It struck me today: If I was not doing living history, what would I be doing?

And the answer came nearly as quickly: I simply cannot imagine not doing living history of some type. I might move from one aspect—read society—to another because of politics, because of standards—or lack thereof—or because of interests—I should point out that I love Regia Anglorum, though, and it fulfills my needs very very capably—but I would find it unable to step away from living history. I study it. I discuss it. I breath it. I am surrounded by reminders. When I am not actually doing it—at events, either as a participant or as a spectator—I am doing research into things that will enable me and others to do better impressions.

Not fancy bling, not clean and sparkling clothing, not extraordinary furniture and not undocumented but convenient assumptions. Fantasy-driven cosplay simply does not interest me. It is the sum of the mundane, everyday life of some time in the past that fascinates me. Research into, attaining and maintenance of a realistic environment are essential to me if the experience is supposed to satisfy me. Any anachronisms—humorous or not—only spoil the illusion. Cinematic accuracy and not playing to details—both large and small—can be frustrating and totally disruptive. Role-playing games, fantasy titles and excessive society-protecting bureaucracy is only slightly more pleasurable to me than taking an eight-pound hammer and smashing my hand!

Now, of course, I wear historical clothing while creating that environment—that is essential to the environment. That is not the reason that I do it. That is not among the reasons that I became so interested during the ACW Centennial in the 1960s. The reasons were the little things. They still are. Those physical tokens of the past: It does not matter if they are reproductions or exact re-creation or authentic. They set my heart to pattering and puts a smile on my face. Knowing the histories of notable, famous and extraordinary men does not appeal to me as much as the histories of the common man. I collected maps, charts, books, kepis, coins, all the small bric-à-brac that gave me an idea—and a feel—about the past. My roots as a reenactor stems from those days, when I collected the ephemera of living in the past, and dressed—with the help of my grandmother—in the fashions of an earlier time to play with the items collected but did not realize that this was living history. But I liked it, wanted to do it and got involved in it as soon as I could.

Of course, I was not a good reenactor in those days. Research was watching a film. Academic books were generally left un-consulted. Old and outdated books were accepted uncritically. Polyester was as good as wool. Aluminum was a suitable substitute for more precious period metals. WFA-sized belts, over-sized bling and anything black were cool, dude! Suede, plywood and cotton were natural fabrics and so perfectly legitimate to use when I became a little more critical and discerning. I still had much to learn, both individual facts and how to find them, and my approach gradually changed. I was embarrassed by my earlier philosophy and earlier attempts, but living history is an evolutionary process. It just took a while for me to realize this and even longer to accept this.

Today, I’m better. My clothing is more accurate, I think, though I am still working on designs to make them still better (ie, more accurate, since that is my goal). They are worn and are lived in; they are ordinary work clothes, neither a Hollywood costume nor the cosplay attempt preferred by at least one society. I am surrounded by accurate reproductions of furniture from the age, of tools from the age, of actual artifacts from the age. I trust I will get better, that I will learn more and that what I think I know will be altered.

But I know—know—that my interest in living history is not going away!

In 1492, wise and resourceful explorer Cristóbal Colon set foot on America, sailing all the way to Columbus, Ohio and establishing a city to convert the heathen Native Americans, who inexplicably called themselves “Indians.” He did this for all Christian mankind and even was so humble and loveable that he allowed someone to name it “America” after that individual. Today, we hold magnificent large parades in his honor which would no doubt cause him to blush, because that’s how darn humble and loveable he was!

Or so, far too many good Americans believe. Bring up the name of Leif Eiriksson and L’Ans aux Meadows, and a dim flicker of recognition may flash across their faces. Bring up Eirik Þorvaldsson and Grænland, and you might get recognition of an island a mile or two off the coast of Norway. Very few people will recognize the name of the real first European to set foot on continental America or even onto an island that is part of North America. Google those names, and they will come back with pictures of Columbus because that is what you really or that you should be interested in!

