In the third episode, the series seems to be spiraling down toward outright cheap pulp fantasy. The true worth of the series for a serious Viking enthusiasts seems to be that it inspires the viewer to see what is true and what is purely fantasy and improvisational. You are urged to check what the provenance is for anything presented on the screen. In a few cases, you may be able to find to your delight that you may actually learn something that you did not notice or know!

But I think the producers may have done that purely by sheer luck! For example, a horn used as a candlestick holder seems, according to Chad White, to have been lifted from a fantasy role-playing game; how much more of this series has been provoked by fantasy games or novels and owes very little to any original research? It leads me to suspect that any correct research was something done by the game company or writer, and the producers are as willing to accept the incorrect as the correct research done in that manner because it doesn’t really matter to them. They are more concerned with dramatic license, a fair enough thing—see “Excalibur” or “300”—except that it is being shown on The “History” Channel, which implies a bit of responsibility. Maybe they were will have commentators at the end of the series, like they used to have on history movies, commenting on what was right and what was wrong…thought I doubt they will.

Correct

Proper use of hostages (see their instance in the invasion by Sweyn Forkbead)…but I do not think they realize that it is proper, just an old melodramatic ploy showing how evil the Earl is.

Lurs or horns used to make announcements.

The portrayal of Athelstane as a manumitted slave—a freedman, a person who owed allegiance to his former master but who existed in a caste between freeman and thrall—was very well done and common despite its presentation as something that was unique and uncommon.

Incorrect

Black costume. But it is deep and ominous, so that is more important in the minds of the producers than any accuracy!

The hangeroc worn by Lagertha is totally wrong. Even if we accept the flappy tabard style of hangeroc, it would have straps, and the tortoise brooches would be used to secure the flaps. Here, the brooches are placed just like brooches would be today; they are not tortoise brooches, but at least beads and jewelry are hung between them.

Hatless women. I hate to get tiresome and continually harp on this, but…

Jewelry worn by Earl’s henchman is rather large and rather uncategorizable. He’s also in black though…

Sleeveless underdress on the queen

Shield maiden. A great example of the descent into the cheap pulp fantasy of Red Sonja and Xena.

The armor on the Anglo-Saxon warriors is just pure fantasy. Where is the mail and the byrnies? At least we haven’t yet got to the helmets shown in the previews!

Uncertain

Silver hoards seemed to have been mainly deposited for reasons of religious sacrifice or simply for safety and not for use in an afterlife. Certainly items buried were for that use, but this appears to be either a confusion or a simple improvisation.

The Earl notes, after Ragnar’s successful return, that all before him have failed? What is he talking about? On the one hand, it might be an almost science-fictiony improvisation of a back story that might be used for later, albeit clichéd effect.

Dumping a dead slave overboard seems more like a reference to the American slave trade. I cannot find any clear reference one way or the other, so I can only assume that it is a bit of poetic license.

We mentioned before that only women wore earrings in the Viking Age, and apparently not that many were worn to begin with. The earrings worn by the women in this episode seemed rather striking and dangley, more in keeping with modern mores and based in many instances on the products of modern vendors who give ambiguous lip service to the accuracy of their products but generally no provenance.

The hood worn by Brother Athelstane drops down across one eye. That is obviously an attempt to show character and mood, but it is something that is familiar with me while wearing a hood! Accidental accuracy?

The group sex made reference to Norse sexual mores that were probably different from the monogamy. It was a part of the present culture and not quite, then, as naughty and titillating. An interesting point that draws us back to the earl’s earlier betrayal of the man who would sleep with his woman.

The distribution of the booty is really Hollywood. That is not to say that it was not done in this manner—look at the later pirate distribution contracts—but it seems a little too pat and a little too simplistic. The fear that the Earl will kill them if they put up a fuss goes against everything that I have read and learned about Scandinavian society of that time.

With the emphasis on shaving heads by the Norse—both conjecturally in history and certainly in the hairstyles shown in the series–the emphasis on Norse wonderment at the tonsure seems a little strange. Although it might be a comment upon the Norse astonishment at Christians shaving a part of the head the Norse do not, it seems more a modern-day comment upon how weird tonsures are.

