I have talked at length about the relative lack of embroidery in Viking Age finds, but I am going to summarize those earlier discussions here as a preface to some new thoughts.

Embroidery as a whole in the Viking Age is exceptionally rare, compared to the thousands of textile finds that we have.  Figurative embroidery (rather than just a line of stem stitches, such as that that covers a hem seam at Birka) is even more rare.  Of the few samples we do have, some can possibly be attributed to other cultures (such as some of the glorious work from Oseberg being possibly Saxon, Mammen has also been considered as such by some authors, the metal thread embroidery from Valsgarde is thought to either be Byzantine or Slavic, or a copy of the work of those cultures).  Even if all of these were native work, the number of these items is minuscule compared to the over all body of textile finds from the period.

It also is smaller than the number of woven patterns in period.  (I have started a collection of this evidence here:  http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/patterned-weaves-preliminary-data ).  Tablet weaving itself is rare compared to prior periods, but that too is a type of woven patterning that exceeds the number of embroidery finds.

I have often wondered why this was the case.  To a modern person, embroidery is an easier art to adopt (and certainly needs less in the way of space or equipment), but in period weaving was dominant way to decorate textiles.  I have seen it argued that this was not a culture of linear art (they were not taught to draw from a young age as we were), and that makes sense.  I also wonder if there was something symbolic in it (we know that many ancient cultures have textile arts playing a prominent role in their mythology), or perhaps ritual.

As I read more about other cultures, times and areas, I see that this lack of embroidery in Northern Europe is reflected elsewhere as well.  Johanna Banck-Burgess notes the same phenomena in Central Europe in early Celtic works as well (this shows up in both her work on the Hochdorf burial and in the article "Prehistoric textile patterns: transfer with obstruction").  There we have various types of patterned weaving that are a result of manipulation of the web on the loom (whether it be by the turn of cards in tablet weaving, or supplemental threads used in soumak-like techniques or insertion of metal rings into the the weave of the cloth).  Embroidery is completely absent in some areas in early Celtic cultures, and very rare in others.

And you know what?  It does not stop there.  In the article, "Unravelling the Tangled Threads of Ancient Embroidery" by Kerstin Droß-Krüpe and Annette Paetz, the idea that mistranslation might play a role in perceptions of profuse embroidery in the ancient world.  I found this rather riveting to read because it very much parallels the conclusions I have come to about later textiles as well, that the number of embroidered items are very low compared to textiles that are either undecorated or decorated by means of weaving.

And of course, now I want to know the why of this even more.

If you are a regular around here you will have seen my numerous posts on over-embellishment by reenactors (and know that at one time I too fell into that trap), but you will also see my rationale for NOT employing things such as lavish embroidery to a period kit.

This topic is typically heated in online forums and is accompanied by every Woulda/Coulda/Shoulda that one can imagine.  

Well, I discovered yesterday that these conversations even happen in later period forums (though, I have to say, with far less vehemence than some I am used to).  I am going to link a thread below for the Elizabethan Costume group on Facebook because the conversation is educational, civil and very, very similar in context to the things earlier period reenactors should be considering when planning a kit. The conversation includes discussion on social status, expectations of that, and more.  (Also, poke around this forum if you have any interest at all in later historical costume.  There are WONDERFUL samples of people's work and many engaging discussions!)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/29374273995/permalink/10155428435723996/

 I have friends who joke about me counting threads in cloth.  I can readily laugh with them about it because textiles are a passion for me.  In part, because the historic construction of cloth fascinates me, but in part also because this is one of the few facets of Viking costume for which we have a definitive model.  Most of us who recreate these ancient bits of clothing know that we do so with great limitations regarding what patterning, cut and construction was used (particularly when it comes to women's dress).  There is always a great deal of guesswork involved on part of the costumer.

The cloth itself, however, we have thousands of examples of.  We know what this cloth looked like, we can see, even today, the texture and quality of textiles that the early Norse women crafted.  My patterning of garments is largely guesswork, but the cloth itself I can at least analyze and try to attempt to find textiles that bear similar visual qualities, including thread count.  Of course, one can bring up the argument that there are still faults with this (such as wrong breed of sheep or improper width of yarn leading to a more dense or loose cloth than that of a specific period example).  I still believe that studying the fabric yields us a wealth of information about dress in the past and can help us better reach the goal of more faithfully reproducing it.

