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.

No, no, not with me.  Sewing is not my love and I don't know that I could keep one track for a solid month.  This, however, is going to be amazing.  It will be hosted by Sophia Helen who is a wonderful researcher and artisan.  I very much encourage those interested in learning to build out their kits to participate!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/475385519799179/

One of the ways you can readily tell that someone is beyond the basics of reenactment research is by looking at their sources and how they are using them in their work.  Blatant assumption that museums, Laurels, other reenactment groups, and even academics, are always “right” is a method of thought employed often by beginners.  This is not necessarily bad (as we all start somewhere), but as we grow and start to put the pieces of the puzzle together, we often discover that information is dated, ill-thought out, or sometimes just wrong.  Realistically, this is a natural part of the process, and “growing up” in this field and we all have been there at some point.  The trick is to start to develop an eye that can readily sort out fact-based items, as well as works of fiction. 

I actually started working on this about a year ago after some discussions online made me realize that people who I thought had a deeper understanding of the material were, in fact, relying on assumptions that just because they saw it in a museum or on a living history reenactor meant it was absolute fact, without taking time to look into it further.  A recent discussion on an erratic museum display caused me to complete this post so that I can share my thoughts.
 
Before I share examples, I do want to note that there is no one single approach to this subject matter, but there can be good or bad approaches.  I had a previous post titled “A Difference of Opinion” ( http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/difference-of-opinion ) that shows two excellent, yet wildly different, lines of thought on the Oseberg Queen’s costume.  Both are very well researched, both are evidence based, and both are equally valid interpretations.  The difference in items such as those and the 'less good' things I will mention below is the approach the artisans took and how they came to their conclusions.
 

As I mentioned, recent issues with a museum display are, in part, what triggered this post.  This controversy is about the Viking exhibit at the National Museum of Denmark.  

In an effort to drive more traffic to the museum, the authorities there have employed Jim Lyngvild, a television personality and fashion designer to craft a display that would appeal to the modern eye.  I highly recommend doing some reading about this celebrity's on and off screen antics, and one perhaps can see how his participating in museum displays of ancient history can be problematic.
 
You can see the promo photo located on the museum website (https://en.natmus.dk/museums-and-palaces/the-national-museum-of-denmark/exhibitions/danish-prehistory/ and that sets the tone for the rest).  There are other images making the social media circuit now that are even further out there than this one.  The point of this post is not to critique each image, but rather to provide commentary that this is not a reliable source for making accurate interpretations.  There was a review this year in Antiquity that better sums up the things that have gone wrong here (and how it could have been done to make both fact and fantasy exist better in the same space).  I highly recommend downloading this free PDF and reading it before looking for additional images (some of which loudly proclaim they are "The Real Vikings").  https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A40E54491325BC2E3951F975F6452708/S0003598X19000012a.pdf/meet_the_vikingsor_meet_halfway_the_new_viking_display_at_the_national_museum_of_denmark_in_copenhagen.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3XG-4dB72apePrO7A8Liep6pl5Ha8ue7HFAVkakuVTxuIQ7Orn6PyHGxU
 
If you source additional images you will readily note an over-use of ragged furs, mishmash of time and place, and some very, very Hollywood style embellishments (such as ‘sexy’ slits up the leg of a woman’s dress and items that are pure reenactorisms that are not really even hinted at in graves).
 
This particular museum is not the only venue with issues like this.  Some museums, often due to budget constraints, are displaying older recreated items that are based on information that is decades out-of-date.  Sometimes artisans are employed to do reconstructions without the benefit of detailed research or access to time/materials to make a good representation of an item.

​Sometimes it can be exciting to see a progression in displays of costume or other items.  I will use Mammen as an example because years ago there was a lovely, plausible, reconstruction of the garment (for King Cnut) that appeared in the book Mammen: Grav, kunst og samfund i vikingetid.  This item was made with research available at that time, and is quite striking.  Currently, there is new work being done by some of the top researchers in the field.  They are taking a very detailed and highly scientific new look at these textiles and the costume from this grave.  I cannot wait for this work to be completed, and you can follow the progress yourself here:  https://natmus.dk/organisation/forskning-samling-og-bevaring/fashioning-the-viking-age/the-three-project-parts/  (The great irony here is that this is also in conjunction with the National Museum of Denmark.)

Typically, museums displays of items, such as brooches, are a good source of information.  Just seeing the object can let you grasp the detail and size of the item.  Sometimes things like beads, however, can be misleading.  Many of the older archaeological sites cared less about certain goods (like beads or textiles), resulting in all beads being tossed in boxes to be restrung later in any fashion for display.  This could result in all of the larger, ‘fancy’ beads being grouped together in one strand (and leaving out the plethora of tiny beads completely), which can lead the impression that that was the norm.  And yes, sometimes items in a museum can be mislabeled (or it could be labeled with data that made sense at the time the display was erected, but that was countered later by new evidence).  Even a well-crafted display needs context.  If you see something that interests you in this type of professional setting, it is still advisable to look deeper and do your own research to help get the most accurate information available.