The early English kingdoms were generally known as the Heparchy, indicating there were seven of them. Certainly, the number might well have varied, and geographic knowledge might have been vague enough to validate Athelstane’s number of English kingdoms, but I am in a foul enough mood about the produces’ research skills that I am tempted to take the exposition merely as the “truth” presented to us by the omniscient producers!

The fact that the earl took possession of the ship indicates an erroneous perception that you did not own anything but that instead everyone held things in a feudal manner, a largess from their betters. Or maybe socialism if we are to judge from some statements made by conservative commentators depicting the villains as wimpy and devious liberal socialists while the good guys are the straight-thinking and hard-hitting conservatives. William Short of Hurstwic notes that “The power of a earl depended upon the goodwill of his supporters. The earl’s essential task was to uphold the security, prosperity, and honor of his followers.” The earl was chosen by the followers, not as an inheritance, and was often chosen in terms of wealth. The son of a earl might have put him on a fast route to the positions, but it wasn’t dead set. The anonymous au5thor of an article by History World International notes that “Both kings and jarls had to rule according to law. No laws were written down until around 1100. Before then the laws were really traditions and opinions of the majority of the people. The people elected lawmen who had to know these unwritten laws and explain them to the rulers.” The role of his wife seemed rather ludicrous as well. From the sagas, she’d probably have been taunting him to get better rather than stroking his ego!

Next time, I hope to comment upon naming standards of the time and what I find those exhibited in the series to be so ridiculous, along with further notes on the correct, the incorrect and the uncertain areas. In the meantime, I cannot hope that everything I have written is a hundred percent correct; if you have any additional or contradictory provenance, I look forward to seeing it!

Plans to deal more deeply with subjects that were wrong have been put off, and I’ll just offer a few more notes gleaned from last night’s showing of “Vikings”…

One BIG Thing Before We Start

Geography and geographical knowledge. The Norse–and almost everyone until Washington Irving–knew that the earth was a globe. What they thought more than anything else was that all the land was in a circle on top of the globe. That is alluded to in the Fenris myth that was recounted last night. Everything was in a circle, so there was more land coming up (when Vinand was discovered, the Norse thought that if they went farther they’d just run into Africa). The Norse certainly knew about the continent of Europe and just as certainly England. I also wonder what route the raiders took if they were out of sight of land for so long. It made me wonder if the producers were representing the Scandinavian lands as some separate Ultima Thule way up north! Poetic license? License revoked!

Good

• The subdued natural colors (though, from the still of Ragnar in an abysmal neon blue tunic that I’ve seen, I fear this was just to emphasize their poverty and will be changed later on)

• The shoes I got a good look at were apparently turnshoes

• The tent on the ship. I would have liked more details on what the tent covering was (I at first thought it was the sail, but that might havbe been a pre-conceived notion) and what the cross-pieces were; but for this being the first time such a thing was needed in the storyline, I can let those things slide)

• Appropriate grill on hearth fire (larger than those I’ve seen)

• Use of ravens to see if land was near

• Use of make-up for Viking warriors (although it seemed meant as if it was meant as war paint in the manner of Native Americans)

• The cleaning ritual was almost exactly what was noted by Ibn Fadlan (I shan’t comment on how much I think his prejudices were as evident in his account, just as those of the Christian chroniclers were evident in theirs)

• Tonsures on the clerics (that weren’t shown in the preview shots)

• One guy with shaved back of head (an interpretation of a contemporary description of Norse hairstyles)

Bad

• Too many candles. No rushes, and what might have been meant as oil lamps were too bright)

• Horn used as a light/candleholder (is there any provenance for this; I’ve not seen it!)

