Old pal, Chuck Huber, was kind enough to send me a copy of a book not needed by his library and asked me to make a review when I asked him whether I could do anything to thank him for it. So here it is!

From the Viking Word Hoard: A Dictionary of Scandinavian Words in the Languages of Britain and Ireland, Diarmaid Ó Muirith. Four Courts Press; Dublin. ISBN 978-1-84682-173-8

It is always difficult to review dictionaries. Except for some early dictionaries, such as Johnson’s, you can only comment on the accuracy of entries, and perhaps descend into snarkiness and nitpicking. Some entries are spot on; some might be a little off, and it is often difficult for the layman to determine which is which, and the learned academician might have doubts of his own. Reading the entries in a haphazard way has been an enjoyable and illuminating experience, and I hope to continue to dip into the soup from time to time and go away satisfied!

So I guess that the review needs to center on the introduction, in which the author presents a background for the dictionary. While the introduction is, in many senses, quite fascinating, at least for someone interested in seeing how the Norse influence on western and English (and American) culture can be seen ever today. At shows, MoPs are often greatly interested in this and are genuinely appreciative when a person talks to them about it. And the sections on the Norse language’s influence on Irish, on Scottish, on Welsh and of course on English are interesting. The sections on the Norse invasions of the various lands are illuminating, though superficial to what is available elsewhere. If you are sincerely interested in a more detailed investigation of Norse invasions, see Katherine Holman’s The Northern Conquest  for a more general but provenanced view or any of the academic books that are available (for example, F. M. Stenton’s Documents Illustrative of the Social and Economic History of the Danelaw, from Various Collections.

The book does not deal with physical culture, artefacts or much else that reenactors are generally concentrating on, though it is relevant in many was to making a reenactor’s impression richer. It might be more than what a person needs; they might be content with sites such as Wikipedia’s “List of English Words of Old Norse Origin”  or “Viking Words in English”  However, having a copy of this book available is more than a little bit useful!

The reservation I have about the tone of the introduction is the same one that I have with Schama and many other modern historians, where they do an abrupt about face on the matter of modern interpretations of the Norse as a cultured people, a deviation from the propaganda set forth by the literate people—the clerics who were subjected to violence by the Vikings—and adopted as the truth for so many years. The author calls this trend to depict a civilized culture as “pc,” though my interpretation is somewhat different. No doubt, the Vikings were violent. They did invade. They were malicious. They were thugs. But so were the Christians. The author paints the Norse in the old way and do not mention that the Christians were much the same. The difference, to my mind, is that the Christians tended not to do violence to the Church (though this was not a universal); that simple fact, again to my mind, does not necessarily demonize the Norse the way that modern but not contemporary culture has done!

Persons interested in the book for their unit or for personal ownership, should of course consult local bookstores (we have seen with Borders and other local bookstores what not doing this might tend to do). However, for additional information and if it is otherwise unavailable, see http://www.amazon.com/Viking-Word-Hoard-Dictionary-Scandinavian-Languages/dp/1846821738/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313851171&sr=8-1

The book that I was reading when this arrived, and that I put aside to give this a good look was something entirely different. It was the Jack Kirby Omnibus Volume One, and much more in line with what brought Chuck and me—both comic fans—together in the first place. Of relevance to readers of this blog was a story from the 1950s called “The Hammer,” which was about Mjollnir, which was a fun story and which featured a version of Thor totally different in many ways—but was curiously similar—to Kirby’s later version of the Norse deity as a Marvel superhero. Fun stuff, and if you are a comic fan and think of Kirby as essential to modern comics as many fans—myself included—do, you might want to pick up a copy of the book!

Just back from two weeks camping at what may be the most schizophrenic event in the world: Pennsic. It was the fortieth this year, and its attendees range from the most progressive and accurate reenactors to farbs wanting to get drunk and laid. It started as a Scadian event, and it is still governed to some degree by the Society for Creative Anachronism [SCA] but has long since become something more. I have taken to calling it Burning Man East (though they only burn a drakar model in the lake and would assuredly draw the line at a burning wicker man), although I discovered that a son of Doctor David Friedman—whose idea of accuracy is based in a continuous first-person impression while mine is based more on physical artifacts—tern it that some years before I did! It is a fun event, not merely for the obvious and martial activities—the Scadians call it a “war,” though it is much more, and I term it a “fair”—and I have for years not seen any combat activities.

People wanting any form of consistent accuracy are fools, and many of those who accept the SCA for what it is even think of it as another renn fair or farbfest. Probably so in both cases, but I look at it as a challenge. I have, for the past few years, set up my selling spot with wattle fences, a geteld and a dining fly (awning), so that except for my electrical connection—needed for light after dark—it looks very much like my Regia camp. I’ll forget for the moment about the person who came by this year and pronounced it “cute,” but if she meant “different than anything about it”—then I would question her vocabulary but not her intent. I have looked upon the two-week experience as experimental archaeology, and I get to try certain things that are impossible at a two-day event. Here are a few discoveries I made—both on purpose and inadvertently—this year:

• Hand washing clothes and draping them across the hurdles to dry worked great and, in fact, smelled better than washed clothes when I put them on.