Just because it is in a book doesn’t make it true either.  This can be for a variety of reasons.  One of the most common is that the book is simply an older text that is presenting older (and now debunked) theories.  The most common thing I see, in this field, with this is the diagrams from Flemming Bau (the infamous open-front aprondress) still being used when interpreting evidence.  A look at Hilde Thunem’s site ( http://urd.priv.no/viking/ ) or Inga Hägg’s most recent book on Hedeby ( https://amzn.to/2HKDesE ), will detail for you why those theories are out-of-favor.
 
Other books are simply just not as well researched or presented.  There is a now infamous drawing by Rushworth from his book (Handbook of Viking Women’s Dress) that shows the back of an aprondress with pleats covered by long vertical bands of tablet weaving.  There is absolutely nothing at all in the evidence that even begins to suggest this type of costume, yet because it creates lines that are attractive to the modern eye, and because it is published in a book, it is seen as “real” by someone who has not looked deep enough at the evidence themselves.
 
Other books have lovely images and nice tutorials, but do not use proper citations, nor do they discuss the methodology that lead to the conclusions that are made between the covers.  Without that discussion, I do not view a book as a credible resource academically.  This is poor scholarship at best, and now I see other books that rely heavily on those same titles as a source, and it makes me question the credibility of the work as a whole.  An example of this is the Viking Dress Code, which was just recently released in English.  This book is full of lovely charts and maps and has a very nice summary of evidence, but the heavy reliance on a few less critical works (and also some of the strange conclusions that are made about certain items), make it something that I personally can find a use for and am happy to own, but it would never be something I would recommend to someone with no prior knowledge of the sources.

We all know there are many amazing researchers, archaeologists and authors in this growing field and I can make wonderful recommendations for many facets of what we are studying based on my own list of favorites.  It is important though, to make sure that you are looking at the current information.  Sometimes there is a dissertation that is published that is easily accessible (and free online), but the book that came out later (and that costs money) actually has more current information on the subject.  Another example here is Hägg’s work, while I highly recommend reading any of her papers regarding Hedeby, I would not recommend moving forward with a reconstruction project without looking at that most recent book mentioned/linked above.
 
And then there is the case of plain old bad scholarship.  She-who-shall-not-be-named is one of the best examples of this (and sadly, is also cited as a source in the Viking Dress Code book).  This author seems to prefer scandalous headlines over solid academic methodology.  She made a name for herself with the Boob Brooch Debacle ( https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uu-vdn022508.php?fbclid=IwAR3eVe9HLWCjnzIcnhH6sMM123zo1qO6bYsv7a-X-0gEjW6hyse7YlcALsY ) and then pretty much drowned any credibility she had left with the claims that if you look at a piece of tablet weaving backwards (using a mirror) and then add extra lines to the pattern (in what reality is that even science????) that the motif spells Allah in Kufic script.  ( https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/allah-viking-burial-fabrics-false-kufic-inscription-clothes-name-woven-myth-islam-uppsala-sweden-a8003881.html?fbclid=IwAR3oYiLtcyNYJDwqp5MU-i-IEjDgR7FeYKOMH7fdQXBXA1e0A_nh2tYxGSs ).  This is all problematic because at the time these items made headlines, she was still affiliated with a University, was participating in study of archaeological textiles, and it was easy to assume that this was all real.  (Note also, the promised papers for these items never made it to publication, and that is frequently the case with very wild theories like these.)

​This is an area that can be really touchy, but I am going to dive in anyways.

• Just because something is well-crafted (look at Lygvild’s photos, these items are pretty and well made and professionally photographed to display them at their best) doesn’t mean it is a representation of proper research or reconstruction.

 

• Just because a reenacting group (especially one in Europe) is doing it, doesn’t make it real.  I have seen individuals designing costumes after those worn by the positively incredible group Wulfheodenas, including the use of full pelts draped over the shoulders.  One of the members stated this about the practice online, “As a member of Wulfheodenas whom initially wore wolf pelts for a number of differing reasons, a number of us have moved away from them, again for a number of reasons, I'll hold my hand up and say to a degree we may have have been instrumental in the popularisation of such pelt wearing by emulation because it is visually striking. But like all things many of us have revisted this and for a number of years no longer wear the pelts.”  I highly recommend looking them up because they are an incredible inspiration - https://www.facebook.com/Wulfheodenas/, but it is also important to understand context… they are pre-Viking age and Saxon, so using them as a foundation for Viking is already off base even before you get to the furs ;-)

 

• I also want to point out that some living history groups are years ahead of others in terms of research and presentation.  Some also might have a focus on one sphere, such as historic agriculture, and their research is keyed to that end and the costuming might be secondary.  If possible, reach out to your historic inspirations and try to ascertain the “why” behind their decisions.  And in some cases, the reenactors are poorly paid employees or volunteers of the museum or venue, so the facility often takes whoever is willing to do the job for free or cheaply.