• The queen’s “nightgown”

• Blackmailing a blacksmith (I’ve been led to believe that smiths who could work iron were considered close to the gods and scarcely someone you’d want to get mad at you)

• Boots too tall

• Someone wearing his sword on back; for that matter, too many swords and no spears

• The horses are not proper for the time; in fact, there are so few animals, except ravens, that it is rather unsettling

• Uncertain of the pier; think they just had posts for tying the ships…which they also had in the film

• Did the vellum crumple like paper? (I did like Ragnar tasting it as if to see if it was leather)

• My wife the calligrapher, doesn’t think gold was used either as a paint or an application at this time

Things I’ll let slip…

These are just interpretations and done without provenance but with poetic license and necessity to tell the story.

• The “Domesday is coming” riff; it’s just as contrived and possibly as false as “there are no lands to the east” thing

• The killing of people who will become slaves (seems much like Christian propaganda; why indiscriminate slaughter of someone you can get money for?)

• The leather apron on the smith (we’ve been discussing this lately in Regia)

• This Cuthbert was not THE Cuthbert, who died about a century before, but since Cuthbert was so entwined with Lindisfarne, I’m not certain whether that name would have been used, especially so prominently

• Surprise about written word; runes were probably variations of Roman cursive and imo–controversial–well known and disseminated. I’d have been amused by Ragnar grousing that skins were being wasted instead of using stones

• The cages for the birds that have, to my knowledge, no provenance, but they had to have something like that!

I saw the first episode of “Vikings” on The “History” Channel last night. I was honor bound to watch it; after all, if it’s a success, we’re going to have MoPs showing up at events thinking they know everything accurate about the time because they’ve seen this and “Game of Thrones.”

What was my reaction?

Two fold. It dealt—almost randomly it seems—with actual things. Briefly and in no particular order…

• Showing affectionate family relationships in Norse families

• The use of wooden swords to teach kids how to fight

• Wooden bands on tubs and buckets

• Believable portrayal of market (probably thanks to other, later portrayals)

• Portrayal of a þing (though it was portrayed as more autocratic than it probably was)

• A warp-weighted loom in action (more later)

• Portrayal of Norse female defending the home (not being a Viking though)

• Good—if controversial—explanation of bearing dial (though too large) and sun stone (I was so relieved it was not a magnet in the style of the Kirk Douglas “The Vikings” film)

• Hearth fire in the middle of the hall

• Use of both cups and horns for drinking

• Treating headbands almost like modern ties (but set a trifle too high IMO)

One of the phrases used by the program’s publicity was that the series was going to demolish old stereotypes. Perhaps so. But it certainly initiated new ones. Now we will examine the other side of the penny, examining both large and small inaccuracies. Disregarding most of the numerous inaccuracies with costuming and furniture, let’s look at a few.

• The exposed hair on women and a cap from a later period on one guy

• Fur worn with hair to outside (and even fur on bedclothes was arranged this way…probably to emphasize that it was fur!)

• Too much leather (leather was used in earlier eras for clothing, not so much the Viking Age)

• The use of the title earl (a term of the Englisc; why didn’t they use “jarl”?)

• Use of patronymic as a surname (Earl Haraldson?)

• Cannot comment on the shoes because they weren’t shown well enough, but didn’t some of them used in the film have heels?

• Swords were used for slashing not thrusting (Imperial Roman use; the Norse used spears!)

• The banners were more like later period gonfannons

• Shield maidens were probably a literary device

• There is no provenance for Domed Chests (a hobby horse of mine)

• Was the jarl wearing an earring? (Even few women wore earrings)

• Emphasis of farmer as a separate job from viking (a farmer often planted and then went i-viking)

• Women speaking in þing

• Exiling, not death penalty, was more common (and running the gauntlet being pelted with veggies…wtf?)

• Too much use of candles (Miss Julie noted the lighting was weird)

• The rudder is on the left (why do they call the right of a ship the starboard?)

• Bjorn’s seax is shaped wrong (but understandable; I’ve priced cheap blade blanks, and many are shaped like this)

• There is an indentation at the bottom of some cups (yeah, anal… :\)

• Confused description of how a Viking ship works (it reminded me of a character explaining skiffy science)

Next week, I’ll go a little deeper on a few points…and deal with a few BIG ones…

For folk who don’t have access to the mini-series, there are quite a few stills at this site along with some breathless text.