• Driving stakes into dry ground that then gets wet from the rain is a futile gesture. A friend drove in stakes into pre-wettened holes that worked much better.

• Actually an Observation. Flies never fall down–their stakes sliding from the holes in dry earth that gets wet–never fall down when you’re looking at it. It waits until you take your eyes away 😦

• Wearing smooth-soled turnshoes on hilly ground worn smooth over two weeks makes standing up with short benches an achievement. But a little rain makes the traction much better!

• Living at the mercy of the weather makes you more aware of the weather, and you rely neither on fancy electronic devices or on the frantic warnings of those who do. Instead, you look at the sky, at the moon and feeling what the wether feels like. Sometimes, you’re wrong, but you’re usually right. After a while, I came to ignore the frantic warnings–”Gojira is coming,” many of us described it—and trust more in my own instincts and intuitions.

• It was far more comfortable wearing casual dress around the site—undertunic with no belt—and only getting dressed up in overtunics, belts, etc. when formally accepting company or going out on formal visits (though I will admit I didn’t dress up often because of the heat).

• Air conditioning is not imperative. I was comfortable in the heat, even wearing wool, as long as I avoided doing too much. The fact that I go the entire summer without a/c getting ready for the two weeks no doubt helps me.

• In a clear moon, strong external light is not needed.

• If our ancestors had sharp-edged stones everywhere, they would not have had thin-sole turnshoes!

• When you have no access to television, radio and other modern distractions, you find you don’t need them. You can enjoy live music (even if medieval music for the SCA is scarcely medieval; I was waiting for someone to sing “Johnson’s Motor Car” because it was Irish), playing games on real game boards, spinning yarns and just talking to friends you haven’t seen for a while. In that last sense, Pennsic was probably much like a market of the era.

• Our ancestors were much sturdier than we give them credit for. If I didn’t get off site every few days, was able to wear farby shoes when it was muddy or wet and buy cold beverages in the heat of the day, I’d have gone mad. They had no recourse! Vivat, ancestors of almost any era! We’ll try to make you proud!

And finally, an observation: After two weeks of living around campfire smoke, you just don’t smell it. But unpacking things…mmmmmmmmmmm.

For a few of my photos—not the usual ones of people in hockey gear swinging furniture legs and claiming it is medieval combat—see http://www.flickr.com/photos/folo/sets/72157627308566361/.

Working Around the Problems of Inappropriate Eyeglasses for Reenactors

Surgical Correction

One should never enter into any sort of surgery lightly. Before any non-emergency surgery, be certain that you exhaustively confer with your physicians! Laser eye surgery—commonly known as Lasik—and the implantation of permanent lenses are both available. The former is still expensive and probably not covered by most insurance. It is has not been around long enough that we know the long-term effects of Lasik, so no one knows how long the beneficial results may last, and there may even be long-term side effects. The implantation of lenses is usually to correct cataracts or other eye ailments and should not be approached lightly.

Contact Lenses

The most obvious remedy are contacts. Contact lenses, which are small corrective lenses that are placed directly upon the eye, convey the illusion of using no device at all. Since all good living history—with the exception of practical archaeology—is, at its base, illusion, this a very suitable remedy.

There are people who are familiar only with the more primitive forms of contact lenses—heavy, uncomfortable glass or hard plastic appliances that could only be worn for a short time—that were invented in the nineteenth century. They had become relatively comfortable to wear for short times by the 1930s and had attained great popularity by 1940s. Rigid plastic lenses became available at this time, and soft plastic lenses were developed into the 1960s, although they did not became commercially available until the 1970s.

These lenses all did not breath and could not be worn for extended periods of time. Disposable extended-wear and gas-permeable lenses only became available in the 1980s and 1990s. A new generation of disposable, extended-wear gas-permeable lenses was introduced just before the turn of the millennium.

If you attempted without success to wear contact lenses prior to this time, see your optometrist for sample lenses. You might very well be surprised that your ancient prejudices were for naught.

Getting Accustomed to Going Without Eyeglasses

Most folk can go without spectacles. In an era with low rates of literacy, people of our period were much less concerned about perfect eyesight than we are today. Continued reliance on corrective devices has in some cases weakened the eyes and has increased our reliance on spectacles for convenience and comfort. There is, however, a great distance between convenience and necessity.

Practicing going without spectacles should not start at an event. Do it first at home, and do not try to overdo it. Do not be too active at first, and stay away from dangerous activities. You might find that there are certain things you cannot do; please accept these limitations so that you do not endanger yourself or others. Reenacting should not be run by egos!