One of the hardest things that I had to overcome (and I have mentioned this in past entries), is that notion that the Viking Era Norse were barbarians, that their craft was crude and clumsy.  While that might be true in some areas, the wealth of extant textiles does not bear this out.  There were fabrics, of wool, that had thread counts in excess of 150 threads per inch in the warp.  That cloth was exceptionally fine, even by today's standard.  A person of some status, who wore metal brooches and a string of beads, certainly did not garb herself in cloth as coarse as burlap.

Breaking those stereotypes should not stop with the fabric.  Another example (again, something that I have discussed at length in this forum, in online groups and in my classes) is that other elements could, perhaps, reflect the same sort of refinement and quality as did the cloth.

Long have I pondered how the large, open, and often poorly wrought (I have too many examples of this on my own costume) Herringbone Stitch has made itself so prevalent in Viking costume. 

I think part of this, has to do with some modern mentality of equating over-embellished design elements with wealth and status.  We love to see miles of trim or stitching on costume, and see it as a perfected work, rather than one that is over-wrought.  Interesting, I think, given that one of the staples of a modern woman's wardrobe is the rather understated, but always elegant, "Little Black Dress".  Simplicity can often speak volumes in the modern wardrobe, but we often bypass that concept in costuming because it, like the concept of fine wool fabric, does not fit with our own internal visualization of the past.

To look again at the scant evidence for the Herringbone stitch, see below:

• Hedeby harbor has a textile fragment that is hemmed using a herringbone stitch.  However, the herringbone is over the edge of the hem, and hence, that the part of the stitch we consider decorative was on the inside of the garment, with what would look like parallel rows of running stitch on the outside.  (As described by Inga Hagg)
• The find 6-8 Pavement at York has a fragment of a hemmed garment that is worked in Herringbone.  As with the Hedeby find, the herringbone is on the inside of the garment.  (Cordage and Fiber from 16-22 Coppergate, by Penelope Walton Rogers)
• The Mammen cushion has a complex variant of very closely worked herringbone over a seam (you can see that here http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/vikembroid.html).

• The Skjoldehamn tunic has a stitch similar to that used at Mammen at the neckline.  The issue with this one is that this find may or may not even be Viking and if it is, it seems to reflect a very different type of fashion than we find further south and that alone makes me leery of using it as a basis for embellishment on a Viking kit without further substantiating evidence.  Beyond that, the tunic itself is dated post-Viking era.  As with Mammen, this stitch is still much more narrow than reenactors use, and, again, it is more filled in.  (http://www.ceilingpress.com/Resources/Nye%20tanker%20om%20Skjoldehamnfunnet.pdf )

Breaking the Myth

So where did we go wrong with this?

I think the first fault lies in our own taste.  In our own desire to make something "rustic" that fits in with our own misconceptions of the capabilities of these people, we opt for things that fit in with this ideal, but also that are simple enough for anyone to add to their attire.  We also have this concept that "more stuff" means higher status.

The second issue is with the evidence, or rather, our misinterpretation of it.  One of the most circulated articles online is one entitled "Viking Embroidery" by Mistress Thora Sharptooth.  She has been a powerful inspiration in the SCA for digging deeper into Viking costume and textiles.  She has a series of works posted on-line that I think most of us would give credit as the best aids we had when starting out.  In her embroidery work there is a paragraph concerning the ornamentation of seams.

I feel the need to further elaborate on the statements contained in this measure, and help to provide context (as it is researching these items that helped me to better trace the origins of the myth).