1. Viking was not a Culture

“Viking” was a profession. To go viking was a part-time occupation. Although we today refer to all Norse of the time as Vikings, they would often refer to pirates from other cultures as vikings, and I can only laugh when people authoritatively talk about the people. Of course, in the common language, saying any Norse is a Viking is about as ubiquitous and erroneous as calling an American bison a buffalo.

2. The Norse were a very practical people

Viking meant that the person was a raider or a trader. In general, if they landed where there was a strong defense and warriors, they were traders and went peacefully about that job. However, if there were no defenses—such as monastic sites, which had golden objects and were safe from Christian brigands who would never attack a Christian center—they were raiders.

3. The Vikings existed during the Viking Age

But I refer to the Viking Age for the same reason I refer to the Iron Age, the Bronze Age or the Nuclear Age, because Viking longships—drakkars, the war ships, and knarrs, the broader “trucks” of the sea—were the foremost technology of the time. The ships were quick (today, they have been fairly comparable when racing against sophisticated modern yachts), agile and capable (they were powered by both rowing and sails). They were built so they could easily travel both forward and back, so they could easily come into and leave a landing. The ships could be lashed together for combat and were outmoded only when other ships became taller, and the Viking ships had war coming down on them for forecastles and other developments.

4. The men they refer to as “Vikings” were mainly farmers when they weren’t out Viking

Everybody at the time was involved with farming. They needed farming to survive, and even the wealthy and the high status were closely if not physically connected to the process. Many times, the men would put in crops and then head out viking until they had to return home for harvesting. Sometimes, they would journey out again after harvest and hardly ever stay out for the full winter.

5. They weren’t dirty barbarians

They regularly bathed and had high hygienic standards. Nearly every Norse person had a comb—though many other peoples of the time did as well—and they had weekly, fully immersive baths when many people around them generally would regularly wash only their hands and necks. There is a chronicle that indicates that English girls often ditched local boys to court with Norse lads since they did not stink!

6. They were not illiterate

Generally. The number of them who knew runes is a controversial subject, but the fact that there were so many memorial runestones set on the sides of roads indicates to me that quite a few knew runes. However, they did not use their alphabet—fuþark if you prefer—the way that Christians used their alphabet. They did not use them to write chronicles or histories, at least not until after they converted, and the things they learned and recounted by rote were not written down until some time after they were Christianized, so not only do most period accounts written by the opposition—the Church and churchmen—but what we do have was written by Christians, who might have changed or invented things. Although runes did have a magical aspect, the new age use of runes for divination and prophecy appears to be a modern derivation.

7. They did not wear horned helmets, furry breechcloths or leather armor

Their helmets did not have horns—this was a nineteenth-century stylization. They generally wore the same sort of clothing that anyone else in Europe of the time—with certain minor regional differences like any other culture—wore. Their armor, if they had any, was maille. There is little evidence that they wore extensive leather armor. 

8. There were no woman Vikings

Norse women might travel with their men—generally for colonization—but female warriors were the stuff of fantasy, both then and today (eg, the Valkyries). Women had a position in the society of the time—actually, both Norse and Englisc—that was higher than that of women in many later cultures, though they were certainly not the equals of the men, with great prestige and influence. In addition, there is evidence that they learned how to handle weapons, and were often put in charge of the home, farm and defense when men folk went out viking, though there is little evidence for their use of weapons and none for their participation in aggressive warfare.

9. They were skilled artisans

As jewelers, gold workers, weavers and so forth, the Norse had few equals. The more the archaeologist find of Norse crafts and arts—and they regularly being discovered—the more sophisticated we realize that the Norse people were!

