Them Vikings Rune Everything!

It is has been said by many popular historians that the Norse—and other Germanic peoples—of the Viking Age and the late Iron Age were illiterate or preliterate. Which is about the same as saying that they had no poetry since alliterative verse did not rhyme in the sense with which they are familiar! The difference between the fuþark and the ABCs is merely in their uses.

Although Katherine Holman writes in The Northern Conquest that “Unfortunately for us, Scandianian society during the Viking Age does not appear to have had a literary culture and so there are no written histories, poems or tales that have survived to tell us about the Viking homeland in any detail.” I disagree with her facts as well as with her interpretation. True, the fuþark was not used to write histories or prose. But they were used for writing poetry, generally on such things as runestones and drop spindles. See for example the poem on the Karlevi Stone, which is a full stanza in the style of poetry known as drótlvætt. Or look at the riddles on the Buckquoy spindle whorl from Orkney.

The runes were used to inscribe on stone, wood, bone or metal. Probably its most common and known use during the period was on monuments and memorials—the famous runestones—contained a brief description of who erected the stone, in whose honor it was erected and why it was erected, as well as some poetry as well. The one seen here is the Asferg Runestone, which is displayed at the Danish National Museum in Copenhagen. It says: “Þorgeirr Tóki’s son raised this stone in memory of Múli, his brother, a very good þegn.”

Runestones were often set at crossroads or along roads so that travelers could easily read it, to spread the honor and fame of the relative but also the generosity and wealth of whoever set it up since having the stonecarved—generally by a professional carver who often signed his pieces— and set up was not an inexpensive process. There is a controversy as to how many people of the area were rune literate, though I believe there was a high level of runic literacy.

The fuþark was developed in the first or second century by someone in the north who was literate in the Latin alphabet. It was inspired by a Latin cursive, but the strokes were simplified and altered slightly so that it could more easily be carved/ The Elder Fuþark had twenty-four characters. By the time of the Viking Age, two variations—long twig and short twig—of the fuþark had been reduced to sixteen characters for the Younger Fuþark. Many characters had more than one sound. Later, the so-called Modern or Christian fuþhark added a few sounds back, starting in the eleventh century. The Anglo-Saxon version was known as the Fuþorc and brought over to England by the Anglo-Saxons and Frisians.

The end of the use of runes differed from location to location. The Anglo-Saxon version, known as the fuþorc, was rarely used after the ninth century and not used at all after the tenth. The actual fuþark, which had been introduced by Scandinavians, was apparently not used after the Norman invasion. Runes were phased out in Denmark in the thirteenth century and used in Norway until the eighteenth century.

Runes were in regular use in Sweden until about the fourteenth century. Johannes Bureus, a Swedish antiquarian, polymath and mystic, started serious study of runes in the sixteenth century, and allegedly learned the system from a rune-literate farmer from the Swedish province of a Swedish province of Dalarne. In the Thirty Years war (1618–1648), several Swedish officers used runes as a ready-made code (it is uncertain whether this was from Bureus’s writings or from knowledge handed down in families). Runes were still being used in natural, non-academic situations in Sweden and were apparently used the last time at the end of the nineteenth century. At the same time, many people were following Bureus’s scholarly studies, and runes were being used in such situations as the markings on gravestones.

Any of the books by Stephen Pollington is recommended; for learning more about runes, his Rudimentary Runelore is an excellent brief introduction!

The authenticity and literal existence of shield maidens has become a more popular topic in many quarters lately because of their appearance in Michael Hirst’s fantasy that purports to be the literal facts. Unfortunately, the proposed existence of shield maidens is probably just as remote as many other of the “facts” presented by the show.

Their existence is based to a great extent upon fable, mythology and not a little amount of the allocation of modern thought to actions of a previous day. Any of the appearances of valkyries and mortal shield maiden n the popular literature of the time appear to have little if any relevance to what actually transpired.

I have no great hope that this small essay will cause people to see the light and to change their ideas, but I am still filled with a quixotic desire to note a few points.

The very worth of the woman might be seen as a two-edged sword. For example, there was a thirty percent chance that a woman would die in childbirth, so women were important parts of the culture and necessary for its perpetuation. As Roland Williamson notes, this percentages does not lend credence that the safety of such a vital part of the culture would be endangered by having them engage in warfare. The deaths of men in battle set a higher premium on a higher birthrate and the replacement of lost males, and one would have been reluctant to endanger this replacement by sending the woman out to battle.