 

• Just because someone is a Laurel in the SCA does not mean that everything they do is “correct”.  It is entirely possible that their Laurel is in cooking or music, not costuming, and someone else made their garb or they made it using an older handout from a Viking 101 class.  It is entirely possible that they are a Laurel in Viking costume, but they are wearing an older garment (made early in their research) because it is Pennisc and they need to use everything they have to make it through a two week event.  It is also possible that someone stopped their research (or just switched focus) after a time, and while their clothing might represent the best available knowledge in the 90s, it does not stand up to the vast amount of research we have today on the subject.

​The summary here is that we want to make an attempt at authenticity, we need to dig deep and try to figure out what is good, what is bad, and what has stood the test of time (in terms of knowledge).  It is not an easy road, but it can be very rewarding.  I am always happy to talk resources with people if they want to listen to me drone on about it!
 
I am going to finish this rant with a power passage from Lise Bender Jørgensen (one of the top Viking Age textile researchers) about the role of proper reconstruction and the public eye.  The article it is from is in NESAT 5 and is titled “Ancient Costumes Reconstructed: A new field of research”:

Location:  Peel Castle, St. Patrick Island, Isle of Man
Date:  10th Century
Type of Find: Burial
Date of Excavation: 1984
Context: All beads were found in neck area with the exception of the two largest amber ones, which were found at the waist
Beads: 73 beads, 8 of which were broken
 
Several weeks ago in another post, I noted I would soon talk at more length about the Pagan Lady of Peel and her fabulous necklace.  Since then it has been announced that the necklace will go on display in York, and numerous people have sent me the news articles for that, so I guess now is really the time to do this one.
​

Excavations began in the Peel castle in 1982, with the Viking graves being discovered in 1984.  There are additional graves from both before the Viking Age and during the middle ages also found in this area.  The excavations produce a total of 7 pagan graves from the Viking Age, with 5 being adult and 2 for children.  Only one of them was female, and it is considered to be one of the wealthiest female graves found in the British Isles.  The lintel grave was professionally excavated and well documented so I consider it a reliable source (especially given the amount of attention this one has also received since then).

In addition to the necklace of 71 beads (glass, amber and jet), with 2 amber bead-amulets, the grave also contained three knives (one of which only a hilt remains and one is noted to likely have had some sort of specialized purpose), iron shears, an antler comb, remains of a leather pouch with metal fittings and two bronze needles, an ammonite fossil (thought by Saxons to be a fertility charm), a goose wing, herbs, a possible mortar and pestle, and feather filled pillow.  Additionally there were fragments of three textiles, one of which is believed to have been a sprang hairnet.  There was also an item initially believed to be an iron spit, but later researchers have compared it to similar items in female graves that are thought to be seiðr-staffs, indicating that the women interred might have been a seeress or sorceress of some sort.  (Price; Gardeła)
 ​

​The early reports on the grave believed that the lack of oval brooches indicated that the woman was Celtic or perhaps second generation of Norse and Celtic (with Norse immigrants marrying local women).  Later research and isotope analysis has determined that the middle-aged Pagan Lady of Peel migrated to the island herself, possibly originating from a Norse settlement in the British Isles or even Scandinavia (Symonds, et al.). 
 
Did she ever wear oval brooches?  We do know that by this time they were going out of fashion in Denmark, and if she perhaps came from a settlement in the British Isles, there already could have been adoption of local dress.  It is also possible that she wore them in life but was not sent into the next world with the jewelry for some reason.  Comparisons have also been drawn to her grave and many other status graves of the Viking age.
 
This particular grave is referenced in many other works, include the Scar boat burial in Orkney Scotland.  This grave dates to the late 9th or early 10th century, and contained an equal-arm brooch, a wooden handled sickle, textiles (included a brocaded wool cloth), a whalebone plaque, a comb, a weaving batten, shears, a box with metal fittings, whorls, and a sickle.  The wealth of this grave, as well as lack of oval brooches is the reason that comparisons are made between the two, however, the book covering the work at Scar repeatedly notes that there was an “otter disturbance” (that’s a direct quote) at the site that could have resulted in displacement or loss of the brooches.  I know that if I were an otter, I think I would very much love to have shiny brooches for myself.  Another correlation that could possibly be made is the völva grave from Fyrkat which also has no oval brooches.