10. They were widely traveled

The Viking Age was a time of good weather, often known as the Optimal Warm Era. They were able to sail easily to distant lands; and the great era of exploration gradually was ended with the Mini Ice Age.  The Norse vikinged throughout the north, as far south as North Africa, as far east as Baghdad and Russia (which is named after a Viking tribe, the Rus) and as far west as North America (although attempts at colonization ended after about twenty years, we are uncertain how far west or how far south they traveled).

This has been inspired by a similar blog entry written by Don N. Hagist, an excellent reenactor, researcher and writer, on the “Top 10 Facts about British Soldiers.” Thanks and a tip of the helm to Mister Hagist!

This week, we turn to Julie Watkins, who wrote this a while ago at my behest when I heard her talking about it to M o Ps at an event. This is reprinted from New Member Times 28:

My participation in the NWTA was ended when my husband had some h ealth prob-lems. When he recovered, he was looking for real medieval living history. But I got caught in what he eventually settled on—the Regia Anglorum reenactment society—for three basic reasons.

The first was that there were no explosions. I tolerated the gun culture in the NWTA but was happier when I found an organization that had high standards without loud noises.

The second was that I had been in love with the Norse medieval culture ever since we had visited Iceland in the late 1980s. I liked that Iceland that it skipped the renaissance. Earlier, I had been interested in Tolkien, which led me to reading the sagas. I can’t remember the specifics, but I remember reading one after another, just liking the language of the storytelling.

And finally, in Regia Anglorum, I found that I was even closer to what I considered the ultimate living-history experience. It was simpler, less posh culture, closer to everyday life that I had found living history before to be. Even the costume was simpler. It was mainly rectangles, square and triangles, and the only curves were in the wimples. It was not only easier to put things together but to wear what had been put together. I got interested in the textiles of the era and love talking about it to Members of the Public while on the ropeline. I love being able to talk about a consistent broad over view and to display the different looms. And in addition, since this era predates the introduction of the spinning wheel, the tools for spinning are much smaller and easier to transport!

Ironically, on the line, I try to do the simplest actions in my demonstrations of textile production. Not I only because I can’t do it—I’m probably as skilled as an eight-year-old would have been then—but I find it easier to do this while speaking with the M o Ps. And when I screw up—as I often do—it can be more easily undone, so they don’t feel horrid for spoiling a difficult endeavor with their honest questions. 🙂 They are hopefully ready to go on asking questions and learning. Often, while speaking with them, I find out what I don’t yet know and have to look it up so that I’ll know it in the future!

I am very happy dealing with a culture that I find simple and easy both to understand and to explain to the M o Ps. I especially like where our group is at present, where we are portraying the Danelaw at a certain point in the early eleventh century. There are plenty of artifacts that the archaeologists have found in the area, and I find the portrayal easy and satisfying.

There are a few things that drive me crazy. What did a period carrying bag look like? It might have been such a humble, everyday article that no one made mention of it in chronicles or displayed it in art. Or perhaps it was never used. After all, how many items did you own in those days that you had to carry around? I would like to know, not only so I can acquire a similar bag for myself but so I can talk about it to fellow reenactors and M o Ps. Of course, I’m dealing with a modern reaction here; what I think or hope they had does not necessarily have anything to do what they did think or have!

Even so, reenacting everyday life in a culture where I can wear simple and comfortable clothes with no bustles, no stays and no ruffs, while talking about how life was lived by the common folk is both simple and satisfying. I, for one, am happy I encountered it!

After the splendid reception to the Healing through the Ages panel on Saturday at Military History Fest 9, I have been moved to found a new group: Healing Through the Ages. A few members of the panel who are friends have been added already, but anyone with an interest in medicine from earliest times to last week will be welcomed! Right now, what we are doing will be worked out according to what we want! If interested, feel free to sign up and to spread the news to others–not merely reenactors–who might be interested!

Almost ready for my favorite event of the year! Need to gather clothes==very simple–and carry a couple boxes out to the car. And then four days of partying with people who have a clew! Supposed to be bigger than ever this year, and you can easily join in if you are in the Chicagoland area!  Hope to see ya there!

See what will be offered!

(We still call it ReenactorFest, and Mike is offering t-shirts that say that very thing this year!)