But I have gone on about this at length in the past. Everyone knows—or should know—that I consider Columbus a fool for several reasons, and everyone should now that I am very respectful of Leif and his daddy. Hopefully those who know of my beliefs will not just automatically dump me into the same midden reserved for believers in the Newport Tower, the Kensington Stone and the Heavener Stone. But can anyone answer this question…

A bit of background first. Iceland is on the continental divide between America and Europe and so was technically at least partially the New World. I will disregard that.

But Grænland is very much a part of North America. It is not regarded as a separate continent by most persons. Europeans attained Grænland, settled there, prospered to some extent there (during the period, Grænland was better known than Ísland) and maintained their outposts there for at least five centuries. And yet, Eirik the Red is not regarded by most as the “discoverer” of the New World (actually, American Indians were) and his emigrant are not regarded again by most as the first Europeans in the New World. Why?

Is it because Eirik was only on an island and not on the mainland? But Columbus only ran into islands considerably smaller than Grænland and never set foot on the mainland.

Is it because the people on Grænland did not enslave, decimate or convert the natives? One hopes not, but no one has really proven the truth to me either way (And actually, there is great evidence that the Inuit and the Norse ran into the uninhabited continent at about the same time, although they settled in different places).

Is it because the Columbus encounter changed the view of the world? Ah, now, that is probably very true and very close to the prejudice. Not the concept that the earth was round; folk had supposed that for millennia, but that all the land mass was in a circle on one side of the globe. It has been suggested that Leif and Eirik and their fellows supposed that if they went far enough, they would just run into Africa. The Scandinavians and, perhaps, the English sailed to the New World shopping mart for centuries after the end of attempted colonization, and never even considered that the New World that Columbus encountered was part of the world they had known about for centuries.

Perhaps that is worthy, in some minds, of discarding the Norse in favor of Columbus. But to my thought, that is the equivalent of many Americans knowing and loudly proclaiming that John Glenn was the first human in outer space.

Wm. Booth, Draper at the Sign of the Unicorn, a purveyor of fine period fabrics—mostly 18C, but they will work with reenactors of other eras—brought a blog entry to our attention. They said, “This is a nice short read on living history. When we started in the 1970s we laugh at ourselves—what we wore, used, etc. But everyone starts somewhere. I know so many people who started doing things one way but now have grown into some of the finest in the hobby.”

In this blog entry, the author speaks about the community of reenactors, noting that members—presumably whether they initially think of the relationship or not—should work together and help others, whether their philosophies are exactly the same or not. It is uncertain whether she is speaking only of eighteenth-century reenactors or of reenactors of any era, but in this piece, I am speaking of reenactors of any era. I personally have a lot more in common—in terms of research, in terms of depiction, in terms of making certain that the atmosphere is consistent and high-quality—with the reenactor of a vastly different era than with someone interested in NASCAR. We both want to strive for, to discover and to present the truth!

The blog has a very insightful look at the living-history phenomenon, on what is important and what is not important. It asks the all-important question of “What is the purpose of living history?” That is a very broad subject, and it boils down to another question: What is good living history?

The trouble is that “living history” has mutated since it was coined in the 1960s and popularized in the 1980s so that it often is used to describe many things that would have been alien to those who coined and popularized the term (though their standards were considerably lower than those of many of today’s living-history societies; living history is an evolutionary process, where practitioners are always clamoring on the shoulders of those who came before them!). It has been used for causes as diverse as a book of modern political memoirs, to describe philately to cosplay that is only tangentially related to any historical subject and what we might think of as living history proper. To quote the definition set forth by Jay Anderson in Time Machines (1984): Living history “can be defined as an attempt by people to simulate life in another time.”

That is a suitably useful but immoderately broad definition, and I have often used it with the annotation that something is “good living history” and something is “bad living history.” For example, a society which has no authenticity regulations, which covers a very broad sphere of time, which willingly allows oop spex, sneakers, artificial materials and which tends to perpetuate inaccurate historical interpretations from the Victorian Age is living history. Just bad living history. Another society, which demands physical artifacts—not even literary sources are good enough—as the provenance for anything it portrays is good living history. Most societies lie somewhere between.