On the other hand, it appears that many cases of exposure were of female babies because they did not contribute to the work force and were simply another mouth to feed. However, most exposures were done by the lower classes and consisted of women who were not members of the warrior class to begin with. Exposure was tolerated but not seen as a good action a the time even though it might have been necessary for the family. For example, if we look at the Saga of Þorstein Oxfoot, where Þorstein , a son of Egil Skallagrimsson, wants a daughter to be exposed simply because of her action in a prophetic dream, and the man’s wife, Jofrid, chastised him, saying, “Your words are unworthy of a man of your standing. No one in your easy circumstances can see fit to let such a thing happen.”

There have been some observations that the graves of some women contain weapons and that this is evidence that shield maidens were real, but this totally ignores the fact that some graves of pre-pubescent children contained weapon as well, not smaller, child-sized practice copies but full-sized swords, other weapons and such things as a full-sized key (symbol of the grown woman’s authority in a house). Using the logic these people use, there should be a bunch of toddlers on the field as well! It is much more likely that the weapons were seen as valuable artifacts rather than indication of warrior status!

Of course, there was the very real likelihood that the females of the time were tutored in the use of weapons alongside the males. This was not because they were expected to be shield women, but because they were in charge of the homes and were expected to be able to organize and to probably participate in home defense when the men were away. We see many instances of this happening in the sagas and other writings—including Freydís Eiríksdóttir’s familiarity with swords from the Greenlander’s Sagas—while there are no eye-witness accounts of the existence of sword maidens!

(The supposition that this would lead to a feeling among the females of “I’m just as good as the men, so I’m going out on the field” owes its existence to applying a modern mindset upon an early period in my opinion and is therefore of little validity.)

If you have encountered any period eye-witness accounts of shield maidens, I would love to hear of them! Until then, I have to relegate them to the fantasy files!

For additional points and facts, see Robert Ferguson’s The Vikings: A History. Cannot agree with all the interpretations and conclusions, but a rich source of valuable trivia!

Here are a few pet peeves that assail me by Viking reenacting…

Horned Helmets, Fur Loincloths and Other Stereotypical Viking Appearances

After spending so much time and effort getting things just right about my impression, seeing popular media interpretations being presented—sometimes proudly presented and touted as accurate—gripes my guts. And when I see a fellow reenactor—I use the term loosely—wearing kit and costume based on these incorrect interpretations, my pain moves slightly lower!

Referring to a Farby Fantasy LARP as a Reenactment Organization

Calling a duck a swan does not make it a swan. If I go to a Viking-theme event and see people wearing sneakers, shades and black cotton trousers and watching belly dancers, it is not a reenactment and it is not being sponsored by a reenactment society!

People Who Insist Their Society Is Not Fantasy Because it Does Not Have Any Dragons, Magic Swords or Enchanted Puffballs

Look up fantasy” in a dictionary. These people should realize that there is “high fantasy” and “low fantasy,” and know that just because your society is not magical, that does not mean it is not a fantasy!

Trying to Assert That a Religion Based on the Writings and Creations of a Christian Author Writing for a Christian Audience Some Two Centuries after the Close of the Viking Age Is an Education Going Back to the “Old Ways”

‘Nuff said. Read Katherine Holman’s history of Norse settlements in Britain and Ireland, The Northern Conquest and Nancy Marie Brown’s biography of Snorri Sturlasson, Song of the Vikings!

Talking “forsoothly”

For people unfamiliar with the term, that is talking like nineteenth-century Quakers or like mid-twentieth-century funny book heroes). Generally with an Irish accent that came straight from a Lucky Charms advertisement…

Much or Any Forcing People to Choose Impressions According to Racial Stereotypes That They Have

I love the response of someone from Australia who responded to a reenactor saying that no black person—he did not use the term “black person”—by saying that he was more concerned with accurate clothing from the skin out!

People Who Claim They Are Descended from an Important Person from the Time

No one is ever descended from Wig the Ceorl, have you noticed?

The Term “Garb”

Just like “fantasy,” look up the definition of “costume” in a dictionary. As Kim Stacy wrote, “Inevitably, at each event, I overhear some reenactor, respond with sophomoric indignation to the question from a visitor about ‘The costume’ that the reenactor is wearing. At which point, the reenactor, with an imperial tone of voice, proclaims:

‘ “This is not a costume!’ At this point, the poor innocent visitor promptly regrets asking an important question….[but] pair of levis, Adidas sneakers, t-shirt, and baseball cap, is every bit of a costume, just the same as your period garb.” This was written many years ago, but it is as true today as it was then. Say “historical clothing” or “historical kit” if you want to avoid using “costume,” but me, I will always say “costume”! ‘

Farbs Who Say If They’da Haddit, they’da Usedit!

