I am deep in research for my Apothecary as well as future posts about Early (and Early Early) Period textiles, but I wanted to take a moment to share an opportunity to be a modern day Patron of the Arts.

Feed the Ravens (aka Maggie and Scot) is a an incredible vendor in the SCA.  These folks are beyond knowledgeable not only about their arts of ceramics, leathercraft and wood working, but also about the general history and material culture of the Viking Age.  They are constantly giving to our SCA and reenactment communities by sharing their knowledge.  I am proud to count them as friends.

Last year, at the urging of others, they finally started a Patreon page (HERE).  For those unfamiliar with the site, this allows artisans to gain the support of their fans in return for a window into their lives, as well as special offers, deals and sometimes even gifts.  It allows for a more historic form of sponsorship of the arts, which can allow artisans a bit of space to be more creative knowing that some of their own needs can be met.

I think it is amazing and joined pretty much as soon as it launched.  Patreon is set up nicely to allow for differing levels of commitment to the cause.  For Feed the Ravens it ranges from $3 a month to $100 a month.

Some of these tiers offer special shopping pre-sales, and just recently, there was an opportunity to PRE-ORDER pottery!  They also sent out gifts to subscribers at the end of the first year.

As an incentive right now, there is a contest for a FREE year of pottery.  Everyone who joins with an annual subscription will be entered and have a chance of winning!  The message they sent out is below in red text, and note that you have till NOON (Eastern Standard Time) on March 31 to join to be eligible.  I do believe you need to be in the US or Canada to win so one might want to check on that if you are outside of the US.  The Patreon link is here: www.patreon.com/ftrfeedtheravens/posts

GIVEAWAY! A one year pottery subscription!

All new Patrons who sign up for an Annual Membership on our patreon at ANY tier will be entered in a drawing for a chance to win a ONE YEAR POTTERY SUBSCRIPTION FREE! A $1200+ value! One piece of our pottery per month sent to the winner for one year. We will choose a variety of different styles, sizes and functions for you from our studio. The higher the tier you sign up for, the more entries go into the drawing for you. Each dollar pledged is one entry! Tiers start at three dollars! To sign up for a full year, choose the tier you want to join, and select Annual Membership. Best of all, paying for the full year up front gets you a 10% discount!

Why are we running this promotion? Scot needs a new leather tool, and frankly, we just can't afford it right now. This tool will not only make his process go much faster, it will save untold wear and tear on his wrists. Check out this epic edging tool! (FYI, Scot currently and since about 16 years has been edging all of his belts by hand!)

Already a Patron? DON'T WORRY! We have another pottery subscription giveaway for you all as well! check your patron emails for details coming soon!

Link to our Patreon is on our main Feed the Ravens Facebook page. Deadline is noon EST on March 31 to enter, Drawing will be that evening!

And this isn't all they are offering!  They are doing a limited run of their Mug of the Month boxes!  I did this over the winter and got some incredible pieces from them.  I highly recommend diving into this if you have the funds for it.  It is wonderful fun to see what comes in the mail each month.  Details from their Facebook page are below in red.  I have added the link in green text in the copy from their page to make access easy.

SURPRISE BOX! Pottery Subscription! Who's in? 4 months, for one hundred per month, you will get one piece of pottery per month.  This will include:

• One historical stamped cup
• One Maggie Mug (with Handle)
• One Seasonal Rune cup (Spring or Summer)
• One Stamped Bowl - (large stew bowl or small serving bowl size)

Scroll through the photos (HERE) in this post to see examples of what you might get!
The monthly payment includes priority shipping. We will invoice you through our website.
Available as a monthly invoice, OR... hear me out- Pay all at once and get a FREE whiskey sipper - a one of a kind made just for you.

The first 30 subscriptions will go out April 15-30, the next 20 subscribers will get their first boxes May 15-30. and 50 is about all we can handle at this time.

