A VIKING OF A DIFFERENT COLOR 1
BOOK REVIEW: True Myth: Black Vikings of The Middle Ages by Nashid Al-Amin
There are many who will refuse to regard this book seriously because it does not adhere to what they have been told all their lives by accepted views or because it was written—as one reenactor complained, by a communist Muslim. However, it is to a great extent a stagnation of inquiry and a blind acceptance of the conventional and a rejection of any new idea.
It is not merely the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists and the Klansmen who will hate this book. So will anyone who hates to have their stereotypes challenged. They would be as disgusted and antagonistic if you said that George Washington didn’t admit to chopping down a cherry tree, that Abraham Lincoln did not free every slave with his Emancipation Proclamation or that Christopher Columbus was not the first white man to set foot on America and not the first man in Europe to proclaim that the earth was round
Let’s face it. Even folk who do not follow Nazi thought thinks that the Norsemen of the Viking Age were all blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryans. Look at the stereotypical graphic portrayals in popular literature, popular illustrations and film! Now that popular concept must be right. After all, just look at their presentations of fine horned helmets!
When I ordered this book, I thought it would deal with slaves and others from Africa but it deals with that almost not at all. Let’s forget for a moment that the Norse were probably of many different races, introduced by slavery and more. They traveled everywhere, interbred with the local population and, if accounts written before the modern racist age are not ignored, cared little about skin color except as a descriptive. I have long believed that there were white Vikings, black Vikings and—going by meetings in Russia and Asia—probably yellow Vikings, just as there were heathen, Christian and probably Jewish Vikings (made trade easier). This was predominant in my mind when I picked up this book…
Whoa. Reassessment time!
It is Al-Amin’s theory that Northern Europe was settled by a black race—which is supported by illustrations and by descriptions—and that the black races were still in dominance in Scandinavia during the Viking Age. In my opinion, but not Al-Amin’s, the theory is still inadequately supported. He backs up that assertion by notes that the black infidels, by the original meaning of Den and by other matters that are generally ignored or interpreted in a different manner that has nothing to do with skin coloring but also with literary and graphic sources. His theory is frustratingly both very thought-provoking and highly jingoistic.
The title and theme of the book seems to often take a back seat to Al-Amin’s Afrocentric—at least antiEurocentric—views. As such many Aryan traditionalists will discard the book immediately and not consider his many cogent—if radical and revisionist—observations. And to be fair, there are some very convincing points for rejecting the book.
Next week, I will deal with several points for rejecting the book and, by extension, its thesis.
THE WORD LARP IS NOT DEROGATORY
Far too many people regard the word “LARP” as insulting. I don’t find it insulting at all. It is descriptive. It is not a pejorative, unless the person objecting to the term is representing himself and his society as something other than a LARP.
LARP is actually an acronym and not an independent word. It starts for “Live Action Role Playing,” and ” is a form of roleplaying where the participants physically act out their character’s actions.” There are a lot of variation in its description and definition, though these variations do not differ as substantially from Living History, and I don’t think that the term “character” is essential, although the term is very close to “persona” or “impression.” In some minds, if you have an alternative name, a backstory, a title and powers (that is, powers not attained from natural abilities but granted by the entity running the LARP), you have a character. I’m not certain, but that is a matter we can deal with in a later column!
The term actually is dependent on what participants want to do. On what they concentrate. Why they joined and participate in that society. It might be an obviously fantasy- and magic-based society—like Nero or Dagorhir or even Dungeons & Dragons—and even then there are some practitioners who get protective of their image and refuse the term. There are others which are more realistic—I have dealt before with the difference between high and low fantasy—but which still are driven by the definition as set forth above. Take away these components, and there is no reason to have that society!
The difference is not a set of rules; everything has a rule of some sort. The difference, I think, is whether it has a set of authenticity regs. The fact that a society has authenticity regs of some sort—something more specific than merely requiring an “attempt” (not even a reasonable or earnest attempt) at period costume—although these regs differ not only in interpretation but often in what is required. A generic reasonable attempt (as interpreted by whom? Obviously authenticity regs usually require AOs of some sort)? An ability to point to specific physical artifacts from the time? As I noted before, that is up to the society and its members. There is no need to be involved with a society when you do not agree with its regs. That is unfair to you…and to the society and to its other members!
However, it seems to me that the existence of authenticity regs can indicate that the society is not merely a LARP, but their existence does not determine the opposite. Is serious Viking Age—or any era—reenacting a LARP? It certainly could be, and I think it depends on what that society or those participants want it to be. If wanting to make things as accurate as possible according to the society’s authenticity regs is one things; and if there is LARPish factors—for example, a member who emulates a specific historical individual—contained within those requirements, then I would have no problem calling it a LARP.
And would not be consider that using such a term is a put down at all!
THE TEN-FOOT HERESY
There is a popular concept among many renactors and many folk who call themselves reenactors without understanding what the term means. These are people who are not interested in experiencing and portraying accuracy. It is called the Ten-Foot Rule (or at times the Ten-Inch Rule or the Ten-Yard Rule or, for all I know, the Ten-Mile Rule.
I am not here speaking of the ten-foot rule that was invented by Sam Walton. Rather, I am using the term as conscripted by the reenacting community. Roughly speaking, it says that if you get within ten feet of someone and he does not look like an absolute farb, that is enough.
Find something to be proud of. Ignore or accept anything that isn’t. Wear polyester. Ignore inappropriate spex. A few folk go so far as to say “No one will notice those sneakers because they are black…”
Don’t get me wrong. Living history will always be an illusion. If you cannot see it, if it does affect your historical silhouette, if you feature proper fabric and proper sewing and proper metal, it does not matter. If you are wearing Rupert the Bear underoos, I don’t care as long as the MoPs do not see them. However, when you wear them beneath a kilt and when you die, the kilt flies up around your neck, then I care.
There are, of course, societies that endorse the ten-foot rule. Fine. Hopefully they will recognize the image they are presenting, even if I have to spend more time defending my society’s accuracy and comparing my group’s standards against theirs. And I will, of course, not play in those societies. That is not what I am trying to do, what I endorse. Hopefully, such a person will not be playing with and intermingled with my society, and people will not be confused by the presentations..
When I look at someone who is farby from my society, I can only think that this person is representing me. A knowledgeable MoP will see him and think that everyone in the society has lax standards. A society is judged not by the aspirations of its members or even by its best presentation; it is judged by its worst.
So when someone defends or proposes the ten-foot rule, don’t be surprised by the look on my face. Just do not do this and ask me what I think of it. I don’t think you would like my answer…
OF AUTHENTICITY REGS
Authenticity Regs—what members of your society is allowed to make kit from–vary from society to society. Some are stringent, and some are very lax…some might say non-existent, and they might vary—usually in details for societies interested in extreme authenticity—but they help to coordinate the appearance of participants. For an example of what Authenticity Regs might contain, see Regia’s Authenticity Regulationsm which were originally written down by Gary Golding as society Authenticity Officer and then revised by his successor, Gavin Archer. Gavin has added a second document which delineates a Authenticity Kit Guides which is mainly for the appearance of military items.
This being said, the is no need to critically examine anything worn by someone in another society—especially if they beg for egoboo on how swell they look—and then tell them what they have to do to bring it up to your standards or the standards of your society That is dangerously close—and perhaps in fact is—what I commonly refer to as an Authenticity Nazi.
What another society—or an individual—chooses as its authenticity regs is its concern. Members of that society have chosen to adopt and to live by them; as a friend says, what is permitted is promoted, and they do not want to be “bettered.” Smile if necessary, do not answer their questions if at all possible and, especially, do not criticize! Save the criticisms for members of your society, since they more than anything, represent you; and any farb they wear reflects back on what you do and wear. (You can use the farby wear as I do to warn members of your society to never ever never wear anything like that!)
A final note. I generally use the term “accuracy” instead of “authenticity” for most replicas and reproductions, and for a very simple matter. Years ago, at a display, a young girl came up and looked at the hardware, including a helmet. Finally she said, “Is this authentic?”
I assured her it was.
“Wowzer,” she said. “So someone back then wore this…”
My face fell, and I have used the term “accurate,” especially when dealing with MoPs, ever since!
THE PHYSICAL WORLD OF THE PAST
It struck me today: If I was not doing living history, what would I be doing?
And the answer came nearly as quickly: I simply cannot imagine not doing living history of some type. I might move from one aspect—read society—to another because of politics, because of standards—or lack thereof—or because of interests—I should point out that I love Regia Anglorum, though, and it fulfills my needs very very capably—but I would find it unable to step away from living history. I study it. I discuss it. I breath it. I am surrounded by reminders. When I am not actually doing it—at events, either as a participant or as a spectator—I am doing research into things that will enable me and others to do better impressions.