​The Beads
 
71 one beads comprised the necklace, with 8 of them being broken.  Two additional amber beads (the largest in the find) were found near the waist.  The materials for the beads include glass, amber and jet and have origins in Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon and the Mediterranean or Middle East. 

One bead is faiance, and is believe to be imported from the Mediterranean or the Middle East and may well have been an antique to the Pagan Lady.  There are amber beads, likely from the Baltic, in the strand, a long blue bead is considered to be an Irish ‘String’ bead.  Two of the glass beads incorporate millefiori, one of this is thought to be an Eastern import.
 
In her thesis, “Perler fra vikingtiden”, Hickey compares beads from Peel (and other sites) to those cataloged in the Guido’s The Glass Beads of Anglo-Saxon England.  Based on that possible origins for various beads include Rhineland, Rhenish, Frisian/Frankish, and more locally, Netherlands, and Scandinavia as well as many of local manufacture.
 
The beads were possibly collected over a lifetime and may even include some brought from her homeland in addition to prized imports.  I wish that I had a better analysis of each bead in this grave, and have one more book coming to me via ILL that might have more detail.  If indeed it does, I plan to post the additional information here.

If you want to see a very large image of the necklace, please visit the link for the Isle of Man museum here:  https://tinyurl.com/y4f2pzd4

Another site that is worth looking at is that of Glonney Designs.  The artist briefly discusses the necklace and also has two images (that I wish were much larger) of the beads laying flat, rather than strung.  It better allows you to get a sense of size and same for some of the beads. I am trying to source these items in a higher resolution version, ​glonneydesigns.wordpress.com/category/studio/the-pagan-ladys-necklace-project/

Resources:
 
Gardeła, Leszek.  “Viking Death Rituals on the Isles of Man”, Viking Myths and Rituals on the Isle of Man, University of Nottingham, 2014.
 
Goodrich, Russell.  “Scandinavians and Settlement in the Eastern Irish Sea Region During the Viking Age”, PhD Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, 2010.
 
Guido, Margaret.  The Glass Beads of Anglo-Saxon England: c. AD 400-700, Boydell Press, 1999.
 
Hickey, Megan.  “Perler fra vikingtiden: A study of the social and economic patters in the appearance of beads from Viking-Age sites in Britain”, Master of Arts Research, University of York, 2014.
 
Holgate, Barbara.  “The Pagan Lady of Peel”, St. Patrick’s Isle Archaeological Trust, 1987.
 
Mainman, A.J. and N.S.H. Rogers.  “Craft, Industry and Everyday Life: Finds from Anglo-Scandinavian York”, The Archaeology of York, Volume 17: The Small Finds, 2000.
 
Miller, Ben. “Child grave goods from the Isle of Man castle and Viking beach market discoveries head to Cornwall”, Culture24, 1/27/2015.
 
Morris, Carole. “An Irish ‘String’ Bead in Viking York”, Bead Society of Great Britain Newsletter, 58.
 
Owen, Olwyn and Magnar, Dalland.  “Scar: A Viking Boat Burial on Sanday, Orkney”, Tuckwell Press, 1999.
 
Price, Neil.  The Viking Way: religion and war in late Iron Age Scandinavia. Aun 31. Uppsala, 2002.
 
Richards, Julian D. “Pagans and Christians at the frontier: Viking burial in the Danelaw”, The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300, 2003.
 
Ruffoni, Kirsten.  “Viking Age Queens: The Example of Oseberg”, Master’s Thesis, University of Oslo, 2011.
 
Symonds, Leigh, et. al. “Medieval Migrations: Isotope Analysis of Early Medieval Skeletons of the Isle of Man”, Medieval Archaeology, 58, 2014.
 
Vannin, Ellan.  “’Pagan sorceress’ Viking necklace on display in York,” BBC, 2/20/2019.
 

There are a few topics that I have discussed at length with friends or online on forums, have only very briefly brought up here due to lack of time to properly dedicate to a decent response.  I finally think I need to share some information on one of the major hot points right now, that of the Viking Warrior woman.

I am going to start to say that I think that the authors of the paper that invoked a media frenzy last year did a very, very poor job in naming their study.  "A female Viking Warrior confirmed by genomics" took another look at a Birka grave that was given a "warrior burial" (Bj581).  The headline is misleading at best (and the paper does not really deal with some of the other issues that come up when looking at Birka).  