WHY are we doing this special thing now and why should you jump on this? We are trying desperately to get approved for a home loan, and for what we want/need for a live/work situation we need 20% down. Covid and my surgery tanked our savings. and all of our monthly bills have gone up. We have to get out of this rental situation. A cash infusion at this time would seriously help our chances of get what we need to get there.  PM me if you want a subscription!  (FB Page info to message Maggie to subscribe is HERE)

THIS IS FOR 4 PIECES TOTAL, ONE PER MONTH, INCLUDING SHIPPING. (These are time consuming pieces of art, not fast production ware, and shipping is about 15-20% of the price)  

Below is a photo of some of the items I have that might be similar to items in the subscription boxes (every box will be UNIQUE though, that is part of the fun).  

Are you aiming to dive into Viking clothing or looking to upgrade a more fantasy Viking Age wardrobe into something more suitable to historic reenactment?  There are many traps most folks fall into when they start out (myself included).  Below is a brief list of things you can do from the outset, so that you can better fit the scene, if that is your desire.  In the past, I have taught a short class in the SCA about how to start your first Viking kit in a fashion that can be built upon later, rather than having to be totally reworked, as you progress towards higher authenticity.  Many of these clothing items are mentioned in the class.  This article is specifically for the Viking Age and broadly covers Denmark, Norway, Sweden (but not Gotland, which has different clothing traditions), Iceland, and the British Isles.  This[MKB1]  does not apply to Finnish, Baltic or Rus clothing, and may not apply to every time and place even in the areas covered.  Further research should be done to better align your clothing and equipment choices to fit the culture and class of your persona.

Note, if you belong to a reenactment group that has specific standards or a guide book, one should always consult that book or the authenticity officers as to what is allowed.  If you do not care about historical accuracy and just want what you personally feel is a “Viking look”, that is fine, especially for the SCA or Viking or Ren Faires.  This article is not geared to telling someone what they are doing is “wrong”, but rather to help align the evidence and help those who might want to take the next steps towards a more realistic historic interpretation.

1.  1)Textiles – the most common textiles in the Viking Age are wool and linen.  The most common weaves are tabby (plain weave, also called linen weave or canvas weave) or twill (this is a diagonal weave structure such as you find in your blue jeans).  My charts HERE show how common different weaves were in different areas.  Researcher David Stříbrný also has an article HERE about how uncommon herringbone twill is in period as well.  I have another article HERE which will help you distinguish a period diamond twill from types that we do not often see in the Viking Age.  Plain tabby and twill in solid colors are the best choices for most situations.
2. Not every Norse woman in the Viking Age wore an apron-dress (or those that did might not have worn it in all situations).  I have an article on apron-dresses HERE and Hilde Thunem talks dress/tunic/gown construction HERE. This is fantastic, because brooches are often the most expensive part of a woman’s kit, and starting with a simple dress means you can sort out what details of your persona BEFORE buying that pricey bling.
   
3. While it is common to see sprawling herringbone stitch on the outside of seams in reenactment, this practice is not supported by evidence (nor is it actually practical, as the constant loops of the stitch can sometimes twist seams).  This practice comes from a misinterpretation of evidence from Mammen and I discuss it HERE and HERE. 
   
4. Since herringbone stitch is out, how do you embellish a garment?  I have ideas in a two part series of articles that start HERE. The article covers braids, cords, and trim made of silk fabric. 
   
5. Another option for decoration is tablet weaving, but keep in mind that period tablet weave tends to be very narrow and made of fine yarn.  We see more complex methods, such as brocading, than we do simple turn-based patterns.  If you plan to weave something, and are looking for accuracy, it is good to verify that the pattern you are working from is from the current state of research.  Many brocade patterns have been revamped into turn-based patterns and the effect is so vastly different that it really is not the same thing at all.  Silvia Asiling has a fantastic example of this on her site HERE.
   
6. Remember that you need not add decoration at all!!!  The quality of your textiles is often a better indicator of the status of your persona.  Add some jewelry or other accessories (time/place/status specific) and you can be of the highest status without the need to clutter your silhouette with “Viking-esque” popular cultural items.
   