Not fancy bling, not clean and sparkling clothing, not extraordinary furniture and not undocumented but convenient assumptions. Fantasy-driven cosplay simply does not interest me. It is the sum of the mundane, everyday life of some time in the past that fascinates me. Research into, attaining and maintenance of a realistic environment are essential to me if the experience is supposed to satisfy me. Any anachronisms—humorous or not—only spoil the illusion. Cinematic accuracy and not playing to details—both large and small—can be frustrating and totally disruptive. Role-playing games, fantasy titles and excessive society-protecting bureaucracy is only slightly more pleasurable to me than taking an eight-pound hammer and smashing my hand!
Now, of course, I wear historical clothing while creating that environment—that is essential to the environment. That is not the reason that I do it. That is not among the reasons that I became so interested during the ACW Centennial in the 1960s. The reasons were the little things. They still are. Those physical tokens of the past: It does not matter if they are reproductions or exact re-creation or authentic. They set my heart to pattering and puts a smile on my face. Knowing the histories of notable, famous and extraordinary men does not appeal to me as much as the histories of the common man. I collected maps, charts, books, kepis, coins, all the small bric-à-brac that gave me an idea—and a feel—about the past. My roots as a reenactor stems from those days, when I collected the ephemera of living in the past, and dressed—with the help of my grandmother—in the fashions of an earlier time to play with the items collected but did not realize that this was living history. But I liked it, wanted to do it and got involved in it as soon as I could.
Of course, I was not a good reenactor in those days. Research was watching a film. Academic books were generally left un-consulted. Old and outdated books were accepted uncritically. Polyester was as good as wool. Aluminum was a suitable substitute for more precious period metals. WFA-sized belts, over-sized bling and anything black were cool, dude! Suede, plywood and cotton were natural fabrics and so perfectly legitimate to use when I became a little more critical and discerning. I still had much to learn, both individual facts and how to find them, and my approach gradually changed. I was embarrassed by my earlier philosophy and earlier attempts, but living history is an evolutionary process. It just took a while for me to realize this and even longer to accept this.
Today, I’m better. My clothing is more accurate, I think, though I am still working on designs to make them still better (ie, more accurate, since that is my goal). They are worn and are lived in; they are ordinary work clothes, neither a Hollywood costume nor the cosplay attempt preferred by at least one society. I am surrounded by accurate reproductions of furniture from the age, of tools from the age, of actual artifacts from the age. I trust I will get better, that I will learn more and that what I think I know will be altered.
But I know—know—that my interest in living history is not going away!
WHY CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS IS THE DISCOVERER OF COLUMBIA…I MEAN, AMERICA
In 1492, wise and resourceful explorer Cristóbal Colon set foot on America, sailing all the way to Columbus, Ohio and establishing a city to convert the heathen Native Americans, who inexplicably called themselves “Indians.” He did this for all Christian mankind and even was so humble and loveable that he allowed someone to name it “America” after that individual. Today, we hold magnificent large parades in his honor which would no doubt cause him to blush, because that’s how darn humble and loveable he was!
Or so, far too many good Americans believe. Bring up the name of Leif Eiriksson and L’Ans aux Meadows, and a dim flicker of recognition may flash across their faces. Bring up Eirik Þorvaldsson and Grænland, and you might get recognition of an island a mile or two off the coast of Norway. Very few people will recognize the name of the real first European to set foot on continental America or even onto an island that is part of North America. Google those names, and they will come back with pictures of Columbus because that is what you really or that you should be interested in!
But I have gone on about this at length in the past. Everyone knows—or should know—that I consider Columbus a fool for several reasons, and everyone should now that I am very respectful of Leif and his daddy. Hopefully those who know of my beliefs will not just automatically dump me into the same midden reserved for believers in the Newport Tower, the Kensington Stone and the Heavener Stone. But can anyone answer this question…
A bit of background first. Iceland is on the continental divide between America and Europe and so was technically at least partially the New World. I will disregard that.
But Grænland is very much a part of North America. It is not regarded as a separate continent by most persons. Europeans attained Grænland, settled there, prospered to some extent there (during the period, Grænland was better known than Ísland) and maintained their outposts there for at least five centuries. And yet, Eirik the Red is not regarded by most as the “discoverer” of the New World (actually, American Indians were) and his emigrant are not regarded again by most as the first Europeans in the New World. Why?
Is it because Eirik was only on an island and not on the mainland? But Columbus only ran into islands considerably smaller than Grænland and never set foot on the mainland.
Is it because the people on Grænland did not enslave, decimate or convert the natives? One hopes not, but no one has really proven the truth to me either way (And actually, there is great evidence that the Inuit and the Norse ran into the uninhabited continent at about the same time, although they settled in different places).
Is it because the Columbus encounter changed the view of the world? Ah, now, that is probably very true and very close to the prejudice. Not the concept that the earth was round; folk had supposed that for millennia, but that all the land mass was in a circle on one side of the globe. It has been suggested that Leif and Eirik and their fellows supposed that if they went far enough, they would just run into Africa. The Scandinavians and, perhaps, the English sailed to the New World shopping mart for centuries after the end of attempted colonization, and never even considered that the New World that Columbus encountered was part of the world they had known about for centuries.
Perhaps that is worthy, in some minds, of discarding the Norse in favor of Columbus. But to my thought, that is the equivalent of many Americans knowing and loudly proclaiming that John Glenn was the first human in outer space.
THE RANGE OF LIVING HISTORY
Wm. Booth, Draper at the Sign of the Unicorn, a purveyor of fine period fabrics—mostly 18C, but they will work with reenactors of other eras—brought a blog entry to our attention. They said, “This is a nice short read on living history. When we started in the 1970s we laugh at ourselves—what we wore, used, etc. But everyone starts somewhere. I know so many people who started doing things one way but now have grown into some of the finest in the hobby.”
In this blog entry, the author speaks about the community of reenactors, noting that members—presumably whether they initially think of the relationship or not—should work together and help others, whether their philosophies are exactly the same or not. It is uncertain whether she is speaking only of eighteenth-century reenactors or of reenactors of any era, but in this piece, I am speaking of reenactors of any era. I personally have a lot more in common—in terms of research, in terms of depiction, in terms of making certain that the atmosphere is consistent and high-quality—with the reenactor of a vastly different era than with someone interested in NASCAR. We both want to strive for, to discover and to present the truth!
The blog has a very insightful look at the living-history phenomenon, on what is important and what is not important. It asks the all-important question of “What is the purpose of living history?” That is a very broad subject, and it boils down to another question: What is good living history?
The trouble is that “living history” has mutated since it was coined in the 1960s and popularized in the 1980s so that it often is used to describe many things that would have been alien to those who coined and popularized the term (though their standards were considerably lower than those of many of today’s living-history societies; living history is an evolutionary process, where practitioners are always clamoring on the shoulders of those who came before them!). It has been used for causes as diverse as a book of modern political memoirs, to describe philately to cosplay that is only tangentially related to any historical subject and what we might think of as living history proper. To quote the definition set forth by Jay Anderson in Time Machines (1984): Living history “can be defined as an attempt by people to simulate life in another time.”
That is a suitably useful but immoderately broad definition, and I have often used it with the annotation that something is “good living history” and something is “bad living history.” For example, a society which has no authenticity regulations, which covers a very broad sphere of time, which willingly allows oop spex, sneakers, artificial materials and which tends to perpetuate inaccurate historical interpretations from the Victorian Age is living history. Just bad living history. Another society, which demands physical artifacts—not even literary sources are good enough—as the provenance for anything it portrays is good living history. Most societies lie somewhere between.
Are they all valid? Well, they are certainly what the members want, and they would not exist if they did appeal to such a desire. The big difficulty to me is the honesty and integrity of the descriptions of what they want to do. If the first society I noted above merely said in all its publicity that it attempts to foster a loose romantic vision of the past, I would have no problem; when they say they are “medieval reenactment” as they so often do, they have set up standards and expectations that might affect all facets of living history and which might affect someone joining the society in all good faith!
It is not here my intention to run down a list of farby and unsatisfying societies—of many eras, though we are most concerned with the Viking Age—just to note that such things exist, and potential members should always examine what the society offers and demands of its members! Hopefully, the members of the society will portray themselves honestly and not try to be everything for everyone and, because of that, is nothing for nobody.
For me, the goal is good living history. The extent of the accuracy is high, but not absolute. I accept literary references in many cases, and I am willing to make one leap of logic (sometimes a tricky slope to be certain). I have a preference for putting on shows and for educating MoPs (Members of the Public), but I recognize the legitimacy of BUFU (By Us For Us) societies. In either case, education is being passed on. Hopefully legitimate education and not merely incorrect myths, superstitions or untrue stereotypes!
In the blog entry that inspired this, Christina, the author, notes:
“I personally take pleasure in the details and the research—not at the expense of my interpretation, but rather to the enrichment of it….Are we going to get all of the details 100% right? Probably not. Are we going to be 100% engaging in our narratives to 100% of our audience all of the time? Probably not. Should we ever sacrifice one of these parts for the sake of other? Definitely not. Should we come together as a community to build into each other, and to positively invest in each other rather than continue to divide, deride, and dishearten? If we want living history to survive and thrive in the coming years, I believe the answer must be yes. An overwhelming, resounding yes.”
