For years, I tried to “lead by example.” This is a euphemism for making certain your kit is top flight and encourage everyone else to make theirs better as well. But you know, in that “historic” organization, there might have been one or two who spiffed things up—and were outrageously proud of their improvement, but not enough to get out of the organization—but there were many many more who dug in their heels and de-spiffed because, as my wife noted, they felt threatened or insulted. Many indignantly rationalized their farb by saying that they needed it, that it was comfortable, that other people did it.

I was in that organization since 1972. In 1984, I published a book on its failures after talking with friends and reading Professor Anderson’s seminal volume on serious living history and realizing where it failed. My standards had increased. In 1989, I got into AWI living history, and it opened a whole new curtain. From then on out, my perspective was greatly different. In the pre-Internet early 1990s, I tried and failed to form a more accuracy-focused living history group that covered some of what that original organization covered. After a health crisis, I cut down on activities, concentrating on an effort where I thought I could make a difference. It didn’t and, afterwards, someone came up and thanked me for taking over the job until they could find someone else to do it. The fact that I did it for three years made it sort of an extended “filling in” but that seemed not to penetrate his conscious.

After that, I started looking around for a serious living history group that covered the era. At that time, a lot of top-notch foreign groups were expanding into the States, including one that I had belonged to briefly in the mid-70s (but that floundered from lack of interest) as well as Regia Anglorum, which started in 1986. I had considered joining an independent Stateside group but was warned that it was going to wink away; sure enough, it did. Then I ran into a Regia encampment at Gulf Wars. I fell in love immediately. Everything that I had learned in AWI living history was being duplicated. That started me on my current thrust.

I was surprised at how much that original group came to grate on my nerves. Members patted their backs and repeated nonsense. The organization’s emphasis of bureaucracy over accuracy—which I had long complained about—became paramount. A long-time and high-ranking member chided me for wanting history, noting that the only reason that the group even mentioned “history” was because the federal government wanted to give it a tax write-off. A member of the group publicly said that he hoped I died a painful death because of something I said about accuracy. A high-ranking member of that group very conspicuously insulted me and ignored my contributions while leading by example. Several members asked for information, which I freely gave and for which they never thanked me or even acknowledged the receipt of the information. And the straw that broke the camel’s back, a new officer doing a job I had done for thirty years and for which I got a university degree, told me to step aside and let her handle it; when I asked her what qualifications she had, she returned, “I don’t have to tell you. That’s my job.”

There are no attempts, not even a desire to make things uniformly accurate and to tighten up the nonexistant accuracy regulations. The idea of hours or areas to be accurate is totally beyond most members, and many times, members recruited from that organization must go through length “re-programming.” Many see the organization as a bush league, to seduce new members, but they ignore the fact that continued membership becomes either a romantic ideal, a family or a reason for driving people away from medieval reenacting altogether

I am amused and puzzled by the “freckles” in that group. That comes from my observation if good living history is a tan, then that organization is freckles. There are spots of sheer genius, things that impress friends from Regia, but they are content to ignore the white spaces between those freckles. Cynicism leads me to believe that their accuracy might help them stand out in a farby organization while they’d just be part of the crowd in a serious organization, but that is cynicism. I’m certain there are other reasons for clinging to the group even if I cannot see them.

Yes, that organization has more members. If quantity is more important than quality, then it rings the bell. At an early meeting, our group announced that we wanted quality over quantity, and we have turned away a number of potential members who though that we’d lower standards to gain their membership.

I still have friends in that organization. I have many more who have left for one reason or another. A good many do other eras of time in serious living history because that organization has spoiled most people’s perception of medieval reenacting that organization even likes to use the name of the organization to mean “medieval.” But when people from other eras see the work we do to create a consistently accurate image, they are impressed and have complimented me on it. They prefer the quality to the quantity, and coming from people I respect and admire, that makes me more than happy!

I have alluded before to my belief that Experimental Archaeology and Living History are similar—often complementary—but separate pursuits. Let’s look a little bit closer at the two pursuits.

Experimental Archaeology “attempts to generate and test archaeological hypotheses, usually by replicating or approximating and the feasibility of ancient cultures performing various tasks or feats”

Living History is creating an illusion in which “people to simulate life in another time.”

In the one, we are doing things in the way that they were done in the past. In the other, we are displaying to the public the results of those labor or displaying how it was. In that last case, we might be combining the two pursuits, but that is not necessary. In the first case, you can wear what you want; in the second, you can use an accurate replica made with power tools. Or you can demonstrate a procedure for MoPs—or to fellow reenactors at BUFU events—using period tools and technology.