Are they all valid? Well, they are certainly what the members want, and they would not exist if they did appeal to such a desire. The big difficulty to me is the honesty and integrity of the descriptions of what they want to do. If the first society I noted above merely said in all its publicity that it attempts to foster a loose romantic vision of the past, I would have no problem; when they say they are “medieval reenactment” as they so often do, they have set up standards and expectations that might affect all facets of living history and which might affect someone joining the society in all good faith!

It is not here my intention to run down a list of farby and unsatisfying societies—of many eras, though we are most concerned with the Viking Age—just to note that such things exist, and potential members should always examine what the society offers and demands of its members! Hopefully, the members of the society will portray themselves honestly and not try to be everything for everyone and, because of that, is nothing for nobody.

For me, the goal is good living history. The extent of the accuracy is high, but not absolute. I accept literary references in many cases, and I am willing to make one leap of logic (sometimes a tricky slope to be certain). I have a preference for putting on shows and for educating MoPs (Members of the Public), but I recognize the legitimacy of BUFU (By Us For Us) societies. In either case, education is being passed on. Hopefully legitimate education and not merely incorrect myths, superstitions or untrue stereotypes!

In the blog entry that inspired this, Christina, the author, notes:

“I personally take pleasure in the details and the research—not at the expense of my interpretation, but rather to the enrichment of it….Are we going to get all of the details 100% right? Probably not. Are we going to be 100% engaging in our narratives to 100% of our audience all of the time? Probably not. Should we ever sacrifice one of these parts for the sake of other? Definitely not. Should we come together as a community to build into each other, and to positively invest in each other rather than continue to divide, deride, and dishearten? If we want living history to survive and thrive in the coming years, I believe the answer must be yes. An overwhelming, resounding yes.”

I think that pretty well sums up my views as well!

Leather & Fur

Leather and fur were not used in most clothing as it was in earlier times. Shoes were mainly made of leather, and there is probability that leather was used in trousers (some translations of Æfric note leather pants, and there is Ragnar Shaggy Britches). Leather should not be dyed, since there is a controversy about whether dyes were used, and black leather should especially be avoided. Suede was invented in the nineteenth century, and obviously chrome finished leather is totally inappropriate.

Brain-tanned leather is appropriate, but the most available type is vegetable-tanned, unfinished leather.

The width and uses of different sizes of leather vary greatly. The Tandy Leather Factory prints a good guide for choosing thickness and types of leather.

Fur, which is stereotypically used by popular media to indicate macho barbarism, was not used; most types of fur seem to be used for cold-weather gear, with the fur inside for greater warmth, and fur was probably used mostly as blankets and rugs.

 An Age of Wood

It might be convenient to note that people of the time only used wood that was available in the area, the truth is that wood was sometimes imported from elsewhere for use (including North America, since Norse contact seems to have continued even after colonization failed). A good guide for what woods were used may be found in my book, Age of Wood, while an abbreviated list may be found elsewhere on this blog.  Woods of American derivation may be used but only if the style is similar to that which was found in the area during the Viking Age.

Metals That Are Appropriate

Many of today’s common elements such as aluminum, bismuth, chromium, nickel, platinum, zinc and zirconium were all invented or discovered after the Viking Age—at least in Europe—and are not appropriate. Their use should be avoided. In the Viking Age, the seven ancient metals were copper, gold, iron, lead, mercury, silver and tin Alloys such as bronze (copper and tin), brass (copper, tin and other elements) and pewter (tin with lead and other elements) were commonly used and are all legitimate. Even steel was known, being iron infused with carbon (commonly known as cal), though the heat of the furnaces were not high enough to form high-quality steel. But steel was expensive and used sparingly. For example, the cutting edge of steel was often sandwiched between two pieces of more common iron to make the axe more affordable, and cast iron was not developed until the fifteenth century and not commercially feasible until the eighteenth.

The metals were often of a lesser quality than we know today, though just looking at them is not usually affected. However, certain types of metal that are commonly available today but which do look different should not be used. For example, stainless steel is a high-carbon steel that was not developed until the late nineteenth century (chromium was not discovered until the early part of the century), and results were too brittle to be practical. It was not commercially practical until the twentieth.