I think that pretty well sums up my views as well!
MATERIALS OF THE VIKING AGE Part II
Leather & Fur
Leather and fur were not used in most clothing as it was in earlier times. Shoes were mainly made of leather, and there is probability that leather was used in trousers (some translations of Æfric note leather pants, and there is Ragnar Shaggy Britches). Leather should not be dyed, since there is a controversy about whether dyes were used, and black leather should especially be avoided. Suede was invented in the nineteenth century, and obviously chrome finished leather is totally inappropriate.
Brain-tanned leather is appropriate, but the most available type is vegetable-tanned, unfinished leather.
The width and uses of different sizes of leather vary greatly. The Tandy Leather Factory prints a good guide for choosing thickness and types of leather.
Fur, which is stereotypically used by popular media to indicate macho barbarism, was not used; most types of fur seem to be used for cold-weather gear, with the fur inside for greater warmth, and fur was probably used mostly as blankets and rugs.
An Age of Wood
It might be convenient to note that people of the time only used wood that was available in the area, the truth is that wood was sometimes imported from elsewhere for use (including North America, since Norse contact seems to have continued even after colonization failed). A good guide for what woods were used may be found in my book, Age of Wood, while an abbreviated list may be found elsewhere on this blog. Woods of American derivation may be used but only if the style is similar to that which was found in the area during the Viking Age.
Metals That Are Appropriate
Many of today’s common elements such as aluminum, bismuth, chromium, nickel, platinum, zinc and zirconium were all invented or discovered after the Viking Age—at least in Europe—and are not appropriate. Their use should be avoided. In the Viking Age, the seven ancient metals were copper, gold, iron, lead, mercury, silver and tin Alloys such as bronze (copper and tin), brass (copper, tin and other elements) and pewter (tin with lead and other elements) were commonly used and are all legitimate. Even steel was known, being iron infused with carbon (commonly known as cal), though the heat of the furnaces were not high enough to form high-quality steel. But steel was expensive and used sparingly. For example, the cutting edge of steel was often sandwiched between two pieces of more common iron to make the axe more affordable, and cast iron was not developed until the fifteenth century and not commercially feasible until the eighteenth.
The metals were often of a lesser quality than we know today, though just looking at them is not usually affected. However, certain types of metal that are commonly available today but which do look different should not be used. For example, stainless steel is a high-carbon steel that was not developed until the late nineteenth century (chromium was not discovered until the early part of the century), and results were too brittle to be practical. It was not commercially practical until the twentieth.
Galvanization, the introduction of zinc to steel in an effort to inhibit its corrosion, was not developed until the nineteenth century either, when it was applied electrically and also known as Faradism. In many cases, galvanized metal may be used, but the zinc must be removed, generally by melting it off in a fire.
Period pewter had a high lead content, and pewter that is available today contain other, safer elements. Its use, since it looks and responds like the high-lead pewter, is not discouraged. In fact, lead pewter is actually discouraged, as is the use of actual lead, which we know is poisonous and toxic. It is not introduced into the body by touch per sé although it can be ingestion, if the lead is placed into the mouth by fingers that have been coated with lead dust, by inhaling lead dust in the air and especially by smoking if there is any lead dust around.
Colors
The colors, paints and dyes, were more limited than those available today.
Hazel Uzzell has set down paint hues that were available in the period, and a list of and notes on these colors are available. Modern equivalents have been set forth. Acrylic paints were, of course, unavailable, and most paints of the time were oil based or milk paints, and milk paints give a very durable and aesthetically pleasing result. A list of milk paints, if unavailable in your area, may be found on-line from the Old Fashioned Milk Paint company.
Regia Anglorum has done extensive testing for natural dyestuffs that might have been available for folks in Northern Europe of the Viking Age, and the results of the Regia Anglorum Natural Dye Project have been published, and a listing of modern thread equivalents which may be used for recreation purposes is also available. The latter article also contains notes on what color might be worn by what social class.
MATERIALS OF THE VIKING AGE Part I
While it is true that the peoples of this time generally resorted to whatever was easily available— as we noted earlier, and in addition they tended not to waste anything—there are a few rules of thumb that you should keep in mind when accumulating materials for a project.
Materials That Postdated the Time
These are generally artificial materials, which include nylon and other plastics. The earliest such substance—rayon—was not invented until 1855 and was not commercially viable for another 75 years. Rayon was originally known as Viscose and was not truly an artificial, being made from wooden cellulose, but was man-made. A true artificial fabric, nylon, was not devised until 1939. Why these should be avoided should be very self evident!
There are two main exceptions. The first is artificial sinew lacing, since real sinew is so scarce and not always available. Please note that I am not saying that this is the best, just that it is sometimes necessary when you want to use sinew lacing!
The second are blends of natural and artificial fabrics that look and behave like a natural fabric. However, they will never react totally like natural fibers, and this should be done only when natural fabrics are not available.
It should be noted that artificial fabrics will melt in extreme heat, so they should certainly not be used in clothing that will b worn around an open fire. Threads should be natural fabrics, and while some people will okay the use of cotton, other threads are readily available and should be used if at all possible.
Materials That Were Expensive in Period
Or not easily obtainable. For example, cotton was readily available in Constantinople and other Mediterranean cities. However, it seems never to have been imported into northern Europe and would probably have been more expensive than silk. Some commentators have noted that it was not unique in the way that silk is, and folk of the era and area had ready access to local goods that served much better for less expense, such as wool, flax, hemp and nettle.
Silk was imported and not duplicated by a local fabric, but it was very expensive (about 25 times more expensive than readily available wool). Unless you were very wealthy, you did not make garments entirely out of silk, and silk would be used only as trim.
Silk noil is also known by the misnomer of raw silk and should be avoided even though sellers describe it in glowing terms. It is, according to the Fiber Encyclopedia “the short fiber left over from combing wool or spinning silk and used as a decorative additive for many spinning projects, like rovings and yarns.” It dates in Europe from no earlier than the fourteenth century, perhaps the seventeenth century and, according to some sources, even later. Certainly not appropriate for the construction of clothing of the Viking Age.
Linen is Appropriate
Linen is a durable fabric woven from thread made from the long, strong bast fibers that form in the outer portions of several plants. Linen cloth comes in a variety of weights and weaves, from thick to quite thin and becomes softer with repeated washings. Although it is now almost exclusively seen as the product of the flax plant, in period, it was made from several plants, including flax, hemp and nettle. Because the bast fiber degenerates, it is difficult to tell the difference.
Flax linen is today primarily available and is certainly period. However, in period, “Linen was commonly available, but its use was restricted to upper, wealthier classes.”
Wool Was Inexpensive and Plentiful
Wool is a fabric woven from the threads made from sheep wool. England has always been famed for its sheep, and because of its plentitude, it was inexpensive and high quality. Wool is a very versatile fabric, breathing so that it is not overly hot or suffocating, warm when necessary (even when wet) and forgiving. It should never be dried, since it has a tendency to full, and some folk say that it should never been washed, only brushed. Many persons are allergic to wool—or rather to the lanolin—and cannot or hesitate to wear; use linen instead or as a barrier between it and your skin.
There are a number of weaves that were used to produce wool fabric in our period. The different appropriate weaves include Diamond, Broken Diamond, Herringbone, Cross, Diagonal, Tabby and Honeycombe. Elisabeth Da’Born Art and Textiles has an incomplete photographic record of the different weaves on Facebook.
—To Be Continued
TOOLS OF THE VIKING AGE…AND TODAY
Personal projects will not magically appear. They must be worked on with tools, and we can divide tools used on these projects into three categories:
1. Authentic and Accurate
2. Traditional and Manual
3. Modern and Powered
What you choose is not as important as where you use them, and a lot is dependent upon what you feel about selecting and using tools. If you are planning to use the tools behind the ropeline, in the view of the Members of the Public, all tools should be category 1. Historically accurate tools are readily available and may be easily purchased.
The tools in the second category are generally of a more advanced technical nature, often made of more sophisticated materials, such as better metal or more sophisticated and regular file marks. The tools are all manual and, therefore not very different from those in category 1, though they should not be used behind the ropeline. Their use is not experimental archaeology, but it still requires that the worker use his own strength and abilities in their use.
The tools in the third category include such things as power drills, drill presses and table saws, all of them driven by electrical motors or by some other sort of powered motor. The advantage is of course that the worker is able to do things that might be precluded by his own strength or by the time devoted to the project should never be used behind the ropeline, and they do not have any aspects of experimental archaeology.
Dennis Riley is the man behind the excellent reproductions at the Daegrad Tool Company, and he is also the author of Anglo-Saxon Tools, a book dealing with tools of the era and which feature illustrations not of the rusted originals but of modern reproductions crafted by Riley.