For some people doing living-history, experimental archaeology is essential to the experience. They are trying to duplicate the feelings and technologies of the past so they can better appreciate living in the past, and all I know, period clothing might be essential for some experimental archaeologists as well. After all, they cannot know the restrictions on and limitations of movement unless they are wearing the clothing from the time!

In the end, experimental archaeology is in many minds, just a version of plain archaeology, while living history—because of many practitioners—is not considered to be a valid pursuit at all. As a practitioner and adherent of living history, you can well imagine that my interpretation is somewhat different!

Most serious living-history groups are always looking for new members, but they are not organizations for everyone. Below, we have a dozen statements that will honestly ascertain whether you would be interested in serious living histrory. If you disagree with many or most of them, then you would happier participating in a less exacting living-history organization, in a loose fancy dress party with titles, in a fantasy-based LARP or perhaps in no such organization at all. However, if you agree with most or all of these statements, you might very well enjoy what you’d be getting yourself in for!

1

I am interested in history

2

I think history is fun

3

I am interested in having fun not only while learning but because I’m learning

4

I am interested in recreating history as accurately as possible, surrounded by friends who share my standards

5

I want to explore the past because it’s interesting, not because of a possible award or title or because I want to look more accurate or more posh than anyone else in the organization

6

I am willing to share what I know I find out and to help fel-low members achieve the same level of skill I have attained

7

I am willing to obey the dictates of an Authenticity Officer

8

I am interested in dealing with the public

9

I can operate without modern spectacles (contacts are allowed), sunglasses, sneakers, sun hats, parasols and other modern conveniences if they were not used in the period the organization recreates

10

I am interested in the geographic area and culture that the organization recreates

11

I am interested in the arts and crafts of the culture that the organization recreates

12

I am interested in the everyday life of the culture that the organization recreates

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

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum; / Si þin nama gehalgod / to becume þin rice / gewurþe ðin willa / on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. / urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg / and forgyf us ure gyltas / swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum / and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge / ac alys us of yfele soþlice

The Lords Prayer in Old English

“The temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed; but let the idols that are in them be destroyed; let holy water be made and sprinkled in the said temples, let altars be erected, and relics placed. For if those temples are well built, it is requisite that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God …. And because they have been used to slaughter many oxen in the sacrifices to devils, some solemnity must be exchanged for them on this account…. but kill cattle to the praise of God…. For there is no doubt that it is impossible to efface everything at once from their obdurate minds; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place, rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps.”

Pope Gregory in a Letter to Mellitis, quoted in Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (tr. Holder)

Sense is needed / for the one who travels widely; / everything is easy at home. / He who knows nothing / and sits with wise men / becomes a mockery.

Verse 6 of The Havamal (tr. Ball)

Then he goes to Gizur and his band as they sat on the ground. Gizur looked at him and said, “Well, is Gunnar at home?”

“Find that out for yourselves,” said Thorgrim; “but this I am sure of, that his bill is at home,” and with that he fell down dead.

From Chapter 76 of The Saga of Burn Njal (tr. DaSent)

Verily you must know that to be called a king’s housecarle is not to be despised as a title of derision ; but it is a name of great honor to everyone who bears it. For neither^ landedmen nor hirdmen, though because of some infirmity or because they are tired of warfare they prefer to cultivate an estate in the country, are willing to surrender the housecarle name because of its honor and security.

from page 175 of The King’s Mirror (tr. Larson)

We are concerned about the way we speak, as we want to speak correctly and with meaning, and not with meaningless base words. Would you beat us and make us learn? For it is better for us to be beaten to learn than to remain ignorant. However, we know that you are a kind-hearted man who would not wish to inflict blows on us unless we ask for them.

Ælric, Colloquy (tr. Watkins)

Ale is not as good / as it is said to be good / for the sons of men; / because the man knows less / —he who drinks more— / of his disposition.

Verse 12 of The Havamal (tr. Ball)

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

…and even Mike Everest 🙂 )

Continuing my review of True Myth: Black Vikings of The Middle Ages by Nashid Al-Amin

It is Al-Amin’s theory that Northern Europe was settled by a black race and that the black races were still in dominance in Scandinavia during the Viking Age. He backs up that assertion by factual, but his theory is frustratingly both very thought-provoking and highly jingoistic.

This is not a perfect book. Al-Amin reiterates many theories that are out of the mainstream that are close to my own. I do not agree with all his theories, but my agreement with many disposes me to give unknown or new ones a fairer chance.