Part of the problem here is that there is an assumption that everything in a grave might have been something used by the interred while they were alive.  The reality is that we really don't know that, in many cases.  What we can say is that the items in a grave actually say something about those left behind.  It might be a case where a favorite tool was buried with the individual, but it could just as well be that the things put in the grave were displays of station or status.  It could be memorabilia from loved ones, reminders or keepsakes.  Remember too that there are cases of small children being buried with tools or weapons that they would have been too young to use.  Does that mean that a little girl was a master seamstress or that a young boy was also a warrior?

Further, I have seen people screeching that it is sexist to declare that Bj581 was NOT a warrior grave now that we see DNA evidence that the bones are female.  In actuality, I think that it is sexist to declare MALE graves with weapons were warriors without some other proof that they held that role in life (such as trauma to the skeleton).  There is this modern desire to prove female empowerment in a past that goes even beyond some of the ideas fed to us by Victorian fantasy (and the number of memes promoting the "equality" of men and women in Viking culture is further proof of this).  This sort of desire feeds the media frenzy that causes research papers like this to make international headlines.

An example of the above is a piece of research that came out a few years back.  The study confirmed that half of the graves from a site in England were female.  What was reported in the news was "50% of Viking Warriors were women".  In reality, half the very small sample - 13 graves - were determined to be female.  In this case, the report itself was not misleading, as it declares half of the MIGRANTS were female.  That is a very different thing than the (horrific) journalism that started plastering headlines about half of Vikings being women.  You can read more about the controversy in the two articles below (the original paper is here):

• www.themarysue.com/viking-warrior-women-disappointed/
• https://skepticalhumanities.com/2014/09/07/women-of-the-viking-age-kicked-ass-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-vikings

That aside, there are other issues that need to be looked at here.  Judith Jesch, Professor at the University of Nottingham and author of Women in the Viking Age, has a very detailed post on her thoughts about this grave and it (as well as some of the commentary under it) is worth a read. norseandviking.blogspot.com/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html

Beyond everything I have listed above, other issues come up regarding Bj581, including the fact that the original grave was excavated a long time ago and there have previously been issues with grave contents not being properly marked (meaning that the bones could possibly even belong to another grave).  Some of the issues with this are mentioned in this paper:  www.academia.edu/34564381/FEMALE_VIKING_REVISED

If you are interested in following some exceptional, current, research on the topic of warrior women in the Viking Age I recommend that you look up Dr. Leszek Gardeła, who is heading up an impressive project.  uni-bonn.academia.edu/LeszekGardela

The paper I consider most important in this field is his "Amazons of the North? Armed Females in Viking Archaeology and Medieval Literature".  I recommend that you get in touch with your local library and request this item via inter-library loan immediate.  It is a very comprehensive collection of evidence (iconography, archaeology, and textual) and discusses the possible drawbacks with each item and applies better context than you often see in battles waged online.  Again, if this topic is of serious interest to you, you really need to get a copy of this paper.

https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110569483/9783110569483-024/9783110569483-024.xml?fbclid=IwAR25uqZ5Nno1I98RBiWIhWCOWlJp89phvWEBABqkWi0qlAzZ3TksZ3--UqM

Below is a video about Gardeła's project.  I very much look forward to the next in the series.

Edited to add:  I just read this paper and feel the need to include it in this discussion as well given that it addresses several of the things I mentioned above:  https://www.academia.edu/36569707/Vikings_History_and_the_Search_for_Ourselves_SASS_talk_May_2018?fbclid=IwAR0D05ECQueSuUbguXK-TlTiTOFcpUzeHLljOireHoBNksYyRuGUxVjX73o

In case anyone here hasn't figured it out, I love exploring different types of headcoverings for my period clothing.  I agree with others about how a headcovering (or proper hairstyle) can really complete the look of any historic costume, but I really love the experimental archaeology factor that comes with testing different things that work (or don't work) for my Norse kit.

I have mentioned before that so far my favorite headcoverings are sheer, fine wool.  The drape of a wool veil is fluid and beautiful.  I still have many linen veils, cloths and caps as well that I use.  Some of these items I have woven myself, but I also purchase handwoven and commercial items from others to try them out (and share my findings here).  So I have two new findings I want to show off today.

The first is that I bought two new veils for my new Slavic dress at Pennsic from Feed the Ravens.  A light blue one is 80% merino and 20% viscose.  This thing drapes beautifully and is very soft against my face and neck.  Unfortunately, the only photos I have of it were during Atlantian Court, where I wrapped my head just outside of the building, and the drape was a little snug, but I truly love both this outfit and headcovering.  (The temple rings and band also came from Feed the Ravens.  Note that their shop is offline for the rest of August, but they will be back soon!)  I also got a silk blend veil from them that I plan to use in a similar fashion.  These fine cloths would also work well with Norse headdress.