This week, we turn to Julie Watkins, who wrote this a while ago at my behest when I heard her talking about it to MoPs at an event. This is reprinted from New Member Times 28:

When I got into the NWTA, they were talking about the culture and the influences, and I had encountered very little of this in the SCA. In the NWTA, the default was the ordinary everyday person. That was more comfortable for me and strongly influenced my appreciation of living history. Quite frankly, everyday life and its aspects fascinated me. For example, I learned about the dance-master, someone very important in elite households: he was not teaching you how to dance; he was teaching you how to behave. How someone comported himself indicated what class he is a member of. Someone in those days who came to a new city and tried to pass himself off—for whatever reason—as a member of the nobility had to move like a noble. That had never come up in the SCA, and I realized that this might have been a reason the upper-class medieval costuming made me feel a little weird. I was slouching and behaving in a common-folk way not moving in a graceful noble manner, not holding myself upright at attention because my dress indicated that I was better than most of the rest of the people. Things began to fall into place.

Because being a member of the medieval upper class means that you had to move and act like a member of the upper class of the Middle Ages and not like someone from the twentieth-century wearing a fancy costume. Until you point this out, this point escapes many in the modern world, but it is less encountered in most places because too many people are trying to go egalitarian or, in many cases, frugal, which means cheap in too many cases. The wearer is trying to make an adequate attempt as cheaply as possible, without realizing, as Beth Gilgun points out, the proof is in te details, and no one is paying much attention to any details at all!

In modern life, I’m kind of a slob who always wants to be relaxed. I realized that I never wanted to project the image that I knew better, that I was superior, that I was in charge. I don’t want to be in charge in modern life, and I certainly did not want to be in charge in reenacted culture. I wanted—and still want—to relax and to have fun. So if I was in an upper-class costume, I was going to look like a poser because I was not going to be standing right or moving right or acting right! I get frazzled too easily and want to be comfortable doing what I love to do.

I realized that it did not make me feel special to wear a nice dress, or to use a special title or to wear a fancy coronet. In fact, whenever I had been in front of a large number of people, I got stage fright! It just wasn’t important to me, and I had much more fun talking one on one on the ropeline. I found that I preferred talking about everyday life instead of about how I longed to live in a more “romantic” time. In fact, I get the feeling that I wouldn’t have liked to live back then!

I never plunged into the arts practiced in the NWTA. Instead, I got into the costumes. I had to make accurate clothing for both my husband and myself. With an understanding of what needed to be done in creating an accurate costume, I approached it on a different level than I had approached the clothing in the SCA. As I look back, I think I was somehow gratified that I was re-creating middle-class dress. Subconsciously, I was getting closer to what the clothing would have really been like.

It would be unfair to claim that there were no politics in the NWTA, just that it was totally different than the politics encountered in the SCA. NWTA politics seemed to center on whose interpretation of history culture was correct. They were having what seemed to me to be silly arguments about how a reenactor should one thing and not the other. The NWTA was, at that time, portrayed exclusively in its by-laws as a military reenactment group, even though there were civilian members and the by-laws were later amended to specifically include them. I thought, “Well, you can’t treat civilian clothing the same way that you treat military uniforms. Variations that would be unthinkable among members of a military unit would be expected in the civilian portrayal.” When it became apparent that the authorities had no idea what life was like for vendors and were trying to lecture them on what they had to produce—and keep in mind that my husband was then commander of the NWTA’s sutler unit—I began to write down what was required for a civilian portrayal.

Actually, I started with a bare-bones outline, and I asked a dozen people who had strong opinions to review it, to correct it and to augment it. I listened to what they had to say, and when I had incorporated and made a sense of all the changes, I sent it out again. This kept on until there was a certain amount of agreement, I was very happy that I was able to take so many responses and to come up with a broad overview that is apparently still useful!