Uh, no. That is not experimental archaeology or extrapolation. That is fantasy wish fulfillment!

Farbs Who Say That They Can’t Reproduce Artifacts Accurately, So We Don’t Have to Worry about Anything Else

All good, serious living history is evolution. No one starts out dead perfect; maybe you will never get there. But that does mean that it does not matter. Always strive for perfection, even if you might not get there!

People Who Claim That They Do Not Even Notice Spex or Other Farby Anachronism

Do they just have no clew, or are they not noticing anything or are they just frigging idiots? How many jokes in popular films that depict historical characters wearing anachronistic spex for comic effect go totally over their heads?

Farbs Who Justify Their Farbiness with Reductio Ad Absurdum

And especially when they do not realize what they re ignorantly doing. These are the people who degrade your efforts at accuracy by asking haughtily if you drive a car to events, forsake your inoculations or pull out your dental filling. They just do not—or do not want to—realize that I am visiting the past, not living in it!

Using “Viking” as a Cultural Term

Too many serious books use the term in that way because modern mainstream audience see “Viking” as a cultural description. In Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland, author Clare Downham justifies the use of the term by misdirection, “I need to clarify my use of the term ‘viking’. The name has acquired many shades of meaning and been used in a variety of ways in both scholarly and popular literature….There are problems of being over-specific with ethnic terminology as identities are subjectively, but not objectively, created or assigned.” For us non-academics, the reaction was bullpucky!

The Term “Dark Ages”

The so-called “Dark Ages” were named by the Renaissance author, Petrarch, who deified classic Roman civilization and who neither saw nor understood the time, and many modern scholars think that the term should not be used. The era saw many discoveries and innovations as it emerged from a Europe dominated by Roman empire, and it cannot today even be claimed that facts concerning the era are either unknown and obscure. The phrase I will use—except for humorous effect—is “Early Middle Ages.”

These are the terms that annoy me most of all. There are undoubtedly more. What are yours?

I resolve to never use the term “Dark Ages.”

I resolve never to use the term “Viking” to describe a culture.

I resolve never to wear spex while in Early Medieval clothing

I resolve never to wear cotton jammie bottoms in costume.

I resolve never to wear a belt more than an inch thick in costume.

I resolve never to darken my appearance with pitch black.

I resolve never to participate in a society that has to apologize for and rationalize its farbiness.

I resolve never to wear a necklace of beads.

I resolve never to respond to anyone who apologizes or rationalizes his society’s farbiness and then calls his society’s events “reenactments”…but I will continue to laugh like crazy whenever I read this!

I resolve to always examine and to implement any valid new research.

I resolve to always do as good a job creating and maintaining the illusion required by living history and remember at all times that merely dressing in historical clothing means that I am a model for all reenactors.

I resolve to educate people, to have a good time doing it and to never be ashamed for being silly off hours…but not to claim that this has anything to do with reenactment.

Most of these are not new. That does not mean that they are not important!

[I delayed this for a week trying to track down the origins of a fylfot that I had seen, a beautiful variation of a fylfot that was not really a fylfot. But the design is most probably a modern adaptation and so, unfortunately, should not be used 😦 ]

This week we would like to speak on the reclamation of symbols that have been demeaned by a gentleman that J. R. R. Tolkien called (with magnificent understatement) “that ruddy little ignoramus.” We are referring, of course, to the demonization of a millennia-old good luck symbol because of the actions of that gentleman. If you are still uncertain, I am referring to the Nazi perversion of the fylfot (swastika).