1. Sutton Hoo - The author used this as a way to show possible evidence of a practice in Europe.  Note though, that this is not evidence of Vikings doing this (it is not Norse and it is too early).
2. Oseberg - The ring motif was used on a garment from the grave, but it does not, to me, appear to follow along a structural seam.  Perhaps it followed the edge of a neckline?  It is very unlikely that this followed something like the vertical seam of an aprondress (and even so, it is entirely unlike a herringbone stitch, in both form an execution for it to be considered valid evidence of that practice).  The rings are delicate and well formed, not something I would class in the same category with an oversized herringbone stitch.  I will note here that there is another small sample of embroidery from this grave that looks as though it could have followed a seam edge (or not), but it looks to be more akin to the type of work used at Mammen as it appears part of a larger decorative effort.  Regardless, this item again, does not cover a seam, but might have followed a line of the garment if the shape of the fragment represents a shaped piece of cloth (rather than something that degraded into this shape over time).
3. Hedeby and Birka - mentions cord and braid applied over a seam.  Unfortunately, I cannot actually find anything that really shows cord applied over a joining seam.  Rather, I have cataloged a number of uses of cord, braid or stitching used at the edges of a garment (where it can also serve an additional functional purpose of saving the edges from wear). The closest thing here that I see to our "seam embellishments" would be the braid laid over the darts at Hedeby. Once again, these are very different treatments than a herringbone worked over a joining seam (or on the outside of a garment in any fashion).  The edge treatments can all be found at the site here.  http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/viking-clothing-a-deeper-look-at-edges
4. Mammen cushion - Finally, we see an actual seam treatment from the Viking age.  This find is somewhat contested, as some researchers believe it to be an import (perhaps Saxon and from the same tradition as the Sutton Hoo cushion), while others see it as a local product.  There are also small hats from the Netherlands that have similar stitching that are dated to the same time period.  It has also been suggested that these hats might also be imported goods from the British Isles.
   

Context

Putting the evidence into context is of paramount importance.  Understanding something being referenced in that article is not necessarily proof that all of our notions of "seam embellishments" are documentable.  It is absolutely not documentation that a standard Herringbone, or catch stitch, was ever used in such a manner either.

Looking deeper at the sources and meanings of each item is valuable as we move beyond beginner and progress on a journey as a costumer who is attempting to recreate the past. 

My own opinion is that seams were likely not embellished.  Not only due to lack of archaeological proof, but because of the time it would take to craft something that would make reuse of a textile less likely.  It would be hard to take in that garment if it were so embellished.  I often also see people citing that it "reinforces" the seams.  Why then would you need to reinforce the seam of an aprondress (a garment that Hagg describes as only "slightly fitted"), when you are not taking time to sew that stitch around an armhole of a dress, or down the seam in the back of the sleeve at the elbow.  Both of those areas are far more likely to break from stress than a side seam of a slightly fitted dress.  Why not instead use these complex stitches (and the stitch from Mammen is indeed time consuming) on a functional textile such as the cushion cover that you will not need to alter, and that might possibly need the strength from the applied needlework?

Scale

And finally, I need to mention Scale, because I think a lack of understanding regarding scale is one of the main contributors to the reenactorism of "decorative herringbone".  As I mentioned above, the only thing close to the reenactor's use of herringbone is the Mammen cushion cover.  It is important to view that piece in proper perspective.

What we typically see of this find is the diagram in the lower right corner.  This usually appears on our screen at a size of about a half an inch wide.  The weave of the needlework for the diagram is open, to better show how the stitches interlace.  What many people have not seen, is the actual photos of the cushion, which I have included here.  Note that the stitch is tightly worked, with no negative space visible to the eye.  In fact, it looks at first like applied braid.  And perhaps the most important thing here is to consider the scale of the piece.  That line of braid is a mere 3mm wide.

I think the single biggest perpetrator of the "herringbone seam embellishment" myth is a misunderstanding of that diagram (or rather, lack of understanding about its context).  If indeed you were to opt to use this type of stitching, I think the only credible way to do so would be to apply it in the same manner of the original.  While I personally do not think it would have been used over a dress seam, I can at least understand where the tradition stands historically and it reads as something that might be plausible for the Viking age.

This weekend I attended Agincourt in the Barony-Marche of the Debatable Lands.  The event was lovely!  The site was beautiful, the company and food in the vigil rooms were amazing, the A&S display was inspiring and most of all, I was so very happy to be there for Morien McBain's elevation to the Order of the Pelican.

