Moderator: Glen K
Ny Bjorn wrote:The Moshchevaya Balka caftans are quite different to the finds from Haithabu. The Hermitage's site have a good photo of one:here. (just click and zoom)
/N B
Ny Bjorn wrote:Christ on a bicycle Mord!
Lamm and Nylén wrote the first title and Lindqvist's books are called "Gotlands Bildsteine" 1 & 2.
Now - write it a hundred times before sunrise...
/N B
Cap'n Atli wrote:But we've got to have belt pouches! How else will we be able to carry our reading glasses, driving glasses, heart medications and cell 'phones on the field?
Timothy_D_Finkas wrote:Ny Bjorn wrote:Here's a scan of how Inga Hägg imagine the garment Caithlinn have in mind.
/N B
Again, that's awfully close to what Scythian men (300BC?) are pictured as wearing. The Scythian coat does overlap though and seems to have a V neck (bathrobe style but w/o lapels).
Tim
crazysaxon wrote:Just want to say that one of the things i was tought in university is that becouse somthing can not be proven with solid archelogical evedance, dosnt mean it is any less possible or fesable.
guthrothr wrote:crazysaxon wrote:Just want to say that one of the things i was tought in university is that becouse somthing can not be proven with solid archelogical evedance, dosnt mean it is any less possible or fesable.
Hi
your comment is true, but within mainstream re-enactment - as opposed to the SCA - re-enactors are expected to be able to prove their case and not exist on possible or feasible.
There do exist areas in which extrapolation is acceptable, such as Viking-age trousers, but generally if you are to make an honest presentation then everything you wear have or do should be supported by some evidence. If you have to wear something that can't be justified by archeology then:
a) you need to have some other solid evidence from the period (the sagas don't count for this as they were all written down hundreds of years after the events described).
b) you need to be able to make a coherant case to explain your position.
Anyway, if we stick to the evidenvce, as far as I am aware, there is NO evidence AT ALL from AYWHERE of Byzantine lamellar in Scandanavia. Tibetan or Khazak lamellar, yes, but not Byzantine.
For someone who likes to slam the SCA for being inauthentic, I have noticed that you lack a certain amount of documentation. I'm willing to believe you, but I can't. What are your sources? Where do we find them? What is the speciality of your archaeologist friend--and what is this persons name?
The SCA is not perfect, but there are those of us in the Society who do name their sources. Why can't you?
Mord.
but within mainstream re-enactment - as opposed to the SCA - re-enactors are expected to be able to prove their case and not exist on possible or feasible
Timothy_D_Finkas wrote:
Hey, it all seems to be on-topic! Say, is there a Viking forum online anywhere that concentrates on this stuff?
Skoal,
Tim
sarnac wrote:where would one find the puttee's that were referenced in this thread?
I am assuming Military surplus....but I have looked and they are mostly modern stuff.
Part of the 1997 treasure from Ocksarve. Two treasures have previously been found on the farm's property. The 1997 treasure will be displayed at Gotland's Historical Museum. It weighs about 3 kg and consists of a couple of hundred coins but mostly of silver pieces and raw material. The coins originate mainly from Germany, but there are some from Denmark, England, Italy, Bohemia, and the Byzantine Empire. The coins dates the hoard to 999 A.D.
guthrothr wrote:For someone who likes to slam the SCA for being inauthentic, I have noticed that you lack a certain amount of documentation. I'm willing to believe you, but I can't. What are your sources? Where do we find them? What is the speciality of your archaeologist friend--and what is this persons name?
The SCA is not perfect, but there are those of us in the Society who do name their sources. Why can't you?
Mord.
The source for which bit ?
If you mean the Tibetan/Khazak lamellar, that was referenced by an article that Halvgrim had translated and posted to his personal webspace. the reference to that was very early in this thread.
If you my comment:but within mainstream re-enactment - as opposed to the SCA - re-enactors are expected to be able to prove their case and not exist on possible or feasible
I'm sorry you feel that I was slamming. It's just a fact of life. I know a number of individual SCA-ers who's presentation is first class and better than some I see at UK events. The difference is that the SCA doesn't require that level of proof, and 'could have' or 'might have' while a common and acceptable excuse in the SCA is not acceptable in re-enactment.
If that isn't it, please explain which piece of my comment are you on about ?
Guthroth of Colanhomm
SCA member and working to try to save my shire going down the pan.
Let me begin with the lamellar. Halvgrim has explained that--you haven't. You said, eariler, you have archaeologist friend--who? What's their speciality? I've been on a dig-- that doens't make me an expert on archaeology.
