Today, I want to demonstrate a modern binding based on the traditional Ethiopian binding.
This is often described as the two-needle Coptic binding.
During the sewing, I'll explain why I think this is not the best name to use and unfair on the Ethiopian binding
tradition. My friend Robin told me about a fantastic Ethiopian bible held at the National Library of Australia,
and she suggested making a model of this binding might make a great project.
While I research it more, I thought I should make a video on the modern take of this style and correct some of my
mistakes in my Coptic binding video.
I'll start by folding some paper and making some boards.
I'm going to use some offcuts from my last order of Clairbook.
I'll cut these in half and make some little landscape format books.
To minimize swell, I'm using thick sections.
And I'm folding six sheets per section, and I'll fold eight sections.
I'll cut the board to the same height as the paper - no squares at the head and tail - and add a few millimetres at
the fore edge. I'll drum the covering materials on the boards.
Check out my video and how to cut boards effortlessly and how to drum covering materials onto board to avoid warping.
I'm skimming over this since I've got dedicated videos on it.
The early history of bookbinding is well documented in "The Archeology of Medieval Bookbinding" by Szirmai.
The first two chapters of the book cover single- and multi- quire Coptic bindings.
The early history of the codex form of the book is closely linked to the early history of Christianity.
The Romans and Egyptians used scrolls, while Christians adopted this new technology, called the codex, to capture
the word of God.
They didn't start from scratch, and people will point to Roman wax tablets as an early form of the codex.
And papyrus was a common early material, as can be seen in the Nag Hammadi codices.
The distinguishing features of Ethiopian bookbinding are the use of paired sewing stations and the board attachment
method. Traditional Ethiopian bookbinding used wooden boards, and the boards were attached by the sewing thread
entering holes in the edge of the board.
We're not using wooden boards, and it's not practical to make holes in the edges of thin grey board.
So, in this binding, we'll just improvise and use the same improvised method used in the modern Coptic style binding.
The paired sewing stations is the really interesting feature of this style of binding.
A single pair was common on small books such as the main demonstration in this video, but two or three pairs and more
were used on larger books, making a more solid binding.
While it's suggested that the sewing could be done with one needle, it's much easier and more likely that two needles
were used. My understanding is that these bindings are still made today, and if by chance an Ethiopian bookbinder
sees this video, and they wouldn't mind correcting any of my mistakes, that would be fantastic.
For the small book I'm making, I'll put the sewing holes 15 millimetres, or half an inch, in from the head and tail, and
I'll use my usual hole punching template to pre-punch the holes.
And I'll make 1.5 millimetre holes in the boards, using a screw punch, about 10 millimetres in from the edge.
It's very popular to start with thread that's a different colour at each sewing station.
I'm using a fairly thick thread about 0.8 millimetres thick, which also highlights the braided look of the sewing
on the spine.
I coloured a piece of the thread with brown acrylic ink.
You could make it any colour you want.
And I join this to an uncoloured piece with a square knot.
I put a needle on each end, and from the inside of the first section, I go out each sewing station with the
needles, leaving the square knot in the center of the first section.
Attach the boards the same way as your favorite Coptic-style binding method.
I go in from the outside of the board, wrap the thread around itself at the edge of the board and then go back
inside the first section.
A couple of things to note here.
In the traditional binding with the wooden boards, there wouldn't be a knot between the first section and the boards.
I think the extra space made by the knot makes the binding a little bit floppier, but it's also needed to lock the
attachment to the boards.
The second is that I go back into the first section, which results in three thicknesses of thread being inside this
section. Most people attach the second section after attaching the boards.
If you want to do that, then go ahead.
I'm not positive, but I think going back into the first section adds some stability to the board attachment and
starts the chain of link stitches off better.
There is no correct way to do this, and I'll discuss variability in historical bindings in a minute.
Assuming you've gone back into the first section, the threads will lay parallel to each other inside the section,
come back out the sewing stations and go up into the second section, go through the section and out the sewing stations
and link down to below the section below.