This week, we turn to Julie Watkins, who wrote this a while ago at my behest when I heard her talking about it to MoPs at an event. This is reprinted from New Member Times 28:

Almost forty years ago, when I was starting in the SCA, we called it medieval reenacting. Until I got into RevWar reenacting in the NWTA, I had no idea that what we were doing was not reenacting. In fact, it was barely living history—or whatever term we used back then to describe the re-creation of the past. What I was doing in the SCA was not really portraying anything historical. The SCA was building its own “medievalish” subculture. I was doing generic medieval, with a little bit applied technology along the edges. This was because I was an artist, interested in calligraphy and the design of illuminated manuscripts. The combat people were creating a new sport.

One thing about the SCA is that the default status of any member is the nobility. You can choose to portray a lesser class, but almost no one takes that decision seriously. SCA is an organization where you might perform a rather lower-class task as you sit there in your best purple costume and a coronet. In that kind of context, any sense of historical reality is tenuous when it is there at all. I realized later—after I encountered reenacting of ordinary, lower class life—that the pretensions and logical inconsistencies made me unsatisfied. I was trying to portray someone that I was not, and I never even realized how far short my portrayal fell. Most of the designs put in front of me and most of what the members were trying to do were a generic medieval, taken from upper-class manuscript illumination if not from Hollywood or children’s books. People were trying to sew clothes using fabrics that were too cheap and too inappropriate, using too little fabric to do the job because using the right amount would have been too expensive and incorporating parts of modern culture because the wearer did not recognize anything else as attractive. That included me. I didn’t like the darts and the curves, and I see now that I didn’t do a very good job. I had dresses made of black polyester, with fake fur and a modern pattern.

Those dresses fit in perfectly with much of what surrounded me. The situation might be, in many cases, much less so today, but there is still no guiding officer who can tell you to do it right, and even when this item here is very accurate, the maker feels no compunction about having that item there being—to use a term almost unknown in the SCA but virtually ubiquitous in most living-history organizations—farby.

At the time, I was interested in calligraphy and illumination. But the way that I was studying and approaching the subject, I was approaching it in a very broad manner. I was not trying to think and to behave like a scribe of a certain era. I was a modern artist who was trying to acquire a disparate but wide range of historical knowledge to create scrolls, adapting historical designs (meant for decorating books of many pages) for SCA court use (single sheets).

For people unfamiliar with the SCA, the concept of SCA scrolls was one of the most prominent ways that Scadians have created a new subculture that is only tangentially history. In period, I discovered, the scrolls that came with rank were not considered pieces of valuable artwork. They weren’t illustrated or visually special. The important thing was the lands that they conveyed. If you did something good, the king took lands away from someone he disliked and gave them to you; you appreciated them, and you were an obedient vassal—killing the people that the king wanted you to kill—because you didn’t want to have the lands taken from you.

The SCA kings can’t give anyone a paying job. He can’t give them money. He certainly can’t give them land. The award scroll developed into what you get that is important and valuable, especially if you’re in a kingdom—a bureaucratic and geographic subdivision of the corporation—that does not use pre-printed scroll blanks. I think that the politics for giving out awards in the SCA court culture is the same as the politics that would have been back then, to reward someone’s faithful service. If you do something for me, I’ll do something for you, and so forth.

Because the scrolls have a totally different purpose than historical scrolls might have had, they were much more ornate and ornamented. In the Middle Ages, what were flashy and illuminated and showed that you were important were the illuminated manuscripts that you commissioned, paid for and displayed. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, you’d have lots of illustrations and decorations scattered through the whole volume. SCA scribes often tried to get ideas from these efforts and then made a conscious or unconscious attempt to condense the important illustrations that might have been in a full codex down to a single sheet.

The words are important, but the border designs are what attract praise and glowing comments. Most of the time, when a modern artist sees an SCA scroll, that artist is flabbergasted by the quality of the artwork that goes into the border and see the calligraphy itself and go yuck. And when they learn that artists are doing gratis an effort that would be worth in their opinion several hundred or a thousand dollars, these artists—who are doing commercial artistic endeavors that are calculated to bring them the highest payment—go “you guys are crazy” and wander away. When academics see this, they often just shake their heads at the lack of understanding that created it, even if they are in awe of the creation—as a modern piece of artwork incorporating medieval motifs—itself.