Galvanization, the introduction of zinc to steel in an effort to inhibit its corrosion, was not developed until the nineteenth century either, when it was applied electrically and also known as Faradism. In many cases, galvanized metal may be used, but the zinc must be removed, generally by melting it off in a fire.

Period pewter had a high lead content, and pewter that is available today contain other, safer elements. Its use, since it looks and responds like the high-lead pewter, is not discouraged. In fact, lead pewter is actually discouraged, as is the use of actual lead, which we know is poisonous and toxic. It is not introduced into the body by touch per sé although it can be ingestion, if the lead is placed into the mouth by fingers that have been coated with lead dust, by inhaling lead dust in the air and especially by smoking if there is any lead dust around.

Colors

The colors, paints and dyes, were more limited than those available today.

Hazel Uzzell has set down paint hues that were available in the period, and a list of and notes on these colors are available.  Modern equivalents have been set forth.  Acrylic paints were, of course, unavailable, and most paints of the time were oil based or milk paints, and milk paints give a very durable and aesthetically pleasing result. A list of milk paints, if unavailable in your area, may be found on-line from the Old Fashioned Milk Paint company.

Regia Anglorum has done extensive testing for natural dyestuffs that might have been available for folks in Northern Europe of the Viking Age, and the results of the Regia Anglorum Natural Dye Project have been published, and a listing of modern thread equivalents which may be used for recreation purposes is also available. The latter article also contains notes on what color might be worn by what social class.

While it is true that the peoples of this time generally resorted to whatever was easily available— as we noted earlier, and in addition they tended not to waste anything—there are a few rules of thumb that you should keep in mind when accumulating materials for a project.

Materials That Postdated the Time

These are generally artificial materials, which include nylon and other plastics. The earliest such substance—rayon—was not invented until 1855 and was not commercially viable for another 75 years. Rayon was originally known as Viscose and was not truly an artificial, being made from wooden cellulose, but was man-made. A true artificial fabric, nylon, was not devised until 1939. Why these should be avoided should be very self evident!

There are two main exceptions. The first is artificial sinew lacing, since real sinew is so scarce and not always available. Please note that I am not saying that this is the best, just that it is sometimes necessary when you want to use sinew lacing!

The second are blends of natural and artificial fabrics that look and behave like a natural fabric. However, they will never react totally like natural fibers, and this should be done only when natural fabrics are not available.

It should be noted that artificial fabrics will melt in extreme heat, so they should certainly not be used in clothing that will b worn around an open fire. Threads should be natural fabrics, and while some people will okay the use of cotton, other threads are readily available and should be used if at all possible.

Materials That Were Expensive in Period

Or not easily obtainable. For example, cotton was readily available in Constantinople and other Mediterranean cities. However, it seems never to have been imported into northern Europe and would probably have been more expensive than silk. Some commentators have noted that it was not unique in the way that silk is, and folk of the era and area had ready access to local goods that served much better for less expense, such as wool, flax, hemp and nettle.

Silk was imported and not duplicated by a local fabric, but it was very expensive (about 25 times more expensive than readily available wool). Unless you were very wealthy, you did not make garments entirely out of silk, and silk would be used only as trim.

Silk noil is also known by the misnomer of raw silk and should be avoided even though sellers describe it in glowing terms. It is, according to the Fiber Encyclopedia “the short fiber left over from combing wool or spinning silk and used as a decorative additive for many spinning projects, like rovings and yarns.” It dates in Europe from no earlier than the fourteenth century, perhaps the seventeenth century and, according to some sources, even later. Certainly not appropriate for the construction of clothing of the Viking Age.

Linen is Appropriate

Linen is a durable fabric woven from thread made from the long, strong bast fibers that form in the outer portions of several plants. Linen cloth comes in a variety of weights and weaves, from thick to quite thin and becomes softer with repeated washings. Although it is now almost exclusively seen as the product of the flax plant, in period, it was made from several plants, including flax, hemp and nettle. Because the bast fiber degenerates, it is difficult to tell the difference.

