From the Stereotypes of the Norsemen deliver us… III
In the third episode, the series seems to be spiraling down toward outright cheap pulp fantasy. The true worth of the series for a serious Viking enthusiasts seems to be that it inspires the viewer to see what is true and what is purely fantasy and improvisational. You are urged to check what the provenance is for anything presented on the screen. In a few cases, you may be able to find to your delight that you may actually learn something that you did not notice or know!
But I think the producers may have done that purely by sheer luck! For example, a horn used as a candlestick holder seems, according to Chad White, to have been lifted from a fantasy role-playing game; how much more of this series has been provoked by fantasy games or novels and owes very little to any original research? It leads me to suspect that any correct research was something done by the game company or writer, and the producers are as willing to accept the incorrect as the correct research done in that manner because it doesn’t really matter to them. They are more concerned with dramatic license, a fair enough thing—see “Excalibur” or “300”—except that it is being shown on The “History” Channel, which implies a bit of responsibility. Maybe they were will have commentators at the end of the series, like they used to have on history movies, commenting on what was right and what was wrong…thought I doubt they will.
Correct
Proper use of hostages (see their instance in the invasion by Sweyn Forkbead)…but I do not think they realize that it is proper, just an old melodramatic ploy showing how evil the Earl is.
Lurs or horns used to make announcements.
The portrayal of Athelstane as a manumitted slave—a freedman, a person who owed allegiance to his former master but who existed in a caste between freeman and thrall—was very well done and common despite its presentation as something that was unique and uncommon.
Incorrect
Black costume. But it is deep and ominous, so that is more important in the minds of the producers than any accuracy!
The hangeroc worn by Lagertha is totally wrong. Even if we accept the flappy tabard style of hangeroc, it would have straps, and the tortoise brooches would be used to secure the flaps. Here, the brooches are placed just like brooches would be today; they are not tortoise brooches, but at least beads and jewelry are hung between them.
Hatless women. I hate to get tiresome and continually harp on this, but…
Jewelry worn by Earl’s henchman is rather large and rather uncategorizable. He’s also in black though…
Sleeveless underdress on the queen
Shield maiden. A great example of the descent into the cheap pulp fantasy of Red Sonja and Xena.
The armor on the Anglo-Saxon warriors is just pure fantasy. Where is the mail and the byrnies? At least we haven’t yet got to the helmets shown in the previews!
Uncertain
Silver hoards seemed to have been mainly deposited for reasons of religious sacrifice or simply for safety and not for use in an afterlife. Certainly items buried were for that use, but this appears to be either a confusion or a simple improvisation.
The Earl notes, after Ragnar’s successful return, that all before him have failed? What is he talking about? On the one hand, it might be an almost science-fictiony improvisation of a back story that might be used for later, albeit clichéd effect.
Dumping a dead slave overboard seems more like a reference to the American slave trade. I cannot find any clear reference one way or the other, so I can only assume that it is a bit of poetic license.
We mentioned before that only women wore earrings in the Viking Age, and apparently not that many were worn to begin with. The earrings worn by the women in this episode seemed rather striking and dangley, more in keeping with modern mores and based in many instances on the products of modern vendors who give ambiguous lip service to the accuracy of their products but generally no provenance.
The hood worn by Brother Athelstane drops down across one eye. That is obviously an attempt to show character and mood, but it is something that is familiar with me while wearing a hood! Accidental accuracy?
The group sex made reference to Norse sexual mores that were probably different from the monogamy. It was a part of the present culture and not quite, then, as naughty and titillating. An interesting point that draws us back to the earl’s earlier betrayal of the man who would sleep with his woman.
The distribution of the booty is really Hollywood. That is not to say that it was not done in this manner—look at the later pirate distribution contracts—but it seems a little too pat and a little too simplistic. The fear that the Earl will kill them if they put up a fuss goes against everything that I have read and learned about Scandinavian society of that time.
With the emphasis on shaving heads by the Norse—both conjecturally in history and certainly in the hairstyles shown in the series–the emphasis on Norse wonderment at the tonsure seems a little strange. Although it might be a comment upon the Norse astonishment at Christians shaving a part of the head the Norse do not, it seems more a modern-day comment upon how weird tonsures are.
The early English kingdoms were generally known as the Heparchy, indicating there were seven of them. Certainly, the number might well have varied, and geographic knowledge might have been vague enough to validate Athelstane’s number of English kingdoms, but I am in a foul enough mood about the produces’ research skills that I am tempted to take the exposition merely as the “truth” presented to us by the omniscient producers!
The fact that the earl took possession of the ship indicates an erroneous perception that you did not own anything but that instead everyone held things in a feudal manner, a largess from their betters. Or maybe socialism if we are to judge from some statements made by conservative commentators depicting the villains as wimpy and devious liberal socialists while the good guys are the straight-thinking and hard-hitting conservatives. William Short of Hurstwic notes that “The power of a earl depended upon the goodwill of his supporters. The earl’s essential task was to uphold the security, prosperity, and honor of his followers.” The earl was chosen by the followers, not as an inheritance, and was often chosen in terms of wealth. The son of a earl might have put him on a fast route to the positions, but it wasn’t dead set. The anonymous au5thor of an article by History World International notes that “Both kings and jarls had to rule according to law. No laws were written down until around 1100. Before then the laws were really traditions and opinions of the majority of the people. The people elected lawmen who had to know these unwritten laws and explain them to the rulers.” The role of his wife seemed rather ludicrous as well. From the sagas, she’d probably have been taunting him to get better rather than stroking his ego!
Next time, I hope to comment upon naming standards of the time and what I find those exhibited in the series to be so ridiculous, along with further notes on the correct, the incorrect and the uncertain areas. In the meantime, I cannot hope that everything I have written is a hundred percent correct; if you have any additional or contradictory provenance, I look forward to seeing it!
From the Stereotypes of the Norsemen deliver us… II
Plans to deal more deeply with subjects that were wrong have been put off, and I’ll just offer a few more notes gleaned from last night’s showing of “Vikings”…
One BIG Thing Before We Start
Geography and geographical knowledge. The Norse–and almost everyone until Washington Irving–knew that the earth was a globe. What they thought more than anything else was that all the land was in a circle on top of the globe. That is alluded to in the Fenris myth that was recounted last night. Everything was in a circle, so there was more land coming up (when Vinand was discovered, the Norse thought that if they went farther they’d just run into Africa). The Norse certainly knew about the continent of Europe and just as certainly England. I also wonder what route the raiders took if they were out of sight of land for so long. It made me wonder if the producers were representing the Scandinavian lands as some separate Ultima Thule way up north! Poetic license? License revoked!
Good
• The subdued natural colors (though, from the still of Ragnar in an abysmal neon blue tunic that I’ve seen, I fear this was just to emphasize their poverty and will be changed later on)
• The shoes I got a good look at were apparently turnshoes
• The tent on the ship. I would have liked more details on what the tent covering was (I at first thought it was the sail, but that might havbe been a pre-conceived notion) and what the cross-pieces were; but for this being the first time such a thing was needed in the storyline, I can let those things slide)
• Appropriate grill on hearth fire (larger than those I’ve seen)
• Use of ravens to see if land was near
• Use of make-up for Viking warriors (although it seemed meant as if it was meant as war paint in the manner of Native Americans)
• The cleaning ritual was almost exactly what was noted by Ibn Fadlan (I shan’t comment on how much I think his prejudices were as evident in his account, just as those of the Christian chroniclers were evident in theirs)
• Tonsures on the clerics (that weren’t shown in the preview shots)
• One guy with shaved back of head (an interpretation of a contemporary description of Norse hairstyles)
Bad
• Too many candles. No rushes, and what might have been meant as oil lamps were too bright)
• Horn used as a light/candleholder (is there any provenance for this; I’ve not seen it!)