Hints for Going Without Spectacles

Much about living history is, to modern sensibilities, inconvenient and, perhaps, uncomfortable. However, if you are willing to compromise, you will find that it is not impossible! Here are a few hints for not using your eyeglasses at living-history events:

A. Realize that spectacles must be abandoned only during public hours (within the confines of the ropeline if your organization uses such a thing). Outside, the use of spectacles are allowed, although you might find that continued use of no spectacles may make the transition more easy.

B. Before public hours begin, police the area in which you plan to stay to make certain there are no dangers that you might not see.

C. Find a pursuit that does not require good vision. These are pursuits to be practiced in public at events. You can, of course, wear spectacles when practicing a craft in a non-public setting.

D. Move slowly without your spectacles. Even if you are accustomed to striding quickly about, you will find that taking your time is safer. After all, your ancestors did not have tv programs or professional soccer games to rush to!

E. Allow fellow reenactors to guide you about if necessary.

F. Use a walking stick to help walk around if necessary.

G. Be careful around weapons, tent stakes and fire!

H. Request—and expect—that your campmates will keep the area relatively clean of debris and dangers, even as you expect them not to leave unsheathed steel around!

I. On walk-abouts, keep your spectacles convenient—I used to slide them up a sleeve—so that they are relatively accessible if you desperately need them.

J. Acquire a magnifying globe or crystal that is acceptable to the Authenticity Officer. It is presumed that these were also used as jewelry.

K. If absolutely necessary, put your spectacles on again when public hours are over or when leaving the ropeline. Some persons in your situation, however, prefer to go without spectacles whenever they are in period kit. As my wife said after a recent weekend event, “Oh, the green blobs have leaves…”

You will also often find that you have compensated so well that putting your spectacles back on after an extended period without will leave you slightly confused and dizzy.

Try it before rejecting the idea. You may find it easier to do than modern life has made you believe!

If Wearing No Spectacles Leave you Unsafe, Nauseous and Debilitated

If you are not capable of nor willing to go without spectacles and cannot otherwise correct your visual disabilities and you will not abide by the limitations imposed, find another hobby. Don’t expect the whole hobby to change its principles for you.

TW Moran of eighteenth-century reenacting posted the address for a site about Antique Spectacles and Visual Aids (http://www.antiquespectacles.com/) in February of 2009, and I found it incredibly useful and its creator, David Fleischman, incredibly helpful. It is filled with useful essays, wonderful period illos and photographs of extant artifacts and replicas. Highly recommended. I want to thank Doctor Fleishman for reading and commenting on this essay!

© 2006, 2009 Folump Enterprises

On one mailing list, what shouldn’t be a questionable matter became a long thread, with people wanting to wear spectacles at events—”They’re not the same as jewelry or sneakers”—going on against their AO’s correct admonition (“No spex at any time at events.”)

Micel Folcland decided early on that we wanted quality over quantity. We have refused some potential members who wanted a variance to the rules because such a variance would be more convenient for them. We held firm, and our AO—whose eyesight was pretty poor—did not wear contacts to an event just to show that it could be done without the world ending. Some years ago, I wrote an article regarding the appearance of spex in reenacting (of all; eras, though it concentrated on the early middle ages), and I figured to reprint it here.

Let me state that I find the appearance of anachronistic spex just as disruptive as any other anachronism. I can cite a number of comedies which realize this well, though I can almost imagine some of the complainers going, “I don’t get it. What’s so funny?” Here is a modest exploration why anyone who is not the member of a fantasy LARP should find it funny!

Copyright 1934 RKO

Introduction

One of the most controversial parts of any serious living history endeavors are eyeglasses.

It is untrue that early man possessed no way to correct his eyesight. From ancient times, magnifying lenses—generally crystals or curved transparent goblets filled with water—were probably used to help with fine work, to start fires and to cauterize wounds. Workshops manufacturing these lenses have been found from Gotland to Constantinople. However, these were large, heavy, unwieldy and only minimally transportable. The modern concept of spectacles was invented in the later thirteenth century and, unlike many technological advances through the ages, were at once widely adopted. By 1290, only a few years after their development, spectacles were being praised as essential. Two monks from the St. Catherine’s Monastery, Giordano da Rivalto and Alessandro della Spina, provide the earliest primary documentation to support this fact. On 23 February, 1306, Giordano mentioned them by stating in a sermon “it is not yet twenty years since there was found the art of making eyeglasses which make for good vision, one of the best arts and most necessary that the world has.” He coined the word “occhiale” (eyeglasses) and its use began to spread throughout Italy and Europe.

For the portrayal of impressions from post-13th-century eras in Western Europe, the use of simple frames are often acceptable, even though there are very real physical differences in the size, shape and construction between period and modern spectacles. In addition:

A. spectacles were designed to correct far-sightedness, and other corrective lenses date only from the fifteenth century (a mention is quoted at http://www.florilegium.org/?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.florilegium.org%2Ffiles%2FDISABILITIES%2F15C-Eyeglsses-art.html,). Bifocals, famously, from the eighteenth.