Flax linen is today primarily available and is certainly period. However, in period, “Linen was commonly available, but its use was restricted to upper, wealthier classes.”

Wool Was Inexpensive and Plentiful

Wool is a fabric woven from the threads made from sheep wool. England has always been famed for its sheep, and because of its plentitude, it was inexpensive and high quality. Wool is a very versatile fabric, breathing so that it is not overly hot or suffocating, warm when necessary (even when wet) and forgiving. It should never be dried, since it has a tendency to full, and some folk say that it should never been washed, only brushed. Many persons are allergic to wool—or rather to the lanolin—and cannot or hesitate to wear; use linen instead or as a barrier between it and your skin.

There are a number of weaves that were used to produce wool fabric in our period. The different appropriate weaves include Diamond, Broken Diamond, Herringbone, Cross, Diagonal, Tabby and Honeycombe. Elisabeth Da’Born Art and Textiles has an incomplete photographic record of the different weaves on Facebook.

—To Be Continued

Personal projects will not magically appear. They must be worked on with tools, and we can divide tools used on these projects into three categories:

1. Authentic and Accurate

2. Traditional and Manual

3. Modern and Powered

What you choose is not as important as where you use them, and a lot is dependent upon what you feel about selecting and using tools. If you are planning to use the tools behind the ropeline, in the view of the Members of the Public, all tools should be category 1. Historically accurate tools are readily available and may be easily purchased.

The tools in the second category are generally of a more advanced technical nature, often made of more sophisticated materials, such as better metal or more sophisticated and regular file marks. The tools are all manual and, therefore not very different from those in category 1, though they should not be used behind the ropeline. Their use is not experimental archaeology, but it still requires that the worker use his own strength and abilities in their use.

The tools in the third category include such things as power drills, drill presses and table saws, all of them driven by electrical motors or by some other sort of powered motor. The advantage is of course that the worker is able to do things that might be precluded by his own strength or by the time devoted to the project should never be used behind the ropeline, and they do not have any aspects of experimental archaeology.

Dennis Riley is the man behind the excellent reproductions at the Daegrad Tool Company, and he is also the author of Anglo-Saxon Tools, a book dealing with tools of the era and which feature illustrations not of the rusted originals but of modern reproductions crafted by Riley.

Colors

This is not merely the aesthetic combination and meanings of colors, which is undoubtedly different from what is standard today. This refers to the actual hues as well, what was readily and inexpensively available and can be best found by seeing the results of serious experiments and not merely by running to the nearest Hancocks.

For example, many Viking reenactors wear and want to continue to wear black clothing. Obviously in their minds, black clothing is deep and moody and appropriate for their upper-crust warrior impressions. However, in his article, “I Litklæðum’—Coloured Clothes in Medieval Scandinavian Literature and Archaeology,” Author Þor Ewing notes:

“Some writers have contended that the colour word blár does not in fact represent blue-dyed cloth but naturally-pigmented black cloth. Kirsten Wolf will address this question in another paper in this session, but let me simply say here that the sagas make a clear and consistent contrast between high status blár or ‘blue’ clothes worn only by high-ranking characters, and lower status svartr or ‘black’ clothes which are often worn by slaves or as a low status style of garment such as the kufl. That blár clothing was perceived as coloured clothing is apparent from the passage in Eyrbyggja saga mentioned earlier, or from Njáls saga ch.92; in these passages, both Geirriðr’s blue skikkja and Skarpheðinn’s blue stakkr are described as litklæði.”

This, of course, involves a little research and reading, and that is not proper for those with upper-class impressions…

Religion

Wicca—the celebration of non-modern-religion—was invented in the early twentieth century. Though it claim to perpetuate the ideals of older, classical faiths, though the truth is that much was invented. The modern Asatru faith is based on many Wiccan standards, but is actually predates wicca. It originated in the nineteenth century, and it attempt to perpetuate the stories of a thirteenth-century Christian writer as the truth and faith if the heathen Norse of several centuries before it was written down. The fact that many of the stories seem to have been invented in the thirteenth century seems to often be conveniently overlooked.

