the trade suggest.
[27] Schneider (2007) compares different notation systems for weaving under the perspective
of technical image processing on the pages 83-124.
[28] There is, however, a discussion about the relationship of arithmetic and algebra showing
that different cultures have different traditions and concepts of algebra. For example
Subramaniam and Banerjee (2011) state that algebra is rather a foundation than a
generalization of arithmetic. Possible historical and cultural dependencies of the algebra of
patterns and the development of algebra will be pursued in an ERC Consolidator Grant at the
Deutsches Museum in Munich (PENELOPE-682711, principal investigator: Ellen Harlizius-
Klück).
[29] There is a so-called geometrical algebra in Ancient Greece, based on a specific number
theory called dyadic arithmetic or „theory of odd and even“. It includes all arithmetical rules
necessary for pattern calculations and the fact that Plato mentions the odd-even distinction
twice in the context of weaving is probably no accident. Cf. Plato, Lysis 206e-208d,
Statesman 258c, Harlizius-Klück 2004: 93-106.
[30] Schneider says, the Schachwitz notations did not look like fabric patterns but like music
notations (2007: 85). The similarity might be explained by the fact that the guilds in Southern
28
Germany were part of a distinct custom. Craftsmen (masters) like weavers, carpenters,
joiners, woodcarvers, met in their spare time for composing and singing lyric poetry
according to strict and artful rules that were coded in tabulatures, forerunners of the staff-lines
we use today and similar to the notations that the weavers used for composing their patterns.
These groups were called mastersingers (Meistersinger).

Bibliography

Adam, A. 2004 (1973). Vom himmlischen Uhrwerk zur statistischen Fabrik. Technical
Museum Vienna, Linz: Trauner (Vienna: Munk).

Arrighi, G. 1986 (ed). Un Manuale secentesco dei Testori Lucchesi (Ms. 3311/1 della
Biblioteca Statale di Lucca). Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi.

Becker, J. 2009. Pattern and loom. A practical study of the development of weaving
techniques in China, Western Asia and Europe. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Wagner (online at:
www.donwagner.dk)

Bohnsack, A. 1993. Der Jacquard-Webstuhl. Munich: Deutsches Museum.

Dasgupta, S. 2014. It began with Babbage: The Genesis of Computer Science. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Davis, M. and Davis, V. 2005. “Mistaken Ancestry: The Jacquard and the Computer.”
TEXTILE; The Journal of Cloth and Culture, 3(1): 76-87.

Essinger, J. 2004. Jacquard’s Web. How a hand loom led to the birth of the information age.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fava-Verde, J.-F. 2011. Silk and Innovation: The Jacquard Loom in the Age of the Industrial
Revolution. N.p.: Histancia.

29
Frank, R. and Watson, G. (eds.) 2015. Textiles Open Letter. Berlin: Sternberg Press.

Ganzhorn, K. and Walter, W. 1984. Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Datenverarbeitung.

Revised and extended ed. (first ed. 1966) Schauenburg: Lahr.

Glafey, H. 1937. Textil-Lexicon. Handwörterbuch der gesamten Textilkunde. Stuttgart: DVA.

Griffiths, T., Hunt, P. A. and O’Brien, P. 1992. “Inventive Activity in the British Textile
Industry: 1700-1800.” The Journal of Economic History 52 (4): 881-906.

Harlizius-Klück, E. 2007. “Leben und Weben im 18. Jahrhundert. Weberbuch und

Manuskript aus der Bibliothek des Deutschen Museums”. In Kultur & Technik 3: 35-37.
Online: http://www.deutsches-
museum.de/fileadmin/Content/data/020_Dokumente/040_KuT_Artikel/2007/31-3-35.pdf.

Harlizius-Klück, E. 2012. “Brösel”. In Günzel, S. (ed.) Lexikon der Raumphilosophie.

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 63.

Hauptmann, B. 1952. Gewebetechnik: Bindungslehre Teil I. Einfache Schaftgewebe. Leipzig:

Fachbuchverlag.

Hilts, P. 1990a. The Weavers Art Revealed. Facsimile, Translation and Study of the First Two
Published Books on Weaving: Marx Ziegler’s Weber Kunst und Bild Buch (1677) and
Nathaniel Lumscher’s Neu eingerichtetes Weber Kunst und Bild Buch (1708). Part I: Marx
Ziegler’s Weber Kunst und Bild Buch, Ars Textrina 13. Winnipeg.