B. Even though early optics were often crystal and frequently tinted, relatively transparent, purposeful sunglasses were not invented until the eighteenth century. Any sunglasses—whether they are eyeglasses or even transitional eyeglasses—are immediately inappropriate. (Early sunglasses were a protection against the sensitivity of light caused by venereal disease by the way)

C. Early spectacles were often difficult to wear because rigid ear pieces were not invented until the eighteenth century. Early spectacles were kept on the face by unwieldy straps, braces, ribbons, spring nose pieces and sometimes by balancing them on the nose itself. Sometimes, they were even kept on a stick or otherwise held up to the eyes.

C. Spectacles were a sign of old age and infirmity, and worn by many Europeans only in private.

D. Spectacles were a sign of learning and, in painting, often used as shorthand for portraying the subject as educated and literate. Unless there was a reason to brag about literacy—and this was scarcely so in pre-Industrial revolution Europe—there was no reason to make such an ostentatious display of the ability.

However, for persons portraying pre-thirteenth century eras, such as our own, even this controversial work-around is unavailable. A Viking wearing spectacles is comic and inappropriate. Although inappropriate eyeglasses have often been a part of burlesque and comedy, and although Robert Wooley’s black Harry Potter-like frames were hilarious in films such as “Cockeyed Cavaliers,” hopefully your intent is more educational and less humorous.

There are, however, ways to work around the problem.

For notes on the history of spectacles, see http://www.teagleoptometry.com/history.htm

—To Be Continued

© 2006, 2009 Folump Enterprises

The chances are that most people of the era we attempt to re-create not only did not have any books but could not read them even if they did have them! (That latter is not particularly historically unique since Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why tells of some professional scribes who only duplicated pen strokes and who were not really literate!) Our display—in the literate area—has a number of leech books, a copy of the Bible (vulgate with Old English glosses in many areas), homilies and a few other books. Most are translated into modern English, since MoPs love to read medical recipes of the time, but they have period binding, are printed on vegetable parchment that simulates real parchment and are typeset using fonts that effectively mimic period calligraphic styles in formats seen in period manuscripts. Although they are not on chains, I point out proudly to visitors that I am literate unlike most of the camp* and these books and am proud that I possess these books.

The insides of some of the books are shown to the MoPs, but many are not. One is a “commonplace book”—alas, not quite period, since the first appeared a few hundred years later—that answers many questions we might have, and one holds a camera that may be brought out when MoPs are not about and used quickly during an event but which is routinely camouflaged. But the most useful book is a shopping guide that I use when going around to vendors.

Vendors are, in almost any era, there to make a buck. Even when there is a conscious desire to make the presentation better, often the vendor will carry goods that are not, strictly speaking, period accurate. In some cases, it might be a legitimate difference in interpretation. In some, it is just availability or safety. Sometimes, it might be to fulfill a desire by reenactors or to cater to the MoPs. In a few, unfortunately, it is just a desire to move merchandise. How else can you justify cast-pewter sewing-machine charms at a RevWar event? Two decades ago, I was the commander of Baldswin’s unit in the NWTA, a RevWar reenactment group. Baldwin’s was a unit of sutlers—vendors—and most of my time seemed to be spent handling complaints from fellow members seeking accuracy, policing the wares displayed and trying to convince unit members not to sell or to display inappropriate merchandise.

Some reenactment groups force the vendors who set up at their events to take back anything that is later not approved by an authenticity officer (AO), at least when they have that control. Certainly, many groups never give a blanket okay for anything produced by a supplier to be used on the line, although they might recommend members look at the wares of a certain vendor. Even wares purchased from such a vendor, who has sold appropriate material before, must be approved by an AO. Above all else, a reenactor—old or new—must keep in mind what Steve Etheridge, formerly the AO of Regia Anglorum, notes, that most vendors are “ operate under the provisions of ‘buyer beware.’ ” And the buyers must, indeed, beware!

The shopping guide was first accumulated a few years ago when shopping for myself and other members of my unit at a large event which has only moderate control over what the vendors offer for sale. It featured photographs of actual artifacts, diagrams from archaeological books and so forth. It enabled me to pick up something, look at it, look at what “inspired” it and make a decision as to how appropriate it would be at an event. I handed out copies to members from other Regia groups but did not sell it. Although some illustrations are taken from out-of-copyright sources or were taken by myself, most are not. Getting permission to reprint all the photos would have been difficult if not impossible! It is a fair-use research tool that, over the years, has been weeded, added to and reprinted.

Micel Folcland recreates the Danelaw in the early eleventh century. The York Archaeological Trust has done a magnificent job excavating and cataloging artifacts, and I have cheerfully exploited their labors, thanked them profusely and have recommended their books. In assembling the book, I have followed four guides: First, that the artifacts portrayed were from York (or at least available in York, since it was a metropolitan port with objects from Scandinavia and beyond were commonly seen). Second, that things not found in the York records were used but carefully listed (such as the rich supply of items from the Oseberg burial such as looms and other textile artifacts). Third, that items were roughly dated (with “pre-period” prominently listed if necessary).** And fourth, that originals are mostly displayed, and any reproduction is noted as such.