The fylfot was an ancient symbol that was also known as a swastika. “The word swastika comes from the Sanskrit svastika, which means “good fortune” or “well-being.” One can see it used everywhere. I saw it in a city steeple in Reykjavík and at a resort in central Indiana. It was used as a symbol for sports teams and for religions. In terms of the Viking age, it was used on the Oseberg tapestry, and upon reliquaries of the contemporary Christian church. Fylfots, in other words, were seen many many places. The fact that it was to become a despised political symbol by being used by a bunch of hateful bigots—and is still being used that way, along with other symbols such as the Volknot today—is due to one man. (Saying it was one man is a bit of an exaggeration; perhaps, it is more accurate to say that it was due to the influence and hateful bigotry of one man and his mindless followers)

The Nazi adoption—might we say perversion of—of the symbol in 1920 relegated its five millennia of being a symbol of good fortune to the trash heap (they did much the same thing with other Nordic symbols and stories; even today, MoPs will pass by a Regia display and say, “Yeah; you show them black gentlemen [not the term they used] that white power will git their asses!”). Many of the things adopted by the Nazis came out with a stench about them; for example, the out-thrust arm salute was used until the time of World War II for use with the American Pledge of Allegiance.

The fylfot, because of its use by the German dictatorship, became a hated symbol, one that was almost universally reviled, and this feeling has continued for almost a century. It would seem foolish, of course, to think that it use by single political faction—even so hideous a one as the National Socialists—in the twentieth century, would forever cause it to be reviled, distrusted and forbidden to be used, yet as recently as 2014, Hallmark had to discontinue a wrapping paper because it contained a geometric design that some liberals saw as a fylfot! Its original purpose has been forgotten.

However, in the years since its use as a Nazi symbol, it has been adopted by those people supporting the German Nazi philosophy and hate philosophies of their own. No one is willing to espouse it for its original meaning, and it has been allowed to become a symbol of those things that are rightfully despised!

Will the fylfot be reclaimed? Has the possibility of reclamation even been negated? The possibility of it being perceived as a non-racist, apolitical might be remote. Those persons wishing to reclaim it as something more benign than its use as a symbol of hate and prejudice are often overwhelmed by the probability of ignorance coming own against them. Even those wishing to reclaim it are often warned not to try, since it will only stir up an unthinking perception of prejudice!

How long will this continue? Will it ever be reclaimed as a benevolent symbol? Unfortunately, the struggle for its reclamation might well continue to be impossible as long as it is used only by hate organizations! Too many people will see it atomically and immediately as a symbol of Naziism, of the Aryan nations, of other white supremacists, without pausing to think of it in its larger historical influence.

So there is a reluctance among many people who want to reclaim it to display it; and ironically, until it is commonly displayed in a benign or beneficent atmosphere, it will continue to be seen as an exclusive symbol of hate.

Will the fylfot be reclaimed the way that so many other hated symbols and phrases have been reclaimed? In the present, rather pc environment, probably not. At least not in the near future. In the distant future, once the incredibly obscenities of the second word war have passed into history, and there are no living persons—and living descendants who knew them so well—that was affected by them, reclamation may be possible. But for right now, fylfots must remain in the camp of those symbols that have been unrightfully maligned, and there is little chance that it will be reclaimed without stirring up unthinking hatred of another sort!

I can only, at the present, whisper the hope that the symbol might be picked out of the mud, laundered and reclaimed for what it was originally meant to be.

I have been reading an article available on the internet about a reenactor’s “refusal” to back up progressives because he feels they are being bullies, that they are being snarks (my word, not his), that they re trying to tell other people how to behave and how to kit themselves out. “Progressive” is a term that is used by—and against—reenactors who try to be accurate in their portrayals. He is speaking of the eighteenth century, but what he says has impact upon any reenactor, including those who do the Viking Age.

It is a very infuriating article not precisely because of the man’s beliefs but because of the way he expresses them. And the way that he can totally ignore—or perhaps not see—some of what I consider to be the most vital aspects about the progressive movement.

He notes that some people who want to become involved in the hobby are poor. That is certainly true. However, the fact of the matter is that you should try to align the class of your impression with your ability to pay. Even in history, it was more expensive to dress posh! I have more respect for someone who makes a good simple woolen overtunic, perhaps in the style that Þor Ewing describes for slaves in Viking Clothing, than for someone who does an inappropriate posh design with insufficient inappropriate fabrics, who cuts corners and who tries to portray above his station.

What I believe is that there is a need to have different societies with different standards. Different Authenticity Regs. A person interested in getting into the hobby can choose the level of accuracy that he wants to attain. It is not right in any sense for someone to join a society and then dismiss these regs as being too restrictive, any more than it is right for someone from another society to lecturer a person on what he should wear, based on the critic’s society’s authenticity regs and not those of the other’s!

