[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [BKARTS] Hemp

Doug, et. al.

This is not an attack, but it is a caution.

>I guess what I meant when I was referring to hemp paper as being coarse
>and rigid (granted, these terms are subjective), was that, if we're
>talking about historic sources of paper furnish, most-if not all from
>what I've read- came from textile/recycled sources rather than from the
>raw fiber itself.

There is a very good reason for that.  Raw materials are incredibly
strong; it takes a very weak, falling apart rag to make a strong sheet
of paper in anything resembling a useful time frame (I am talking about
stampmills now, not hollanders.)

>If the source for hemp fiber was ropes....

Apparently you didn't read all of my posting yesterday; rope was only
one of the materials I specified as having been made from hemp.

Although hemp was important to the rope industry.  Doug, since your
in Indiana now (maybe born and bred, for all I know) did you know that
Indiana was one of the states where farmers were encouraged to grow hemp
during WW-II, after the fall of Manila?

The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture put out a short film entitled _Hemp for
Victory_ and provided hemp seeds and subsidies to any farmer who would
grow that filthy weed.... :-)

They didn't encourage farmers to grow flax for making rope.  Not strong
enough.  Look at the old specifications for naval stores, rope.

>In terms of Asian paper traditions, I believe paper fibers were sourced
>from raw materials.

In general, that is correct, although by the time papermaking knowledge had
traveled through Japan and Korea to Samarkand and Baghdad, this was beginning
to evolve.

>Preparation of these fibers was also far more meticulous than in the West.

What is the time frame here?  Early European paper had to compete in the
market place with parchment/vellum as a writing surface, so preparation
had to be very meticulous.  It actually took more work time to produce a
European sheet of paper than an Asian sheet, until the late 17th - early
18th centuries.

>Also, I stand by the fact that paper, up until what I've seen recently
>in "eco-friendly" stationery stores, was not made solely of hemp.

I've looked this posting over a couple of times, but haven't yet found
the source(s) for your assertion that it is a 'fact.'

>There must be a reason for this and I bet it has something to do with the
>finished product not being very pleasing to write on/look at/print on.

Ah; 'fact' = 'wishful thinking.'

>Hemp is a bast fiber and as such includes all sorts of associated plant
>cells which, if not processed to eliminate, offer little bonding
>strength in the final paper.  Japanese kozo is also a bast fiber but
>they pick all the foreign bits out.

The natural gums & pectins are fine for making bonds.  Consider tapa
or papel de amate.  Or papyrus.

>There is clearly a difference between Eastern and Western and historic
>and contemporary papers all utilizing the same botanical fibers.
>Processing plays a huge part.
>Doug Sanders

Absolutely; you'll get no argument from me about that.


Thompson Conservation Lab.
7549 N. Fenwick
Portland, Oregon  97217

503/735-3942  (ph/fax)


"The lyfe so short; the craft so long to lerne."
Chaucer  _Parlement of Foules_ 1386

            BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
      For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
            resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:

        Archive maintained and suppported by Conservation OnLine

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]