Trousers--everybody else is looking at the pictorial information from the what I suspect is the Gotland Stones. I named my source (even if I did mis-spell the title).
guthroth wrote:Hi
The are covered by this thread is probably big enough to warrant several different ones, but here's my opinion.[*]LAMELLAR- Lamellar is out. There's no solid evidence of it's use by Norse during the period.
Can't argue with that one. The finds from Birka are very interesting but according to an archeologist friend, they come from a portion of the burial ground which was used by people with a lot of VERY non-Scandanavian burial practices. When this evidence is combined with the newly translated article on Halvgrimr's webspace which places the location of the manufacture of the Birka lames in Tibet or Siberia, the idea of Vikings running around in Lamellar is just not tenable.
Comments about Vikings going to Byzantium and 'bringing their armour home' are not very likely. Byzantine armies were organised with depots and the troops issued with equipment from stores. IMO the chances of an ex-Varangian bringing home is Lamellar armour are about as likely as a modern US army regular being allowed to bring his rifle and body armour home when his time was served.[*]BIG BELT POUCHES- No large belt pouches. Purses were small, probably used for money, and may or may not have been worn exposed on the belt.
Finds from Denmark and Sweden suggest they may have been worn as a high status display item, rather than as a viking-age handbag. They certainly were never worn with armour. When moving about a LH site a shoulder bag is actually a more practical item, and that does have room for snack food like apples as well. Any worn should be based on the ones from archeology, and not the modern thick leather 'box' style. I just wish we could persuade the traders not to sell the blasted things.[*]GAMBESONS- No evidence of gambesons worn under the mail or gambesons worn alone ar armour.
Again, despite the very persuasive argument that they must have worn something under a ring shirt I can't really disagree. The only direct evidence for them in N Europe is post 1st Crusade, and all the modern words we use have a southern European origin. Personally, I believe that the existance of padded armour in warmer climates was bought about by:
1) the need to protect against an enemy who used lots of archery and slashing swords
2) the need to have a decent layer of protection over the top of the very thin - silk and cotton - clothing normally worn in warmer climes
Again just my opinion, but I reckon the reasons the North never developed them are
1) they are of limited value against the main weapon of the free warrior - the heavy thrusting spear
2) simply putting on 3 or 4 homespun woolen kyrtles will provide almost as much protection and will be warmer.[*]HATS-Only scant evidence for hats. They might not have commonly worn them. Only depiction of hats in period iconography can also be explained as helms. Most hat styles worn by re-enactors are suspect. No evidence for fur trim on hats.
Hats are Ok, it's the style that is causing the problem. If you need or want one I reccomend a simple 'skull-cap' design maybe with some simple embroidery around the edge. Neat not gaudy. The Gotland ones - again - seem to be taking the style to it's extreme and may have been influenced by fashions from elsewhere.[*]HIGH BOOTS- No calf-high boots, though every other re-enactor in "Vikings...Photographs" seems to be wearing them.
The highest adult footwear found come up to about mid-calf and (IIRC) have 1 fixing just above the foot. The oft-worn sea boots apparently come from the mis-interpretation and photocopier enlargement of a drawing childs boot.[*]WIDE BELTS- Belt width was fairly narrow, with the average being 0.75".
Again, this is what all the archeology says. I think we've now finally buried the idea of carved weightlifting belts being worn as 'armour'.[*]DECK TENTS- "Viking" tents with solid frames being used on land very suspect, having been drawn from one example that is part of a ship burial. It's the frame that's suspect---not the use of tents.
The traditional re-enactment Viking tent is well supported by the major finds, but probably should really only be for Kings or Jarls. I use hollywood references very sparingly, but for something more appropriate to a warrior on campaign, there is a very short sequence in the LOTR 3 film where they are riding through the camp of the Rohirrim and they pass a number of small tents with a raised front and a low back, about big enough for one or two men. They are very similar to a style of tents still being used by fishermen on the Lofoten Is in the 19thC and would make a useful counterpoint to the big 'Kings' tent.[*]SWORD BELT- swords believed to have been carried on baldics not waist belts.
Agreed. the chest strap also helps hold the armour in place when running and it is easier to wear a baldric when riding a horse as well.[*]WOMEN'S APRONS- the overdress was for many years a straight tube. It has been reinterpreted as a tapered tube (ala the Birka Valkerie figural plate).
Not really my area, but generally my view agrees with this.
Michael B addedSplinted limb armour - isn't this based on a Vendel find from well before the Viking period, and perhaps something in the far East?
Right on both cases. The Arm splints from Sweden are pre-Viking and I believe they had been abandoned by the Byzantines by 800 as well.Baggy trousers aren't found everywhere - hose or narrow trousers seem to be more prevalent.