Knowing the authenticity regs and abiding by them is essential for successful membership. A member has essentially signed a contract and agreed to abide by the regulations. Anyone who has agreed with what they are going to represent to the MoPs and then to complain they cannot do it or to refuse outright to adhere to these standards is being a selfish and dishonorable malcontent. Attempt to change the standards, but abide by them until they are changed, or leave the society altogether. These are honorable action!

In other words, a progressive whose society has high standards is not being an authenticity nazi if he tells a member of his society how to make a better presentation. He is if he says the same thing to the member of another society who has different or lower standards. They have not signed up for his interpretations! They are not, in the same way, fulfilling their contract!

The gentleman in question however refers only to The Hobby and not to different societies that may well have different standards. At larger, multiple society events, obviously, everyone needs to go by the standards of the host society. The sponsors should have, should publish and should make easily obtainable a list of the standards that are being expected. And if the level of the accuracy is not to the liking of the potential participant, then they can stay away from the event and not go around to bitch that someone’s kit is “inaccurate.”

I cannot agree with everything he says because of his scatter-gun approach. Because of his creation of straw men that can be easily demolished to favor his opinion and that he can easily demolish. He does not deal at all with how his version of The Hobby is being represented to the public. What I have found is that the people who are more stringent about their accuracy are more willing to tell MoPs that this is not how it was done, that this is safer than what was done at the time. It is the societies that have very low or no authenticity regs who say proudly We are a reenactment group when referring to their fantasy LARP, who have no real standards, and who try to pass off the farb that they do have as accuracy, I am reminded of an early fair that I officiated at for the SCA. One fighter decided that he was going to be a hero and not take any blows because, as you know, the MoPs won’t know any different. So he was areal hot dog, ignoring blows and portraying The All-Star Wrassler that he probably wanted to be. Finally, tired, he took a killing blow. Later, I was greeted by a pair of MoPs who expressed their thanks for the presentation and then, at the end, said, “And I’m glad that Mister Hero realized that he was dead…”

MoPs are often more knowledgeable about things than many of the participants commonly think! A society must have at least minimal authenticity regs! And anyone who joins them or to participate behind their ropelines must be willing to attain these standards and not complain that he is too poor to make a good showing! Lower your sights. Find something that you can afford that is accurate. We are not asking that everyone has a full, posh outfit. What we are asking is that what is being worn reaches up to and attains the accuracy standards that the participant has agreed to attain!

In the end, I suppose, I should place myself among those progressives that he dislikes so much. However, on the other hand, I only think that standards of accuracy that I attempt to attain and that I go by, that are delineated in the Authenticity Regs are pertinent only to the society which wrote and adopted them. I will never complain or unilaterally advise a member of a different society who has different or less quality of standards. They are off limits. Criticizing the members to their faces when they have not asked an opinion is not fair game!

An excellent Yahoo group of AWI Progressives is RW Progressives.

By “picturing”, I am primarily referring to photography. The following entry is devoted to two subjects, though they are both about photography. Assuming, to begin with, that there is a natural desire to take photographs and videos of a historical reenactment, the desire to make such photographs is natural and that the photography is a good thing, the questions we investigate are valid.

The first deals with the question of what the finished photographs should look like, whether they should be altered in one way or another.

The second is how someone in an era before cameras would be able to carry a camera at an event he is participating in and not look like some kind of burlesque! (Disguising the camera so that it looks like current cameras during the era after photography was invented is a matter also dealt with below)

For many people, this means that you are recording military reenactments which boil down to battlefield reenactments. It should be noted that while I have taken battlefield photographs, it has been in civilian dress. To take photographs of the everyday life that is represented at the living-history exhibitions is more satisfying to me. While it is possible to have a camera in eras being recreated that had this technology—times since 1836—as long as the cameras look similar to the historic version. We will forgive those eras when the length of the exposures means that there were no photographs of the actual military actions unless they were incredibly blurred and ghostly, and this last almost up to the invention of motion pictures! Until then, it was all still photography where they attempted to get photos of the soldiers—usually staged and static—and the aftermath of the actual battle—showing posed living persons (such as the prisoners after Gettysburg), corpses (for example the scenes of a deceased sharp shooter in the Devil’s Den…which was apparently a posed shot itself), scenes of what had been a battlefield (such as the scene of Seminary Ridge) and non-battle shots of stationary scenes as meetings (such as Grant’s meeting with his staff at Bethesda Church, Maryland). Sepiaizing or otherwise making modern shots look as if they were period shots has an advantage for eras that actually had photography because it tries to emulate the photography that was actually done at the time. For eras before the invention of photography—as well as many eras after the invention when they did not have the means or technology for action photography—it becomes a matter of choice. How many scenes of a Saxon reenactment looks as if it might have been a shot of a Victorian era Viking reenactment? Has this shot been sepiaized but for no good reason and does not add to the verisimilitude of the shot?

