Tags
18th century, cleaning, common people, Fort Ticonderoga, interpretation, living history, mops, women's history, women's work
They’re pretty consistent: mops appear to be made of fibers attached to a handle. These look like they’re simple string mops. A stick and string? A stick and rags strips? Something along those lines. But what kind of string? What kind of fiber? How was it attached?
I’ll confess that I have been too lazy to search collection for extant mops– no, seriously, if someone offered me an 18th century mop my first reaction after “Absolutely!” would be, “Wait a second…how can there be anything left of an 18th century mop? My own mops don’t last all that long….” so I assumed no such critter exists in captivity (feel free to prove me wrong, I could use an assist here). Instead, I went ahead with the daft notion of replicating what I saw in images.
Sandby helpfully supplies us with mop sellers who carry fuzziness on a stick. Most likely wool, since sheep were plentiful and cotton expensive in this period. But maybe not. In any case, a simple business.

Supplies assembled
After work on Saturday, I went mop-top-shopping. It was not one stop. An internal rant developed about how companies can call anything “wool” that is less than 100% wool, but I managed to contain myself and with enough hunting turned up hero cord, 100% wool yarn and 100% cotton yarn as well as dowels. Sadly, I could not find wool roving in any color but grey. So, making a mop from craft and hardware store supplies is a pretty easy thing, especially when you don’t have many tools to complicate the business.
This is not my first rodeo where string is concerned, so I wrapped the yarn around a cutting board just the way you’d make a pom pom. How else will you get it all the same length (more or less)? The result: a somewhat sad hank in search of purpose, tied off in the more-or-less middle of the strands.
Secured temporarily with a rubber band, I tied the hank to the dowel with hemp cord. Then I turned the wool (and later cotton) back over itself, and tied it off again. I pulled as tight as I could manage, much to the chagrin of my now-blistered pinky finger. Small price to pay, though, for two new entrants in the experimental archaeology of cleaning. As I looked at the images in Sandby’s drawing and in the prints, I was pretty confident the mops are not tied off again in this second way, but one band didn’t seem secure enough. So, yet another compromise, but one that I hope will result in less hilarity from losing mop heads in the midst of washing floors.
Now, if I would but turn my attention to the lint, string, and yarn scattered about my floor at home…
What about rag strips? As I looked at the drawings they seemed to be rather ruffle about the heads, which made me wonder if that was the raw bits of wool? You are definitely not at your first rodeo, but hello, some of us don’t even know which is the business end of the steer….
I look forward to hearing more!
Nancy N
Yup, we talked about strips of linen rags. Now the only hold up is finding the box of linen to cut up…..
Oh, yeah, right and given that I can’t find enough linen in the stash to make a shirt I need, I know the Supply issue well……
Thanks!
N
Another thought about connecting mop head with mop handle. Turners were pretty common on the ground, as were whittlers. What if the mop handle had a turned or whittled groove or ditch in it to help hold the first tie-on? I know, lack of evidence…
Very best,
Natalie in KY
No evidence, but I agree with the principle. Sadly, I lack the tools and wherewithal at the moment, but I think it’s the next iteration. Mop 2.0, perhaps.
Yes, linen rags seems good choice: https://cz.pinterest.com/pin/339318153154398668/ but it looks more like square pieces than strips.
Pingback: On Guard, March 19th, 1775 – A Photo Essay – our girl history
Pingback: The Dirt on Ti | Kitty Calash