Ny Bjorn addedBaggy trousers are to be seen on, at least, two Gotlandic picturestones and on a copper alloy figure from Uppåkra (Sweden). And then of course there's the find from Haithabu's harbour, interpreted as parts of a pair of baggy trousers by Inga Hägg in her report on the textile finds
Agree with both. The Baggy trousers appear to be a distinctly Eastern tradition, and seem to be unknown in Norway, Iceland, Danelaw or Ireland. Hose or loose trousers were musch more common, with hose becoming the norm - at least for the moderately wealthy - by the end of the Viking era.[*]LEG WRAPS- Never worn in a criss-cross fashion but worn in a sprial overlap fashion (just like WWI puttees)
Legwraps - Puttees - Winningas - all the same thing. Ubiquitous in A-S England and optional for Vikings whether they wear trousers or hosen. I think the criss-cross thing is a Frankish custom, rather than Norse. so OK for Normans.Belts as part of women's dress, at least with metal fittings - I understand that the finds are limited.
Very much a current argument. Apparently very rare in an A-S context, but supported by a very small number of finds in Scotland and Scandanavia. I suspect that a woman working around a fire wore one but, given the variability of a womans waistline they were most probably fabric or tablet woven not leather. If you accept the current theory that Hangeroks were worn only as part of the Viking equivalent of 'Sunday Best',the idea of wearing a belt with a hangerok is even less plausible. Someone dressed to impress would not spend her time stirring the pot, and so wouldn't need to keep it tied back out of the way.
This is very much a modern re-enactor problem, in that all the ladies want the best clothing found, but are then apparently happy to cook while wearing it.Tortoise shell brooches for every woman, all through the period and everywhere! - I understand that they are more restricted to the earlier parts of the period - 9th C?
Apparently more common than previously believed, but definately going out of fashion at the end of the 9thC. Their decline may have been linked to the Christianisation of the Norse, especially relevant given the latest find of a possibly 9thC Christian church in S Norway.GeneriVikings, with kit from all over the place (particularly jewellry, belt fittings etc).
Also known as the 'Pick-And-Mix' Viking. We try to get our guys to be consistant with items like this, and have them all from one culture or style. We do allow a single out-of-culture piece, but only if the person wearing it can give a decent explanation - one that would satisfy a member of the public - as to why that piece is so different and how he got hold of it.
James B saidhave heard complaints about the rough cut junk amber before. Basicly there is only one find on amber and it was nicelt polished not just chunks on a string like many reenactors and SCA folk wear
I am told that the chunk stuff went out of use about the time of Christ. Apart from those associated with workshops, all Viking-age finds are worked pieces, cut shaped and often polished as well.
Albrecht saidthink you could add "Long, dangling belt-ends" to the list
This comes in two types. The SCA-type reaching to the floor are not supported by the archeology, but there is still evidence for belts that reach down to mid thigh in a Viking context. There is some unpublished evidence for metal belt loops being used to tidy the belt up just like we do today, but its adoption as Cannon Law by at least one society the archeologists are still out on this one.
I will add one thing to this thread - Men should not be wearing masses of beads - of any kind.
Grave finds support a pendant on its own - which could be amber, jet, (or any other semiprecious stone) or pewter, bronze or silver - or maybe a metal pendant with one or two beads on the same string but that's all. Otherwise it's the ladies who wear all the good stuff - Sorry Guys
As a final treat, attached is a photo taken at a Vikings event last weekend in Ontario. It shows Ragnar of Torvik facing an unfeasibly large looking Edward of Wynmerestow. Someone has already commented on how it looks much more like David vs Goliath
Sir Mord wrote:Kindly read your first paragraph of your first post, Guthroth. Your archaeologist friend seems to have a lot to say. But who this person?
In fact, your first post doesn't quote or name any sources that anybody can use. The only folks you do quote are on this list.
In short, you don't document your sources, Guthroth.
guthrothr wrote:Sir Mord wrote:Kindly read your first paragraph of your first post, Guthroth. Your archaeologist friend seems to have a lot to say. But who this person?
In fact, your first post doesn't quote or name any sources that anybody can use. The only folks you do quote are on this list.
In short, you don't document your sources, Guthroth.
My apologies.
I fully intended to come back and post the book concerned. It is:
Birka: The Burial Customs - A Study of the Graves on Bjorko
(A-.S.Graslund)
I was quoted from it, and have subsequently ordered it for my own use.
The archeologist concerned is a personal friend who works in the North of England full time as a site leader. I would rather not name him here, as his access to the net is limited and he cannot speak or defend his opinions on his own behalf.
Robert P. Norwalt wrote:...Where folks so different back then? Before politically correct America? Cut it out kiddy's. Yer dealing with grown up's here.
I said all that to say this. I'm still wearing lamellar.
