It is far easier to be farby in early medieval impressions than it is to be farby in later-period—better documented—eras. I’m not talking about wearing spex, sneakers and wristwatches. The folk who willingly include these anachronisms are not trying for historical integrity in the first place. What I am talking about is the multiplicity of interpretations—many of which are probably incorrect and farby but cannot be determined one way or the other—as well as matters of safety and expense of availability.

When I visited Gettysburg last year, I ran cross a book of the way to manage the horse during the American Civil War. It wasn’t cobbled together from archaeological discovers, fleeting references in period texts and modern interpretations. It was what was written during that time and which the cavalryman was expected to follow in the military. I noted it to a friend, a horsewoman who does much earlier, and she lamented, “They have it so easy in the later periods…”

They do. Higher levels of literacy, a tendency to describe everyday life, a tendency to tell people exactly how they should do things: All can help guide any modern literate person away from farbiness (if they’re willing to read and to research). But more than any of this, are photographs of what was going on, and later moving film and video.

What a cornucopia of information exists for someone doing the Crimean War and later! Even illustrations—paintings and line illos and sketches—pale before photography, because the illustrator does his own interpretation, deciding what to include and what to ignore, probably deciding what is most dramatic (undoubtedly shared with photography and moving pictures, but there is more a chance that it was actually done!).. The photography often includes the everyday ephemera that is so easy to exclude because it clutters the scene!

What brings to mind today is a site of photographs from the American Ci8vil War, a three-part series of photos from the time and gathered by the Atlantic. Looking at these, I became distracted by the minutiae, by the sheer everyday portrayal by—oh my mother would hate this—by the clutter. And I was extremely sad that such are not available for my time! People portraying that era can still be farby; after all, therse photographs do not tell all the time about how often such scenes were seen, and many reenactors have a tendency to want to do the most romantic portrayal possible. But at least they have the possibilities presented them to discuss and to interpret. Reeavtorts recreating the era will hopefully not be spending days arguing, “Well, it’s logical that it would be done even if we have no provenance because I would do it!”

Of course, it is with chagrin that I feel the same sensation when looking at these photographs, going—from what I know and what I feel—”That looks very logical. I’ll be they did something similar in the Viking Age…”

Even if you’re not interested in other periods and cultures, taking a look at the photographs canm be fun and illuminating. Take a look a t the site!

Just back from Military History Fest (nee ReenactorFest) 8 near Chicago. Wonderful time, but we need more people doing early middle ages! Make a note to show up next year!

For a few shots, see http://www.flickr.com/photos/folo/sets/72157629201772865/ (sorry that there are none of the Regia setup. An error on my part )

Norse measurements and units are non-standardized and ambiguous, and as Christie Ward notes, seem to be oriented more toward larger measures. For more on this, see Gary Anderson’s interpretation or Christie’s own. We know more of Anglo-Saxon measurements.

These give you an idea of how the folk in the Viking Age divided lengths. Keep in mind that there was no zero at the time.

In Britain, at some point, the ell was standardized, possibly by Edward I in the thirteenth century. He commanded that each English town should have an ell-stick, which were all cut to the same length. This indicates to me that such straight-edges were used during the time before measurements were standardized. The ellstick (also known as an ell-wand, a mete-wand or merely as a Stikke) is a bar of wood or metal that is about an ell in length.

References to rules, squares and compasses for woodworkers are not found, but it would appear that such items were known in the Viking Age. These were instruments used by masons in the construction of buildings, although it takes little imagination to know that at least the better educated woodworker knew about them as well.

Such instruments were known to have existed in Roman times, and some from that era are still extant. They were made out of bronze, since the Mediterranean world was fairly iron-poor; by the middle ages in northern Europe, where, iron was more plentiful, the instruments were generally made out of iron. In the sixth century, Isidore of Seville refers “to a compass as a pair of dividers, perhaps not unlike those already noted in Roman times. Theophilus, twelfth-century author of the Schedula diversarum artium, mentions the use of a compass in making a small silver cup.” He also remarks about iron dividers and calipers, which is a big difference from the bronze ones used by the Romans.