• The queen’s “nightgown”
• Blackmailing a blacksmith (I’ve been led to believe that smiths who could work iron were considered close to the gods and scarcely someone you’d want to get mad at you)
• Boots too tall
• Someone wearing his sword on back; for that matter, too many swords and no spears
• The horses are not proper for the time; in fact, there are so few animals, except ravens, that it is rather unsettling
• Uncertain of the pier; think they just had posts for tying the ships…which they also had in the film
• Did the vellum crumple like paper? (I did like Ragnar tasting it as if to see if it was leather)
• My wife the calligrapher, doesn’t think gold was used either as a paint or an application at this time
Things I’ll let slip…
These are just interpretations and done without provenance but with poetic license and necessity to tell the story.
• The “Domesday is coming” riff; it’s just as contrived and possibly as false as “there are no lands to the east” thing
• The killing of people who will become slaves (seems much like Christian propaganda; why indiscriminate slaughter of someone you can get money for?)
• The leather apron on the smith (we’ve been discussing this lately in Regia)
• This Cuthbert was not THE Cuthbert, who died about a century before, but since Cuthbert was so entwined with Lindisfarne, I’m not certain whether that name would have been used, especially so prominently
• Surprise about written word; runes were probably variations of Roman cursive and imo–controversial–well known and disseminated. I’d have been amused by Ragnar grousing that skins were being wasted instead of using stones
• The cages for the birds that have, to my knowledge, no provenance, but they had to have something like that!
From the Stereotypes of the Norsemen deliver us…
I saw the first episode of “Vikings” on The “History” Channel last night. I was honor bound to watch it; after all, if it’s a success, we’re going to have MoPs showing up at events thinking they know everything accurate about the time because they’ve seen this and “Game of Thrones.”
What was my reaction?
Two fold. It dealt—almost randomly it seems—with actual things. Briefly and in no particular order…
• Showing affectionate family relationships in Norse families
• The use of wooden swords to teach kids how to fight
• Wooden bands on tubs and buckets
• Believable portrayal of market (probably thanks to other, later portrayals)
• Portrayal of a þing (though it was portrayed as more autocratic than it probably was)
• A warp-weighted loom in action (more later)
• Portrayal of Norse female defending the home (not being a Viking though)
• Good—if controversial—explanation of bearing dial (though too large) and sun stone (I was so relieved it was not a magnet in the style of the Kirk Douglas “The Vikings” film)
• Hearth fire in the middle of the hall
• Use of both cups and horns for drinking
• Treating headbands almost like modern ties (but set a trifle too high IMO)
One of the phrases used by the program’s publicity was that the series was going to demolish old stereotypes. Perhaps so. But it certainly initiated new ones. Now we will examine the other side of the penny, examining both large and small inaccuracies. Disregarding most of the numerous inaccuracies with costuming and furniture, let’s look at a few.
• The exposed hair on women and a cap from a later period on one guy
• Fur worn with hair to outside (and even fur on bedclothes was arranged this way…probably to emphasize that it was fur!)
• Too much leather (leather was used in earlier eras for clothing, not so much the Viking Age)
• The use of the title earl (a term of the Englisc; why didn’t they use “jarl”?)
• Use of patronymic as a surname (Earl Haraldson?)
• Cannot comment on the shoes because they weren’t shown well enough, but didn’t some of them used in the film have heels?
• Swords were used for slashing not thrusting (Imperial Roman use; the Norse used spears!)
• The banners were more like later period gonfannons
• Shield maidens were probably a literary device
• There is no provenance for Domed Chests (a hobby horse of mine)
• Was the jarl wearing an earring? (Even few women wore earrings)
• Emphasis of farmer as a separate job from viking (a farmer often planted and then went i-viking)
• Women speaking in þing
• Exiling, not death penalty, was more common (and running the gauntlet being pelted with veggies…wtf?)
• Too much use of candles (Miss Julie noted the lighting was weird)
• The rudder is on the left (why do they call the right of a ship the starboard?)
• Bjorn’s seax is shaped wrong (but understandable; I’ve priced cheap blade blanks, and many are shaped like this)
• There is an indentation at the bottom of some cups (yeah, anal… :\)
• Confused description of how a Viking ship works (it reminded me of a character explaining skiffy science)
Next week, I’ll go a little deeper on a few points…and deal with a few BIG ones…
For folk who don’t have access to the mini-series, there are quite a few stills at this site along with some breathless text.
TOP TEN FACTS ABOUT VIKINGS
1. Viking was not a Culture
“Viking” was a profession. To go viking was a part-time occupation. Although we today refer to all Norse of the time as Vikings, they would often refer to pirates from other cultures as vikings, and I can only laugh when people authoritatively talk about the people. Of course, in the common language, saying any Norse is a Viking is about as ubiquitous and erroneous as calling an American bison a buffalo.
2. The Norse were a very practical people
Viking meant that the person was a raider or a trader. In general, if they landed where there was a strong defense and warriors, they were traders and went peacefully about that job. However, if there were no defenses—such as monastic sites, which had golden objects and were safe from Christian brigands who would never attack a Christian center—they were raiders.
3. The Vikings existed during the Viking Age
But I refer to the Viking Age for the same reason I refer to the Iron Age, the Bronze Age or the Nuclear Age, because Viking longships—drakkars, the war ships, and knarrs, the broader “trucks” of the sea—were the foremost technology of the time. The ships were quick (today, they have been fairly comparable when racing against sophisticated modern yachts), agile and capable (they were powered by both rowing and sails). They were built so they could easily travel both forward and back, so they could easily come into and leave a landing. The ships could be lashed together for combat and were outmoded only when other ships became taller, and the Viking ships had war coming down on them for forecastles and other developments.
4. The men they refer to as “Vikings” were mainly farmers when they weren’t out Viking
Everybody at the time was involved with farming. They needed farming to survive, and even the wealthy and the high status were closely if not physically connected to the process. Many times, the men would put in crops and then head out viking until they had to return home for harvesting. Sometimes, they would journey out again after harvest and hardly ever stay out for the full winter.
5. They weren’t dirty barbarians
They regularly bathed and had high hygienic standards. Nearly every Norse person had a comb—though many other peoples of the time did as well—and they had weekly, fully immersive baths when many people around them generally would regularly wash only their hands and necks. There is a chronicle that indicates that English girls often ditched local boys to court with Norse lads since they did not stink!
6. They were not illiterate
Generally. The number of them who knew runes is a controversial subject, but the fact that there were so many memorial runestones set on the sides of roads indicates to me that quite a few knew runes. However, they did not use their alphabet—fuþark if you prefer—the way that Christians used their alphabet. They did not use them to write chronicles or histories, at least not until after they converted, and the things they learned and recounted by rote were not written down until some time after they were Christianized, so not only do most period accounts written by the opposition—the Church and churchmen—but what we do have was written by Christians, who might have changed or invented things. Although runes did have a magical aspect, the new age use of runes for divination and prophecy appears to be a modern derivation.
7. They did not wear horned helmets, furry breechcloths or leather armor
Their helmets did not have horns—this was a nineteenth-century stylization. They generally wore the same sort of clothing that anyone else in Europe of the time—with certain minor regional differences like any other culture—wore. Their armor, if they had any, was maille. There is little evidence that they wore extensive leather armor.
