Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Norsefolk] New clothing reconstructions (really long!)

Expand Messages
  • Carolyn Priest-Dorman
    ... Nice tablet weaving. ; But jeepers creepers, this site sure runs slowly from my site! It s taken the best part of two days for me to get a look at the
    Message 1 of 17 , May 30, 2002
      Jorunn wrote:

      >I found a new (to me) site with clothing reconstructions.
      >http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/drakt.htm
      >Some of the stuff looks nice, I have to wonder about some of the choices
      >though.
      >
      >Opinions? Discussion?

      Nice tablet weaving. ;> But jeepers creepers, this site sure runs slowly
      from my site! It's taken the best part of two days for me to get a look at
      the Viking Age clothing--and that's without viewing the large .jpgs. And I
      still haven't read/translated a good deal of it; mostly I've skimmed for
      specific information. (Swedish is not my first, second, third, fourth, or
      even fifth language....) So this is just a preliminary take. Also, I see
      Inga Hagg is credited (along with about 75 other people) for this project,
      although it's not clear what her role was. Looking at some of the design
      decisions, I have to wonder....

      Okay.... For women's dress, we have the following: tenth-century
      Birka-style pleated underdress, tenth-century Hedeby-style overdress,
      tenth-century Hedeby-style apron-dress, and ninth-century Norwegian shoes.
      Oh, and unprovenanced (read "made-up") headwear. I'll take them point by
      point.

      Underdress -- The cut more or less conforms to what we know of Birka
      garments: no shoulder seams, slit front neckline. I don't know why the
      armholes are curved, since no mention of that is made in anything I've read
      about Birka. The pleating is sweet, and you can see the needle holes that
      remain from the needle pleating the entire garment was given. However, the
      pleats are not nearly as deep and full as the ones in the actual remains
      (inside several oval brooches). And I'm not convinced that the intensive
      labor of needle pleating the arms like they've done (see all the parallel
      rows of pinpricks going around the arms?) would have been justifiable.
      Also, what's with the overlay on back of the neck?

      Overdress -- This is unusual. The scoop neck and shoulder seams and
      rounded armholes are typical Hedeby stuff. But the doubled side gores,
      with their curved upper ends, are nothing so much as post-Viking
      Herjolfsnes, especially when taken in conjunction with the front and back
      gores! The sleeves are Hedeby too. And according to the text the bodice
      (with its "overlay" style ornament) is from Birka Grave 735. Now for the
      critique. First, the sleeves. I have made a full-scale replica of the
      Hedeby sleeve on which this is based. To begin with, it's much too small
      for me to wear (might have been a pubescent child's sleeve). Additionally,
      the secondary pieces (there are two in the original rather than the one
      used in this reconstruction) are much smaller in comparison to the large
      main piece than this reconstruction would have them. Further, the
      two-color construction resembles nothing so much as a patch, that is,
      second and third pieces of cloth sewn where an original piece had worn out.
      It's such a weird piece, Hagg even speculates that it could have been an
      ornamental sleeve (like on some of those later period overgarments, with
      hanging sleeves that were never to be put on) rather than a functional one.
      Now, the silk overlay bodice with tablet weaving. I'm okay on the concept
      of applique on the chest of women's tunics in the 10th century, but I don't
      think I like this take on it. I have combed through Geijer, Hagg (1974)
      and Hagg (1986) in search of this. Geijer and Hagg 1986 appear to be in
      accord that the Grave 735 overlay comes from a *man's* tunic and not a
      woman's. I have not translated all the Swedish in Hagg 1974, but there's a
      lot of it about this grave, and maybe she had some different theories then.
      If she did, then it may be that the researchers used Hagg 1974 to support
      their use of this overlay on a woman's gown. (The original overlay had 11
      bands, by the way, not two, and it was rectangular in shape rather than
      bodice-shaped.)