Both squares and straight-edges are described by Isidore of Sevile: “It is constructed out of three rules, of which two are two feet long, and the third is two feet and ten inches long. They are…joined together at the ends of each to form a triangle.” This description indicates that medieval folk knew about the square, and the casual use of “rule” probably indicates that straight edges were well known as well.

This blog entry is theoretical and highly speculative. We have a strong suspicion that woodworkers of the time used items similar to these to measure their projects, so we wouldn’t object to woodworkers of today using such devices on the line. The fact that neither a wand nor a square was included in the Mästermyr chest certainly indicates that not all woodworkers of the era would have used them, though I suspect that a few might and certainly encourage modern woodworkers to use one. I would suggest that if you want to use a stick to take a piece of hard wood or metal that is about two feet or an ell in length. Divide it into lengths that fit your purposes: inches, millimeters, finger widths or anything else that is useful. Mark these with scratches, with knife notches or with pyrographic marks. If legends are needed, they can be given those like that you see on later runesticks

The resulting stick can be used in your efforts and may be displayed at events with no problem.

For a note on later medieval rules and squares used by woodworkers, see the Saint Thomas Guild of Woodworkers.

This is an excerpt from a forthcoming book I am writing, dealing with woodworking during the Viking Age. When published in the book, the list will also have alternate names and notes. The countries in which the woods were found are listed, and the final column—Unknown—refers to artifacts that have been uncovered made from some species of the wood.

Speaking of the native trees of the British Isles, the British Woodland Trust  notes that “native trees are usually defined as trees that arrived and grew here naturally after the last Ice Age, and were not introduced by humans.” Since we are here concerned with native trees and, most especially, trees that were available for use in the Viking Age, we like this definition and wish that other countries—and especially those who class as “native,” trees that have a North American or Asian origin—adhered to this definition as well. The following list was assembled from a variety of mainly botanical sources, checked against Wikipedia and may therefore be incorrect. Since we know about as much about botany as most botanists seem to know about history, any corrections will be gratefully received!

Neil Peterson has compiled a very useful listing of woods used in artefacts at http://www.darkcompany.ca/articles/wood.php

I think that one of the things I hate most about living history is the tendency to compartmentalize eras. I am certainly not speaking in favor of anachronisms; I am referring to cross-pollination.

If I had a nickel for every time the reenactor of one period—ironically, usually one who decries that no one else is up to his standards—I could probably afford Starbucks for the rest of my life! There seems sometimes to be a prejudice against other eras. I was told that so,meone thought Micel Folcland was beneath contempt because it was not American Civil War. Several AWI reenactors regularly refer to Civil War reenactors as Silly War reenactors and announce that articles on the French and Indian war is beneath their dignity. Reenactors of one era note they will not buy a magazine which features articles on eras that they do not recreate. Reenactors of American living history want nothing to do with medieval—”we had a war to get rid of that crap”—and medieval reenactors note they want nothing to do with American “because it’s not old enough to be real history.” And so on. You’ve probably encountered similar statements and perhaps—I hope not—said them yourself!

The fact is, as I noted while in Norse drag to a cowboy and a Colonial American reenactor at Reenactorfest a few years ago, we reenactors have much more in common than our different eras show how different we are. After a moment of thought, they agreed. After all:

• We both do the same kind of research for our impressions (though as an Anglo-Saxon reenactor noted, it’s far easier for the ACW reenactors!)

• We both wear funny costume

• We usually both adopt pseudonyms for our impressions

• We both use obsolete or “old-time” technology (even persons doing more recent eras in many instances)

• We even often employ the same tools, kit and instruments in many instances (a friend who did several eras called this “cross-timing,” a term that I have adopted; however, reserch things befoe using them!)

And again, so on. The differences are, in the end, rather trivial, sometimes more akin to different cultures from the same era than to segregating influences. There is also the matter that much of earlier culture did not change as fast as today’s OSs and Ipods do, and there was a tendency to not throw away things even if they were “out of fashion.” There are samples of Norse and Anglo-Saxons at the turn of the millennium who used materials from the Roman Empire; there is every indication that the famous Sutton Hoo helmet was at least a century old and even repaired for further use before being placed in the grave! Knowing what went on in the past is often as important as knowing what is going on in the era that you recreate!