8. There were no woman Vikings
Norse women might travel with their men—generally for colonization—but female warriors were the stuff of fantasy, both then and today (eg, the Valkyries). Women had a position in the society of the time—actually, both Norse and Englisc—that was higher than that of women in many later cultures, though they were certainly not the equals of the men, with great prestige and influence. In addition, there is evidence that they learned how to handle weapons, and were often put in charge of the home, farm and defense when men folk went out viking, though there is little evidence for their use of weapons and none for their participation in aggressive warfare.
9. They were skilled artisans
As jewelers, gold workers, weavers and so forth, the Norse had few equals. The more the archaeologist find of Norse crafts and arts—and they regularly being discovered—the more sophisticated we realize that the Norse people were!
10. They were widely traveled
The Viking Age was a time of good weather, often known as the Optimal Warm Era. They were able to sail easily to distant lands; and the great era of exploration gradually was ended with the Mini Ice Age. The Norse vikinged throughout the north, as far south as North Africa, as far east as Baghdad and Russia (which is named after a Viking tribe, the Rus) and as far west as North America (although attempts at colonization ended after about twenty years, we are uncertain how far west or how far south they traveled).
This has been inspired by a similar blog entry written by Don N. Hagist, an excellent reenactor, researcher and writer, on the “Top 10 Facts about British Soldiers.” Thanks and a tip of the helm to Mister Hagist!
IN LOVE WITH EVERYDAY LIFE IN THE PAST Part 3
This week, we turn to Julie Watkins, who wrote this a while ago at my behest when I heard her talking about it to M o Ps at an event. This is reprinted from New Member Times 28:
My participation in the NWTA was ended when my husband had some h ealth prob-lems. When he recovered, he was looking for real medieval living history. But I got caught in what he eventually settled on—the Regia Anglorum reenactment society—for three basic reasons.
The first was that there were no explosions. I tolerated the gun culture in the NWTA but was happier when I found an organization that had high standards without loud noises.
The second was that I had been in love with the Norse medieval culture ever since we had visited Iceland in the late 1980s. I liked that Iceland that it skipped the renaissance. Earlier, I had been interested in Tolkien, which led me to reading the sagas. I can’t remember the specifics, but I remember reading one after another, just liking the language of the storytelling.
And finally, in Regia Anglorum, I found that I was even closer to what I considered the ultimate living-history experience. It was simpler, less posh culture, closer to everyday life that I had found living history before to be. Even the costume was simpler. It was mainly rectangles, square and triangles, and the only curves were in the wimples. It was not only easier to put things together but to wear what had been put together. I got interested in the textiles of the era and love talking about it to Members of the Public while on the ropeline. I love being able to talk about a consistent broad over view and to display the different looms. And in addition, since this era predates the introduction of the spinning wheel, the tools for spinning are much smaller and easier to transport!
Ironically, on the line, I try to do the simplest actions in my demonstrations of textile production. Not I only because I can’t do it—I’m probably as skilled as an eight-year-old would have been then—but I find it easier to do this while speaking with the M o Ps. And when I screw up—as I often do—it can be more easily undone, so they don’t feel horrid for spoiling a difficult endeavor with their honest questions. 🙂 They are hopefully ready to go on asking questions and learning. Often, while speaking with them, I find out what I don’t yet know and have to look it up so that I’ll know it in the future!
I am very happy dealing with a culture that I find simple and easy both to understand and to explain to the M o Ps. I especially like where our group is at present, where we are portraying the Danelaw at a certain point in the early eleventh century. There are plenty of artifacts that the archaeologists have found in the area, and I find the portrayal easy and satisfying.
There are a few things that drive me crazy. What did a period carrying bag look like? It might have been such a humble, everyday article that no one made mention of it in chronicles or displayed it in art. Or perhaps it was never used. After all, how many items did you own in those days that you had to carry around? I would like to know, not only so I can acquire a similar bag for myself but so I can talk about it to fellow reenactors and M o Ps. Of course, I’m dealing with a modern reaction here; what I think or hope they had does not necessarily have anything to do what they did think or have!
Even so, reenacting everyday life in a culture where I can wear simple and comfortable clothes with no bustles, no stays and no ruffs, while talking about how life was lived by the common folk is both simple and satisfying. I, for one, am happy I encountered it!
Facebook Laece Page
After the splendid reception to the Healing through the Ages panel on Saturday at Military History Fest 9, I have been moved to found a new group: Healing Through the Ages. A few members of the panel who are friends have been added already, but anyone with an interest in medicine from earliest times to last week will be welcomed! Right now, what we are doing will be worked out according to what we want! If interested, feel free to sign up and to spread the news to others–not merely reenactors–who might be interested!
The Enchanted Land–in a Warm Dry Hotel
Almost ready for my favorite event of the year! Need to gather clothes==very simple–and carry a couple boxes out to the car. And then four days of partying with people who have a clew! Supposed to be bigger than ever this year, and you can easily join in if you are in the Chicagoland area! Hope to see ya there!
(We still call it ReenactorFest, and Mike is offering t-shirts that say that very thing this year!)
IN LOVE WITH EVERYDAY LIFE IN THE PAST Part 2
This week, we turn to Julie Watkins, who wrote this a while ago at my behest when I heard her talking about it to MoPs at an event. This is reprinted from New Member Times 28:
When I got into the NWTA, they were talking about the culture and the influences, and I had encountered very little of this in the SCA. In the NWTA, the default was the ordinary everyday person. That was more comfortable for me and strongly influenced my appreciation of living history. Quite frankly, everyday life and its aspects fascinated me. For example, I learned about the dance-master, someone very important in elite households: he was not teaching you how to dance; he was teaching you how to behave. How someone comported himself indicated what class he is a member of. Someone in those days who came to a new city and tried to pass himself off—for whatever reason—as a member of the nobility had to move like a noble. That had never come up in the SCA, and I realized that this might have been a reason the upper-class medieval costuming made me feel a little weird. I was slouching and behaving in a common-folk way not moving in a graceful noble manner, not holding myself upright at attention because my dress indicated that I was better than most of the rest of the people. Things began to fall into place.
Because being a member of the medieval upper class means that you had to move and act like a member of the upper class of the Middle Ages and not like someone from the twentieth-century wearing a fancy costume. Until you point this out, this point escapes many in the modern world, but it is less encountered in most places because too many people are trying to go egalitarian or, in many cases, frugal, which means cheap in too many cases. The wearer is trying to make an adequate attempt as cheaply as possible, without realizing, as Beth Gilgun points out, the proof is in te details, and no one is paying much attention to any details at all!
In modern life, I’m kind of a slob who always wants to be relaxed. I realized that I never wanted to project the image that I knew better, that I was superior, that I was in charge. I don’t want to be in charge in modern life, and I certainly did not want to be in charge in reenacted culture. I wanted—and still want—to relax and to have fun. So if I was in an upper-class costume, I was going to look like a poser because I was not going to be standing right or moving right or acting right! I get frazzled too easily and want to be comfortable doing what I love to do.
I realized that it did not make me feel special to wear a nice dress, or to use a special title or to wear a fancy coronet. In fact, whenever I had been in front of a large number of people, I got stage fright! It just wasn’t important to me, and I had much more fun talking one on one on the ropeline. I found that I preferred talking about everyday life instead of about how I longed to live in a more “romantic” time. In fact, I get the feeling that I wouldn’t have liked to live back then!