      Apron-Dress -- Now this looks familiar. ;> They've done the full-length
      side gores (which lead to the fitted look). I cannot tell you how
      gratifying it is to finally see a museum using this interpretation,
      although it's still a modification of the original which has one
      straight-grain edge on the side gores. It's based on the 10th century
      Hedeby stuff, though, not on anything from Birka. The fabric seems to be a
      balanced tabby weave (does that sound right? I didn't see any specifics
      mentioned in the website), which is not the textile I'd choose. Based on
      the number of broken lozenge twills and repps (= unbalanced tabby) among
      the the extant Birka apron-dress finds, I'd have chosen one of those weaves
      instead. It's difficult to see the details of the strap, particularly the
      end of the longer strap. I would like to know if it's a tight little loop
      or, like the finds, a larger loose loop. I've done both, and there's not
      much of a performance difference between the two, but the loose loop looks
      pretty much identical to the finds, while the tight one doesn't.

      Headcovering -- The website seems to acknowledge that not much is known
      about headwear, and that the scarf is not necessarily correct. They've
      chosen to edge their linen headcovering with a wool braid, which reminds me
      a bit of the treatment on the edges of the Dublin caps. I wish they'd
      elected to follow one of the Birka graves and used a tablet woven headband,
      fillet, or diadem like the ten or twelve such that were found in women's
      graves there!

      For civic men's dress, we have the following: undertunic, "caftan" (I'd
      call what they've made a Hedeby-style jacket), Pumphose (balloon pants),
      belt and pouch, and cap. Again, I'll take them point by point.

      Undertunic -- Other than the curved armholes (not a Birka element), there
      are no particular problems with the cut of this, although I do wonder why
      he's not wearing some sort of a closure device at the keyhole. But then
      again, my husband lets his necklines gape open too, which drives me mad but
      never seems to bother him. (Is this a guy thing?)

      Pumphose -- Hmmm. Unexpected. This pattern is somewhat modified from the
      Hedeby one, which is pretty close to Thorsbjerg at least in crotch
      construction. I don't quite understand the wide square panel across the
      base of the spine. It doesn't seem to convey any advantage, and it must
      have been fiddly to insert. The long crotch strip seems unnecessary given
      the very wide "rise" of the crotch, too. Also, what's the closure method
      for the waist and leg bands, I wonder?

      Caftan -- Not sure about that trapezoidal back neckhole. I'd call this a
      jacket, myself. But Hagg merely comments that the caftan from that
      particular grave (832) had no buttons evident, so maybe their take on the
      concept is that the ones with no evident buttons were wraparounds like
      this. (Another possible answer is that the missing buttons were
      organic--e.g., wood, textile, bone--and decayed.) However, Grave 832 also
      had the remnants of what Hagg thinks could have been an ornamental
      non-leather belt (silk, with passement knots), which makes me wonder why
      there's a leather belt in this ensemble. Also, the Grave 832 caftan was
      ornamented with strips of silk twill and passement knots, although this one
      isn't.

      Legwrappers -- Blue herringbone twill, very snazzy. ;> But I'm puzzled by
      the lack of anything under them, like stockings or maybe even hose. Also,
      I wonder why they're secured with little penannular brooches?

      Hat -- How nice to see a Viking hat without fur!!! The cutting draft
      seems based on the Moscevaja Balka caps (some of which were for the inside
      of helms), with their tapered sections that fit together into a round
      crown. Or maybe based on some of those Roman Iron Age caps from the
      Netherlands? I dunno for sure. But the website says it's based on Birka
      958. That seems a little weird to me because Hagg (1986) says that 958 has
      no headcovering. But the hat from Grave 832, that went with the caftan
      (remember the caftan from above, based on Grave 832?), was a Type B. And
      this is a pretty fair take on a Type B hat. The TW band seems like a
      standard mount with its silk ground strip.

      Belt and Pouch -- I'm not so sure about the pouch, but they source it to
      Jämtland and I haven't figured out what the rest of that paragraph says
      yet. The leather pouch with buckle and strap-end is something that's more
      often found with the buttoned caftan than with the caftan without evident
      buttons, which type they seem to be interpreting as a wraparound jacket.

      Shoes -- Basic ankle boot with tie, okay.

      For fighting man's soft clothes, ;> we have the following: undertunic,
      Pumphose, overtunic, shoes. Again, I'll take them point by point.