The truth is that we know almost nothing about the heathen religion except for unreliable retellings and the descriptions found by Christian clerics sent to convert them. And these are the same beliefs that seem to have been chosen as absolute truths. As legitimate then for any faith-based philosophy but hardly for a provenance-based philosophy!

By the end of the Viking Era, many Vikings were at least nominally Christian. Immigrants in England, France and elsewhere had been baptized in exchange for peace and land rights. Iceland had peacefully converted in 1000 ce. The other Scandinavian areas were on a see-saw for many years, going back and forth between heathenism and Christianity, though even in places that were already Christianized, the Christianity was often not orthodox and practitioners practiced a form of dual religion, praying to Christ in the morning and then to Þorr in the afternoon when heading on a sea voyage!

For many modern persons who will subscribe to a single religious belief, this is not comprehendible. And so, it is another instance in which the average modern Viking reenactor is different from the individual he is attempting to be!

Conclusion

Hopefully this brief and not comprehensive account of historical beliefs will give you pause. You must put aside modern prejudices and modern taste. They are most probably incorrect or inappropriate, but time to time, lose a bit of formatting, but the you will be able to amend them with only a little research and education!

An interesting and informative book on how the Church decided in the fifth century what some folk today deem as immortal and the truth from God’s lips is examined in Jesus Wars.

Primary Literary Provenance For instance, there are plenty of hints of everyday conduct of business in the Icelandic sagas. Leaving aside the controversy, that I feel has been exaggerated, homely incidents in the sagas give an excellent view into behavior during the time, For example, in chapter 74 of Njal’s Saga, Gunnar has been exiled and is preparing to go abroad: “They ride down along Markfleet, and just then Gunnar’s horse tripped and threw him off. He turned with his face up towards the Lithe and the homestead at Lithend, and said, ‘Fair is the Lithe; so fair that it has never seemed to me so fair; the corn fields are white to harvest, and the home mead is mown; and now I will ride back home, and not fare abroad at all.’ “‘Do not this joy to thy foes,’ says Kolskegg, ‘by breaking thy atonement, for no man could think thou wouldst do thus, and thou mayst be sure that all will happen as Njal has said.’ “‘I will not go away any whither,’ says Gunnar, ‘and so I would thou shouldest do too.’ “‘That shall not be,’ says Kolskegg; ‘I will never do a base thing in this, nor in anything else which is left to my good faith; and this is that one thing that could tear us asunder; but tell this to my kinsmen and to my mother, that I never mean to see Iceland again, for I shall soon learn that thou art dead, brother, and then there will be nothing left to bring me back.’ “So they parted there and then. Gunnar rides home to Lithend, but Kolskegg rides to the ship, and goes abroad.” Citation Whether this the conduct espoused by the heaven Norse of the Vikings Age or by the Christian writers of a few centuries layer, it is a valuable look into the conduct expected during the time. The most immediate aspect is that the courtesy books have a tendency to inveigh against known behavior and tell the reader or listener how to behave. We can assume from the appearance in a courtesy book of a particular personal action that the action was itself very frequent, since there is no reason to warn against a behavior that is alien unless you are a modern bureaucratic society). The Babees’ Book, a compilation of medieval treatises on courteous behavior to be taught the young. In one section, it notes Do not carry your knife to your mouth with food, or hold the meat with your hands in any wise; and also if divers good meats are brought to you, look that all courtesy ye assay of each; and if your dish be taken away with its meat and another brought, courtesy demands that ye shall let it go and not ask for it back again. Citation From these warnings, we have a good idea of what conventional table manners were like during the time! The most prominent courtesy book during the Viking Age was The Havamal, or the Sayings of the High One (the God Oðinn), much the way that Proverbs is attributed to Solomon. It appears as a single poem in the Poetic Edda but was a combination of different individual poems that presents advice for living, proper conduct and wisdom. For example, it notes: 25 The unwise man thinks them all to be his friends, those who laugh at him; then he finds when he comes to the Thing (assembly) that he has few supporters. Citation From this, we can assume that many persons trust too much those who re friendly during good times, which must have occurred regularly. Reading, studying and appreciating the different stanzas of The Havamal can be illuminating! Kennings and Meanings Kennings are poetic phrases the are used to refer to other common phrases. “Kennings are like riddles, allegories, metaphors, and allusions rolled all into one.” They are listed in the Prose Edda of the Christian writer, Snorri Sturluson, and their meanings are often portals into the minds of the writer and the people of the time: Aegir’s daughters waves Baldur’s bane mistletoe blood-ember axe blood-worm sword breaker of rings King or chieftain breaker of trees wind As such, the Prose Edda should be read and studied! What it might tell you bout the mindset of the time—or at least that of a couple centuries later, based on a comprehension of previous times—is very fruitful! To Be Continued Probably the best courtesy book for Viking reenactors is The Havamal, a collection of sayings and epigrams that tells those—presumably but not exclusively the young—how they should properly behave.