When I came home from Pennsic, I was searching Etsy for something totally unrelated to sheer fine cloth and came across some very fine, open weave, linen scarves that I thought would work perfectly for veils or headcoverings.  The price was fantastic so I ordered several to check them out.  The vendor is LinenWorld8 and I am delighted with the quality of what I received.  

The solid burgundy one is a bit more fine than the three with the strips on the edges.  These will be cool and comfortable but do not have the glorious drape of wool, so I will likely cut them down into smaller rectangular veils, headbands or caps.

I actually need to sort through my bin of veils this fall and start to resize some of the pieces that are too large right now to use in the manner I prefer.  Hopefully I can also pick up some more interesting textiles for headcoverings in the coming year as well!

To see all of my articles discussing headcoverings, click here: awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/category/headcoverings

Frequently people ask me how I make my aprondresses.  The fabric remains for these garments are few (at least in terms of things on which we can base a pattern), which leaves open great possibilities for experimental archaeology and trying to think like a Viking Age woman to help us decipher the evidence and make our best reconstructions.  (If you are unfamiliar with the evidence, please check out Hilde Thunem's blog which has the absolute best collection of data that has been done to date for these garments.  ​http://urd.priv.no/viking/smokkr.html )

I have gone through a number of variations for design on this dress over the years, and will share my current favorites below.  I do want to make one comment though regarding terminology here.  The word "aprondress" was coined by a reenactor.  This is not something that shows up in the earlier records for textiles or digs.  It is, in fact, very much a misnomer and tends to create confusion when people truncate it to "apron".  I do absolutely use the term aprondress because everyone knows what I mean when I say that, but I want to make it clear that it is not at all an "apron" in the modern sense and the word "aprondress" should not be shortened (just to avoid further confusion).  Other words you will see are smokkr, hangerock, tragerock, suspended skirt and even pinafore.

Now that I have that out of my system, let us talk about how I currently choose to reconstruct the garments, and why.

Until a few years ago, one of my favorite diagrams was the one below.  This cutting method is extremely economical when it comes to textile use, and makes for a very flattering, slim-bodied garment.  The first few I did made use of the full width of fabric and I ended up with these billowing hemlines that, even in my early days at this, read as "wrong" to me, so I corrected that by narrowing the bottom of both the gores and the body panels.  

I made maybe a dozen dresses like that over the years. One has to sort of slither into them, as the body is pretty fitted (and the back seam allows for additional tailoring at the waist), but they were certainly nicely fitted and pretty.  I still explored other styles, but that was one of my go-to items until I started weaving.

Spinning and weaving gave me an entirely new perspective on pretty much everything I was doing with Viking Age clothing.  It took working with the textile process to really make me understand how precious, and how important, cloth was in period.  The time investment in crafting one dress, by historic methods, was steep.  Realistically, if had more than a couple of garments, I was a lucky woman indeed!

This made me rethink my entire process for crafting clothing.  Any garment that I would have had in period would need to be crafted with life's changes in mind, because I would likely own the item for several years before it was damaged enough to be repurposed into other items, or cast off for someone else to wear.  This means I need to consider weight gain or loss, as well as pregnancy, with each item.  (And yes, this also helped me start to "get over myself" and my modern mentality when it comes to fit of clothing.)

Eventually I tested out the patterning diagram shown below.  This creates a very, very simple garment (three seams and two hems).  I did allow myself some tailoring on the top of the back panels only, as well as a bit down the center back.  The result is what I call my Second Breakfast Dresses.  They are comfortable, have silhouette that seems to conform with period icons, and it can accommodate some life changes.
​

My current favorite pattern is a slightly more complex variation of the one above.  It was inspired by tailoring from Hedeby as well as Inga Hägg's comparison of Hedeby garments to those from later Herjolfsnes.  As with the above example, I do allow myself some subtle tailoring to the upper back of the garment, while preferring a looser fit to the front.  This works for both flat-front dresses and those with pleats (see my pleated dress using this pattern here ​http://awanderingelf.weebly.com/blog-my-journey/looking-deeper-the-problem-with-pleats ).

What you can see from the images below (the dark purple wool dress) is that there is some shaping to the back, while I have a bit of room in the front.  I have made several of these to date, in both linen and wool, and have to say that at this time, these are my favorites.

One other thing to keep in mind, when laying out your pattern on your fabric is that, in period, they did not seem to have the modern hang-ups about direction of grain when it comes to patterning things. The Hedeby garment had the grain running from side to side on the panels, while on the Køstrup dress it ran vertically.  My suggestion is that you make the best use of your yardage, in the best way possible, when crafting your garments.

And lastly, just because I have a clear (current) favorite, does not mean that this is the only way to make a garment.  (It also does not mean that I will stop experimenting.)  I think that in period there were many possible configurations, and while some might make use of more blocky construction, and others might be more tailored, some could use gores or godets,  I think that they all likely made good use of the textiles with little waste, and I feel strongly they they all very likely could be worn during more than one phase of life.  (Heck, adding or removing pleats could even help assist with fitting life's changes.)  

