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 added
Splinted 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 added
Baggy 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 said
have 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 said
think 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