For that matter, the color of the photograph undergoes a number of questions. Do you make all the photographs all sepia? Do you make them as colorful as possible? Do you adjust the color balance so that it does reflects the colors that were available in artwork of the era? For that matter, when dealing with black-and-white prints, should the actual black and white balance be altered? These are all questions that the photographer must ask…and answer as well. There is no single answer. And photographers have to make their own decisions. For that matter, they must even decide whether they should even forsake the idea of photography and make all shots line or wash drawings?

The answer to photography in reenactments of the earlier days, when photography—even the camera obscura—was not known is threefold:

First, to be done only by MoPs or by members wearing modern dress and therefore not at all looking farby; or

Second, not to do any photography at all (though there is, as noted, a desire to see the reenactment, so there is a desire both by the MoP and by the participant to have shots done); or

Third, and this is the most delicate and questionable, is to have cameras that hide—in “books” for example—that can be brought out for a quick photograph (not out of the enclosure of course) and then quickly returned to hiding.

This latter is what I have resorted to, and I have created what looks like a leather-bound book. It has surprised many people, who see it sitting before me among other books (real books) that I have bound and never realized it was something more. Some folk have even noticed it being used and do not recognize what it is!

The method I use for disguising the camera is not the only way that a dedicated reenactor can approach the subject. I first considered, for example, hiding the camera inside a runestone, but I decided against that because of a lack of needed mobility. Anyone who has any method that he uses that goes beyond the book are encouraged to share their methods with us all here. The more ways that reenactors know to disguise their cameras, is good. It helps to avoid a common way that people disrupt the atmosphere of a reenactment!

To some extent there have always been historical reenactors. In ancient Rome, there were reenactors who performed in fates and festivals. There were reenactors in the Middle Ages who recreated Biblical and historical scenes. This did not mean that they had any sense of what was correct or accurate or even that the costume of the previous day was not the same as the costume used at that time. Look, for example, at art featuring Biblical scenes in which the participants are dressed in a current fashion. While they may have been able to know when such and such an activity happened, they could not will you the appearance of the participants.

Reenactors continued for some time being people who wanted to celebrate the past but who did not knowing how the past might look. For example if you look at any of the popular art and fiction during the eight5eenth and nineteenth centuries when interest in “Viking” folklore began. You can see that they had a very minimal idea of what was going on at that time and, probably little desire to present anything that was in opposition to what they believed. This attitude continued well into the twentieth century and is seen in many depictions yet today!

If we look at the first medieval reenactment in the United States—actually in British-held Philadelphia—the costumes and equipment were less historically accurate than romantic and appealing to the participants and spectators. We have some illustrations from the event, known as the Mischianza, done by Major John André, that show this quite well!

A couple generations later, what was known as The Last Tournament was planned but because of weather conditions postponed. Armor was actually taken from drawing rooms, but it is uncertain whether the armor was used or if, indeed, it survived because was not. It was about this time that people had begun to realize that the costumes, the kit and the accouterments of the earlier day were indeed different from those of the current day. But this was during the Romantic, neo-Gothic era of the Victorian era, a tendency to have costumes based on that which was found by the archaeologists, though there was still a tendency to interpret it according to contemporary morés and tastes. In photos of the nineteenth century medieval and Viking reenactments, the costumes are a curious mixture of the accurate and the fanciful. But then, even into the early twentieth century, such a freewheeling amount of interpretation was seen in artistic representations, in films (and is still seen today in many infancies) and in such places as books by Wilcox and Norris was still seen and still commonly available. Total uncritical acceptance must be guarded against!

The fact that the myth of the Viking helmet with horn was born in the middle of the nineteenth century—originally a theatrical design from Carl Emil Doepler for Wagner’Ring cycle and achieved vast popularity that is seen yet today needs not, I hope, be mentioned with any intense investigation…

It was not until the latter half of the twentieth century that a true sense of what was proper—and not merely the illusion of it, as was seen in pageants, plays and, later, films. Most of the early manifestation of reenactors were in the black powder community and in the counter-cultural societies of the mid 1960s, and they were more concerned with idealized technology—and its adaptation to modern requirements—than with the accuracy of costuming. However, as you look at photographs of the various examples of historical costume, you can tell the development of research and knowledge, so that many of the reenactments of today are very accuracy itself, and some of the fiction and films also mirrors at least part of this accuracy.