Despite the rather cold weather, there was much in the way of martial activities happening and inside the two nice buildings there were a number of other things going on.  The Environmental Center provided a spectacular room for Court, with large windows over looking a wooded area.  There was a very large room dedicated to A&S and there were 25 entries in the competition!  That is impressive to me, given that the last few non-war events I attended only had a couple of entries (more on that coming in a post this afternoon).  A few of my favorite entries are in the photo album below.

The best part of the event, however, was Morien's elevation.  I was so happy to be part of this day for him (and I crafted the cloak).  He has always been an inspiration to so many, and never fails to lend a hand to anyone in need.  He definitely has acted as a Peer and I am happy to seem him elevated to their ranks.

(The cloak is red wool twill, with black linen lining and gold silk border.  The Pelican was wool embroidery on wool, save for the blood, which was silk, and then that was appliqued onto the cloak.  Applique is a new skill to me, and I have done little embroidery prior to this, so I learned a great deal during the making of this garment.  I look forward to doing more of both in the future!)

2.  I learned quickly enough that there is no evidence for large scale appliques or embroidery on Viking costume.  I've gone further to learn how few embroideries we have at all compared to the volume of total textiles recovered.  This tells me that the few items we do have were quite rare and given the context from other items in the graves, they were reserved for the very wealthy.  (I have written further about this here http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/viking-embellishment-and-embroidery-part-3 )  But what I more recently accepted is that the practices of seam embellishment (decorating an existing seam), is probably not as common as reenactors (myself included) would like.

See those two Dublin caps above?  I do not actually consider those seams embellished.  All rows of stitching are necessary and functional.  Even if I used a brilliantly colored contrasting thread, those seams still serve a purpose. (Of course, use of colored thread on seams was also a rarity, but that is a topic for another time.) Examples of true seam embellishment would be laying cord over the seam and stitching it down or doing a decorative row of stitching by using something like osenstitch to cover the seam joining.  I personally love this type of decoration, but plan to use it a bit more judiciously in the future. 

What brought me to this conclusion?  Well, as mentioned earlier, I have been in the process of reevaluating things I learned early on in my journey.  One of those things was that herringbone stitch is period for Vikings.  At the time (when making my first dress) that was good enough for me!  Looking deeper, I have discovered that the stitch so favored by reenactors was never found used as an embellishment on a garment (at least not that I can find).

What examples do we have of this stitch specifically from Viking era and place?

• Hedeby harbor has a textile fragment that is hemmed using a herringbone stitch.  however, the herringbone is over the edge of the hem, and hence, likely that the part of the stitch we consider decorative was on the inside of the garment, with what would look like parallel rows of running stitch on the outside.  (As described by Inga Hagg)
• The find 6-8 Pavement at York has a fragment of a hemmed garment that is worked in Herringbone.  As with the Hedeby find, the herringbone is on the inside of the garment.  (Cordage and Fiber from 16-22 Coppergate, by Penelope Walton Rogers)
• The Mammen cushion has a variant of very closely worked herringbone over a seam (you can see that here http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/vikembroid.html ).  So here a decorative stitch is used over a seam of a household item, not a garment.  (And it is important to note that this stitching was only 2.5mm wide.  There is no open space in the stitching, making it resemble a tight, narrow braid.  This is entirely unlike the herringbone typically worked by reenactors over seams.)

• The Skjoldehamn tunic has a stitch similar to that used at Mammen at the neckline.  The issue with this one is that this find may or may not even be Viking and if it is, it seems to reflect a very different type of fashion than we find further south and that alone makes me leery of using it as a basis for embellishment on a Viking kit without further substantiating evidence.  Beyond that, the tunic itself is dated post-Viking era.  As with Mammen, this stitch is still much more narrow than reenactors use, and, again, it is more filled in.  (http://www.ceilingpress.com/Resources/Nye%20tanker%20om%20Skjoldehamnfunnet.pdf )

• Additionally, there is a 10th century reliquary pouch from York that uses a what Penelope Walton Rogers calls "catch stitch".  Typically catch stitch is another name for Herringbone, but in this case, the diagram in the materials shows a different type of blind catch stitch being executed. Stitches are predominantly on the inside of the item and this would not be a decorative stitch at all.  This item is described in an article in NESAT III and Textiles, Cordage and Fiber from 16-22 Coppergate, both by Penelope Walton Rogers.