No matter what some reenactors seem to believe,  we are not Norse warriors of the last millennium. Hell, we are not even Norse anything of the last millennium. We are play-actors of this millennium—of this century—who are dressing in the same style of clothing that might have been worn during the last millennium, who are doing things that night have been done during the last millennium, who are giving the illusion of dwelling in the culture of the last millennium. In fact, giving the illusion of culture—hopefully everyday—of a previous millennium is the very root of all living history, but the big drawback is that the reenactor has been educated by modern education. He is familiar with the modern culture and, unless special efforts and study are taken, he is making decisions according to a modern aesthetic. He is using taste and preferences and, yes, logic, that he has been taught by modern culture.

Any attempt to get beyond these ingrained aesthetics is difficult and rather artificial. Writings from the period are very important and influential, and surprisingly, there are more than a  few.

Military Commands

Actually, this is how this whole article started. Military conduct is today so ingrained into our modern cultures, that it seems natural to have existed.

Old Norse and Old English military commands are very evocative, but were they used in period? I cannot find any good examples. Certainly there was training in weapons use, and inevitably training in forming a shield wall, &c., but I am wondering about the modern concept of military drill, training and commands during the Viking Age era. Rob Thomas very pertinently notes that “If orders weren’t given…How would you get your line to move forward? Prodding your army in the back with your sword will just cause resentment amongst the troops.” And Kim Siddorn adds, “It wasn’t the sort if thing anyone was writing down in a semi-literate age.”

It seems then that, for the most part and outside of using musical instruments whose sounds carried farther than even the loudest voice, the idea of adapting conventional military commands to the time is rather anachronistic and appeals more to the modern military mind! There simply was no von Steuben military manual for the time! Having standard commands was an alien to most mindsets as specified uniforms until far later in time, and neither perhaps should be standard for reenactors of the period!

Nonetheless, the advantages of having conventional commands—both Englisc  and Norse—in modern reenacting is advantageous both for the reenactors to understand what is expected and being done but for spectators to appreciate a taste of the culture:

Garments

The illusion of life in another century is concentrated on the garments that the participants wear. More than man other eras, there seems to be a tendency to wear incorrect garments in films and other popular portrayal of the Viking Age, and for many reenactors seeing these errors so gleefully and ubiquitously presented in so many places means that they are foremost in some viewers’ minds. While many variation in interpretations are possible among honest researchers, there seems to be a movement for non-period garments, for such things as lamellar armor and greaves, for incorrect fabrics such as leather and for such later manifestations such as cross gaiters.

This is, in many ways, not as it was common as during the previous eras, because easy access to good research is available. Gail Owen-Crocker’s Dress in Anglo-Saxon England and Þor Ewing’s Viking Clothing are as easily available as works by Iris Brooks and by Ruth Turner Wilcox, which are unfortunately just as ubiquitously available. Even the work by Herbert Norris, which are very useful in some aspects, are marred by a tendency to misinterpret graphics. Unless one is discerning and learns the basics of costume at the time, there is often a tendency to incorporate the incorrect and more fanciful interpretations!