I never considered any of this when I was caught up in the SCA. It never occurred to me to even think about that. Instead of caring what the effort said about the culture we were re-creating, I was more concerned interacting with other court scribes, trying to figure out why my speed and accuracy got worse instead of better, matching a scroll design with the recipient — I was more concerned with the sub-culture than with the idea of history—Living or otherwise.

“Farb” is the term used in living history to describe anything that is not historically accurate. It was originally used in American Civil War reenacting in the 1960s, but there is debate about how the term came about. There re several good articles talking about it, including Jonah Begone’s “Who was the Founding Father of Farb?”  and Kathleen Smith’s “An Introduction to Farby.”

In the decades since its origin, it has proven its worth and been adopted by most other eras of living history in the United States and abroad, and we became acquainted with the term in the 1980s in RevWar reenacting and have used it in Micel Folcland since the founding.

Farb is, in many cases, anti-educational. As Smith notes: “Can you choose a book by its cover? Do first impressions really matter? Hard-core…reenactors will answer: you can and they do. Reenactors, regardless of what period they choose to reenact, have to be very mindful of how they are perceived, not only by the public, but by their fellow reenactors as well.” However, in another sense, farb can be very educational. It can teach the reenactor what not to create, wear or approve.

What we have discovered is that compiling instances and cases of farb as a scrap book—called the Bok of Pharb—can be an illuminating experience for a viewer. With that in mind, we have compiled a Book of Farb, in which we have assembled photographs that are readily available on the internet that exemplify what the member should avoid. A good many are illustrations taken from such festivities as Up Helly Aa  that make no pretense of being accurate, from LARP organizations, whose accuracy is not required and when it occurs is merely incidental, and, most disturbingly, from societies which brag about their accuracy but whose standards fall sadly short.

It should be noted and understood in this last example that farbiness is not permanent by any means. Accuracy in living history is an evolutionary matter. As people learn more, their level of farbiness can diminish. It is not expected that anyone is perfect (especially at the beginning of their living-history experience) or that what was considered normal at one point will later be avoided. It is expected that a reenactor—a good reenactor at least—will not backslide and go from a good to a more farby interpretation. Because of this, the faces of the individuals are blacked out; we are not trying to castigate the individual and full realize—even expect—that this individual will get better in the future. As if to prove this point beyond all doubt, we have included photos from our own reenactments, showing what is wrong and what has now been corrected!

Some of the farbiness is obvious. Some of it is overwhelming. Some might be just one anachronism in the midst of everything else that is accurate. Some of the inaccuracies are very subtle, The persons who are looking at it must think and must use what they have learned in their own impressions. And hopefully, they will return to their accumulation of kit with a new wisdom and perspective.

I should not here that farbiness, especially for our era, is not universal. Interpretations might differ and still be legitimate, and the interpretation might be incorrect for what our society’s regulations call for, while they are legitimate for those of another society. If you or your society assembles a Book of Farb, you should no only make certain that it follows your society’s accuracy regs but not apologize for its interpretation!

While the accumulation of a Book of Farb is, unfortunately, quite easy and educational, it might be seen as negative. For that reason, we have accumulated a second volume, a collection of correct interpretations. It is called, in our instance, What Dreams are Made Of (a reference to one of my favorite Humphrey Bogart films). Its compilation was much more difficult, to be certain, but the result is much happier and affirmative. Faces are not blacked out, of course, and we hope that seeing what is possible will encourage and guide readers, not discourage them with thoughts that they will never be good! Especially because, if they are dedicated enough, they no doubt will be!

While not dealing specifically with accumulating examples of what is wrong and what is right in historical reenacting, Kelsey at “Historically Speaking” has written a very thought-provoking essay on “Things I Wish Reenactors Would Stop/Start Doing.” While I do not agree with everything she says, I agree with a lot and appreciate everything that she says. You might as well!