I never plunged into the arts practiced in the NWTA. Instead, I got into the costumes. I had to make accurate clothing for both my husband and myself. With an understanding of what needed to be done in creating an accurate costume, I approached it on a different level than I had approached the clothing in the SCA. As I look back, I think I was somehow gratified that I was re-creating middle-class dress. Subconsciously, I was getting closer to what the clothing would have really been like.
It would be unfair to claim that there were no politics in the NWTA, just that it was totally different than the politics encountered in the SCA. NWTA politics seemed to center on whose interpretation of history culture was correct. They were having what seemed to me to be silly arguments about how a reenactor should one thing and not the other. The NWTA was, at that time, portrayed exclusively in its by-laws as a military reenactment group, even though there were civilian members and the by-laws were later amended to specifically include them. I thought, “Well, you can’t treat civilian clothing the same way that you treat military uniforms. Variations that would be unthinkable among members of a military unit would be expected in the civilian portrayal.” When it became apparent that the authorities had no idea what life was like for vendors and were trying to lecture them on what they had to produce—and keep in mind that my husband was then commander of the NWTA’s sutler unit—I began to write down what was required for a civilian portrayal.
Actually, I started with a bare-bones outline, and I asked a dozen people who had strong opinions to review it, to correct it and to augment it. I listened to what they had to say, and when I had incorporated and made a sense of all the changes, I sent it out again. This kept on until there was a certain amount of agreement, I was very happy that I was able to take so many responses and to come up with a broad overview that is apparently still useful!
IN LOVE WITH EVERYDAY LIFE IN THE PAST Part 1
This week, we turn to Julie Watkins, who wrote this a while ago at my behest when I heard her talking about it to MoPs at an event. This is reprinted from New Member Times 28:
Almost forty years ago, when I was starting in the SCA, we called it medieval reenacting. Until I got into RevWar reenacting in the NWTA, I had no idea that what we were doing was not reenacting. In fact, it was barely living history—or whatever term we used back then to describe the re-creation of the past. What I was doing in the SCA was not really portraying anything historical. The SCA was building its own “medievalish” subculture. I was doing generic medieval, with a little bit applied technology along the edges. This was because I was an artist, interested in calligraphy and the design of illuminated manuscripts. The combat people were creating a new sport.
One thing about the SCA is that the default status of any member is the nobility. You can choose to portray a lesser class, but almost no one takes that decision seriously. SCA is an organization where you might perform a rather lower-class task as you sit there in your best purple costume and a coronet. In that kind of context, any sense of historical reality is tenuous when it is there at all. I realized later—after I encountered reenacting of ordinary, lower class life—that the pretensions and logical inconsistencies made me unsatisfied. I was trying to portray someone that I was not, and I never even realized how far short my portrayal fell. Most of the designs put in front of me and most of what the members were trying to do were a generic medieval, taken from upper-class manuscript illumination if not from Hollywood or children’s books. People were trying to sew clothes using fabrics that were too cheap and too inappropriate, using too little fabric to do the job because using the right amount would have been too expensive and incorporating parts of modern culture because the wearer did not recognize anything else as attractive. That included me. I didn’t like the darts and the curves, and I see now that I didn’t do a very good job. I had dresses made of black polyester, with fake fur and a modern pattern.
Those dresses fit in perfectly with much of what surrounded me. The situation might be, in many cases, much less so today, but there is still no guiding officer who can tell you to do it right, and even when this item here is very accurate, the maker feels no compunction about having that item there being—to use a term almost unknown in the SCA but virtually ubiquitous in most living-history organizations—farby.
At the time, I was interested in calligraphy and illumination. But the way that I was studying and approaching the subject, I was approaching it in a very broad manner. I was not trying to think and to behave like a scribe of a certain era. I was a modern artist who was trying to acquire a disparate but wide range of historical knowledge to create scrolls, adapting historical designs (meant for decorating books of many pages) for SCA court use (single sheets).
For people unfamiliar with the SCA, the concept of SCA scrolls was one of the most prominent ways that Scadians have created a new subculture that is only tangentially history. In period, I discovered, the scrolls that came with rank were not considered pieces of valuable artwork. They weren’t illustrated or visually special. The important thing was the lands that they conveyed. If you did something good, the king took lands away from someone he disliked and gave them to you; you appreciated them, and you were an obedient vassal—killing the people that the king wanted you to kill—because you didn’t want to have the lands taken from you.
The SCA kings can’t give anyone a paying job. He can’t give them money. He certainly can’t give them land. The award scroll developed into what you get that is important and valuable, especially if you’re in a kingdom—a bureaucratic and geographic subdivision of the corporation—that does not use pre-printed scroll blanks. I think that the politics for giving out awards in the SCA court culture is the same as the politics that would have been back then, to reward someone’s faithful service. If you do something for me, I’ll do something for you, and so forth.
Because the scrolls have a totally different purpose than historical scrolls might have had, they were much more ornate and ornamented. In the Middle Ages, what were flashy and illuminated and showed that you were important were the illuminated manuscripts that you commissioned, paid for and displayed. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, you’d have lots of illustrations and decorations scattered through the whole volume. SCA scribes often tried to get ideas from these efforts and then made a conscious or unconscious attempt to condense the important illustrations that might have been in a full codex down to a single sheet.
The words are important, but the border designs are what attract praise and glowing comments. Most of the time, when a modern artist sees an SCA scroll, that artist is flabbergasted by the quality of the artwork that goes into the border and see the calligraphy itself and go yuck. And when they learn that artists are doing gratis an effort that would be worth in their opinion several hundred or a thousand dollars, these artists—who are doing commercial artistic endeavors that are calculated to bring them the highest payment—go “you guys are crazy” and wander away. When academics see this, they often just shake their heads at the lack of understanding that created it, even if they are in awe of the creation—as a modern piece of artwork incorporating medieval motifs—itself.
I never considered any of this when I was caught up in the SCA. It never occurred to me to even think about that. Instead of caring what the effort said about the culture we were re-creating, I was more concerned interacting with other court scribes, trying to figure out why my speed and accuracy got worse instead of better, matching a scroll design with the recipient — I was more concerned with the sub-culture than with the idea of history—Living or otherwise.
BOOK OF FARB VS. BOOK OF DREAMS
“Farb” is the term used in living history to describe anything that is not historically accurate. It was originally used in American Civil War reenacting in the 1960s, but there is debate about how the term came about. There re several good articles talking about it, including Jonah Begone’s “Who was the Founding Father of Farb?” and Kathleen Smith’s “An Introduction to Farby.”
In the decades since its origin, it has proven its worth and been adopted by most other eras of living history in the United States and abroad, and we became acquainted with the term in the 1980s in RevWar reenacting and have used it in Micel Folcland since the founding.
Farb is, in many cases, anti-educational. As Smith notes: “Can you choose a book by its cover? Do first impressions really matter? Hard-core…reenactors will answer: you can and they do. Reenactors, regardless of what period they choose to reenact, have to be very mindful of how they are perceived, not only by the public, but by their fellow reenactors as well.” However, in another sense, farb can be very educational. It can teach the reenactor what not to create, wear or approve.
What we have discovered is that compiling instances and cases of farb as a scrap book—called the Bok of Pharb—can be an illuminating experience for a viewer. With that in mind, we have compiled a Book of Farb, in which we have assembled photographs that are readily available on the internet that exemplify what the member should avoid. A good many are illustrations taken from such festivities as Up Helly Aa that make no pretense of being accurate, from LARP organizations, whose accuracy is not required and when it occurs is merely incidental, and, most disturbingly, from societies which brag about their accuracy but whose standards fall sadly short.