As better  illustrations are found, old ones are replaced. As new discoveries are made, they are included. As York versions of items represented by foreign versions are discovered, a change is made. Although we do not include complete bibliographic references, we try to make note of an artifact’s time, country and/or culture of origin. Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it exhaustive? Certainly not. But it is certainly helpful, and it is certainly hated by many vendors who are trying to push anything that will make the weekend profitable. There are many books, articles and such that fulfill the exact same purpose, but this book has the advantage of being easily transported and is made up in a period style that is not immediately disruptive. I certainly recommend such an effort for any unit or group that is interested in a more accurate portrayal in living history!

For a good and informative look at what is suggested and available for inclusion in such a book, you can look at the books published by YAT (see the free downloads at http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/resources/pubs_archive.htm) or at the photographs of artifacts held by YAT at http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/piclib/photos.php).

*A younger member was around when I did this once, and he proudly said, “My dad is literate!” “He just looks at the pictures,” I returned to the delight of both him and the MoPs.
**This did not mean that they can not be used, since the Norse and others of that day had a great tendency to use things until they wore out and not be governed as we are today by what is currently fashionable. However, they must be approved by the AO, and they should not by over-represented on the line!

Nothing says “Viking” better than a Stargazer Chair, unless maybe it’s Lee Majors’ horned helmet in “The Norseman.” Just looking at it fills me with a Neo-Viking fervor! Makes me want to go raid a monastery!

The stargazer chair can be seen at so many events, both LARP and otherwise. It is also known as a bog chair, an X-chair, a plank chair and a hocker. It consists of two planks that slide together to form an “X.” A proponent of the chair notes that “it was something someone saw some SCA guys doing, but that they had gotten the idea from an actual viking chair found by archaeologists.” Others note that the chairs have been found in Africa and that proves how far the Vikings traveled. Others note…

Well,  I think you see where this is going. Documentation based on what you want to believe is below contempt. Documentation based on fudging or ignoring a few facts is detestable. Saying that the chair cannot be documented but is really comfortable and convenient and better than a lawn chair is…well, I already dealt with convenience in living history; you know what I think of it.

You might also suspect by now that my first statement might be a little questionable. Why yes, and so is my note about the Six Million-Kronar Viking!

Simply put, there are no such chairs from the Viking Age in northern Europe. The chair, it has been conjectured, was introduced from Africa in the nineteenth century and became really popular in the early twentieth century when Boy Scouts began to manufacture and make them. All this is second hand and not even trustworthy second hand. Like folding stools with backs, they seem to have just popped up!

It is so difficult proving negatives. I had searched for and not found Victorian photographs showing the plank chair—the photos are often taken of European explorers who are sitting in European chairs brought for the safari—and even if I find them, that only proves that they were used by the Africans, not where they originated! Talking to persons importing the chair from Africa, they say they are “traditional,” that deadly term that often means “my father had something like that” and might be based on a concept that someone saw at a Scout Jamboree down in South Africa!

The chairs existing in the Viking Age—and documented by artifacts—range from stools (Lund and York come to mind), to benches, to box chairs with backs to chairs and benches that might seem more appropriate for eighteenth century reenactors (for photos of various types of chairs, see a copy of From Viking to Crusader or similar book, or just take a look at the section on seating in the Viking Answer Lady’s blog entry on “Woodworking in the Viking Age”  http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/wood.shtml#Furniture
They can all be easily constructed (and many easily transported, something our ancestors probably did not have to worry about!) . In fact, they might not have had to worry about chairs very much at all. Forensic studies of bodies from the era indicate that many people of the Viking Age just squatted:

“The physical type does, however, suggest that they are of Anglo-Saxon date, as does the presence of large squatting facets on the leg bones. These are less common after the Norman conquest, when it became customary to sit on stools instead of squatting on the floor.”

Neither comfortable nor practical for most reenactors, but still pertinent!

Getting back to the ubiquitous stargazer chair, I can only say that their existence as part of the Norse or Anglo-Saxon heritage is unlikely at the best, and I would advise against their use by Norse reenactors until such time as one is actually found! Going on strictly evidential grounds, the plank chair is certain twentieth century; and from speaking with producers, etc., I am willing to entertain the theory that they came to Europe and the Americas from Africa in the nineteenth century, but not only is that of no striking relevance to their banning in “Viking encampments,” but of little relevance to my reenacting at all (and btw I’ve never seen ACW photos of them as some have claimed). Viking and other reenactorts of the period should learn to sit on their stools!