VERY MODEL OF A MODERN VIKING WARRIOR Part 3
Colors
This is not merely the aesthetic combination and meanings of colors, which is undoubtedly different from what is standard today. This refers to the actual hues as well, what was readily and inexpensively available and can be best found by seeing the results of serious experiments and not merely by running to the nearest Hancocks.
For example, many Viking reenactors wear and want to continue to wear black clothing. Obviously in their minds, black clothing is deep and moody and appropriate for their upper-crust warrior impressions. However, in his article, “I Litklæðum’—Coloured Clothes in Medieval Scandinavian Literature and Archaeology,” Author Þor Ewing notes:
“Some writers have contended that the colour word blár does not in fact represent blue-dyed cloth but naturally-pigmented black cloth. Kirsten Wolf will address this question in another paper in this session, but let me simply say here that the sagas make a clear and consistent contrast between high status blár or ‘blue’ clothes worn only by high-ranking characters, and lower status svartr or ‘black’ clothes which are often worn by slaves or as a low status style of garment such as the kufl. That blár clothing was perceived as coloured clothing is apparent from the passage in Eyrbyggja saga mentioned earlier, or from Njáls saga ch.92; in these passages, both Geirriðr’s blue skikkja and Skarpheðinn’s blue stakkr are described as litklæði.”
This, of course, involves a little research and reading, and that is not proper for those with upper-class impressions…
Religion
Wicca—the celebration of non-modern-religion—was invented in the early twentieth century. Though it claim to perpetuate the ideals of older, classical faiths, though the truth is that much was invented. The modern Asatru faith is based on many Wiccan standards, but is actually predates wicca. It originated in the nineteenth century, and it attempt to perpetuate the stories of a thirteenth-century Christian writer as the truth and faith if the heathen Norse of several centuries before it was written down. The fact that many of the stories seem to have been invented in the thirteenth century seems to often be conveniently overlooked.
The truth is that we know almost nothing about the heathen religion except for unreliable retellings and the descriptions found by Christian clerics sent to convert them. And these are the same beliefs that seem to have been chosen as absolute truths. As legitimate then for any faith-based philosophy but hardly for a provenance-based philosophy!
By the end of the Viking Era, many Vikings were at least nominally Christian. Immigrants in England, France and elsewhere had been baptized in exchange for peace and land rights. Iceland had peacefully converted in 1000 ce. The other Scandinavian areas were on a see-saw for many years, going back and forth between heathenism and Christianity, though even in places that were already Christianized, the Christianity was often not orthodox and practitioners practiced a form of dual religion, praying to Christ in the morning and then to Þorr in the afternoon when heading on a sea voyage!
For many modern persons who will subscribe to a single religious belief, this is not comprehendible. And so, it is another instance in which the average modern Viking reenactor is different from the individual he is attempting to be!
Conclusion
Hopefully this brief and not comprehensive account of historical beliefs will give you pause. You must put aside modern prejudices and modern taste. They are most probably incorrect or inappropriate, but time to time, lose a bit of formatting, but the you will be able to amend them with only a little research and education!
An interesting and informative book on how the Church decided in the fifth century what some folk today deem as immortal and the truth from God’s lips is examined in Jesus Wars.
VERY MODEL OF A MODERN VIKING WARRIOR Part 2
Primary Literary Provenance For instance, there are plenty of hints of everyday conduct of business in the Icelandic sagas. Leaving aside the controversy, that I feel has been exaggerated, homely incidents in the sagas give an excellent view into behavior during the time, For example, in chapter 74 of Njal’s Saga, Gunnar has been exiled and is preparing to go abroad: “They ride down along Markfleet, and just then Gunnar’s horse tripped and threw him off. He turned with his face up towards the Lithe and the homestead at Lithend, and said, ‘Fair is the Lithe; so fair that it has never seemed to me so fair; the corn fields are white to harvest, and the home mead is mown; and now I will ride back home, and not fare abroad at all.’ “‘Do not this joy to thy foes,’ says Kolskegg, ‘by breaking thy atonement, for no man could think thou wouldst do thus, and thou mayst be sure that all will happen as Njal has said.’ “‘I will not go away any whither,’ says Gunnar, ‘and so I would thou shouldest do too.’ “‘That shall not be,’ says Kolskegg; ‘I will never do a base thing in this, nor in anything else which is left to my good faith; and this is that one thing that could tear us asunder; but tell this to my kinsmen and to my mother, that I never mean to see Iceland again, for I shall soon learn that thou art dead, brother, and then there will be nothing left to bring me back.’ “So they parted there and then. Gunnar rides home to Lithend, but Kolskegg rides to the ship, and goes abroad.” Citation Whether this the conduct espoused by the heaven Norse of the Vikings Age or by the Christian writers of a few centuries layer, it is a valuable look into the conduct expected during the time. The most immediate aspect is that the courtesy books have a tendency to inveigh against known behavior and tell the reader or listener how to behave. We can assume from the appearance in a courtesy book of a particular personal action that the action was itself very frequent, since there is no reason to warn against a behavior that is alien unless you are a modern bureaucratic society). The Babees’ Book, a compilation of medieval treatises on courteous behavior to be taught the young. In one section, it notes Do not carry your knife to your mouth with food, or hold the meat with your hands in any wise; and also if divers good meats are brought to you, look that all courtesy ye assay of each; and if your dish be taken away with its meat and another brought, courtesy demands that ye shall let it go and not ask for it back again. Citation From these warnings, we have a good idea of what conventional table manners were like during the time! The most prominent courtesy book during the Viking Age was The Havamal, or the Sayings of the High One (the God Oðinn), much the way that Proverbs is attributed to Solomon. It appears as a single poem in the Poetic Edda but was a combination of different individual poems that presents advice for living, proper conduct and wisdom. For example, it notes: 25 The unwise man thinks them all to be his friends, those who laugh at him; then he finds when he comes to the Thing (assembly) that he has few supporters. Citation From this, we can assume that many persons trust too much those who re friendly during good times, which must have occurred regularly. Reading, studying and appreciating the different stanzas of The Havamal can be illuminating! Kennings and Meanings Kennings are poetic phrases the are used to refer to other common phrases. “Kennings are like riddles, allegories, metaphors, and allusions rolled all into one.” They are listed in the Prose Edda of the Christian writer, Snorri Sturluson, and their meanings are often portals into the minds of the writer and the people of the time: Aegir’s daughters waves Baldur’s bane mistletoe blood-ember axe blood-worm sword breaker of rings King or chieftain breaker of trees wind As such, the Prose Edda should be read and studied! What it might tell you bout the mindset of the time—or at least that of a couple centuries later, based on a comprehension of previous times—is very fruitful! To Be Continued Probably the best courtesy book for Viking reenactors is The Havamal, a collection of sayings and epigrams that tells those—presumably but not exclusively the young—how they should properly behave.
VERY MODEL OF A MODERN VIKING WARRIOR Part 1
No matter what some reenactors seem to believe, we are not Norse warriors of the last millennium. Hell, we are not even Norse anything of the last millennium. We are play-actors of this millennium—of this century—who are dressing in the same style of clothing that might have been worn during the last millennium, who are doing things that night have been done during the last millennium, who are giving the illusion of dwelling in the culture of the last millennium. In fact, giving the illusion of culture—hopefully everyday—of a previous millennium is the very root of all living history, but the big drawback is that the reenactor has been educated by modern education. He is familiar with the modern culture and, unless special efforts and study are taken, he is making decisions according to a modern aesthetic. He is using taste and preferences and, yes, logic, that he has been taught by modern culture.
Any attempt to get beyond these ingrained aesthetics is difficult and rather artificial. Writings from the period are very important and influential, and surprisingly, there are more than a few.
Military Commands
Actually, this is how this whole article started. Military conduct is today so ingrained into our modern cultures, that it seems natural to have existed.
Old Norse and Old English military commands are very evocative, but were they used in period? I cannot find any good examples. Certainly there was training in weapons use, and inevitably training in forming a shield wall, &c., but I am wondering about the modern concept of military drill, training and commands during the Viking Age era. Rob Thomas very pertinently notes that “If orders weren’t given…How would you get your line to move forward? Prodding your army in the back with your sword will just cause resentment amongst the troops.” And Kim Siddorn adds, “It wasn’t the sort if thing anyone was writing down in a semi-literate age.”
It seems then that, for the most part and outside of using musical instruments whose sounds carried farther than even the loudest voice, the idea of adapting conventional military commands to the time is rather anachronistic and appeals more to the modern military mind! There simply was no von Steuben military manual for the time! Having standard commands was an alien to most mindsets as specified uniforms until far later in time, and neither perhaps should be standard for reenactors of the period!