It should be noted and understood in this last example that farbiness is not permanent by any means. Accuracy in living history is an evolutionary matter. As people learn more, their level of farbiness can diminish. It is not expected that anyone is perfect (especially at the beginning of their living-history experience) or that what was considered normal at one point will later be avoided. It is expected that a reenactor—a good reenactor at least—will not backslide and go from a good to a more farby interpretation. Because of this, the faces of the individuals are blacked out; we are not trying to castigate the individual and full realize—even expect—that this individual will get better in the future. As if to prove this point beyond all doubt, we have included photos from our own reenactments, showing what is wrong and what has now been corrected!
Some of the farbiness is obvious. Some of it is overwhelming. Some might be just one anachronism in the midst of everything else that is accurate. Some of the inaccuracies are very subtle, The persons who are looking at it must think and must use what they have learned in their own impressions. And hopefully, they will return to their accumulation of kit with a new wisdom and perspective.
I should not here that farbiness, especially for our era, is not universal. Interpretations might differ and still be legitimate, and the interpretation might be incorrect for what our society’s regulations call for, while they are legitimate for those of another society. If you or your society assembles a Book of Farb, you should no only make certain that it follows your society’s accuracy regs but not apologize for its interpretation!
While the accumulation of a Book of Farb is, unfortunately, quite easy and educational, it might be seen as negative. For that reason, we have accumulated a second volume, a collection of correct interpretations. It is called, in our instance, What Dreams are Made Of (a reference to one of my favorite Humphrey Bogart films). Its compilation was much more difficult, to be certain, but the result is much happier and affirmative. Faces are not blacked out, of course, and we hope that seeing what is possible will encourage and guide readers, not discourage them with thoughts that they will never be good! Especially because, if they are dedicated enough, they no doubt will be!
While not dealing specifically with accumulating examples of what is wrong and what is right in historical reenacting, Kelsey at “Historically Speaking” has written a very thought-provoking essay on “Things I Wish Reenactors Would Stop/Start Doing.” While I do not agree with everything she says, I agree with a lot and appreciate everything that she says. You might as well!
GUIDED BY A BOOK OF PROVENANCE
About a quarter century ago, right before I became involved in real living history (American War of Independence through the Northwest Territory Alliance), a member of the First American Regiment Recreated (Queen’s Rangers) showed me the binder that contained articles and illustrations that helped members of the unit create their appearance and impressions. It impressed me, ad it was something that I always kept in mind. That member was Thomas Langenfeld, and the entire Langenfeld clan are to be thanked for turning me into the elitist snob I am today! I dedicate this chapter of the Anglo-Scandinavian Chronicle to Tom!
I don’t know if at this point whether Tom referred to this binder as a Book of Provenance or whether that is a term that I developed on my own. But almost ten years ago, when I founded Micel Folcland, one of the first things I did was to start what I termed the Book of Provenance.
What it was in the beginning was a simple compilation of various items of interest, divided into sections such as “Textiles” or “Wooden Artefacts” and “Metal Objects.” They were all assembled and printed out and contained in a dedicated binder. Originals are stressed but not always possible. Any time a reconstruction, a reproduction or a modern line drawing is used instead of the photograph of am artifact, it has been carefully noted!
Over the years, three things happened:
1) The sections expanded as I included new items. “Ecclesiastical Objects,” “Tools” and “Cooking Utensils,” and then further divided them into specific subcategories such as “Weapons and Armor,” “Chests and Furniture” and “Toys.” Then I started including specifics–with a vague future plan to put them into pre-existing categories–such as “From YAT,” Oseberg Artifacts.” “From Viking to Crusader” and even personal folders such as “From Andy.” Even today, I create new folders and juggle things around. It’s a work in progress. (I also started to include articles and even downloaded digital books).
2) The items became more carefully described and annotated. In the early days, there were simple and fairly useless descriptions like “Viking sword” and “Anglo-Saxon Cup;” today, I try to include, usually in shorthand, as much information as possible: “AS Ceramic Cup 11C Museum of London from Kent.” Doesn’t happen every time, and often I will include the illustration in an “article” that gives me an unlimited number of words to describe it. I will still have the original insertion of a folder, but there is more information that can be divined if needed.
3) I no longer have a physical, printed Book of Provenance. It is now a series of computer files. Being a paranoid type, these files are regularly backed up on CDs, on other computers, on flash drives and of course on my main computer. A few, whose files I had lost track of when a computer went down unexpectedly, I scanned for inclusion.
There is one other difference. Originally, the files were just confined to what could be used. Gradually, that changed. Some files are still from the period and culture of course. Some are a trifle abroad in terms of locale and culture (I do have the s copy of the Jade Buddha found in Birka, not to condone its appearance but to indicate how far ranging items of kit might be). Sometimes an article might be of an article probably used in the Danelaw at this time, but no alternative has been found. In all cases such as this, the ruling of the AO is final.
Similarly, we now include items which predate our period. To some extent, this show what should not be used widely unless it was also used during the later time. To some extent, these are items which might have been discovered or saved or appropriated (and yes, we have copies of articles which note such usage). Especially in the latter case, it requires AO approval. A standard rule of thumb is borrowed from other living history, and each participant is allowed some out of period item, but the item used must be different from that used by any other participant at that event (we are trying to recreate everyday culture and to stay away from mass-produced items). At another event, such an item might be displayed or worn by another member. It should go without saying that the AO must approve, coordinate and referee the appearance of all these items!
I have recently started including items from after our time period. If it is soon after, there is a tendency to look more favorably upon its use and inclusion; if it is several centuries away, it is a warning to members not to include it as part of their impressions. Once again, the final determiner is the local or, if necessary, the society AO.
As a side note, I should add that certain mass produced period pieces—certainly not swords and blankets but probably things like baskets and scissors—are generally restricted as well, so that the MoPs do not go away with an incorrect comprehension of the era and culture.
I encourage all units to have their own Book of Provenance for educating their own members! As I noted before, the Book of Provenance is still growing and never-ending project. That is not to say that it is a worthless idea, not any more than including items that coordinate with current thought and belief, which might be invalidated by future discoveries and interpretation. If living history is to have any relevance at all, it must be a growing, organic and evolving thing! And the Book of Provenance is something that helps all that!
For another look at the value of research and provenance in accurate living history, please take a look at Revisiting Living History. The era is different but the basics remain the same!
ADVICE TO BEGINNING VIKING-AGE REENACTORS 4
DO NOT
Discuss Modern Politics or Religion (except to show contrasts between modern and period politics and religion)
This is especially important if your society is a NFP charity!
It should go without saying that modern politics has nothing to do with reenactment until a candidate notes how improper it is (like US Republicans did with a Democratic challenger who plays World of Warcraft or the Democrats did with Republican who once dressed as a Nazi [though they were displeased with the Nazi impression and not with reenacting per se]). Hopefully, your reenacting society is not a modern political debating society as well!
However, religion has as much to do with reenactment. After all, the Catholic Church of the time was considerably different from that which exists today, let alone the Protestant, the Mormon and the Scientology churches, and the status of Judaism and Islam was very different, especially when it has been conjectured that there were Jewish and Muslim Norse Vikings (converting so they could trade more easily with these peoples). Even the modern Asatru movement is based upon a modern interpretation and probably has little to do with period heathenism!
It is admissible to talk about the faith of your impression—and every reenactor should have some idea of what the faith of the time was like—but keep it separate from modern faith when speaking with MoPs!