Articles detailing why we think squatting was probably prevalent in the past may be seen at http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44463 or http://www.suite101.com/content/human-bone-analysis-a62847. For the entire article from which I plucked the quote from earlier, “Medieval Britain in 1967,” see http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-769-1/ahds/dissemination/pdf/vol12/12_155_211_med_britain.pdf If inspired to do a more realistic seat for your early medieval encampment, see Stephen Francis Wyley great article on reproducing the Lund Stool at http://www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/Viking/vikstool.html

It amuses to me how many people confuse safety with convenience and say, “Hang the accuracy; I want to be convenient!” They glorify the use of modern spectacles and eyewear (“I just can’t see otherwise, and I can’t wear contacts!”) , alibi the use of sneakers and Harley boots (“I’m not able to stand or walk around otherwise, and besides nobody does accurate footwear!”), scoff at required research (“That’s just not fun; don’t be so anal!”) and obliviously and openly use modern electronics and talk about that episode of  “American Idol” they Tivo’d instead of anything remotely period during public hours (or do not have public hours and instead want a big fancy-dress LARP). Then, as if to further justify their approach, they defend their actions and choices with the ferocity of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar: “That takes away from any fun I’d have and is just not convenient!”

Well guess what. Having un-sharp weapons on the field is safety; using modern wheelchairs or crutches to get onto site is safety; not using poisonous cosmetics is safety. Using something that makes you feel more comfortable with no provenance, no likelihood of existing in period is not a safety; that is the supreme god of people who feel no compunction about doing frivolous living history. A matter of convenience! They even avoid things that were essential to the era—and even more essential to understanding it–as being not merely inconvenient but disruptive. Myself, I find having an Authenticity Officer is safe and reassuring; a lot of people find—or would find if the concept even occurred to them—it is inconvenient. It’s a threat to the laissez-faire sense of Fun that they want to engender and to enjoy.

Are their ultimate goals to attract as many members as possible and rake in more and more money? At an early meeting, we decided on “quality, not quantity.” They may have five hundred people out there in bluejeans, Air Jordans and hurriedly stitched T-tunic made out of polyester; we may have five who look not merely Good but Superlative. That is where I’m coming from, and that is what is important to me. It would be nice to have hundreds of well-dressed participants in a period-looking environment, but those numbers are nothing to me compared to the time that a spectator who says, “Wow, even your shoes look accurate!” (yes, they do so notice!) Nothing is more fun that doing the research required to make something that is accurate and not just fabricate something that will look similar to something seen in a fantasy film.

What is my point? I guess it’s that good, serious living history is fun. The research is fun. The presentation is fun. And the practice is fun. It will probably never ever be convenient!

Let’s talk about Otzi. Otzi is the name given the so-called Iceman who lived a few thousand years ago, died and was flash frozen (not literally of course), existing with clothing, tattoos, weapons, etc. We probably know as much if not more about his physical culture than about the cultures of the Viking Age. A wonderful looking glass into the past!

We have no real equivalent for the Viking Era. But we have fantasies. My fantasy is, of course, that a Norseman, hiking across a glacier carrying weapons, wearing everyday clothes but carrying special clothes and, what the hay, pulling his own version of a Mästermyr chest in a sled, slips and falls into the ice and is frozen. In my imagination, he will pop out perfectly preserved a week or two from now. In my fantasy, he’d have been in suspended animation and would just wake up and be able to tell us all about his everyday life.

And while we’re talking about fantasies, then, let’s talk about time travel.

Wouldn’t traveling in time be great? Well, aside from opportunistic manipulation of betting on sports events, investing in the stock market, buying shares of companies ready to go through the roof and slipping multiple copies of Action Comics 1 into mylar bags, I am disinterested in traveling corporeally in time myself. If you have to take shots to visit third-world countries today, think how much of a pin-cushion you’d be to visit 1000 CE. If you have to be careful crossing streets today, think how careful you’d have to be not to offend that guy over there with a sword length greater than his IQ. If it’s difficult dealing with insurance companies and medical care today, think how wonderful it would be if you stubbed a toe and had to go to a laece whose idea of health care was praying really really hard. If you want to communicate, think about learning a foreign language whose modern reconstruction might be a trifle dubious. Then there’s the matter of coin, precious metals or the occasional goat to trade. If one carries a modern firearm for protection, what if it falls into the possession of an inventive metalsmith? And so forth; people thinking of the romanticism of being there at an historic event don’t think of the guy who’d be sniveling and coughing next to them! As it says above: I don’t live in the past; I just visit.

For that matter, I wouldn’t want someone else to journey back in my place. I probably read “A Sound of Thunder” when I was too young and impressionable. I don’t want to step on a butterfly and elect Adolph Hitler as president!