A quarter century ago, Donlyn Myers of Smoke and Fire News  (a multi-era newspaper) noted that she and I were two of the few people who were really interested in more than one era. While that has changed, I think, there is still tendency among many to remain oblivious or even antagonistic to reenactors from other eras. That is indeed, unfortunate, because the people who are wear such blinders continually are forced to reinvent the wheel, not to take advantage of what another era has learned and can offer (both intellectual and physical). What can you learn from another era:

• What to avoid without trying it yourself (or changing it for better results)

• What to do (without reinventing the wheel; the number of times groupsw from different eras have virtually the same threads going at the same time—and refuse to listen to anyone who says that “in such-and-such a century they…”—would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic)

• Where to send someone who is interested in another era (instead of trying to pound a square peg into around hole)

• Everyday details of another era (entertaining and educational even if they are not practically useful for your impression; plus, if you are doing a third person, you can use these details to better explain details in your own era)

• As mentioned before, what is offered by sutlers and other vendors of another era that you might use in your own era

• Examples of how to better research and to determine the truth of your era

• Examples for recruiting, kit spex and other ways that your group runs things

The list goes on. These reenactors of other eras can be instructors, students, sometimes even mentors and always fellow travelers.

I have always liked talking to folks from other eras. I like being able to share things, especially with people who regard anachronisms the same way I do. I really like timelines, and I try to go to reenactments from other eras to schmooze and enjoy the ambiance.

What brings this up is that we were recently in Gettysburg and, quite unwittingly, wandered into its second largest reenacting event of the year, Remembrance Day. We stayed an extra day to see the parade, to visit sutlers, to talk with fellow travelers, to trade ways of doing things and to watch thousands of very good reenactors. We had a great time, and we picked up a number of items—tent stakes, bees’ wax candles and lye soap for example—for use in our camp, as well as a few items that were just neat. It was fun and instructive, and if I go back, it’s going to be during an event like this. I heartily urge others from this and other eras to go to such a reenactment, to see, to learn and hopefully to improve!

I also urge folk to go to timeline and other multi-era events. My favorite of the year is ReenactorFest (now Military Odessey Fest, but it will always be ReenactorFest to me!) in Chicagoland in February. And to mix and to mingle with the folks that do another era but who have a Clew!

Micel Folcland focuses on civilian, everyday life, and I assume that this has dissuaded many “swordjocks” from joining or participating after they find they can’t play war games with us. But as I often note, after all most “Vikings” were farmers for most of the year. Dan Crowther has put a good article on civilian living history up on his blog at http://www.celticclans.org/re-livinghistory/?p=460

We just got back from a multi-era trip to the East Coast, including the National Geographic Museum in Washington, DC. The exhibit has a hundred pieces of the Staffordshire Hoard, along with videos and modern reproductions provided by Regia in the UK. It will be there until March.

The Staffordshire Hoard is a collection of gold and silver pieces from the seventh or eighth century that is redefining our idea of the so-called “Dark Ages.”  It was discovered in 2009 by a metal detectorist working with the owner’s permission in a field near the village of Hammerwich, near Lichfield, in Staffordshire, England. The Hoard, consisting of some 3,500 items, has been valued at over five million dollars, which will be shared between the finder and the owner of the land. It is not only an example of finding a picture window into the past but of everyone concerned doing the Right Thing! Authorities and archaeologists were alerted by the founders, and a subterfuge was used to keep the discovery secret and safe until authorities had a hand on it. There are many sites available that speak more about the discovery, including this site.

The Lost Gold of the Saxons display was incredible and highly recommended. The artifacts are overwhelming, and after a while you just concentrate on the videos, taken from the two documentaries put out by NatGeo and including a sequence on how the inlying, etc. was done (that may be on the second doc, which I haven’t seen). The things sent by Regia in the UK were wonderful and well arranged. it was fun guessing who sent what (and who various persons in the videos were, since the nasal helms were very confusing. They did a marvelous display where a rebated sword was in a cage, so kids could pick it up and feel how heavy it was but couldn’t swing it around!