Four samples only (out of hundreds of textiles), and none of them has the stitch displayed in the manner we commonly see it at events (and two of the four are different than a normal herringbone, two are inside the item, and one might not be Viking...).  This does not make a terribly good case in my eyes for extensive use of this decoration.

Now, will I remove all of my hard work from garments I have already made?  I cannot say that is the case.  I will, however, be more judicious in use of the stitch in future projects as I attempt to better recreate clothing of the past.

(The earlier segments of this article can be found here:  http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/viking-embellishment-and-embroidery-part-2  and here http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/viking-embellishment-and-embroidery-part-1 )

Embroidery, while evidenced, was not common, and often what we have is considered to be imported goods.

First, let me make a comment about how I differentiate types of embroidery that are often discussed among reenactors.  Often I see someone come onto a forum and ask about Viking embroidery.  Others quite often launch into long dissertations about how Vikings did not do embroidery.  What the poster sometimes means, however, is often not figurative, large-scale embroidery, but rather the seam embellishments that are frequently employed by reenactors.  For the purpose of this post I am going to categorize those three types differently as “seam embellishments”, "functional stitches" and “embroidery”.

Seam embellishment, while (in my opinion) over done by reenactors (myself included), is at least plausible and in evidence in several places.  The Hedeby Harbor aprondress fragment had a braid applied over a dart.  There is also mention of embroidery covering a seam in one of the Oseberg scraps and some of the apron dresses from Birka had narrow cording sewn to the top edge of the garment.

Functional stitches, on the other hand, are exactly what they sound like.  They are stitches that serve a purpose (to create a seam or to hold open the seam allowance) but because part of the stitch rests on the surface of the cloth, it can be quite attractive when stitched in a different color of thread. (Even something as simple as unbleached linen thread against a dark blue dyed linen garment can be striking in its simplicity.)

(Note 9/22/15: I was rereading Hilde Thunem's excellent paper on aprondresses and am really thinking hard about a remark the author made "Inga Hägg comments that the hemming stitches would usually be invisible on wool, but would show up clearly on linen. She believes that the reason that the band has been placed lower on the linen smokkr could be to cover the stitches."  I need to go back and look at Hägg's comments and some other things as well.  I want to chart out the extant seams from various finds and see what I can figure out about the visibility of the stitching and the threads used.  It could well be that they Viking era Norse preferred a very clean look, with little in the way at all of stitches showing.)

Ideas for using seam embellishment and functional stitches to create a more accurate impression:

• Dot not cover every inch of a garment with decorated seams.
• Fine cord or braided string as an edging has ample evidence (on apron dresses a string, especially if it were linen or silk, at the top might serve a functional purpose in helping the top of the garment to not stretch as much with wear).
• If the stitch serves a functional purpose, it actually makes more sense in use (example a running or overcast stitch on the surface that actually is part of a hem).  There is one example from the Hedeby Settlement (S 27) that uses buttonhole stitch to join two textiles.  Note though, that that was only one of several types of stitches used on that garment. (S 27 information added 9/30/15)
• Keep stitches narrow and compact, there is no evidence of an inch wide herringbone stitch anywhere.
• If you must add stitching, employ stitches that were used in period – examples of some stitches are running stitch, stem stitch, split stitch, herringbone, osenstitch (though most of the the extant examples of this are metalwork).  Note here that while we as reenactors love herringbone, evidence for its use in period is actually quite limited.  It was used on a pouch from York and on the INSIDE of a hem at Hedeby.  A stitch similar to herringbone was used on the Mammen cushion cover (decorative item rather than a garment) and on the collar of the Skjoldehamn tunic (which may or may not even be Viking), but it was not the sprawling herringbone seen in the reenactment community.  For a deeper look at Herringbone see my post HERE.