Copyright 1962 DC Comics. From THE ATOM #3, reprinted in SHOWCASE PRESENTS THE ATOM VOL ONE

Fans of the silver-age Atom comic book might well remember Professor Hyatt and the Time Pool stories In them, a professor learns to create a small disturbance in time and lowers a magnet at the end of a fishing line into that disturbance to “fish” for objects from  the past. Of course, the size-changing super-hero is able to get into that limited area, but quite frankly his adventures in the past was not what whetted my interest. I wanted to send a camera into the past. I wanted to take videos of everyday life, and I still do, now more than ever! Just imagine what you’d find out: Period sailing methods. Period fighting techniques. What the streets of a port looked like. How people dressed. What they carried around. How they cooked things. What superfluia was universally available and used but so commonplace that nobody mentioned them! Look at the little details we know of life in the American Civil War since the camera was not an artist cleaning things up!

Excuse me, I’m drooling. Getting a snapshot of everyday life in places such as the Oseberg burial is one thing. I think the Oseberg and the King Tut’s tombs are the most wonderful discoveries of archaeology during the twentieth century! But getting a video—or even just a physical snapshot—of a culture going about its usual job would make them pale in my mind! Miniaturizing a human visitor would, in that same mind, just be slightly superfluous!

Ah, fantasies. All of living history is a fantasy no matter how accurate you are or have to be. Maybe that is what makes this particular fantasy just so gosh-darn attractive!

Fictional books such as Harry Harrison’s The Technicolor Time Machine: The Movie Industry Has Discovered Time Travel–And Hollywood Will Never Be The Same (http://www.amazon.com/Technicolor-Time-Machine-Discovered-Travel–/dp/B003AWPZJ6/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307838313&sr=1-2 are fun to read and dream about. The Atom stories (http://www.amazon.com/Showcase-Presents-Atom-Vol-1/dp/1401213634/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307838086&sr=1-2) even more so. Just remember, that you can’t read the academic journals all of the time!

A. J. Hamler, Civil War Woodworking. Linden Publishing: 2009. ISBN  13: 978-1933502281

I was looking for an adz and figured that if the CU Woodshop—“Home of the Dream; http://www.facebook.com/pages/CU-Woodshop-Supply/470261515446—didn’t have it, I’d still have a great time wandering around. They didn’t but knew of someone who might be able to help; thanks! Then as I was looking through their book section and gravitated toward this, took a quick glance at what it offered and, hugging it to my bosom, bought it.

At first glance, a Viking reenactor might go, Oh, another Silly War book! It has nothing to do with me! How parochial. How close-minded. How wrong!

Anything that happens in living history, no matter what era, I important to anyone who wants top do living history. We go around in circles, reinventing the wheel, and often different elists for different eras will actually have the same thread or topic at the same time, approaching it from similar directions but totally separated by a thin barricade between them that someone else is doing the very same thing. The different eras—or factions if you prefer—are all earnest and resolute and very very proud that they’re doing this without any input. The fact that they are doing working twice as hard as they have to and duplicating efforts by others seems to be remote and unconsidered. And so they cannot see what something might offer because it is, alas, devoted to another era.

This volume is a dream. I would love to see an author put something tegether like this for the Viking Age, Its subtitle is listed on the cover: “17 Authentic Projects for Woodworkers and Reenactors.” Very true, but I’m afraid that it does not really cover the attractions of this volume. The Projects are neat enough, and there are actually a couple that can be altered slightly and made period for my era. The author has included photographs of the items being used during the American Civil War, something that is powerful and useful and would be impossible for most earlier eras (a Viking-Age equivalent would have to feature photographs of period artifacts, which some have done but too many have not, just noting the ambiguous ”inspired by” in many instances that even notes the original), and Hamler, a veteran woodworker and reenactor for more than fifteen years has the right stuff and approaches many philosophical points in a welcome, forthright and “take no bullcrap” way. For example, in a section on a folding stool, he notes:

“It’s one thing to make sure that a Civil War reproduction is accurate and period-correct, but it also has to be used correctly. The stool in this project is patterned after an original, so I know it’s correct. It would be complete inauthentic, however, if it were used by a private in a campaign scenario. When on campaign, marches of 20 miles a dat and more weren’t unusual, and the common foot soldier carried only what he absolutely needed to sustain him. Officers would have all kinds of comforts carried on wagons, but the only seat a foot soldier would have had was the sea of his pants. Th camp stool in this project is highly authentic, but sometimes the most authentic stool is none at all.” (p. 88)

Bravo! Something anyone trying to present an educational scene should heed, whether that scene is from the ACW or not. That attitude and the projects themselves make this volume useful, but it is the two opening sections of the book that makes it essential.

The first “Stepping Back in Time,” is a collection of wise and exacting essays on the philosophy and reality of living history, including “Authenticity and the Reenacting Community” and “How Authentic Can Your Project Really Be?” The essays are succinct and pertinent and gives such helpful things as the definition of “farb.” They are aimed toward reenacting of the ACW, of course, but any serious reenactor can read it and easily apply things to his own era, and they bring up matters which any reenactor should think about in regard hid own era. Very satisfying. The second section is “Bringing the Past to Life” and deals with period techniques and tools and is perhaps—but not always—irrelevant to other eras but, like the first section, can be applied in many instances to and bring up pertinent thoughts about other eras. It includes 19-century woodworking techniques but also talks about finishings, types of woods and such pertinent matters as cut nails. Also very satisfying. The worse thing is that in the author’s mind, it often seems that he think reenacting to be limited to his favorite era, but such an attitude can be overlooked and should not be duplicated in your own definitions!