Either go from the outside in or inside out - whichever you prefer - but once you choose, stick with it.
This will form a loop as the thread has pulled through, and you go back up through the loop.
Don't pull it too tight to make the chain of link stitches look nice.
Now attach the third section and repeat.
I want to talk about terminology.
I try and be careful with the terminology I use and stay as close to the broadly accepted use in the bookbinding
community as I can.
I wasn't very careful in my Coptic binding video and fell into a common usage of the internet, which I think is
misleading and can cause confusion for describing other bindings.
It's common to see people say Coptic sewn book, implying the name for the link stitch is the Coptic stitch.
This is confusing.
Many bindings use the link stitch and it doesn't make them Coptic-style bindings.
And in a real Coptic binding, there are many more structural elements to consider than the sewing.
So going forward, I'll try and only talk about the catch up stitch as a link stitch - and there's more than one
variation of this - and only use the word "Coptic" in relation to the binding.
And I'll throw in the word "style" every so often because I'm not a Coptic Christian.
So of course, it's not a genuine Coptic binding, just done in the style of.
From Szirmai, I learned that Christianity reached Ethiopia in the 4th century as the Coptic Church spread across
Africa, but the Arab conquest of Egypt isolated Ethiopia from their Christian origins for hundreds of years.
Thus developed the Ethiopian Christian Church and this distinctive style of binding.
Thus, I think it's a bit of a disservice to call this binding style a two-needle Coptic binding.
I think just Ethiopian binding or two-needle Ethiopian binding is more appropriate.
One last piece of historical information.
Since Szirmai was published, there's been surveys and studies of Ethiopian bindings.
These have found significant variation of sewing and board attachment methods.
This is especially not surprising in early bindings.
For instance, there are examples of three-station sewing methods, so we should be careful with statements about the
correct way of doing something.
And today we're just binding in the style of, and we can and should try things out and be creative.
Of course, we then get to live with the result, and sometimes our creativity may not be completely functional.
But if your book is an object to be admired rather than used, that's fine, too.
The weakness in this style of binding - and all the early binding styles from the eastern Mediterranean and northern
Africa - is the weak board attachment.
And this was addressed by the addition of sewing supports in western European binding, while these earlier binding
traditions mostly continued without sewing support and relied on being relatively easy to repair.
After the final section has been added, the back board is attached using the same method as at the start.
Once the board is attached, the final link stitch is made and the thread goes back inside the final section and you
can join them up with a knot to finish off.
The knot I used was a sort of single fisherman's bend.
A Weaver's knot would be a good choice, too.
For a larger book, just add sewing stations in pairs, and for each pair, add a thread and two needles.
If you're thinking why not do one pair, then the other, I suggest you give it a go and see for yourself which is
easier. If it is easier for you, then go ahead and do it.
I tried, and I think it's much easier not having the other sections in the way above the one being added.
Since the link stitches are not all at the ends of the book, The curved needles make the sewing easier, but curved
needles are a pain in the neck, so I only use them when I have to.
And someone's going to ask, what's the difference between the link stick and a kettle stitch?
In this case, they're the same.
However, the name kettle stitch is derived from the German , and when these bindings were first being made, I don't
think there was any binding in the German regions yet.
When I'm working in the context of supported sewing, I'll use "link stitch" to mean a stitch joining sections where
the thread does not change sections, while in the "kettle stitch" the thread moves from one section to another.
Unfortunately, I kept putting my head in front of the camera for the end of the four sewing station book, but I'm sure
you've got the idea.
Once I've done more research and I've found a good example, I'll do a video of an historical model of an Ethiopian
binding with wooden boards, which might be covered, and might have a headband.
As always, I really appreciate you hitting the like button.
You can support the making of more videos like this through Patreon.
If you want to be notified of my future videos, please hit the Subscribe button and select the notification bell.
Until next time, cheerio.