Talk:Constrictor knot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constrictor knot article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of WikiProject Knots, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to knots. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Notice: Wikipedia:WikiProject Knots Sample Article
	This article is the sample article for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Knots. Please take a look at the guidelines on that page before editing this article. Thanks.

Contents 1 Ancient? 2 Miller's knot confusion 3 Om Knutar verification request 4 #1253 considered Constrictor variation?

[edit] Ancient?

Ashley, Clifford W. (1944). Ashley's Book of Knots. Doubleday & Company, Inc, 34 knot #176. ISBN 0-385-04025-3. , claims the invention of this knot. In view of the meticulousness of Ashley in researching and giving credit, I think he must be given the benefit of the doubt. Unless, of course, someone can give a reference predating Ashley. Too Old 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

While I don't entirely resist giving Clifford Ashley some credit, I think for such a simple knot the issue of origin is more nuanced than one purely of first published reference. In History and Science of Knots. World Scientific. ISBN 981-02-2469-9, chapter two "Why Knot? Some Speculations on the Earliest Knots", page 28, Charles Warner writes:

My guess would be that every simple knot possible has already been tied somewhere, by someone, at some time, very likely many times. There is nothing new under the sun! Modern claims to have been the first to have invented a simple knot are difficult to sustain. Just about all that anyone can hope to claim is that the knot has not been published in any common knotting publication. Since only a very small proportion of the world's knotting activities over the millennia has ever been written down, no other claim to 'originality' is likely to be valid.

And so, regarding the specifics of this case, here's what Ashley has to say about the constrictor knot at its main entry, #1249 (caps original):

1249. The CONSTRICTOR KNOT. At the time when the sinnets of Chapter 39 were being made there was no knot that would hold secure the large number of strands that were required for some of them. For a while seizings were employed, which served the purpose well but took too much time to tie. Then the knot shown here was evolved, which proved in every way adequate...

Given the Constrictor's similarity in form and method to a number of similar binding knots, particularly the Strangle knot (#1239) and Miller's Knot(1) (#1241), it is reasonably clear why he used the word "evolved". Contrast this with his description for knot #1452, which he left unnamed but which is now universally referred to as the Ashley bend which starts out: "1452. (2/3/34) Another original bend..." It is a more complex, novel knot which he both listed the date of his invention as well as specifically claimed originality.

As far as "predating references", Geoffrey Budworth (co-founder and past president of International Guild of Knot Tyers) in The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Knots & Ropework ISBN 0-681-60694-0, says on pages 12-13:

Preserved in the medical collections of the 4th century AD Greek physician Oreibasius of Pergamum are 18 knots, originally described three centuries earlier by Heraklas as surgeons' knots. These are regrettably not illustraed but have been interpreted to include the overhand knot, reef (square) knot, the clove hitch, a noose, a fisherman's loop knot, the jug, jar or bottle sling, Tom Fool's knot, a cat's cradle, the true lover's knot, and -- quite possibly -- the constrictor knot

Budworth further expands on this and comments on Ashley's role with regard to the contstrictor knot's origin on page 159 where he's describing the constrictor itself:

...The ancient Greeks may have used it for surgical slings, and it could well be the "gunner's knot" that in later centuries seized the necks of flannel-bag gunpowder cartridges. It was re-discovered and popularized by Clifford Ashley in 1944...

I propose that origin be changed to either "Ancient, reintroduced by Clifford Ashley" or "Unknown". Personally I'd think the latter would be more appropriate, with additions to the article proper noting the information from Budworth and giving proper credit to Ashley for reintroducing it in modern times.

--Dfred 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

During a fairly major rewrite of the page I included some of the relevant info from above... --Dfred 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miller's knot confusion

this page was merged from Miller's knot and constrictor knot--LadyofHats 00:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--Nigelj 14:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Miller's knot is not the same thing as Constrictor knot. Here is an example of the former: http://gorp.away.com/gorp/publishers/menasha/knot0202b.htm Rracecarr 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Om Knutar verification request

As noted in the Notes and references section of the article, verification of the claim that the timmerknut discussed in Om Knutar is actually the constrictor is requested from a Swedish speaker familiar with knots. Om Knutar is available in photographed form at Projekt Runeberg (http://runeberg.org/knutar/) with the specific reference to the timmerknut apparently on page 78. The Constrictor knot is definitely not one of the illustrated knots, but I'm assuming the text probably describes the Constrictor and is what Budworth was referring to in his book. Thanks! --Dfred 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I had this verified elsewhere and removed request in article. If someone wants to provide a complete translation of the relevant paragraph, it would still be appreciated. --Dfred 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #1253 considered Constrictor variation?

I removed the following text from the article as I was not exactly sure how it should be interpreted. It was added by 216.194.229.6.

The most robust form is #1253, which begins with an Overhand hitch oriented like the Clove hitch (sometimes a mistaken illustration for this).

Though similar in structure, I'm not sure whether #1253 qualifies as a variation of the Constrictor.. I may be mistaken, but since it is based on the "overhand hitch" it can only be tied with access to an end of the line unlike the other members of the constrictor family... --Dfred 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)