But of course, hope against hope that someone will write a book or book dealing more specifically with the eras that you favor!

For buying a copy of this book, talk to your local woodworking shop, bookstore or head on over to the entry on Amazon.

Everyone seems to have certain preferred beliefs. Some of these are grounded in rationality and fact, but others seem to be a belief that fills you with satisfaction without any facts or, perhaps, disregarding any facts that disagree with your views. The old comedic phrase is “Don’t confuse me with facts; I know what I believe!” Hopefully, my beliefs are backed by facts and will change if new facts come to light; I was trained as a journalist and in those days at least, the journalist was taught to have a fluid and pragmatic view of reality. Journalism—at least when I learned it four decades ago—differed from academia, science, history, etc., where if you want to get ahead, you better reject any revisionism and tow the current line! My views, of course, may contain self-perpetuated blind spots, but I hope that I am being honest!

I cannot speak for such areas as science and academia since I am, believe, completely disassociated from these. On matters of history, I am much more familiar and far close closer. I know that there are certain beliefs that are sacred cows, if only because conventional historians have lectured me when I have espoused a revisionist theory that was brought about by reading facts set forth by revisionist theorists. This is not, of course, to say that I mindlessly follow any revisionist theory. Theories about the Roman Empire not being as bold and original as presented are backed by believable facts; conspiracy theories about John Wilkes Booth escaping with his life seem just a little too vague, ambiguous, capricious and contradictory, attempting to replacve facts only with unproven innuendo.

This sort of thing, of course, can be seen in modern history; look at the beliefs repeated by some people about Paul Revere’s ride for example. When we go farther back into history, into a period that is more vague and more open to interpretation, it increases. We do not know, for example, exactly what the clothes of the Viking Age looked like, and the interpretation of a hangeroc used by my group and that used by another might differ but both still be a legitimate interpretation. Vague literary description, occasional scraps of textile and ambiguous illustrations are all that we can go on. On the other hand, no matter how much some people might object, we know what these clothes did not look like (no horned helmets, no furry loin cloths, no bare chested Conanesque costuming, no polyester trim).

And it is there that we encounter more than a little bit of trouble. I think it is fair to note that the Norse might have included people of different races and appearances because they traveled very far, encountered these races and probably brought them back as thralls to the homeland. Seeing the acceptance of foreign beliefs–Christianity—indicates to me that it is likely that theories about conversion to Judiaism and Islam by Viking raiders are correct (although I stress that it the beliefs might be no more orthodox than Christian beliefs of the Vikings).

On the other hand, there are those who assert that the Vikings—they tend to use that term rather than the more correct Norse—were a pure Aryan race, not bringing in anyone of a different hair color, etc. At shows, we have been congratulated by racists for sticking to the Aryan ideal (these sots usually get angry and sullenly withdraw when we quickly and resolutely disagree), and low-brow humor has been poked at the appearance of non-Aryans in Viking movies. We have been lectured by Viking aficionados who are certain that the Norse rejected all efforts to turn to Christian beliefs, that they were independent people who always had their own way and who traveled everywhere. One such person was certain that many Norse heathens came to America and continued their heathen ways in secret after the conversion (and are vehement should you dare argue with their theory), that Asatru is just beliefs from the Viking Age brought out of hiding, that runes are just the Viking equivalent of tarot cards, etc. The same person who became apoplectic at the suggestion that some Vikings were black (this was presented into an academic article) a week later proudly pointed to the story of a Viking voyage to New Zealand and trumpeted its truth (this was presented in a magazine which also had articles about how space aliens influenced Terran culture).

Recently, a list of supposed devoted early medieval renactors has devolved into a series of increasingly far-fetched defenses of such things as the Kensington Stone, mooring stones in Minnesota and deification of the Norse beyond practicality (and the Vikings were, above all else, practical, believe it or believe the Christian propaganda!). My forehead hurts from the times I’ve facepalmed at a new defense of a hoax or new proof that something is a fact because they believe the hoax. It will probably continue, because the adherents believe they are right, and no amount of facts are going to make them change their minds! And I’m really surprised in one sense; no one has brought forward “Outlander” as documentation!

Loren Schultz of the Fellbjorg Vikings has noted an article on folks who have their beliefs and ignore contradicting facts at http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney. It deals with matters beyond the ready belief in Viking hoaxes, some pertinent to modern political thought, but it is well worth reading and—in many cases—ignoring! Of greater relevance to the subject is a new article by Christie Ward, the Viking Answer Lady—http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/Kensington.shtml—that deals with the Kensington Stone and other hoaxes and provides clear, understandable and fair facts. No doubt, and unfortunately, it will be ignored by a few people as well!