The fact is that much early reenacting was bound up in the American Civil War centennial, but not only were these reenactments seen—in the words of President Kennedy—as “sham battles,” but participants were content to wear modern suit jackets of blue or grey and to use bb guns. But there among those folk some who were more concerned with historical accuracy, and an increasing spiral upwards toward accuracy was seen. The start of renn faires and LARPs in the 1960s saw a culture more influence by Victorian misinterpretations than by strict accuracy, and this continues to this day, although there again were people who began to do more research and to try to attain a greater accuracy. There are now societies that demand greater accuracy and even in the farbier societies, places of extreme accuracy (although the phrase created by progressives—”what you permit you promote”—is well seen in these subcultures).

In the end, the increasing prominence—or at least knowledge of—reenactors in modern society and its mass media has increased in the past few decades. You can be jaded and note that this has occurred because mainstream media has become more concerned with the representation of the past but not wholly with accuracy, just the illusion of accuracy. People want to dress in a peculiar manner, but the interest is primarily in being able to look different from the mainstream and to stand out, rather than to recreate any sort of historical accuracy and validity. Any change in this attitude has been gradual and often in one area or another, and it has progressed at different speeds in many different sub-communities. To a great extent, the societies who have stringent authenticity regs—and therefore exacting requirements for your appearance before you can participate—are being praised by the media even when they cannot understand it or denigrate it with a back-handed compliment!

Today we see that reenacting and reenactors are treated with a familiarity by the popular media that is on one hand a very welcoming sensation but on the other hand and at the same time is treated in a degrading manner by a mas media that seems to want to create a lower class of people who their mainstream audience can feel superior to and, feeling superior, can purchase the products being promoted by their commercials! Members of the more realistic subculture are not treated as serious historians but rather as jokes, so you will see reenactors being portrayed as humorous in such things as comic strips, in films and even in news coverage of their events. Even any desire for accuracy is presented as a kind of joke, with the media inviting their audience to laugh at the anal types who are attempting to attain any kind of accuracy!

Therefore, with the varied perception by the media, by the mainstream and even by academia, will the perception of reenacting attain a sort of somber acceptance and respect, or will it continue to be the degraded third cousin who likes to wear peculiar outfits. In the end and for me, it little matters. I will, despite the perception and the level of respect and acceptance, continue to try to evolve and to present the most correct interpretations. Perhaps that is a failing on my part…but I can do no less. Hopefully, nether can you!

This installment comes about for two separate but complementary reasons that fit together like a jigsaw. One was reading about glazed pottery in Julian D. Richard’s Viking Age England, a very interesting and informative book dealing with the Norse culture in Britain. The second was an inquiry from friend, Tim Jorgensen, a couple days later that forced me to reread parts of the book before answering him. These two things got me thinking and realizing that I really should try to comment on what Viking Age reenactors should and should not be looking for.

Should pottery used in Viking reenactment have a glaze? That is a very controversial question, since it would appear in artefacts of the time—both Norse and Anglo-Saxon—glazing is found but is not catholic or common. There is pottery that has a glaze and pottery that does not have a glaze. Pottery from some areas—and presumably nations or cultures—is not the same as in other areas, so a universal, generalized statement is of no more validity in this instance than in many others.

Glaze is a layer or coating which covers the pottery and then has been fused to pottery. Glaze can serve to color, to decorate, to strengthen or to waterproof the pottery, and its fusing process involves a certain amount f heat, that was more difficult to attain during the Viking Age because of its technology. On the Regia pottery page, Ben Levick and Roland Williamson note that “Sometimes the pottery was glazed with simple glazes, most often of yellow or olive green (the technique of glazing appears to have been reintroduced from the Byzantine countries through France). Other pottery was decorated with a red paint or slip in the continental style….In the early period the pots were fired in a covered fire pit called a clamp. This did not always reach a very high temperature so the pots often did not fire very well. The fire that was built over the pots excluded most of the oxygen which fired the pottery black or charcoal-grey. By the later period firing was done in a simple kiln which was easier to control, guaranteeing a better and more even firing.” The temperature was still more primitive3 and, therefore less effective, than that easily attained in later times

To a good extent, it appears that the probability of an object being glazed was influence by what the object was. It makes sense that the pottery that was glazed had a specific and dedicated use. For example, Ian Richards in The Viking World, notes that flasks, lamps, spouted pitchers and sprinklers were more likely to be glazed, while cups, mugs and bowls were not.