The NatGeo folk apparently drastically underestimated the appeal of the exhibit. They had no exhibition catalog, had sold out of the DVD of the first program two weeks ago and didn’t expect new copies for another week or two, had only one facsimile of jewelry for sale, no CDs of music (archaeological or otherwise) except for a DVD of Beowulf recited to lyre music) and only two books on Anglo-Saxon life in the bookstore. They did have an umbrella with a sword hilt handle They still have until March to put in new stuff, so I will be watching it!

The first documentary on the Hoard is available on DVD; a DVD of the second documentary will, I was told, be available in two months (apparently, they were overwhelmed by requests and questions and are rushing it into production).

The food in the cafe was good as well

Information on the exhibit may be reached on the National Geographic site. To get the book and DVD published by National Geographic without going to Washington, you can go to their shop online.

“The most instructive experiences are those of everyday life”—Friedrich Nietzsche

From its start, there have been four main goals for Micel Folcland:

1. Of course, for participants to have fun. That does not mean, as it does with some societies, to let members do anything they want. As a folc once wisely said, “History is fun.” Research is fun. Learning things is fun. Quite simply, those folk who call research and accuracy anal and restrictive are doing something that, to me, is not fun!

2. That leads into the second, that is almost as important as the first. We want everyone to be accurate. No sneakers. No spectacles. No cinematic versions of reality. Sometimes this involves research, and it is certainly being anal, including a willingness to change the portrayal as new information becomes available.

3. Micel Folcland was, from the beginning, educational. That certainly distinguished us from the various fantasy LARPs that say they are reenactment groups and which use claims of accuracy only to not do things they object to. As many visitors have said, “You taught me something new today.” That’s what we are trying to do and, sometimes, we succeed in educating ourselves as well, when we research something that has eluded us!

4. And the fourth is that we attempt to portray everyday life.

With these goals in mind, once again, we see that Micel Folcland was never that much different from any other group that does serious living history. A member of one of the farbier societies noted to me that he wants to recreate the unique and the extraordinary, but as Kenneth Hudson, speaking of living history interpretation in museums but relevant for other efforts, notes, participants “dress in period costume and conduct period crafts and everyday work.” At our first board meeting, we adapted the motto: “The common Anglo-Saxon on the cow-path.” (As we refined our focus, we changed that to the average Anglo-Scandianian, but the idea never changed) After watching the inaccurate but hysterical British situation comedy, “Dark Ages,” we added another motto: “Common as Otter Plop.” And hopefully, though we have strayed a bit—for example, most people of he time would have slept on the ground but we, owing to our venerable and wizened old age, use a reproduction of one of the Oseberg beds—we have remained true to the ideal.

The reactions have been varied. A lot of people respect you for making this choice. Some think that you’re a prat because no one cares. A few don’t understand (not merely why you made the choice but what the choice could possibly be). A few ask the pertinent question: How do you determine what is everyday culture?

Obviously, that can be difficult. We know that folk of the kind engaged in textiles; they’d be running around naked otherwise. We know that there was kind of military training; it was, in the words of Robert Lacey and Danny Danziger in The Year 1000, an age of thugs. We know what was eaten and when (if they had a successful harvest in many instances). But how many communities had moneyers? How many pieces of furniture did a household have (and what kind was found)? Did the culture have artifacts from another time or from another culture, and if they did have any, how many did they have?

Obviously, that must be found out with research, and then the answer must be compromised a bit to suit modern laws, health statutes, etc., as well as how educational its practice might be for the MoPs. The existence of artifacts and practices must be found in period as well. For the most part, most serious living history societies follow a simple rule: If you find two (independent) instances of the existence of an artifact or practice, then it is fair use (some groups use three instances, but that is up to and your group). Concentrating our era, let’s take a few examples:

• Scissors have been found in the Viking Age, so their use is permitted (if they resemble those found from the period).