And now on to the controversial topic of larger, decorative embroidery. 

The examples that we have are often are thought to have been Saxon, Rus or Byzantine imports (the first is thought to be the case with the larger Oseberg pieces in particular).  It is very important to understand that some of these were also considered to likely be from decorative goods, rather than garments.  This proves that the technique of heavily filling an area with stitching existed at the time, it does not at all indicate that this was applied to garments in period.  Also worthy of note is that all of these items were very, very high status.

Mistress Þóra Sharptooth has a good article about extant embroidery here:  http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/vikembroid.html

(In light of further research on my part, I will note here that I believe that the use of herringbone externally as a seam embellishment is completely a reenactorism.  We love it, but evidence for its use in period is actually quite limited, and there is no evidence of it on garments over seams at all.  It was used on a garment from Pavement and on the INSIDE of a hem at Hedeby.  A stitch similar to herringbone was used on the Mammen cushion cover (decorative item rather than a garment) and on the collar of the Skjoldehamn tunic (which may or may not even be Viking and possibly dates post-period).  I am leaving my earlier article and instructions below intact, however, for those who still wish to employ this stitch as a decoration.  See more details at: http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/a-deeper-look and
​http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/why-i-count-threads-sourcing-a-myth )

Embellishing garb (appropriately or not) is an SCA tradition.  Embroidery, elaborate trimmings, fancy stitches... these things are infinitely appealing to most of us and perfectly acceptable within the Society. 

Learning to embellish garb, however, is an art unto itself.  Learning both appropriate methods for doing these decorative touches and when and where to use them for your persona can often involve long hours of research and even more time to perfect a technique for execution (and apparently I did not do enough research first for this one, lol, oh well, we live and learn).

I very much enjoy hand embellishing my Viking garb, even though my first attempts were very crude and I had a hard time coping with what I felt were very imperfect stitches.  Learning to hand sew or embroider is much like anything else in that you have to develop the muscle memory needed to keep the stitches neat and even and you additionally have to develop an eye for spacing. 

I also had to learn to let the little imperfections slide.  Period stitches were not perfect (I believe someone even teaches a class on this at Pennsic!).  And the more garments I embellished, the better my stitching got and while my handwork is still not perfect, I am more than happy to wear and display these items and to discuss some things that helped me craft better costumes.

I also have to note here that I am not a fan of practicing something just for the sake of practicing it.  If it is using time and materials, I would prefer to still use my "practice" piece in the end.  When I am learning a new stitch I try it a few times on a piece of scrap fabric and then typically apply it to a piece of older garb or a pouch or, well, anything that I can still use rather than stuff in a pile of samples.  Would I try something totally new on my court garb?  Likely not, but I will definitely make use of it somewhere until I am competent enough to use it to decorate my finery.

Below, is a diagram of the stitch for those who might be unfamiliar with it's structure.

Aside from practice, there are quite a few things things I have done or tried to allow me to better keep the stitches even in size and spacing: 

• To help keep the stitches appropriately spaced, and to help keep them neatly in line along the width of the row, do not stab the needle through the fabric in two motions (up from the back, and then down again from the top), but rather, insert the needle from the front to the back to the front all in one pass as detailed in the photo to the left. 

Cheat:

If you happen to have a sewing machine that allows for very wide stitches and that has a series of building complex stitches, you can try this cheat to help develop the muscle memory for working with this stitch. 

To the left is an image of the screen from a Husqvarna Designer SE.  #13 is a Herringbone stitch.  Now, stitched out I do not actually find this very convincing (even when done with wool machine embroider thread) because it actually breaks each segment of the stitch into smaller stitches.  But, you can machine stitch on your fabric with thread that exactly matches your fabric or thread that exactly matches the hand stitching thread you plan to use (I find the former method actually hides the machine work better) and then use the machine sewn lines as a guide and sew over them by hand with your thicker hand sewing thread or yarn.  The hand stitches should completely cover the machine stitches and render them invisible unless someone happens to turn the fabric over and look at the reverse.