The colors also appear to be relevant, and they are relevant for both glazed and unglazed pottery. Richards notes in that book notes that “The potters generally selected white-firing clays, enable then to achieve clear yellow, or olive-green colour Experiments in glazing dark reduced wares, such as at Lincoln, tended to be short-lived.” To the list of likely colors, we will add yellow-orange, which was found in York. Therefore, you would not usually find a piece of pottery that was dark, such as dark red, strong, dense colors, though an area such as Stamford seemed to have glazed pottery and painted it red from the beginnings of the industry in the ninth century. Richards notes that “Their sudden appearance suggests that they may have been introduced by foreign potters working in Stamford. These are unlikely to have been Danes, as the idea originated in northern France or the Low Countries.”

Many of the potters with whom I had talked about this do not lave their pottery unglazed—one worker I know glazes the inside but not the outside in some instances—partly for commercial reasons—many clients will not buy unglazed pottery since they feel, perhaps justifiably in some instances, that it is unsafe—and partly because they fear a law against its sale. While it is true that unglazed pottery can be more dangerous—harboring unsafe bacteria or other toxins despite cleaning—I am unaware of any such law—which is not the same as saying that no such law exists anywhere—I am amused by the imagined loopholes that some potters—such as the one above who glazes only the interior of pottery—willingly jump through!

In the end, I can only note that when you accumulating kit for your impression or for the portrayal of your wic, that you consider whether you should have glazed or unglazed pottery, what colors you should have and the forms, designs and markings. When purchasing pottery for use in your kit, it would be best to take a look at designs, styles and forms that have been found in that area during the time you are reenacting. It is my feeling that most pottery in your kit should be unglazed if it is more common and smaller, while glazing should be used on larger, more specialized and more important–-to you if nothing else—pieces. The colors of both the glazed and the unglazed pottery are dependent on the class and the location in which the pottery was created. A compromise—for safety matters—might be involved as well.

I recommend that you have an idea of what you want and that you shop around. And if you do not find what you are looking for, talk to the potters! They may relish the challenge. They might disdain the restrictions of accuracy. And they might be able to direct you to other potters who would be able to give you what you need or to willingly and perhaps profitably debate the matter.

Pottery from the era is readily available—in shards if nothing else—and there have been many studies that reenactors might find educational and engaging. For example, I might note this ebook available for free from the York Archaeological Trust.

More wit, wisdom and philosophy from literary works of the Viking Age:

Wealth brings leisure
But share it freely
if you really want God’s pleasure.
      The Rune Poem (tr. Harper)

For our women’s work they are to give at the proper time, as has been ordered, the materials—that is, the linen, wool, woad, vermilion, madder, wool combs, teasers, soap, grease, vessels, and the other objects which are necessary.
      Capitulary De Villis (Tr. Robinson)

They journeyed boldly
Went for gold
Fed the eagle
Out in the east
And died in the south
In Saracenland
Gripsholm rune-stone

A man in the open country must not
go more than one step
from his weapons;
because one can’t be sure
when, outside on the roads,
a spear will be needed by a warrior.
Verse 38 of The Havamal (tr. Ball)

I ask you O Lord to send your delight into my heart and your love into my senses, and to let your mercy cover me
      The Book of Cerne

There are many who have spent a long time at court, and know but little or nothing about these courtesy. And this is true of those who bear the hirdman’s name and should be very close to the king, as well as of those who have lesser titles and rarely see the king….when you remarked that those who came from the court seemed no more polished or cultured, or even less, than those who had never been at court. To that I replied, and with truth, that everyone who wishes to be proper in his conduct needs to guard against such ignorance as they are guilty of, who know not the meaning of shame or honor or courtesy, and learn nothing from the conduct of good and courtly men, even though they see it daily before their eyes.
from 192 of The King’s Mirror (tr. Larson)

(With thanks from Regia mates: Hrolf Douglasson, Gary Golding, Rich Price, Kim Siddorn, Ali Vikingr and Paula Lofting Wilcox)

(With thanks from Regia mates: Hrolf Douglasson, Gary Golding, Rich Price, Kim Siddorn, Ali Vikingr and Paula Lofting Wilcox)