The facts cited are not generally mentioned or noted, but which were to me fairly familiar. After all, in high school, I had scandalized a teacher in biology by stating that black people were probably predecessor to the whiter races that developed later. References to Grimaldis and other physical proofs, along with some very convincing illustrations, literary accounts and ver ambiguous academic observations are very convincing and provide a suitable foundation for the entire subject.

Although the book has some very persuasive illustrations—a photo of Otzi the Iceman clearly showing African features that are usually ignored—a lot of the is largely contrary to what the reader might think. Still, an impartial reader will find it easy to give credence to more controversial assertions and interpretations.

The book has awakened an interest in the matter. And I have seen now a lot more references to dark-skinned people of the area and time. The book contains many radical, inspirational and legitimate reinterpretations.

I’ll be frank. After reading the book, I don’t know what to believe.. On the one hand, I cannot unthinkingly and enthusiastically embrace the concept, but on the other hand, Al-Amin has painted a scenario which cannot be unthinkably denied or ignored. In the end, I have to file Al-Amin with John Bosworth, a revisionist—and I know that some revisionist history a little below camphor stew—who can look at what has been generally said and believed an see a new interpretation.

In the end, I readily see how some Norse were dark complectioned—though they seemed to have valued light skin and blond hair if we look at how they attempted to artificially promote this—though I cannot believe without reservation that they all had black African features. The end result was probably somewhere in between. As adamantly Afro-centric as many authors are Euro-centric, Al-Amin and the book are not without their faults. And the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I agreed already with much of what he says. And I cannot agree with is the notion that all Norse were pure, white Aryan images! But this is another reason I want to fund a frozen Norse Otzi from the Viking era!

For purchasing a copy of the book—both physically printed and an e-book—see this site.

Continuing my review of True Myth: Black Vikings of The Middle Ages by Nashid Al-Amin

It is Al-Amin’s theory that Northern Europe was settled by a black race and that the black races were still in dominance in Scandinavia during the Viking Age. He backs up that assertion by factual, but his theory is frustratingly both very thought-provoking and highly jingoistic. The book cannot be accepted as unvarnished truth. Whether these points has any influence upon the validity of Al-Amin’s interpretation is another matter, but they must be stated.

His constant (justified) attacks on Christianity followed by his protests that he is not being antiChristian reminded me of all those racists who will make statements about the watermelon-eating commnyist tearing apart the Constitution and then piously assert “But Ah ain’t no racist…” Not racism here but an obvious prejudice against faith.

The title and supposed theme are to a great deal simply come ons. However, for Al-Amin, it is more of a hook upon which to hang his racial theories. Whites can do no right. Blacks can do no wrong. Although he condemns Christian imperialism, he either ignores or praises Muslim.

He often thinks with a modern ideals and suppositions and tastes.

The persistent use of phrases such as “the thirteenth century (i.e., the 1200s)” and a tendency in many cases to say “perhaps more conjectural than factual” aside, Al-Amin writes often with a witty and ironic voice—not to say understated since he is often screaming his message. A strange excursion into films that seems more concerned with racial politics than with the history depicted in the film. For example, he is concerned with “The Norseman” and ” The Long Ships” but more so with racial portrayals in “King Kong” and “Star Wars.”

Some of the worst writing—simple errors about the culture and not mentioning possible items—is jarring. Al-Amin ignores items that go against his theories. The Bayeux Embroider, which theoretically shows the faces of character and is all white. Is not mentioned ( on the other hand the embroidery can be used to justify purple horses). He loves to cite art when it supports his theories but is just as likely to ignore them if they contradict them. He has a tendency to state interpretations as if they were cold facts, so you have to read this with a skepticism and not just accept things. But in many instances, this becomes a matter of over-preaching and spreading the concept a bit too thick.

The book is a bit labyrinthian and erratic, and Al-Amin states and restates many of the same points over and over again, as if repeating something many times will make it true. One gets the feeling that this book contains enough information for a decent-sized paper but has been padded and repeated into a book size.