• Books were well known so their use would be permitted, but their ownership restricted to certain classes and should not be widely used (unless reenacting a monastery or the such and if, as before, they resemble those found in the period).

• Some items from other cultures have been found in trading centers (such as silk), their use and possession are permitted would generally have been restricted to the wealthy.

• They have found a single jade Buddha in Northern Europe, so its use would be restricted.

• Although the Norse knew about cotton no doubt, they would have also realized how useless it would have been in their homelands, so there is no evidence it was used in Northern Europe at this time, so its use in recreating our era would be forbidden.

• The use of horned helmets has never been proven for the time, and their invention and assignation to the Vikings has been documented, so their use is not only stereotypical but not timely in the least.

Decisions have to be made by each group as to how many unique and expensive artifacts may permitted in an exhibition. Some might depend on the integrity of the individual and not make a ruling, allowing members to use and own artifacts that have little or no provenance. Others might limit each person to a single (and different) artifact that is uncommon. A few might just forbid any artifact tht is restricted in any way.

In the case of Micel Folcland, the use of a unique or expensive artifact has to be okayed in each instance by the AO. In most cases, it depends on how many folc are involved or, in some instance, the intention of the show (for example, hangerocs are rare in the period we recreate and are limited to a single person at a show, but in shows for Scandinavian-American organizations, we are more lax). We are trying for the common impression and feel that the abundance of uncommon items, especially in a small group of participants, would lerad to incorrect interpretation of the era by MoPs.

Such decisions must be made by the group involved, and hopefully this something that has already been considered. And when a decision has been made, the group should hold to them and enforce them!

Keep all of these rules of thumb in mind when determining what would or would not be commonly used in the era and culture you recreate. If you do, and apply it fairly, you will find out that you are being educational, accurate and, more than anything else, having fun!

For a useful book concentrating on common life in England around the First Millennium, see

Robert Lacey and Danny Danziger’s The Year 1000: What Life Was Like at the Turn of the First Millennium, An Englishman’s World. I have three copies and even today, a decade after its publication, often read parts!

When the jars and bowl were finished, I transferred the salve I purchased from Jas. Townsend & Sons, an old friend and purveyor of eighteenth-century merchandise. It was composed of wheat, honey, bees wax, and lavender oil (all accurate for my period even if it does not duplicate any known recipes of the time). Townsend adds, “And it’s guaranteed not to contain lead, mercury, or arsenic as did so many of the original salves.” Sin e the jar it came in was an eighteenth-century style, I gave to my wife, who is a lover of fine ceramics.

Then I designed a new box large enough to contain them. I did not make the ends sloping like so many boxes of the time had, simply for reasons of space. I have grown accustomed to pegging all my boxes, but for this one—I figured that a physician would have the money for metal—I used cut nails to hold it together (cut nails resembled forged nails, but they are much more affordable; Tremont Nails are great to work with and offer several appropriate styles!). I briefly considered studding it with a huge bunch of nails, à la the Oseberg chest, but decided not to do so. The chest was made of poplar, a hard wood that is far lighter than oak. No provenance; that was just for convenience in carrying it.

After sanding the poplar, I stained it a dark color. Though I do not distress items I make—everything is new once, and I like the patina that age and use gives an item!—this resulted in what both I and others have seen as a distressed product. Still looks good.

Afterwards, I needed hinges, of course, and then it occurred to me: the ingredients of the chest are valuable and would have been protected by a lock. Turning again to Daegrad, I bought a pair of hinges and a lock. The hinges are applied. And I’ll apply the lock as soon as I can regularly unlock it!

There are still a few things that I need to acquire before next season. One, of course, is crosswort. I have an empty jar reading to receive some of it. I’ll bring halms of various types as they became available, but they will not be parts of the regular kit. And I intend to make a mereswine whip.

And there is the rub. Mereswine is Old English for porpoise. Finding porpoise skin is, to say, the least, difficult and possibly illegal. Mereswine whips were used for flogging the madness out of patients, so I had to have one. Using the style of whip owned by the Museum of London ), I made a prototype reproduction that looks a lot like the original. Consulting with a local leather expert, we decided that lambskin would be the best readily available, legal alternative; and I will be making another whip just to be certain of construction details and then makng my own faux-mereswine whip!