Nonetheless, the advantages of having conventional commands—both Englisc and Norse—in modern reenacting is advantageous both for the reenactors to understand what is expected and being done but for spectators to appreciate a taste of the culture:
|
Command |
Old English |
Old Norse |
|
Stand at ease |
Standeth softie |
H’vild |
|
Attention |
Aweccan |
Oppmeskohmet |
|
Advance |
Forth on gewinn gangeth |
Fram! |
|
Form up |
Trimmiath |
Reisa alvaepni |
|
Charge! |
Onraes! |
Geysa |
|
Retreat |
Withertrod |
Aptra! |
Garments
The illusion of life in another century is concentrated on the garments that the participants wear. More than man other eras, there seems to be a tendency to wear incorrect garments in films and other popular portrayal of the Viking Age, and for many reenactors seeing these errors so gleefully and ubiquitously presented in so many places means that they are foremost in some viewers’ minds. While many variation in interpretations are possible among honest researchers, there seems to be a movement for non-period garments, for such things as lamellar armor and greaves, for incorrect fabrics such as leather and for such later manifestations such as cross gaiters.
This is, in many ways, not as it was common as during the previous eras, because easy access to good research is available. Gail Owen-Crocker’s Dress in Anglo-Saxon England and Þor Ewing’s Viking Clothing are as easily available as works by Iris Brooks and by Ruth Turner Wilcox, which are unfortunately just as ubiquitously available. Even the work by Herbert Norris, which are very useful in some aspects, are marred by a tendency to misinterpret graphics. Unless one is discerning and learns the basics of costume at the time, there is often a tendency to incorporate the incorrect and more fanciful interpretations!
Reading the readily available research and documentation—such as that in Þor Ewing’s overview of Viking Clothing—is required. A person who merely uncritically believes an undocumented presentation is going to end up more a version of Lee Majors in “The Norseman” rather than a believable presentation of the appearance of the time!
—To Be Continued
Many books on accurate costuming is readily available from such sources as Barnes and Noble , but the purchaser should be careful and critical, since books by Iris Brooks and others of her type are also readily available!
RELIGION & REENACTING THE VIKING AGE
In a recent entry, we discussed the inadvisability of combining modern politics with historical reenacting from two very different perspectives. First that if your society is a not-for-profit [nfp] group, you are forbidden so to do and that even non-nfp groups who are trying to honor historical integrity should avoid muddying the waters by affecting historical accuracy by aligning historical interpretation with modern political interpretation. The second was that most modern political thought has next to nothing to do with historical process. This week, we will comment on something similar that should be avoided for many of the same reasons.
This is, of course, religion, but it is merely a concern that religion is forbidden by nfp status and by the integrity of an accurate historical interpretation in a similar matter. The inclusion of religion is made even more complex by the fact that religious portrayal might offend the devout who might by offended that a nonbeliever is portraying a believer (or by a nonbeliever because he does not want any faith or religious practices to be forced on him) or that any portrayal by himself might be seen as a blasphemy or a burlesque of his own belief.
However, the fact remains that religious thought moulded so much and so many of the cultures of the past. To ignore religion entirely is like ignoring an important part of the culture and is as foolish, especially for the medieval era as creating a society that ignores religion but that allows members to wear modern spectacles or sneakers!
This is not to say that merely representing you as the member of a modern faith is in any way less anti-educational. After all, t truth is that representing an out-of-period faith to mops is as bad as representing how an ak47 was used by Norse berserkers! Out-of-period faiths are legion. And while many if not most incorporate parts of faith that might be compatible with the period faith, they are still out-of-period. Even the faiths that existed were very much different from those of the current day:
Judaism (there is little or no indication that Judaism existed at all in Britain or northern Europe at this time; the Norse of course encountered Jews in other areas and there were probably even converted Norse Jews)
Islam (for the most part, Muslims were forbidden to travel in non-Muslim lands, so they did not exist in Britain or northern Europe at this time; the Norse of course encountered Muslims in other areas and there were probably even converted Norse Muslims)
Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodox (they were Christians; there was greater difference between Celtic and Latin Christians; until the Great Schism of the eleventh century, there was no official differences between these faiths. Even today, there is a disagreement as to whether the Great Schism birthed one faith or the other!)
Faiths listed in the following incomplete list are very much out of period (although there is controversy over the exact dates they were founded):
Lutheran (sixteenth century)
Anglican or Church of England (sixteenth century)
Presbyterian (sixteenth century)
Puritan (sixteenth century)
Baptist (seventeenth century)
Quaker (seventeenth century)
Amish or Mennonite (eighteenth century)
Methodist (eighteenth century)
Mormon (nineteenth century)
Asatru (nineteenth century; many of the myths date back no further than the writings of the thirteenth-century Christian author, Snorri Sturlusson)
Wiccan (twentieth century)
Scientology (twentieth century)
For some, their modern religious faith is essential to their own self images, and they cannot bring themselves to say or do anything at odds with their modern faiths and sacraments. Some do not even admit that their faith has changed through the years. Others refuse to incorporate anything religious into their impressions because they are atheist.
However, it is important to remember that it is reenACTING. Just as an actor in a stage drama or in a film is not expected to be channeling their full faith (there are exceptions of course, mainly proselyting films underwritten by religious sources that are designed to be shown in Sunday schools or to the already “faithful” or to change the infidels’ beliefs), but how many viewers assume that Charlton Heston was a Jew because he portrayed one in “Ben Hur” or that Al Pacino was an Roman Catholic because he ordered heinous deeds during a religious ceremony in “The Godfather”? Or necessarily that Derek Jacobi was a Catholic or Joseph Fiennes is a Lutheran or…
Anyone who wants to give an accurate historical portrayal must concede that part of the portrayal is acting or not do reenacting at all!
A RECOMMENDATION ON “AUTHENTIC” APPEARANCE
Now I am of the opinion that everything was new once, that keeping everything looking immaculately new is farby, that artificially distressing an item is just as farby, and that with regular use all items of kit acquire a patina of (duh) use. I have a helmet that looks old and used (okay, I may have gone a bit overboard there), and I have a linen under-tunic that is now mostly patches.
This article concentrates on an era several centuries past my own, but it speaks very succinctly and very expertly on a subject I have spoken on before and better in many cases than I have. I greatly enjoyed reading this article and recommend that you read it as well, especially if you do an impression of everyday people: On Getting That Authentic Look.
Keds, Mirror Shades and Politics
“Politics” as a word was first seen in the sixteenth century. At the time, it meant “science of government.” It has been known as “a person’s political allegiances or opinions” only since the late eighteenth century. Yet a few people want to shoehorn it into actions of the eleventh century…
Micel Folcland is a not-for-profit corporation, and it—and its parent society, Regia Anglorum—cannot espouse any sort of political ideology. This is according to legal stipulations, but I would be loathe for Micel Folcland to adopt any sort of political ideology even without such a stipulation.
This is based on two different situations. The first is an old-fashioned ability to be friends with a person whose political views differ from my own. Yes, believe it or not, political belief, religious belief, almost anything except bigotry and violent acts are irrelevant in my choice and love of friends. I have friends who are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists and even one cute anarchist. Heck, if you have to have the same political philosophy as anyone you might like or love, I certainly would not still be married!
Rather, my fondness depends on such things as whether you can trust a person, whether they speak truthfully and whether when they say they will do something they actually do it. That is more important. And when I regard a person and find this in them, I am much more willing to accept them as friends!
The second situation is that there no real comparison between the politics of an earlier age and today. Even when the eras are closer together, it is difficult to compare current political philosophies with those of another age. Whenever a member of a political party compare the current status of that party with that of a century and a half ago or even 35 years ago, I often find myself shaking my head. There is too much that is different—knowledge, belief, behavior, prejudice and more—to validate such a belief, and when someone quotes someone from the past to validate their current beliefs, I find a great cynicism arise in me. There is simply no relevance in projecting your political thoughts onto a person from the past!
What brings this up is a review of the “Vikings” television series by a writer for a conservative blog. He very knowingly explained how the good guys were the conservatives and the bad guys were the no-good liberals.
I read it and went What the Fudge?
And that was before the responses. That he was so right, that they backed his thoughts completely and that they were happy to see someone telling the truth, I could only go: If anyone in my group were to say this to a MoP at an event, that person would be removed from the ropeline immediaterly. If it was done again after the problems were explained, he would be removed from the group and never allowed again to join. If he did the same thing, but characterized the good guys as liberals or anarchists or even middle of the road, I would have the same reaction and would respond in the same way.
It has nothing to do with political belief. It has to do with respecting the past, with not trying to characterize their actions according to modern political thought. It has to do with not using what has happened in the past to justify current actions and ideology. Perhaps it is unfair, but after someone has tried to maneuver his political thought into the past, I find it hard to take anything he says seriously!
Lovefilm promo for the Vikings series
Regia was hired to do this little film when the series came out in England. They sailed The Bear up the Thames and invaded London! An utterly delightful film, with more accuracy in two minutes than the series had in nine hours! 🙂
On Fantasy
Some “Viking reenactors” standing there at an event in biker boots, spex and talking on a mobile phone will look indignant and angrily castigate you if they hear you calling them fantasy. “We’re historical” they insist. “We don’t have dragons or spells!”