Al-Amin slings around phrases cavalierly, an indication of certainty that many reader will immediately employ as a barricade between their minds and Al-Amin’s ideas. After a while, Al-Amin ceases his polemics, and for a time the volume becomes yet another standard overview of Norse exploration, trade, raiding and creation of an empire. Still he prefers to deal with matters from an anti-Christian manner that will infuriate them as easily as the theme of the book will offend racists. He especially likes the phrase “Eurocentric” (a claim which many Eurocentric scholars will immediately deny or ignore). And he also has a preference toward popular and secondary sources, which to me is worse than using a popular phrase or stark revisionism. But he also uses primary sources, both graphic and literary, that are eye opening and provocative. To a good extent his veracity seems to be the fodder for another questionable History Channel documentary, and it does duplicate any of the methods, but it seems to have more detail and proof at its core! The book deals more with polemic ranting and logical constructs. And some of the arguments come awfully close to the specious conspiracy arguments that attempt to connect the Egyptian and the Mayan pyramid builders!

At times, the book becomes a simple recitation of facts—mostly adequate but riddled in places with errors and misinterpretations but certainly not as vivid and passionate as parts of the book that Al-Amin really cares about. Does this mean that his other interpretations are suspect? Probably. But next week, we look at some of the more positive—and convincing—points in the book.

BOOK REVIEW: True Myth: Black Vikings of The Middle Ages by Nashid Al-Amin

There are many who will refuse to regard this book seriously because it does not adhere to what they have been told all their lives by accepted views or because it was written—as one reenactor complained, by a communist Muslim. However, it is to a great extent a stagnation of inquiry and a blind acceptance of the conventional and a rejection of any new idea.

It is not merely the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists and the Klansmen who will hate this book. So will anyone who hates to have their stereotypes challenged. They would be as disgusted and antagonistic if you said that George Washington didn’t admit to chopping down a cherry tree, that Abraham Lincoln did not free every slave with his Emancipation Proclamation or that Christopher Columbus was not the first white man to set foot on America and not the first man in Europe to proclaim that the earth was round

Let’s face it. Even folk who do not follow Nazi thought thinks that the Norsemen of the Viking Age were all blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryans. Look at the stereotypical graphic portrayals in popular literature, popular illustrations and film! Now that popular concept must be right. After all, just look at their presentations of fine horned helmets!

When I ordered this book, I thought it would deal with slaves and others from Africa but it deals with that almost not at all. Let’s forget for a moment that the Norse were probably of many different races, introduced by slavery and more. They traveled everywhere, interbred with the local population and, if accounts written before the modern racist age are not ignored, cared little about skin color except as a descriptive. I have long believed that there were white Vikings, black Vikings and—going by meetings in Russia and Asia—probably yellow Vikings, just as there were heathen, Christian and probably Jewish Vikings (made trade easier). This was predominant in my mind when I picked up this book…

Whoa. Reassessment time!

It is Al-Amin’s theory that Northern Europe was settled by a black race—which is supported by illustrations and by descriptions—and that the black races were still in dominance in Scandinavia during the Viking Age. In my opinion, but not Al-Amin’s, the theory is still inadequately supported. He backs up that assertion by notes that the black infidels, by the original meaning of Den and by other matters that are generally ignored or interpreted in a different manner that has nothing to do with skin coloring but also with literary and graphic sources. His theory is frustratingly both very thought-provoking and highly jingoistic.

The title and theme of the book seems to often take a back seat to Al-Amin’s Afrocentric—at least antiEurocentric—views. As such many Aryan traditionalists will discard the book immediately and not consider his many cogent—if radical and revisionist—observations. And to be fair, there are some very convincing points for rejecting the book.

Next week, I will deal with several points for rejecting the book and, by extension, its thesis.

Far too many people regard the word “LARP” as insulting. I don’t find it insulting at all. It is descriptive. It is not a pejorative, unless the person objecting to the term is representing himself and his society as something other than a LARP.

LARP is actually an acronym and not an independent word. It starts for “Live Action Role Playing,” and ” is a form of roleplaying where the participants physically act out their character’s actions.” There are a lot of variation in its description and definition, though these variations do not differ as substantially from Living History, and I don’t think that the term “character” is essential, although the term is very close to “persona” or “impression.” In some minds, if you have an alternative name, a backstory, a title and powers (that is, powers not attained from natural abilities but granted by the entity running the LARP), you have a character. I’m not certain, but that is a matter we can deal with in a later column!

The term actually is dependent on what participants want to do. On what they concentrate. Why they joined and participate in that society. It might be an obviously fantasy- and magic-based society—like Nero or Dagorhir or even Dungeons & Dragons—and even then there are some practitioners who get protective of their image and refuse the term. There are others which are more realistic—I have dealt before with the difference between high and low fantasy—but which still are driven by the definition as set forth above. Take away these components, and there is no reason to have that society!