A local organic food store had a sale, but unfortunately they did not have rue, lily berries, crosswort and other ingredients I needed. I got ingredients for some more jars:

• Salve (from Jas. Townsend, already mentioned)

• Wormwood (actually a brewing supply)

• Honey

• wheat

• fennel

• berries (dried blueberries because they did not have ivy, and these look good…and can be eaten on the line as well)

• Hempseeds (in addition to the more recognizable plastic)

• willow leaves

I’m looking forward to trotting it all out next season and healing a few MoPs!

For copies of translations of Bald’s Leechbook and other leechbooks of the period, see the three volumes of Thomas Oswald Cockayne’s Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England: Volume One , Volume Two  and Volume Three.

When I decided to do an Anglo-Scandinavian leech impression on the line, a few things occurred to me. The first was how to display the leeches. There were plenty of canisters and jars from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but there was very little evidence for what was done in earlier days. A few people suggested that leeches were just kept in the pond out back. But as I read further, it become increasingly evident that the worms were not used inAnglo-Scandinavian  England of this period (nor undoubtedly in the rest of England nor in Scandinavia). After reading treatises of the time on bleeding, I became certain not only that bleeding was done by piercing parts of the body but that the laeces knew that bleeding could be much more harmful than it could be theoretically beneficial. Times were listed when bleeding was warned against, and there are warnings that a patient should not be overbled. This rather sagacious commentary was forgotten later, when nearly a third of George Washington’s blood may have been removed to cure him (right before he died, possibly from blood loss). The leeches were tossed out (well, most of them. One named Læknir the Leech was kept because one of the mmbers of the group was smitten with the name).

I found a source for medical instruments of the time, Daegrad tools. Three were offered: a scalpel, a bone saw and, to my delight and while not terms as such, a fleam. I made a leather container for them; I have no documentation for such an item, but I needed someplace to kep them!

This meant that I needed a bleeding bowl. The styles available were all from later periods, and there was no evidence that they were used in our time. I found an illustration showing a bowl being held beneath a dripping wound and, having seen nothing else, decided that was the shape that I needed. I had too few ceramic jars that could hold the herbs and other ingredients. I had an idea of what I wanted. I contacted old friends, Mike and Sarah Wisdom of Hearthstone Arts. They love doing accurate reproductions, and I was able to show them period illustrations of what I needed, and they agreed to make a number, as well as the bleeding bowl.

I already have three leechbooks that I had assembled, two leechbooks from he tme and one a compilation selected from these and other sources. Since only one book of this period and place that I know of—the Stonyhurst or Cuthbert gospel—has not been rebound, I looked to it for the method of binding the book. It was bound in a style similar to Coptic binding, and I have done several variations, all experimental, trying to find a reasonable alternative. (I have one that I like now, so I may be reproducing these leechbooks again using that style!)

Because two ingredients in very many recipes was hemp and dung—and for legal and other reasons I hesitated to include the actual raw materials—I found a source for plastic cannabis leaves and, at a local novelty store, dog poop. Granted, many recipes called for boar or sheep dung, while others just mentioned dung, but finding plastic versions were impossible, and I’m certain my wife would divorce me if I carried around real dung of any type even if I had wanted to! These formed the basics of my pharmacy, and it is amazing how easily they engender conversations with MoPs!

Using red linen, I hand stitched a band that could be wrapped around the head to cure headaches. It was to contain crosswort.

Using a period illustration of a man mixing ingredients for a potion in a mortar and pestle, I actually found a jar that looked like the mortar and then added a pestle, which I carved from wood to look like that in the illustration. At least one person said that it should not be wood, but she does a later-period impression and was selling ceramic mortar and pestles, What I have is considerably smaller than that showed in the illustration.

A short and informative text from he turn of the last century on Anglo-Saxon leechcraft is available at http://www.archive.org/details/anglosaxonleechc00welliala.