Buy Too Many of the Exact Same Items
Not merely personally, but you should avoid getting the same thing as your mates if they will all be displayed in the same or adjacent areas. For the most part, the era of the Viking Age was not a cookie cutter age. Everything was slightly different and did not look like everything else of that sort. Things were mainly hand made and not manufactured, using the technology that we have today to make everything the same. Even items that were mass-produced, for example in a mould, no doubt differed slightly fromever other product of tht same mould. Seeing the same item in camp site after camp site is giving everyone an inaccurate view of the past!
There sometimes seems to be a tendency to make reproductions, not merely replicas. For our purposes, a reproduction is an exacting duplicate of an original; a replica is an approximate duplicate which differs from the original but that maintains many of the artifact’s specifics and doesn’t violate of them but is a hand-made artifact of its own.
I try to make replicas. That means that every item I produce is unique; it probably differs slightly from any other. It isn’t meant to be different, and I just take no pains to make an exacting duplicate. Even items that were mass produced—we have period moulds for casting jewelry, for example—were slightly different because they were each finished individually and by hand. Therefore, the objects in your camp should not look as if they came from cookie cutters. There should be a variation, end products that are made with a varying amount of skills. Having everything look the same does not give a realistic view of the past.
Even when purchasing instead of making items, there is a tendency toward having everything alike. That is because there is an understandable tendency by vendor to provide items that are exactly the same. There is no other way to make money without using modern manufacturing methods! That does not mean that you have to buy an artifact that looks like the artifact that everyone else has. Patronize workers who personally make unique and hand-made items. Not only are you supporting their efforts, but you are making your set-up look more unique!
Buy Anything That You Don’t Research
In all eras of reenacting, this is a common admonition. Unless you are looking for something to display on your mantle, don’t just buy things because they are glitzy or attractive to you. When shopping for an artifact to buy, research it and see how close it is to originals. Many societies urge newcomers to go shopping only with an experienced old hand—but even these sorts of folk might be vulnerable to reenactorisms and ignorance. Our group has a shopping guide, where photos of artifacts illustrate knives, pottery so forth. A copy is essential when walking around, looking at vendors’ wares!
Buy an Object That Cannot Be Customized
Hardly anything sold is 100% accurate, and most things have to be customized or altered in some way. When you see an item you want or need but which is slightly inaccurate but which it is within your ability to make accurate, do not hesitate. Think of it as a new project!
To get an idea of what one society requires for an accurate portrayal of the past, see Regia Anglorum’s Authenticity Regs
ADVICE TO BEGINNING VIKING-AGE REENACTORS 3
DO NOT
Wear Broad-Rimmed Hats
There is every indication that broad-brimmed, especially straw hats were used in earlier times, but the first medieval illustration of someone in such a hat comes in the twelfth century, probably a century or two after the Viking Age ended. If you look at people in the sun in the Julius or Tiberius work calendars, hats are not used. Even the head coverings generally worn in the time are caps without brims. Hoods were used and, and persons wanting to shield their eyes from the sun are encouraged to use hoods!
Eat Obviously Inaccurate Foods in Camp
At shows, there is sometimes a tendency to buy what food is available, and that usually means that the food is not accurate. Whenever possible, a wic should be set up to prepare accurate foods, but let’s face it, that is not always possible. But modern foods should be consumed in a private, farb area.
Eat from Non-Period Plates
When foods purchased is not modern or at least not obviously modern, it may be consumed behind your ropeline, but care should be taken that it is not consumed on non-period plates using non-period utensils. Styrofoam or plastic plates should be avoided. Plastic spoons and forks—and forks of any kind–should be avoided. Transfer the foods onto period tableware—bowls, trenchers, etc.—outside of the area or bring them into your camp disguised in a bag or box and transfer it onto a piece of period tableware. Back in the public area, eating using your knife, your period spoon or even your fingers.
Be careful not to use a paper napkin when cleaning up. You don’t necessarily need a hound upon whom you can wipe your hand, and you need not wipe your hands on your clothing. However, fabric napkins are period and easily made!
Mix Too Many Cultures and Periods
There are many indications that people during the Viking Age had objects that came from other cultures and that they used objects from their history if they were still practical. See the Buddha in Sweden, pre-historic “thunderstones” found in Norse graves, revered stone-age relics and ancient coins. However, these were probably exceptions and such combinations should not be regularly done. In addition, from a modern reenacting perspective, having too many objects of this sort in your camp gives an inaccurate impression of everyday life of the time!
Be Ignorant of Time and Culture
Do not concentrate on a certain aspect of reenactment and have it be adrift inside questions and interest. Although knowing the ruling monarchy is the source of much boredom in historical education, it is part of the larger picture. Be able to fit your impression within the culture, to answer MoPs’ questions and, if necessary, say that you do not know the answer but know with whom they should speak. Many groups will write down questions they cannot answer, specifically research them and be able to answer with confidence the next time they come up.
Commonplace books, containing such trivia and information, is not part of our period. They were first found in the fourteenth century in Italy (reportedly with the development of paper), and also known as the “hodgepodge book” contained trivia and bits of information of interest to the writer, Wikipedia notes that the term is “a translation of the Latin term locus communis…which means “a theme or argument of general application”, such as a statement of proverbial wisdom.” Commonplace books were greatly used by English school children in the eighteenth century and have retained their popularity to this very day, though modern technology has certainly changed the way they are presented and preserved! Our group has several hundred pages, bound in a period style and never to be read by a MoP, but which contains scads of vital information that can be read by and used by members!
A history and notes on creating a commonplace book may be found on line, including this source. However, despite its use and practicality, they should never be referred to as commonplace books when speaking with the MoPs. That is totally wrong!
Feature Inappropriate Activities at Your Events
There is a tendency by some to approach serious Viking reenactment as just another renaissance fair, and this means that many Viking events features activities and entertainments that are inaccurate to the max! Do not feature such inaccurate activities at any “Viking” event you sponsor, including the game of Kubb (dating from the 1960s), belly dancing, inappropriate music and dancing. You are miseducating the MoPs, who will go away knowing that Vikings went to their mead halls and spent the evening casting runes for fortune telling, watching hoochy-koochy dancers and singing songs that were only written down in the eighteenth century!
If your group or society is participating in a more lax fair, keep this in mind and try to remain accurate in your corner of the fair!
ADVICE TO BEGINNING VIKING-AGE REENACTORS 2
DON’T
Use Black
Bright colors for the most part as well, at least if you’re not doing a posh impression. However, the term for “black” was identical to that for “blue,” indicating that many translations of black must be regarded with a bit of skepticism. There are some people who insist that with massive over-dyeing, black is possible with period natural dyes, but it is unlikely that anyone would want so much to have black garments that they would commit to the time and the expense necessary. See Þor Ewing’s essay on colored clothing.
Display Tattoos and Piercings
There is no doubt that the Norse had tattoos since ibn Fadlan tells us in the narrative of his travels among the Viking Rus that “Each one of them has from the tip of nails to the neck figures, trees, and other things, tattooed in dark green.” There is a probability that the Anglo-Saxons did as well, though much of this comes from pro-tattoo sources who make a loose interpretation of a line in William of Poitiers’ account of the Battle of Hastings. In both cases, the exact design of the tattoos were not given, and modern tattoos are only supposition. Tattoos—especially of things like the Tasmanian Devil in a horned helmet—should not be seen by MoPs!
The same does not go for piercings. We have enough artifacts that are probably women’s earrings to know that some had a single set in their ears. However, men did not have any, and since other piercings have not been verified at all, piercings should not be seen by the MoPs.