The difference is not a set of rules; everything has a rule of some sort. The difference, I think, is whether it has a set of authenticity regs. The fact that a society has authenticity regs of some sort—something more specific than merely requiring an “attempt” (not even a reasonable or earnest attempt) at period costume—although these regs differ not only in interpretation but often in what is required. A generic reasonable attempt (as interpreted by whom? Obviously authenticity regs usually require AOs of some sort)? An ability to point to specific physical artifacts from the time? As I noted before, that is up to the society and its members. There is no need to be involved with a society when you do not agree with its regs. That is unfair to you…and to the society and to its other members!

However, it seems to me that the existence of authenticity regs can indicate that the society is not merely a LARP, but their existence does not determine the opposite. Is serious Viking Age—or any era—reenacting a LARP? It certainly could be, and I think it depends on what that society or those participants want it to be. If wanting to make things as accurate as possible according to the society’s authenticity regs is one things; and if there is LARPish factors—for example, a member who emulates a specific historical individual—contained within those requirements, then I would have no problem calling it a LARP.

And would not be consider that using such a term is a put down at all!

There is a popular concept among many renactors and many folk who call themselves reenactors without understanding what the term means. These are people who are not interested in experiencing and portraying accuracy. It is called the Ten-Foot Rule (or at times the Ten-Inch Rule or the Ten-Yard Rule or, for all I know, the Ten-Mile Rule.

I am not here speaking of the ten-foot rule that was invented by Sam Walton. Rather, I am using the term as conscripted by the reenacting community. Roughly speaking, it says that if you get within ten feet of someone and he does not look like an absolute farb, that is enough.

Find something to be proud of. Ignore or accept anything that isn’t. Wear polyester. Ignore inappropriate spex. A few folk go so far as to say “No one will notice those sneakers because they are black…”

Don’t get me wrong. Living history will always be an illusion. If you cannot see it, if it does affect your historical silhouette, if you feature proper fabric and proper sewing and proper metal, it does not matter. If you are wearing Rupert the Bear underoos, I don’t care as long as the MoPs do not see them. However, when you wear them beneath a kilt and when you die, the kilt flies up around your neck, then I care.

There are, of course, societies that endorse the ten-foot rule. Fine. Hopefully they will recognize the image they are presenting, even if I have to spend more time defending my society’s accuracy and comparing my group’s standards against theirs. And I will, of course, not play in those societies. That is not what I am trying to do, what I endorse. Hopefully, such a person will not be playing with and intermingled with my society, and people will not be confused by the presentations..

When I look at someone who is farby from my society, I can only think that this person is representing me. A knowledgeable MoP will see him and think that everyone in the society has lax standards. A society is judged not by the aspirations of its members or even by its best presentation; it is judged by its worst.

So when someone defends or proposes the ten-foot rule, don’t be surprised by the look on my face. Just do not do this and ask me what I think of it. I don’t think you would like my answer…

Authenticity Regs—what members of your society is allowed to make kit from–vary from society to society. Some are stringent, and some are very lax…some might say non-existent, and they might vary—usually in details for societies interested in extreme authenticity—but they help to coordinate the appearance of participants. For an example of what Authenticity Regs might contain, see Regia’s Authenticity Regulationsm which were originally written down by Gary Golding as society Authenticity Officer and then revised by his successor, Gavin Archer. Gavin has added a second document which delineates a Authenticity Kit Guides which is mainly for the appearance of military items.

This being said, the is no need to critically examine anything worn by someone in another society—especially if they beg for egoboo on how swell they look—and then tell them what they have to do to bring it up to your standards or the standards of your society That is dangerously close—and perhaps in fact is—what I commonly refer to as an Authenticity Nazi.

What another society—or an individual—chooses as its authenticity regs is its concern. Members of that society have chosen to adopt and to live by them; as a friend says, what is permitted is promoted, and they do not want to be “bettered.” Smile if necessary, do not answer their questions if at all possible and, especially, do not criticize! Save the criticisms for members of your society, since they more than anything, represent you; and any farb they wear reflects back on what you do and wear. (You can use the farby wear as I do to warn members of your society to never ever never wear anything like that!)

A final note. I generally use the term “accuracy” instead of “authenticity” for most replicas and reproductions, and for a very simple matter. Years ago, at a display, a young girl came up and looked at the hardware, including a helmet. Finally she said, “Is this authentic?”

I assured her it was.

“Wowzer,” she said. “So someone back then wore this…”

My face fell, and I have used the term “accurate,” especially when dealing with MoPs, ever since!