Now, this method has a couple of drawbacks.  One is that it is actually very slow as the machine can take time to stitch out a complex pattern like this.  Another is that it will make that area of the fabric somewhat stiff.  Finally, it takes an expert touch (which I do not have) to guide the machine evenly over seams (where the fabric is several layers thick) and this can have a tendency to distort the machine stitches and make them longer or shorter when crossing a seam line.

(The tan plaid fabric depicted further down was created by laying down a row of machine stitches first.  I did a few pieces with a machine laid row as a guide and now now longer need that crutch to keep my rows of stitches in order.)

The embroidery is underway!  (My design inspiration can be found in an earlier post here http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/1/category/12th%20night/1.html )

I can do hand embroidery, but often do not choose too.  Part of the reason is an issue I have with my hands, though I can still sew by hand for short spells at a time.  The larger issue though, is with my head.  ;-)

See, I am a perfectionist about the things that I make and while I love the look of hand sewing and hand embroidery, my hand work does not live up to my own expectations.

Yes, I know, practice makes perfect, but I also have a hard time sitting around making "practice pieces" just for the heck of it.  If I spend time on it I want to use it, right?

At some point though, I decided to get over myself and do what hand work I could.  Ironically, the more I do, the less I feel it needs to be visually perfect.  I am starting to love the more organic nature of handwork and to me it now looks more real.

For this piece, the pattern was drawn first on paper and I had indended to use a transfer paper to shift the design to the fabric.  Unfortunately, my transfer sheets eluded me.  Instead, I took a pin, poked a series of holes along the design line, laid it on the fabric and drew over it with a chalk pencil.  After removing the stencil, I sketched over my lines and started stitching. 

Stitches used here are chain, split and stem (all worked in Renaissance Dyeing's crewel wool).

This project is not progressing quick enough!

Part of the problem is just a general lack of time, but another part is medical.  I started having some issues with my hands in January.  Numbness, lack of blood flow, too much blood and bursting veins, pain... After visiting several specialists we learned it was actually an issue with the muscles in my neck reacting to certain tasks and/or stress.  The result of this is that I can not sit for any length of time doing one thing (which happens to coincide nicely with my typical ADHD mental state). 

What does this mean for my projects?  Well, I can only work on any given item for a short span of time - typically less than half an hour - before I need to stretch and work on something else.

The apron dress, thus far, is pictured above.  The color is off, its a pale green color called Willow by the shop from which it came.  I wish I had time to hand sewing this garment, but with real-world-work being exceptionally busy, there was just not time for it.  Seams are done with the sewing machine but the surface stitching (which is finally finished) is done by hand with the crewel wool I love so much from Renaissance Dyeing.

The next step is to cut the silk into strips and applique it to the top edge of the garment.  The particular silk I will be using falls into the UWYH (Use What You Have) category.

In period the the vikings would take imported silks (samite specifically), cut it into strips and apply them to their garments as trim.  I do not have any access to samite, so opted to search out other silks that might have patterns that look at lease somewhat similar to those found on period samite (which often came from Byzantium,Central Asia or Asia).  Many of the extant pieces, such as the one above, featured rondel motifs that repeat. 

If you want to see applied silks on an extant Viking textile, an image of the Lund find is here:  http://www.netvike.com/VIKINGS/VIKINGHISTORY/VIKINGCLOTHING/CLOTHING1011AD/CLOTHPICS/LUNDSILK1.png

While I could not find many (inexpensive) silks that featured rondels, I did find a few that have large repeating patterns that will work nicely when sliced into strips.  Both of the above were purchased on Etsy as fat quarters.

Unfortunately, as I was choosing my silks, the "Oooo Shiny" mentality struck and I ended up with several items that I just chose because of I liked them and they were silk and pretty and whatever, rather than because they were the best choice for my projects.  This is where UWYH comes into play.  I've already bought and paid for them so I will just use the items as best I can and just be more careful in my choosing next time.

To the left is the silk I will be hacking up for this dress.  Paisley?   Not a good choice at all, but when I cut the fabric into strips I will do it in such a way that the actual pattern can not be determined.