In both cases, hiding the tattoos and piercings beneath clothing is recommended (my wife demanded her tattooist put her tattoo where it could not be seen in low-cut Italian Renaissance gowns). If that is impossible, a bandage or a similar cover is recommended.
Regarding scarification, if the design looks like something beyond a weapon wound, please keep it disguised!
Go Shirtless (if a man)
We are told that a man exposing his chest was effeminate and a reason for divorce, since only women should expose their chests (probably a reference to breast feeding, though modern minds usually leap to a more prurient interpretation). Despite appearances in films, comics and pulp fiction of bare-chested Vikings. This is most probably fantasy (the exception are Saturday night bathing, which was completely nude and allegedly a popular time for attack by Anglo-Saxons since they knew the men would be separated from their weapons). Looking at the Julius and Tiberius work calendars, the common man in the field does not take off his shirt. What they would do, if the illustrations are true, they would remove their pants to keep cool!
Wear a Leather Belt (if a woman)
If we go by the size of buckles, most belt of the Norse during the Viking Age are half an inch in size, and most societies restrict them to an inch at the largest. The modern concept of World Wrestling Federation sized belts is a reenactorism at best and farby trash at worst!
In addition, women might not have worn belts, or worn them only while performing specific tasks. Fittings were found in Britain with tortoise brooches, indicating that accouterments were hung at the breast. In Scandinavia, in the words of Shelagh Lewins, they “have not found graves with female accoutrements and metal belt fittings.” It is suggested that women reenactors do not regularly wear belts. When they do, they should eschew leather belts and restrict themselves to fabric belts, such as card-woven wool. Regia recommends that belts for women, if the have to be worn, be the same color as the gown it holds so that they are immediately so noticeable.
Carry a Plastic or Paper Bag from a Vendor
Often times at events, there are modern vendors who will stuff purchases in plastic bags (or the purchases themselves are obviously modern), and a person in kit carrying around a plastic bag is tantamount to wearing a sign around you neck that says “FARB.” Rather, while shopping, carry with you a bag or basket that shields the contents from view (not a net bag unless you are carrying things that you don’t mind might be seen by the MoPs).
In addition, such a bag or basket should be period. A cloth Spider-Man bag is no better than a plastic bag! For an indication of what is period and accurate, look at period illustrations, which must be carefully inspected and interpreted since it contains objects that are, not strictly speaking, from our period.
Wear Mugs or Horns on Your Belt
There is no example of this done in period. After all, they were not wandering from party to party in search of alcohol. They were at home (where drinking vessels were readily accessible), in military camps (where drinking vessels, if used, would certainly not be carried on the belt into combat) and at parties (where they were probably provided by the hosts). The use of vessels hanging from the belt seems to be a Scadian and Renn Faire interpretation!
Canteens were in common use to transport potations. They were undoubtedly out of leather, though we do have the sample of a ceramic canteen that is made to look like a leather one!
ADVICE TO BEGINNING VIKING-AGE REENACTORS 1
“What we permit, we promote.”
DO NOT
Wear Horns on Your Helmet
We shouldn’t have to say this. Not only do we know when the idea of horned helmets for “Vikings” started, but we know who started the idea. However, it has taken root, has finagled its way into popular culture and has become o accepted that horned helmets are even seen on signs in Scandinavia because the tourists expect them. At show, thankfully, more and more MoPs come up ad thank us for not continuing the myth, but at each event a few will come up and demand, indignantly, why there are no horns on the helmet.
While we have illustrations of priests wearing helmets with metal horns, not only were these apparently during rituals and were metal “horns” to boot. For an overview on the growth of the myth, see The Straight Dope’s article on the subject, and never put horns on your helmet no matter what the temptation or encouragement!
Combine Visible Period and Modern Clothing
As I have said before, any reenactor represents the whole reenacting community. Any person who thinks so highly of convenience that he feels justified in combining period and modern clothing is npt treating his historical clothing with the respect that it requires. And contrary to what he might think, the public and the media delight in finding such anachronisms and presenting them to show how foolish reenactors are! It has happened before and, given any opportunity, will happen again.
When wearing historical clothing, modern clothing that is unseen —underwear is the prime example—is irrelevant as long the weaer makes certain that ut stays unseen.
Smoke Tobacco in Public
Rudyard Kipling said, “a good cigar is a smoke,” but in our time it could just as easily be, “A good cigar—or even a bad cigar, in fact anything with tobacco–is just a farb.” There is no indication that tobacco was brought back from the New World by any of the Norse expeditions, and pipes and cigarettes were even later innovations. If you suffer a nicotine fit, have an isolated farb area where MoPs will not see you smoking while in kit!).
While this admonition is mostly against smoking tobacco, it refers to other smoking as well. Marijuana was used, no doubt and especially in religious ritual, but it was probably chewed. After all, the story—attributed to Sir Walter Raleigh and others of his generation—that “his servant doused him with a bucket of water after seeing clouds of smoke coming from Raleigh’s pipe, in the belief he had been set alight” indicated that personal smoking was not done. If anything, the use of incense indicates that setting substances afire was a communal rather than a personal proposition!
Wear Spex of Any kind
Eyeglasses were not invented until the late thirteenth century. The frames we are familiar with today not until the eighteenth century. It should go without saying that a Viking wearing spex is something out of a Wheeler and Woolsey film and just as hilarious! This same goes for sunglasses.
Keep in mind that contacts are not generally observable and recommended for people with poor eyesight. Recent technological advances have rendered many of the complaints about contacts from fifty years ago invalid!
Wear Modern Footwear
Just as hilarious as that Viking in sneakers or Harley boots. All Footwear should be period and, because we have so many samples, documentable. They should all be turn-soled, and no higher than the ankle. For examples, see the Footwear section and the diagram of extant samples from YAT’s book on Leatherworking.
Wear Fur Clothing
While fur was used in the clothing of earlier times for warmth–though generally with the fur toward the body for greater warmth—technology of the Viking Age had largely superseded the use of fur except for minor trimming and blankets. Fur clothing is the province of comics, cinema and pulp novels!
Use Cotton or Synthetics
This should go without saying. Cotton was known in the Middle East and probably familiar at least to those Norse who ventured that far. But cotton was apparently never used for any clothing by the Norse; it was less advantageous than wool and linen and certainly harder to obtain. And apparently, it was more expensive than silk!
The first synthetic fabric was rayon, which was invented in the middle of the nineteenth century. Synthetic fabrics did not become commercially feasible until the first half of the next century. Even though there is debate about when the Viking Age ended, hardly anyone extends it to the nineteenth century! Making viking era clothes of synthetics is like ridiculing all parts of serious reenacting! Even if it looks like natural fabric, it is not and does not act like it! In addition, synthetic fabrics are dangerous around fires, since they do not merely combust but melt!
The only exceptions are when no true wools are available and the addition of synthetics has the appearance of actual wool!
Use Silk for Full Garments
Although cotton and, of course, man-made fabrics were unknown during the period, silk was known and used. However, it was expensive. Unless they are portraying royalty, silk should only be used as trim and then only for people with very posh impressions!
Use Anything but Linen and Wool for Most Garments
Having told everything you should not use, perhaps a few words on what you should use are in order. It is actually very simple. The most common fabric was wool. Wool comes in a wide variety of weights and coarseness; the so-called wool allergy is fairly rare, but people often respond to the chemicals. Be certain to wash wool before using it; this will not only soften it but will make certain that it will not shrink on you after use. Keep in mind that drying the fabric will shrink it further but also most likely full it! If there is areal allergy–where contact with wool causes red and irritated skin–do not be too proud to wear linen beneath the wool!