Reading the readily available research and documentation—such as that in Þor Ewing’s overview of Viking Clothing—is required. A person who merely uncritically believes an undocumented presentation is going to end up more a version of Lee Majors in “The Norseman” rather than a believable presentation of the appearance of the time!

—To Be Continued

Many books on accurate costuming is readily available from such sources as Barnes and Noble , but the purchaser should be careful and critical, since books by Iris Brooks and others of her type are also readily available!

In a recent entry, we discussed the inadvisability of combining modern politics with historical reenacting from two very different perspectives. First that if your society is a not-for-profit [nfp] group, you are forbidden so to do and that even non-nfp groups who are trying to honor historical integrity should avoid muddying the waters by affecting historical accuracy by aligning historical interpretation with modern political interpretation. The second was that most modern political thought has next to nothing to do with historical process. This week, we will comment on something similar that should be avoided for many of the same reasons.

This is, of course, religion, but it is merely a concern that religion is forbidden by nfp status and by the integrity of an accurate historical interpretation in a similar matter. The inclusion of religion is made even more complex by the fact that religious portrayal might offend the devout who might by offended that a nonbeliever is portraying a believer (or by a nonbeliever because he does not want any faith or religious practices to be forced on him) or that any portrayal by himself might be seen as a blasphemy or a burlesque of his own belief.

However, the fact remains that religious thought moulded so much and so many of the cultures of the past. To ignore religion entirely is like ignoring an important part of the culture and is as foolish, especially for the medieval era as creating a society that ignores religion but that allows members to wear modern spectacles or sneakers!

This is not to say that merely representing you as the member of a modern faith is in any way less anti-educational. After all, t truth is that representing an out-of-period faith to mops is as bad as representing how an ak47 was used by Norse berserkers! Out-of-period faiths are legion. And while many if not most incorporate parts of faith that might be compatible with the period faith, they are still out-of-period. Even the faiths that existed were very much different from those of the current day:

Judaism (there is little or no indication that Judaism existed at all in Britain or northern Europe at this time; the Norse of course encountered Jews in other areas and there were probably even converted Norse Jews)
Islam (for the most part, Muslims were forbidden to travel in non-Muslim lands, so they did not exist in Britain or northern Europe at this time; the Norse of course encountered Muslims in other areas and there were probably even converted Norse Muslims)
Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodox (they were Christians; there was greater difference between Celtic and Latin Christians; until the Great Schism of the eleventh century, there was no official differences between these faiths. Even today, there is a disagreement as to whether the Great Schism birthed one faith or the other!)

Faiths listed in the following incomplete list are very much out of period (although there is controversy over the exact dates they were founded):

Lutheran (sixteenth century)
Anglican or Church of England (sixteenth century)
Presbyterian (sixteenth century)
Puritan (sixteenth century)
Baptist (seventeenth century)
Quaker (seventeenth century)
Amish or Mennonite (eighteenth century)
Methodist (eighteenth century)
Mormon (nineteenth century)
Asatru (nineteenth century; many of the myths date back no further than the writings of the thirteenth-century Christian author, Snorri Sturlusson)
Wiccan (twentieth century)
Scientology (twentieth century)

For some, their modern religious faith is essential to their own self images, and they cannot bring themselves to say or do anything at odds with their modern faiths and sacraments. Some do not even admit that their faith has changed through the years. Others refuse to incorporate anything religious into their impressions because they are atheist.

However, it is important to remember that it is reenACTING. Just as an actor in a stage drama or in a film is not expected to be channeling their full faith (there are exceptions of course, mainly proselyting films underwritten by religious sources that are designed to be shown in Sunday schools or to the already “faithful” or to change the infidels’ beliefs), but how many viewers assume that Charlton Heston was a Jew because he portrayed one in “Ben Hur” or that Al Pacino was an Roman Catholic because he ordered heinous deeds during a religious ceremony in “The Godfather”? Or necessarily that Derek Jacobi was a Catholic or Joseph Fiennes is a Lutheran or…

Anyone who wants to give an accurate historical portrayal must concede that part of the portrayal is acting or not do reenacting at all!