Too bad they are as accurate in their definitions as they are about their kit…
What is Fantasy? Many of the popular contemporary definitions associate the term only with High Fantasy. For example, Wikipedia notes that it is a
A genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary plot element, theme, or setting. Many works within the genre take place in imaginary worlds where magic and magical creatures are common.
In other words as long as you don’t have to deal with dragons or magic or shapechangers, you are not doing with fantasy. A convenient definition that allows you to be as farby as you want as long as you’re not farby in one certain way. However, good living history is seldom what is the most convenient.
If you look at the standard definition for fantasy, it is somewhat different and much more relevant. Fantasy is “The faculty or activity of imagining things that are impossible or improbable.” Although at its core, it means that all living history—no matter how accurate—is fantasy, I find such a definition to be a straw man, much like whining retorts of, “But you use a car to get to events and get vaccinated and use modern dental care…” Many might call me an extremist on the subject in many ways, I consider that too extreme, and acceptance of that terminology means the validation of farb. But for me, it means that farby living history is fantasy.
More precisely, a knowing farb is fantasy. And when I call a half-ass reenactment fantasy, I am saying it is farby and has participants are not willing to improve as a whole. All good reenactment has rules governing their accuracy—authenticity regs is the preferred term—and those who ignore these rules are farbs (those who have no rules at all regarding accuracy are farbs as well). Those who refuse to adopt any authenticity regs for their society are farbs. As a RevWar friend once noted, “What you permit, you promote!” And in so doing, many of these societies are promoting fantasy!
Something that is fantasy is not necessarily bad. Two-Gun Bobby Howard is often fantasy. “The Long Ships” is fantasy. Steampunk is fantasy. Dagorhir is fantasy. Cosplay is fantasy. Skiffy cons are often fantasy. Loads of things are fantasy, and the person writing it, producing it or participating in it freely admits that it is fantasy and not history or anything else, even if it contains things that are historical or factual.
If a person says he is doing fantasy and then does fantasy, is there anyone who is hurt? I somehow don’t think so. But when someone dresses in a fantasy style and then insists that he is recreating history, that he is historical, that he are reenacting or recreating history, I think that is akin to someone saying he is vegetarian as he bite into the bloody steak. I have no respect for him, not because he exhibits fantasy but because he then claims it is not fantasy. Ignorance is one thing and can be corrected; not necessarily hypocrisy!
From the Stereotypes of the Norsemen deliver us… VIIII
The final episode of the first season is SOP in many cases. The clothing, the belts, the buildings, all those damned candles…it has all become, in the minds of the series producers pretty standard stuff. And to Hel with any accuracy!
The sight of Aslaug carrying a fruit and tempting Ragnar was a very good confusion of the temptress Aslaug with the Biblical Eve. An obvious attempt to play upon the cultural knowledge of the viewer. However, even though it is a good piece of dramatic license, it means the gratuitous hijacking of a theme from another faith! Perhaps an expected result of the hodgepodge of chronology, culture and historical events that are paramount in this series!
Accurate
Jarl Borg asking for a hostage.
The supports for a building are a good representation for the architecture of the period.
A good representation of the process for the succession of Earls/Jarls, owing to election at a þing, even if the other elements of Norse government owe more to later feudal than to current custom!
The “three eye” joke was much in keeping with the sense of humor of the traditional Norseman!
Finally, a spear! And a doggie!
At last, the reappearance of a warped-weighted loom! A good representation even if Lagerthe’s spinning is even less real than that shown in the first episode!
The introduction Aslaug , whom the legendary Ragnar wed after divorcing Lagerthe.
Swearing not to touch Aslaug again was obviously meant sincerely. Too bad about that temptress Eve…I mean Aslaug. It is mirrored by the temptation by Borg to break the oath Ragnar swore to Horik and by the temptation to Rollo to break his allegiance to his brother.
Inaccurate
Very few new inaccuracies are introduced. The costumer and producer have done their jobs and are at least consistent with themselves!
The hood worn by Ragnar is not clearly seen but looks strange.
The Norse houses had shingled roofs. Very progressive, since wooden shakes were not introduced until the middle of the eleventh century. Thatched roofs were then the standard!
Almost anything worn by Aslaug and her ladies. Except when she was naked of course…
The lack of compromise on the matter of land, even if we accept the feudal slant of ownership, seems rather contradictory to the way that the Norse got along.
Uncertain
If all the costumes were designed to look different, why do all the interior of the houses appear the same?
The use of hanging bowls as a light source in the Norse culture is dubious in several ways. For one, it was an artifact found in pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon society and, presumably, Celtic as well. They were mostly out of date for the Viking Era n and were not known to be used by the Norse. And they probably did not have the structural integrity to be used as lamps and were almost certainly not chandeliers. But other than that, a great supposition!
The plotline seems to be contradictory about sexual morés, and the morés seem to depend on what is needed by the plot.
The whole wise man theme is getting a little annoying. Prophesy was well known in Norse society, but it was the province of the Völur, the wise women, who were also known as seiðr, for the practice. While there was a term for males—seiðrmenn—they were not often found. Seiðr in particular had connotations of ergi (unmanliness), and some writers have noted that prophesying was probably taboo for men. Men were expected to be the warriors, while women were the wise women. But since the practitioners of seiðr seem to have included sex with a lot of the prophesies—a rare male practitioner, Ragnvald Rettilbein, was known as “straight member”—I’m rather glad they did not attempt to portray their wise men as sexual athletes!
Why are they suddenly using the proper term “jarl?” Apparently “earl” is still being used in the series, and one has to wonder what difference is intended by the producers and whether this is rather like the evolution of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Sabor/Numa terminology.
Bjorn’s cloak is not designed correctly, but the material is nice.
The shawl worn by Gyda is accurate, though the design of the fabric is not especially so.
There is an ongoing overuse of horn cups with a flat end. Forget for the moment that the actual appearance of such a horn cup is controversial. Why no ceramic or wood cups?
Woman wearing a belt (apparently not common practice and one not followed by the other women).
The disposal of the dead seems to owe more to “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” than to anything else. Obviously meant as a deep and dramatic incident, but I kept expecting for one of the bodies on the cart to go, “I’m getting better…”
Where are the spots of light in the house coming from? Very dramatic, true, but quite ludicrous when you start thinking about it!
Athelstan’s sleeping robe seems to be more reminiscent of a woman’s gown than what a man would wear.
The countryside looked more like what I saw in Iceland than anything I saw in Denmark!
Conclusions
When did they decide to do the conclusion with so many loose threads? With the introduction of the viper pit and Aslaug, anyone with knowledge of the legend of Ragnar will be filled with expectations. Yet, aren’t these the same persons who are more liable to be offended by the other liberties with details of the presentation? Since some stills seen before the series have not appeared in the first season, one especially wonders if this was filmed in the manner of Richard Lester’s Three/Four Musketeers. Plotlines concerning Norse excursions into England (and elsewhere, though this series seems to refuse to contemplate this much), the betrayal of Athelstan and much else has been relegated to the back and never touched upon, while other dangling plots—Rollo’s allegiance to his brother, Lagerthe’s miscarriage, the whole prophesy deux ex machina and Bjorn’s snottiness—are rotated to prominence. And new developments—the plague, the appearance of Aslaug, the confrontation between land ownership–come from nowhere and attains great prominence. Very frustrating, especially if done without knowing there would be a second season. Perhaps as judicial editing f what was already shot to take advantage of the second season coming, perhaps indicating that the second season was part of the initial deal, perhaps just incompetence at handling this form…whatever the reason, frustrating.
In a miniseries of this sort, having a single overwhelming theme and including additional elements that can be acted on later is the rule of thumb. And much more satisfying. The whole series seemed to be drawing in elements from different sides, then abandoning them and not exploiting them. It never moved forward to a satisfying conclusion and was even more a soap opera than many soap operas. If the dangling plotlines were meant to engage my curiosity and make me eager to see how they will be resolved next season, they did not work because I have no certainty that they will be resolved or even touched upon. Hirst and company have not given me that much confidence! I was not even intrigued by the characters, and I am blasé about what the next season of “Vikings” will present but will now eager await the next season of “Justified,” which expertly did what I expected and still set me off with continuing and dangling plotlines that leaves me eager to see the next season of that series.
If only they had just tossed Ragnar into the viper pit and gone on to a totally new and different storyline, like the late and very lamented Northlanders by Brian Wood. If that had been done, I would really be looking forward to the next season of “Vikings”!
From the Stereotypes of the Norsemen deliver us… VIII
The whole episode reeked of “The Lottery” or the original “Wicker Man.” The penultimate episode of the season is much more concerned with invented religious mumbo-jumbo than with the storyline that was set up in the last few episodes. The whole episode seems unnecessary and interrupts the flow of the series. And here Hirst and apologist justify his fleeting contact with the facts because of his devotion to drama. This episode lacked drama and facts!