Now when we refer to linen, we are referring to fabric made from the bast—the plant fiber collected from the inner bark or surrounding the stem—of certain plants. Although linen is, today, generally used to refer to fabric made from flax, it also refers to fabric from hemp and nettle. The exact type of linen used during the time is controversial since age has decayed the bast and often has rendered it undecipherable. For an excellent article on textiles of the time, see Ann Stine’s article on things that the Oseberg burial tells us about fabric.
REPRESENTING THE HOBBY
A few days ago, while getting ready to make a right turn, I was interrupted by someone in the left turn lane who peeled out and made a right-hand turn in front of me. The car had a big sticker on it, proclaiming the driver’s political views, and it occurred to me that I was tempted to be unfair and ascribe such selfish, illegal motives to all his fellow believers.
Then, as I made the turn safely, I mused that anyone with a sticker on his car was setting himself up as a representative of his cause and was almost honor bound to behave in a responsible manner. They are the representatives, whether they like it or not, of all people who share these beliefs. Then I expanded it to t-shirt slogans and logos, and before I reached home, I had expanded it as I do so many things to living history.
Let me step back for a moment. When someone is wearing a uniform of any sort, I consider him a representative of everyone wearing such a uniform, and I often hold him to a higher standard than others. For example, if I see someone in a police uniform, I hold that person to a higher expectation than I do someone in civvies. I expect him to help, of course, but I always expect him to be friendly and not to use that uniform as an effort to receive perks. If he behaves in a privileged, jack-boot manner, it leads to my wanting to avoid all persons wearing police uniforms because they are loose cannon.
But uniforms, in my mind are not just police or military or the such. For me, the costume that a reenactor wears is a uniform. I see someone in historical clothing–no matter what era–and I expect them to behave in a certain manner, to have certain standards and to represent, for better or worse, all reenactors. Not merely in their actions but in the quality of their interpretation. If he is wearing sneakers or sunglasses or the like—unless, of course, that such is appropriate for his impression—it is tarring how folk see all reenactors. If he is either unwittingly or knowingly farby, he is telling every onlooker, I’m doing this for cosplay or a lark, and I really don’t care whether it’s right as long as I’m having fun!
There are those who say, of course, that a society or subculture should be judged by the best representative. I can’t agree. If the reenactor is gracious and kind, helping a non-reenactor, making certain that kit is exemplary and accurate…all that is forgotten by one rude, inaccurate reenactor. If a person thinking about getting into reenacting sees a lousy impression, he might think, “So that’s all I have to do!” I love the saying that an AWI reenacting veteran said: “What is permitted is promoted.”
How stringent are you about your actions and demeanor when you’re in your reenacting kit? How stringent are you in creating appropriate kit? I know that when I wear or make a bit of reenacting kit, how it will be received and perceived by others is always in my mind!
THE EASE OF RESEARCH
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 😦 )
Rules & Measurements
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.
Woods of the Viking Age
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!
|
Tree
|
Latin
|
British Isles
|
Denmark
|
Iceland
|
Norway
|
Sweden
|
Unknown
|
|
Alder
|
Alnus Glutinosa
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Apple, Wild
|
Malus Sylvestris
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Ash
|
Fraxinus Excelsior
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Aspen
|
Populus Tremula
|
BI
|
Den
|
Ice
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
Beech
|
Fagus Sylvatica
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
BIrch
|
Populus Nigra
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
BIrch, Downy
|
Betula Pubescens
|
BI
|
Ice
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
BIrch, Silver
|
Betula Pendula
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Blackthorn
|
Prunus Spinosa
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Box
|
Buxus Sempervirens
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Cherry, Sour
|
Prunus Vulgaris
|
Den
|
|||||
|
Cherry, Wild
|
Prunus Avium
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Chestnut, Horse Chestnut, Sweet
|
Aesculus Hippocastanum Castanea sativa
|
|
|
|
|
Unk
|
|
|
Elm, Wych
|
Ulmus Glabra
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Fruitwood
|
Pomoidae Family
|
Unk
|
|||||
|
Hawthorn, Common
|
Crataegus Monogyna
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unl
|
|
|
Hawthorn, Midland
|
Crataegus Laevigata
|
BI
|
|||||
|
Hazel
|
Corylus Avellana
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Holly, European
|
Ilex Aquifolium
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk?
|
|
|
Hornbeam, European
|
Carpinus Betulus
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Juniper, Common
|
Juniperus Communis
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Larch, European |
Larix Deciduous |
Unk
|
|||||
|
Lime, Large Leaved
|
Tilia Platyphyllos
|
BI
|
Nor
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Lime, Common
|
Tilia X Vulgaris
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Lime, Small-leaved
|
Tilia Cordata
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Maple, Field
|
Acer Campestre
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Maple, Norway
|
Acer Platanoides
|
Nor
|
Swe
|
||||
|
Mistletoe
|
Obligate Hemi-Parasitic
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Oak, Common
|
Quercus Robur
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Oak, Sessile
|
Quercus Petraea
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Osier, Common
|
Salix Viminalis
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Pear, Wild
|
Pyrus Pyraster
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Pine, Scots
|
Pinus Sylvestris
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Plum, Cherry
|
Prunus cerasifera
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Poplar, Black
|
Populus Nigra
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Rose, Guelder
|
Viburnum opulus
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Rowan, European
|
Sorbus Aucuparia
|
BI
|
Den
|
Ice
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
|
|
Service-berry
|
Amelanchier ovalis
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Service Tree
|
Sorbus domestica
|
BI
|
Den
|
||||
|
Service Tree, Wild
|
Sorbus Torminalias
|
BI
|
|||||
|
Spindlewood
|
Euonymus Europaeus
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Spruce, Norway
|
Picea Abies
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
|||
|
Strawberry Tree
|
Arbutus Unedo
|
BI
|
|||||
|
Wayfaring Tree
|
Viburnum lantana
|
BI
|
|||||
|
Whitebeam, Common
|
Sorbus Aria
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
|
|
Whitebeam, Swedish
|
Sorbus Intermedia
|
Den
|
Swed
|
||||
|
Willow, Almond
|
Salix Triandra
|
BI
|
|||||
|
Willow, Arctic
|
Salix Polaris
|
Nor
|
|||||
|
Willow, Bay
|
Salix Pentandra
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Willow Black
|
Salix Myrtilloides
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||||
|
Willow, Crack
|
Salix Fragilis
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Willow. Dwarf
|
Salix Herbacea
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||||
|
Willow, Eared
|
Salix aurita
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Willow, Green
|
Salix Phylicifolia
|
BI
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
|||
|
Willow, Grey
|
Salix Cinerea
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Willow, Goat
|
Salix Caprea
|
BI
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
|||
|
Willow, Purple
|
Salix Purpurea
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Willow. Net-leaved
|
Salix Reticulata
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||||
|
Willow, Tea-leaved
|
Salix Phylicifolia
|
BI
|
Den
|
Ice
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
|
|
Willow, White
|
Salix Alba
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
||
|
Yew, European
|
Taxus Baccata
|
BI
|
Den
|
Nor
|
Swed
|
Unk
|
Neil Peterson has compiled a very useful listing of woods used in artefacts at http://www.darkcompany.ca/articles/wood.php
CROSS-TIMING
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!
A recommendation
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
LOST GOLD OF THE NatGeo EXHIBIT
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.
EVERYDAY MIRACLES
“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!
folo1
The Anglo-Scandinavian Chronicles 