Aprondresses are very simple and very quick to make, depending on which pattern you choose.  The fit of the straps, however, can be something that drives people completely insane over time.  If you find that you are continually futzing with your straps, here are a few things you might want to look at to help troubleshoot the source of your problems.  Note that most people blame brooches, but they were historically large and heavy for the most part.  This often causes reenactors to initially choose brooches from other eras or locations to reduce size and weight, because they worry about them dragging the dress down, but a well fitted dress, with properly sized straps, make even the largest brooches feel nonexistant when worn.
​

Many of the tips below will require you to test and re-test a garment and strap length.  If you want to quickly test out the length of the straps without having to remove them from the dress and re-attach, you can just add a few sturdy whipstitches to the loop end of the long strap to effectively shorten them.  (See diagram to the left.) This is also a great tip to use if you swap out between different sets of brooches that might have different pin lengths.

• Fabric: What fabric are your straps made from?  What fabric is the dress?  In archeological example, we see that often the straps do not match the dress, with linen straps and wool dresses sometimes found.  Linen is sturdy and, if it is quality linen, has little stretch.  (Some of the colored linen at Joanns, as well as that from some inexpensive vendors, is very short staple, meaning that the linen fibre is chopped up to bits and processed like cotton.  This will stretch more than other types of linen and might need some reinforcement.)  You can replace the current straps with stronger ones, or add a linen cord or heavier linen or even sturdy silk cloth core to the straps to help eliminate stretch.  On the "Viking Clothing (SCA-Style)" Facebook group, Astri Bryde recommends using the selvedge in the straps to help combat stretch.  I personally find that suggestion to be brilliant as most modern selvedges tend to be very sturdy. 
  
  If the dress itself is stretching (I have one wool dress that is somewhat loosely woven, and it stretches like crazy with heavy brooches), then add a bit of linen to the top of the dress itself inside, or even add a more sturdy tablet woven band or strip of silk to the outside to combat this stretch.  (A really stretchy cloth might require you to line the entire bust area with something more sturdy, but take it one step at a time when testing solutions.)

• Build: Everyone is built different.  Sometimes sloping shoulders or other things might mean that you need to angle the straps differently on your dresses.  You can change this angle by setting the straps closer together in the back than the front and testing that out.

 

• Are you using short front loops on the dress or are you pinning directly through the fabric of the garment?  Using loops allows you to strain your cloth less, and preserve it longer (constantly re-pinning through the cloth itself will both damage and stretch your precious aprondress textiles).

​

• Construction of straps:  There are several ways historically to fold the cloth to create the straps.  My personal favorite is to fold the cloth in half lengthwise and press it, and then fold each of those ends in and press again and whip stitch the edge closed.  This looks like double fold bias tape, but is not cut on the bias (straps cut on the bias would be very, very stretchy).  Also, if you have the option to cut the straps on the grain, rather than across it, that might eliminate some issues.

​

It is fairly common knowledge to those who work with Viking Age or other early garments that while we have number finds of textiles, that they are often incomplete.  The research to piece something together often has to extend beyond a single grave or even beyond an entire site or city to cobble together enough material to make things work.  To help with this we often need to resort to period art objects, as well as written sources outside of the Scandinavia to come up with reasonable, logical arguments for our work.

When someone is new to this field, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about what I call the Woulda/Coulda/Shouldas of reenacting, as well as the intricacy of "burden of proof" and where that rests.  I have talked before about the former on many occasions.  Being able to eliminate those things from our thought processes can really help to gain new perspective and elevate our work.

To help illustrate this type of methodology, I have pulled out two examples of excellent work by reenactors in creating well thought out, and highly documentable reconstructions of the same costume.  I chose these because both artisans worked heavily with archaeological evidence, additional evidence in near by locations or cultures and within a certain frame of time (rather than a broad stretch), yet both of these skilled women produced very different items.

For background, both Astri Bryde and Sophia Helen chose to recreate the costume of the Oseberg Queen.  This burial dates to about 834AD and had two women (presumed to be a queen and her attendant) in one of the most elaborate graves from the Viking Age.  This grave was discovered in 1903 by a farmer and the excavation started soon after.  It was a high status ship burial that included cart with incredible carvings, a bed, textiles and tools of their production, and a number of other items, ranging from functional to highly decorative.

​There are some additional details to consider when looking at this grave.  One is that textiles were not always treated as important at the time when this was excavated.  Another item of interest is that there was no jewelry (aside from a couple of stray beads) found at this site, some thing that is very unusual for a high status female grave of the period.  The condition of the textiles, possible disturbance in the grave, and the lack of jewelry leads to a great deal of speculation about the costume of these two women.  