Accurate
Uppsala was an ancient religious center, so going on pilgrimage there actually makes a lot of sense!
Athelstan is wearing a proper penanular brooch on his cloak! No one else is, but at least he is!
At least in Icelandic mythology, waterfalls are holy places and constructed as such at places such as Þingvellir. The waterfall in this episode seems unlike that which I have seen pictures of in the areas, but at least it was beautiful and dramatic!
Goats appear!
Athelstan wears a haversack!
Human sacrifice, though we are uncertain how the sacrifices were chosen, is a very probably event in the ancient Norse religion, at least if we believe the accounts of Christian—generally missionaries—visitors. I do doubt, however, if they were dressed in white this way. The robes were much too white merely to be undyed, so it was often another reference to purity that did arise until the nineteenth century.
Ragnar wears a period bracelet of wound metal!
Inaccurate
If anyone can make turnshoes sound like jackboots as they walk along, I want to meet them!
Where exactly does Ragnar live? There is no sense of a long time for his odyssey to Uppsala, nor how he had to have sailed. Ragnar’s party just walks to the site. It reminded me a bit of Richard Widmark swimming from North Africa to Scandinavia in “The Long Ships”!
The strangely engineered eyepatch.
There is a great use of drums. Let us disregard that the very existence of drums at this time is controversial since none have been found for the Norse at this period of time.
Did my eyes deceive me? Buttons running down the middle of a dress? If I have to explain why this is inaccurate, I wonder why you’re even reading my ravings and rants!
Does the king’s “herald” wear big round earrings or was the scene just too fleeting and dark for me to get a good look?
The king’s cloak is made of fabric that was popular later, looking to a great extent as if Hirst had some fabric left over from his Elizabeth films.
The king’s chandelier-maker was about five centuries ahead of his time! The first chandeliers we know of were seen in the fourteenth century.
The power of the Norse kings is greatly misattributed and misrepresented. A king of this period ruled by permission of his people; he had no divine right of kings the way that Kings in the later middle ages had.
Concepts of modern monogamy seems stressed, whereas a man of the time could have several wives and concubines, and the women all apparently got along together!
Uncertain
Things change, but Upsala has little in common with the area today. The sacred site in Uppsalla is represented by a waterfall and a stave church. We have spoken earlier of waterfalls and their religious importance. But stave churches were intimately connected to Christianity, and there is little evidence that they predated the Conversion. In fact, they were descendants of post churches, which were the first churches in Scandinavia. Though their number was between 1000 and 2000, but they became outdated by the later medieval period.
The whole priesthood, vestments, appearance and ceremonies seem to owe a lot to Asian, Christian and classical faiths. And, as in earlier appearances, to the holy men of “300.” In fact, I assume that many of the ceremonies had to be invented.
The style of the braziers seem to owe more to later developments than the styles used during this period.
The tafl game—hnefatafl—seems to be run according to chess rules, but even that cannot be determined. The taflmen were of an unfamiliar shape, and there were far too many of them for the games with which I am familiar. Perhaps it was not meant to be any tafl game with which we are familiar.
With one episode in this series left, I have no idea what is being planned; if they are taking a leisurely rate of development, I cannot see why they did it without even knowing that a second season was going to be commissioned!
From the Stereotypes of the Norsemen deliver us… VII
As we move into cheap pulp fantasy, we have an episode with a lot of action and precious little accuracy. The mighty academic, Mr. Hirst, seems unable to keep track of dates or has just decided to cater to the images that viewers have of medieval living from later periods. Earlier inaccuracies, by this time, are SOP!
One must remember that there is a difference between high and low fantasy. For the most part, “Vikings” is not high fantasy in the style of “The Hobbit” and “Game of Thrones,” but it is fantasy all the same!
Accurate
Finally, ships of the field! (In England, but still…)
Attack is on foot by the Norse!
The Saxons seem not to have surnames
Does the Viking poop in he woods?
Th Saxons wanting to deal with a Christian and wanting to baptize one of the Norse.
Heathens respecting the conventions of other faiths…perhaps an early sign of their willing to assimilate (although there is an undertone of wanting to emulate your betters). Of course there are a few heathen hold-outs, in this case the demented Floki.
Inaccurate
A woman making decisions in court (þing? Weren’t they usually out of doors?)
Leather cloaks were used in an earlier period and not at this time.
No helmets for Norse.
Capes are in a later fashion. At least Ragnar wears a more correct cloak, even if the pin is rather fantastic.
So much flesh on the women! My eyes burn!
Shapes of the plates are rather inaccurate; the Norse would certainly be familiar with ceramics as well
Mounted attack by the Saxons.
More shield maidens in this one battle than even recounted in all the fantasies of the time.
Lantern hooks? In front of every tent? Have we seen too many farby RevWar camps?
Uncertain
Most raids were smash and grabs in this early era of Viking raids. They would hardly have erected such embattlements. The tactics are questionable for this point in time!
The Saxon banners are in a questionable style, but actual banners might look to the viewer more like kites.
Royalty would probably be leading the forces or at least on the field, even if physically unable
Sleeping in armor? Okay, stretching it but plausible. With the helmet on…?
“Steel is stronger than ours!” Doubtful.
I don’t think Dane-geld was offered that early
Uncertain if fences were done in the style presented at the Saxon manor.
Buttressed fence? I thought buttressing was a late development.
They call the king’s manor a villa, possibly referring back to a Roman dwelling. Would they still have been using that term or Roman houses this late? It looks as if some the king’s manor is stone; most buildings of this time were wood.
Religious chants at the meal? Actually, the whole meal stinks of later period to me.
Emphasis on Norse bad manners at eating.
The hall is too large and uncrowded, filled as before with almost Victorian bric-a-brac.
Athelstan wearing a coat almost like an overtunic.
Handle on cups are very rare.
The gate of the Norse palisade was very unlikely. Very cinematic, to be certain, but highly unlikely.
Florentine weapons, especially without a shield, would probably never have been done.
The inaccurate metal (leather?) plate armor is rather vulnerable.
Norse Forms of Government
The series shows þings but notes that the “Earl” makes all the decisions and rules in the manner of the later feudalistic heads of state. Actually, despite their—deserved but hardly unique—reputation for being vicious thugs by Christian writer, the Norse were actually a fairly peaceful people amongst each other. They tried to settle disputes personally but were willing to take disputes to a courts called þings or, sometimes, al-þings. The þing was a council of judges that listened to cases, and their decision was final. Much importance was given to juries, which were not the determining body it is today but was composed of witnesses for either side.
Most disputes were in the territorial or monetary form—the so-called were-gild—but more radical punishments dealt with more aggressive crimes such as assault , rape or murder. A death penalty was infrequently levied in such cases. Most of the times, violated was exiled from the hearth fires of civilized men; if the person found exiled was found in the land after a reasonable time to leave, he could be killed with no penalties. The short exile was three years; the longer exile was twenty years which, because of average lifespans, was known as a life-time exile.
Although most Norse lands also had both kings, jarls or chiefs, these authority figures seem to have operated parallel to the Thing system, not above it. Mostly kings were leaders of the armies that would protect Norse lands in times of war, but the Thing was the highest authority in times of peace.
Interestingly, if not for þings and exile, America might have not been encountered by the Norse. Eirik the Red was exiled and, during the time of his discovery, discovered Greenland and returned there with settlers after his exile was over (“Greenland” was chosen as a name because people would be more likely to want to settle a land with that name). His son, Leifr, voyaged to the mainland from Greenland.
From the Stereotypes of the Norsemen deliver us… VI
A lot more of the same, but the storyline has achieved a certain kinetic motion, and things are happening. Now, as it is closing, the storyline seems to have a momentum that should have been achieved in the second or third episode. The series speed, however, seems a lot more indebted to soap opera than to saga. And in this episode, there is a lot more actual research!
And when Haraldsson’s henchman was axed while encouraging a revolt against Ragnar…well, it may have cut off some fascinating subplots for the future, but I was smiling! Of course, I saw him as needing a little death not merely because of his questionable actions but because of his fashion sense…
Correct
Good use of holmgang–challenge-wise. The reaction is, of course, just Sheriff of Nottingham Hollywood. The abrupt reversal of Haraldsson’s actions, reactions and thoughts are rather unconvincing though.
Obviously Ragnar got a counterfeit sword 🙂
Tostig’s boasts rang very well!
The boat burial for Haraldsson owes much to ibn Fadlan‘s description of such a ceremony among the Rus
The ambátt’s costuming—showing flesh—was far more correct than similar ones of the royal women
Bjorn is showing signs of growing up to be Bjorn Ironsides!
“My brother doesn’t hold grudges. He’s strange that way.” At least they give lip service to Norse feuding while still making the protagonist seem modern, progressi8ve and wise!.
Animals are kept in the house! However, it would have been so much better if we had seen horses, cattle or even sheep and goats. Keeping pigs in the house is not so well documented! They certainly were not just fattened over the winter!
