Museums

​Books

Academics

Living History/Reenactors

One of the points I intend to make is that reconstructing an ancient costume is a research project, just like any other type of research. Further, that a costume is a form of publication that is ,,read" by a much larger audience than any traditional, written publication. l feel that it is very necessary that we face these fact fully, and start acting accordingly. If we don't, costume replicas shall remain an obscure, unscientific feature of museum exhibitions, contaminated by a bad smell of courting the public.
 
How to meet the challenge of turning ,,copies" into proper research? The most important step towards this goal is to start writing reports and papers on why and how. Especially why. Why is the cut of the garments like that, why have those particular colours been chosen, why have the details been made that way. Why the costume looks like it does is much more important than how it looks, and how it was made. Costume reconstruction entails a vast amount of decision making . Those of you who have tried to make one, know exactly what I mean. There is nothing new in that, but we have rarely tried to write reconstruction reports on which decisions were made, and why they were made. We must start doing that in order to make our work scientific in the eyes of others. And - let's face it - in our own too!
 
There is a strong demand from the public for reconstructions. The questions of what did the people look like? and how were they dressed? are almost as old as archaeology. For as long, archaeologists have tried to answer them. We - the textile archaeologist - are the people who ought to be able to do the answering, if we can summon the courage to do so. There is no doubt, that we can supply the know how and the craftsmanship. There is also no doubt that costumes like King Canute's and the Lønne Hede woman's are of a standard that is way beyond that of earlier efforts. Museums tend to treat them almost on par with original ancient artefacts, to the point of supplying them with museum numbers and taking measures for conservation.
 
Some problems, however, are still to be faced. One of these is the test of time. Are these exquisite pieces going to look just as ridiculous in 20 year 's time as the well-known photo of the Egtved Maiden of the 1930s (fig. 3 )? Can we prevent them from doing that? Or maybe we shouldn't? In my opinion, each reconstruction should be seen as a step on the ladder towards understanding and knowledge. After a while, even the best eff orts will be overtaken and replaced by a fresh costume. The main thing is to keep up a high standard both scientifically and in craftsmanship. It is not going to be an easy task, but that should not hold us back.
 
lf we don't do it, one thing is·certain: somebody else will be trying. There are several examples of that, such as the many,”Viking groups" that in recent years have been popping up like mushrooms in many parts of Northern Europe. They make their own Viking ships, Viking weapons, Viking crafts, and Viking clothes. They are appearing at the Viking markets that are being arranged by a growing number of museums. That almost makes them the official archaeological truth - but do we agree with that? I think not, but they do their best, and they usually have studied our books thoroughly while making their costumes. They take us seriously, and that is a very good reason for us to take them seriously too.