Hilts, P. 1990b. The Weavers Art Revealed. Facsimile, Translation and Study of the First Two
Published Books on Weaving: Marx Ziegler’s Weber Kunst und Bild Buch (1677) and
Nathaniel Lumscher’s Neu eingerichtetes Weber Kunst und Bild Buch (1708). Part II:
Nathaniel Lumscher’s Neu eingerichtetes Weber Kunst und Bild Buch, Ars Textrina 14.
Winnipeg.

30
Kinzer, H. 1908 (1900). Technologie der Handweberei. Ein Lehr- und Lernbehelf für
Webeschulen, gewerbliche und höhere technische Schulen, sowie zum Selbstunterrichte für
Webereibeflissene. II. Theil: Die Jacquardweberei. Rev. and extended ed. Vienna: Graeser.

Kreindl, F. 1935. “Jacquards Prinzip bereits 200 Jahre alt?” Sonderdruck aus Melliand
Textilberichte, 2: 1-2.

Lovelace, A. 1843. “Notes by the Translator.” Scientific Memoirs Vol. III, Article XXIX,
691-731. London: Taylor.

Lumscher, N. 1708. Neu eingerichtetes Weber Kunst und Bild Buch Worinnen zu finden wie
man künstlich weben (oder würcken) solle von den 2. schäfftigen an bis auf das 32. schäfftige
… Bayreuth: Lumscher.

Lumscher, N. 1709. Neu hervorkommendes Weber Kunst und Bild Buch Worinnen zu finden
wie man künstlich weben (oder würcken) solle von den 2. schäfftigen an bis auf das 32.
schäfftige … Culmbach: Lumscher.

Oberösterreichischer Musealverein 1937. Berichte der wissenschaftlichen Landesanstalten.

Online at: http://www.zobodat.at/pdf/JOM_88_0017-0041.pdf

Paulinyi, A. 1989. Industrielle Revolution. Vom Ursprung der modernen Technik. Reinbek:
Rowohlt.

Pias, C. (ed) 2003. Cybernetics/Kybernetic. The Macy-Conferences 1946-1953. Vol. 1.

Berlin: diaphanes.

Pias, C. 2005. “Analog, Digital, and the Cybernetic Illusion.” Kybernetes 34 (3/4): 543-550.

Plant, S. 1995. “The Future Looms: Weaving Women and Cybernetics.” Body & Society 1(3-
4): 45-64.

31
Randell, B. (ed.) 1975. The Origins of Digital Computers. Selected Papers.
Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.

Schneider, B. 2007. Textiles Prozessieren. Eine Mediengeschichte der Lochkartenweberei.

Zurich and Berlin: diaphanes.

Serres, M. and Farouki, N. (eds.) 2001. Thesaurus der exakten Wissenschaften. Frankfurt:
Zweitausendeins.

Subramaniam, K. and Banerjee, R. 2011. “The Arithmetic-Algebra Connection: A Historical-

Paedagogical Perspective.” Cai, J. and Knuth, E. (eds) Early Algebraization: A Global
Dialogue from Multiple Perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer 87-101.

Verma, S. 2015. The little Book of Beginnings and Breakthroughs in Science. New Delhi:
Orient Publishing.

Zemanek, H. 1976. “Computer Prehistory and History in Central Europe.” American

Federation of Information Processing Societies (AFIPS) Conference Proceedings 45: 15-20.

Zemanek, H. 1991a. Weltmacht Computer: Weltreich der Information. Esslingen and Munich:
Bechtle.

Zemanek, H. 1991b. “Musterverarbeitung: Datenverarbeitung, Design und Information als

digitale Künste.” Eva Riedl: Entwürfe und Objekte 1976-1991. Vienna: Eigenverlag der
Museen der Stadt Wien. 7-18.

Zemanek, H. 1992. Das geistige Umfeld der Informationstechnik. Berlin/Heidelberg/New

York: Springer.

Ziegler, M. 1677. Weber Kunst und Bild Buch. Das ist: Eine gründliche Beschreibung wie
man künstlich unterrichten und weben (oder würcken) solle von dem 2. schäfftigen an biß auf
das 32. schäfftige … Augsburg: Schultes.
32