What both Astri and Sophia have done is taken the facts that we do have (the textiles), knowledge of clothing of the period, including foreign fashion which is often proposed as an alternate costume for those of the highest status, and crafted well thought out costumes for this queen.  Below are their gowns, and with that I have added information about them (not based on any written documentation they produced, as they are not members of the SCA, but rather it comes from my own knowledge about the graves).

St 
Both of these dresses are beautiful.  Both conform to existing evidence, as well as sources and logical methodology.  Both of these dresses were not merely possible, but very plausible for the period.  We cannot really say which is correct, but what we cannot say is that either is wrong.  They are both valid interpretations.

Both artisans created garments that bring to life the evidence.  What they did not do, was make blind assumptions or illogical arguments for styling of these gowns.  

What could have mired these fantastic interpretations?  Woulda/coulda/shouldas.  These can be the worst of the traps that reenactors can fall into, in my opinion (and I have done so myself on more than one occasions, especially when I was starting out).  Examples are:

• I would have done it that way if I lived back then (ignoring the fact that if you lived back then that you would have a completely different mind-set than you do now).
• They could have done it because the Saxons did (while this one could well prove true for some things, you need to do the work to prove it... the burden of proof is on the person making the statement so research, sources and a good argument really have to back a statement like this).
• They should have done it because it makes sense to me (you are a modern person, they lived in a different world, and might well have had reasons, practical or not, for the things they did... again, the burden of proof is on you to show why this was an option for the person of the period).
• It is very important to remember that if we want to really dig into the past, we absolutely have to avoid logical fallacies such as the blind assumption that something is absolutely true just because it cannot be disproved.  If we could do that, I could say that the red cloth in the grave was all rags and they really wore modern evenings gowns while walking around.  Yes, that is completely ridiculous, but it is really not much different than making the assumption that this woman actually wore modern styled, red, bell bottom jeans, despite that literary, artistic and archaeological evidence point away from the idea of women dressing in pants, or that the pants we can see from the pre-medieval era are quire different in construction than our jeans. That is not to say that the concept is completely impossible (new evidence appears daily), but that it is not at all supported by any type of evidence that we have, and evidence, as well as a logical progression of thought surrounding it, is very key in how we can make a believable case for a period piece.

We need to make the closest connections we can with the limited evidence in the period to make sound arguments for our choices.  Both of the artisans I chose have done wonderful work on many levels, and their garments speak for themselves.

If you are interested in doing more reading on the fascinating grave from Oseberg, here are some resources:

Bender Jørgensen, Lise.  Prehistoric Scandinavian Textiles, (Det Kongelige Nordiske oldskriftselskab), 1986.

Bill, J., & Daly, A. (2012). The plundering of the ship graves from Oseberg and Gokstad: An example of power politics? Antiquity, 86(333), 808-824.

Christensen, Arne Emil and Nockert, Margareta. Osebergfunnet: bind iv, Tekstilene (Universitetet i Oslo), 2006.  (This is part of a 4 book series that covers the ship itself, the grave goods and the textiles.  The entire series is worth looking at.)

Christensen, Arne Emil; Ingstad, Anne Stine; and Myhre, Bjorn.   Oseberg-Dronningens Grav (Universitetets Oldsaksampling), 1992.

Holk, Peter. "The Oseberg Ship Burial, Norway: New Thoughts On the Skeletons from the Grave Mound", European Journal of Archaeology, Volume 9, Issue 2-3, 2006.

Ingstad, Anne Stein.  "The Textiles in the Oseberg Ship". http://forest.gen.nz/Medieval/articles/Oseberg/textiles/TEXTILE.HTM

Ingstad, Anne Stein.  "The Functional Textiles in the Oseberg Ship", NESAT 1, 1981. ​

Ingstad, Anne Stein. "Textiles from Oseberg, Gotland and Kaupang", NESAT 2, 1984.

Ruffoni, Kirsten.  "Viking Age Queens: The Example of Oseberg", Masters Thesis, 2011.

Stylegar, Frans-Arne and Niels Bonde. Fra Avaldsnes til Oseberg. Dendrokronologiske undersøkelser av skipsgravene fra Storhaug og Grønhaug på Karmøy.

Vedeler, Marianne. "The Textile Interior in the Oseberg Burial Chamber", A Stitch in Time: Essays im Honour of Lise Bender Jørgensen, 2014.

Vedeler, Marianne. Silk for the Vikings (Oxbow Books), 2014.

Someone compiled a data base with images and information on the finds for Viking Age possaments.  Enjoy!

http://database.birkaposamente.de/graves