The versatility of drakkars that are able to sail across oceans and up rivers. They probably had a meter draught.
Ælla’s pit of vipers was a great forewarning. Will it be used as it was in legend?
Incorrect
The great hall looks more and more like a barn.
It was the woman who often endorsed and provoked the holmgang or aggression, certainly did not tell the guy to run away from it!
Lagertha, call Xena. She wants her nightie back!
Bed does not match any found
Bedroom of Haraldsson looks more like some cluttered Victorian concept of a Viking Hall
What is that blue fur Ziggy—I’m sorry, Siggy—is wearing. In fact, that entire cloak.
The ambátt’s hair should probably have been shorter.
The maroon fur on Siggy’s later cloak. How many cloaks did she have? Did the local Hancock’s have a sale on multi-colored fake fur? And then her earrings. What haux fashion shoot did she wander off of?
The rope on Floki’s cloak, instead of a brooch, being used as a frog
Uncertain
Locks of hair are unmentioned for the time, though they were used in earlier times, generally for religious purposes, and later (16–17C) as love tokens. Their use as sentimental reminders of te dead—children or otherwise—seems to have developed only in the Victorian era. The “lock” that Siggy gives Haraldsson seems more like a scalp in its fleeting appearance! 
Ragnar’s armor owes more to Kirk Douglas’s Ragnar than to accuracy
Not certain the holmgang would be done without helmets, but apparently the heroes are real men who don’t need them at any time!
The winner becomes Earl—or King, as Ragnar was in legend—and oaths of fealty were a lot more SCA than accurate, though it was seemingly legitimized the accession of Ragnar. The oaths were apparently sworn in Germanic convention on swords and were quite important between the lord—the king and his men—taking precedence over other oaths.
Drinking horns were used in ceremonial context; their use during this funeral can be reconciled. But I have great questions about whether drinking horns—which were probably very personal if we look at the carved ones that still exist—were just horns placed in a big barrel!
The funky hat worn by the seidkona is probably a joke allusion to the old concept of Vikings wearing horn helmets as opposed to the possibility of metal horns on priests’ helms in elder times…but it still looks kind of silly! 🙂
The slaying of the family of a slain headman seems in my reading more a later thing or from other cultures.
******
There is no doubt that I will get the inevitable DVD set of the series, and I hope that I do not wear out the pause function of my player as I search for those details that appeared fleetingly ore in darkness and were not emphasized!
The very fascinating story of Viking duels, or holmgang, is well worth additional reading to help understand it!
From the Stereotypes of the Norsemen deliver us… V
With the fifth episode, it feels almost as if the prologue that took up half the series so far has ended, and the actual story has started! Maybe Ragnar will even start to wear the pants the historical character was famed for! The episode, however, is more of the same in many instances. Those who have come to love the series will see nothing to surprise or irritate them, because they have already accepted the new stereotypes! A the same time, those who are upset by the lack of accuracy in the series will not encounter anything to change their opinions.
However, the opening battle scene reminded me of a scene from “Last of the Mohicans” (or more appropriately, “The Patriot.” Eighteenth-century reenactors will understand immediately!).
And I am still waiting for close-ups on the bows and arrows!
Correct
View on manumitted slaves. They were freedmen, between þralls and freemen!
Use of nets in fishing
Fish traps
Use of cauterizing with wounds.
Athelstane’s belt is the proper width! (However, it was probably meant to infer his inferior status as opposed to the wide wide belts of the macho overlords)
Proper use of marriage arranged for family gain; the mother’s attitude is all modern of course.
Good storytelling of the Norse myths, though it seems a little more casual than it should have been and lacked the poetry. See my later comment on what they contained.
Tattoos. We know, if ibn Fadlan is correct, that the Norsemen had them, but we don’t know what they were. These suppositions are as good as any!
Incorrect
Deck on pier
Cavalry charge. Standard battle tactics, until the Normans, was like dismounted cavalry. Horses were used for getting to battles, but not for fighting on. The cavalry scenes reminded me most of B-movie westerns!
Shields. Most shields would have been covered with linen or leather to disguise the grain, since if they saw the grain, foes could aim for and split the wood of the shield.
The vest thing that the henchman wears is even worse than the tabard that Bjorn is wearing!
What kind of armor is the Earl wearing?
Shoulderless dresses. Shoulderless!?
Floki shows his breast with the cut of his clothing. Well, Lagertha’s pants were cause for divorce too, so what do producers care for the actual laws where they can make things up…
Tortoise brooches are not cloak frogs!
Use of white as bridal colors dated from the Victorian age.
Windows in the houses. And they’re not even to help illuminate the shooting since they also have candles burning out of their wazoos!
Uncertain
Why does everyone have swords? Even persons who are too poor to wear mail and just wear scraps of leather have swords!
Chains are too modern and regular unless the smith is very sophisticated and good.
Were there boats with only one pair of oars? I’m more familiar with færings.
Floki coming out bare-chested but wearing pants might seem appropriate for having been interrupted in mid-debauch, but wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to come out in a tunic with no pants?
Bjorn’s axe/hatchet looked a little too modern, but the axe born by the guy searching for Ragnar is a little too ancient, so I guess that it all works out!
Back quiver has no provenance. I’ll forgo comment on recurved bows because there is a controversy about their presence.
Dances and music—the existence of which are documented but specifics were unknown so they had to be created—owes just a wee too much—at least to me—to later dance styles. And not the simple ones!
Sources of Norse legend have been disputed, since a lot of the mythology seems to have first appeared only when told about by Christian authors. For a discussion, see the various blog entries on the subjected by Nancy Marie Brown or see her excellent book, Song of the Vikings.
From the Stereotypes of the Norsemen deliver us… IIII
As the series reaches its halfway point, there are fewer things upon which to comment. Not because it is getting more accurate but because they keep doing and presenting inaccuracies over and over again. Besides, the cinematography is so fast moving and often so dark that often you cannot get a good glimpse at what it being presented. Even when you stop the picture and take a closer look, it is still a bit ambiguous!
But I’ve decided that I really want to see the Viking warrior unsheathe the sword strapped on his back!
Correct
We see geese! That’s in England, but at least it is a tip of the helm to agrarian roots of the time!
But a wheeled hay wagon is seen in the homeland!
Buckets do not have ferrous bands; I think the one I saw had rope bands!
Proper stool
Someone had mail (under his black gambeson for pity sake, but still…)
What looks like an oil lamp (but with pronounced flame)
The darkness of the long hall was well represented
Incorrect
The Saxon crown is from a later time
Wide belt. I was certain that one was to be handed down to WWF wrestlers!
Quillons are too wide on one swore
Vestments are wrong
Table is too tall
Drakkar is very far out from shore
The Englisc wearing brooches with chains between
Helmets that just look wrong, as if they were cast-offs from “Knightriders”
“You’re too young, Gyda, to drink ale.” I’d rather see you die from impure water…
Female costume is even less accurate than male armor! A high-class woman looking with a teeny-bopper with bare arms and loose-knit dress?
The candlestick holders are unlike any that I have seen
The mugs/cups are larger than I’ve ever seen, and the pitchers don’t seem to be pitchers, at least those I have seen or seen pictures of
Athelstan’s tunic is too short…but then so are many more of the tunics
Uncertain
I’m not sure even holy places would have been burning candles—so bright, they’re probably bee’s wax—in so many places
Norse use of archery in battle (controversial)
Do the thrones look more Victorian than anything?
Are the shackles slave shackles? Would they have keys?
At last, the casting of stones and bones! With a reappearance of the guest star from “300.” The casting of rune stones is probably a modern newagey procedure; there is no indication of it in the sagas
If Ragnar kills the Earl, then he will become Earl. Possibly, but the position is selected by the people!
A Note on Names
While the names in the series seems equally divided between actual names and what seems to be fantasy, the naming procedure for the Norse seems to be utterly unknown. The standard naming process seems to be that Norse names are conventionally three: the personal name, the patronymic (or in very rare cases where the mother is more prominent than the father, a matronymic) and a soubriquet (which can change through a bearer’s life). There is not a single character n the whole series which uses such a tri-name system, and the one person who uses a patronymic—Earl Haraldson uses the patronymic as more of surname (which is actually several centuries in the future). For a while, I suspected that the “Earl” (especially since it was not the more correct “Jarl”) was actually his first name; but with the discussion between him a henchman this week about who would be the new Earl completely demolishes it unless he’s like Major Major in _Catch 22_… So until they start showing women with patronymics or people with the three names or calling Bjorn Lothbrok—the son of Ragnar Lothbrok—the infinitely more proper Bjorn Ragnarsson, I’ve have to assume either sheer ignorance or stupidly assuming that the hoi polloi viewers cannot identify family relationships without family surnames!
I cannot wait to find out what surnames will be used by the Englisc… 🙂
Want to know how Norse naming practices were actually done outside of Hollywood, you might want to take a look at this well-done article on Norse naming practices.
folo1
The Anglo-Scandinavian Chronicles 