7. Leather accessories – While we commonly associate belts and belt pouches with everyone in medieval or early medieval period, it would be good to look into whether this is actually something your persona would have had.  In many cases, women might not have work belts at all, and for men there is a tendency to go overly large and overly long with both belts and pouches (often, large belt buckles are for horse harness).  There is some great research on men’s belts HERE.
   
8. Proper headwear can make or break an outfit.  It is good to invest some research time into this before deciding what is proper for your persona.  There are reenactor myths that Christian Viking women covered their hair with a veil and that Pagans never did, and that statement is not supported by evidence.  A veil can be an item of fashion and practicality as well as an element of faith.  At times, it is possible that women chose to cover their hair for practical reasons (such as keeping smoke out of your hair or the sun from baking your head), and not cover it at others.
   
9. Heavy swags of beads with multiple strands or bead spreaders are exceedingly uncommon in the general Viking period.  Some graves that are wealthy enough for oval brooches have no beads at all.  At Birka, we see an average of 22.7 beads in graves (and many of those are small), and at Hedeby, the average is only 8.3 beads.  You need not break the bank to buy piles of beads to follow popular modern conceptions of what looks “Viking”.  Starting with a few handmade beads and working up a collection of accurate types is very appropriate.  Some of my bead research can be found HERE.
   
10. Heavy make-up (Heilung style), use of leather and leather armor (especially as “clothing”), knee-high boots, and ragged pelts slung over the shoulders or worn as cloaks are items of fantasy.  If your goal is accuracy, I would step away from these items and work towards grounding your kit in the evidence.

I have a number of articles here on my blog that can help sort additional items out.  They can be found the topics of Viking Costume: Beyond the Myth and Viking Textiles – Looking Deeper.  For excellent articles on costume I recommend Hilde Thunem and Susanna Broome.  For fantastic research on armor, weapons, leather goods, and more, I highly suggest David Stříbrný’s site.
 
Given that most of us do not launch right into high-end historic reenactment, we can take our time, start simple, and thoughtfully develop the details of our persona (time, culture, location, status, wealth, occupation, and circumstance) and build out from there, making upgrades or adding finer details as we go.

I feel this is very relevant to share here. I have repeatedly ranted on my own wall on Facebook more than once about this weird transition about "Viking" things into something that is only barely related to history at all, just because we, as modern people, want to craft a mythology with which we can identify.

This article on Hurstwic largely focuses on combat, but there is much relevant to any period for reenactment and research. If you choose not to read it, I will leave you with what I consider the two most valuable parts of the piece.  You can read it by clicking HERE. 

The first is at the beginning and states, "We are not vikings." Fact. You aren't, and I am not. This is a group of people that are long gone. We can learn about them, study them, event try to reenact parts of their lives, but we are, in fact, not actual Vikings.  Nothing is ever going to change that.

And the second, and most important, is near the end... "Zeitgeist / Wishful thinking". Actually, please go read this. This specifically addresses the morphing of Vikings into some modern legend that largely strips away the reality.  

Is it fine for fantasy or a LARP? Are elements of this costuming even fine for the SCA? Yup, please, come sit by my fire at an event and have a drink and we can all have a good time together.  

The problem arises when someone tries to force the past to suit some sort of modern ideal that they want fulfilled. This applies to not just fighting but clothing, gender roles, spirituality or anything else. Research is complex, nuanced and never ending.  Trying to shift history to meet our own expectations is a very dangerous and slippery slope.  This is the type of thing from which terrible memes are made (and these memes often eventually get taken as utter truth... whether it is about the role of Norse women in history or ones about Turkish coffee houses in the 16th century or really extra stupid ones about how Savannah cats weigh 40lbs, these things are typically either laden with lies or just an all-out lie).

At some point, doing this becomes a lie, a rewriting of history to suit a personal fantasy. Be honest in your own goals and approach (and yes, "I like this specific look because it is fun!" is totally valid in the SCA, and there is no need to try to justify things with woulda/coulda/shouldas).  If you enjoy studying history, dig deeper, and learn more.  If you just want to play dress up (something that is totally valid), be honest in that that is your desire.

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.)