      Undertunic -- Well, it's nice to see some good publicly available .gifs of
      the Viborg shirt out there in cyberspace, even if they *didn't* base their
      undertunic on it. ;> It's not clear to me what pattern they *did* use,
      though; there doesn't seem to be a link to the cutting draft the way there
      are on so many of the other garments.

      Pumphose -- These appear to have drawstrings at waist and knees. To the
      best of my knowledge, drawstrings are not present in the Viking Age find
      corpus. The closest mechanism is the Viborg tunic's neck closure, which
      has been tentatively reconstructed to include two short ties that slip
      through knots; but even that's not a drawstring run through a casing, like
      these.

      Overtunic -- No big surprises here; they seem to have gone with the Hedeby
      model again. Scoop neck, curved armholes, shoulder seams. (I couldn't get
      the .pdf for this to print properly.)

      Shoes -- Those boots are too high. The basic look is taken from Hedeby
      Type 8 shoes (my favorite of all the Viking Age shoe types), but none of
      the originals extend that far up the leg. Also, that looks like a really
      thick, non-turnshoe type sole--and is that a separate stack heel I'm seeing???

      Okay, that's enough for now, until I get a better look at the whole site.
      Anybody else got comments?


      Carolyn Priest-Dorman Þóra Sharptooth
      http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/thora.html

      "Never trust anything that can think for itself if
      you can't see where it keeps its brain."
      -- J.K. Rowling
    • Schuster, Robert L.
      Thora gave a nice breakdown and then said: Okay, that s enough for now, until I get a better look at the whole site. Anybody else got comments? 2 things 1)
      Message 2 of 17 , May 30, 2002
        Thora gave a nice breakdown and then said:




        Okay, that's enough for now, until I get a better look at the whole site.
        Anybody else got comments?




        2 things

        1) your simply amazing
        2) you mentioned:

        Legwrappers -- Blue herringbone twill, very snazzy. ;> But I'm puzzled by
        the lack of anything under them, like stockings or maybe even hose. Also,
        I wonder why they're secured with little penannular brooches?

        ---ack, im starting to wear winingas to fight in and was considering this method (as im afraid the 'hooks' might tear the bindings when put under alot of pressure (as in a big fat guy going to his knees to fight;)

        i have also seen a few of the UK reenactors use some sort of belt/garter to secure the bindings, do you have any definite info on this set up?

        Halvgrimr




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • scott weaver
        wow Carolyn you seem to know a lot about the clothing! let me ask you this do you have any paterns that you could send me for mens clothing? thanks... scott
        Message 3 of 17 , May 30, 2002
          wow Carolyn you seem to know a lot about the clothing!
          let me ask you this do you have any paterns that you
          could send me for mens clothing? thanks... scott


          --- Carolyn Priest-Dorman <capriest@...>
          wrote:
          > Jorunn wrote:
          >
          > >I found a new (to me) site with clothing
          > reconstructions.
          > >http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/drakt.htm
          > >Some of the stuff looks nice, I have to wonder
          > about some of the choices
          > >though.
          > >
          > >Opinions? Discussion?
          >
          > Nice tablet weaving. ;> But jeepers creepers, this
          > site sure runs slowly
          > from my site! It's taken the best part of two days
          > for me to get a look at
          > the Viking Age clothing--and that's without viewing
          > the large .jpgs. And I
          > still haven't read/translated a good deal of it;
          > mostly I've skimmed for
          > specific information. (Swedish is not my first,
          > second, third, fourth, or
          > even fifth language....) So this is just a
          > preliminary take. Also, I see
          > Inga Hagg is credited (along with about 75 other
          > people) for this project,
          > although it's not clear what her role was. Looking
          > at some of the design
          > decisions, I have to wonder....
          >
          > Okay.... For women's dress, we have the following:
          > tenth-century
          > Birka-style pleated underdress, tenth-century
          > Hedeby-style overdress,
          > tenth-century Hedeby-style apron-dress, and
          > ninth-century Norwegian shoes.
          > Oh, and unprovenanced (read "made-up") headwear.
          > I'll take them point by
          > point.
          >
          > Underdress -- The cut more or less conforms to what
          > we know of Birka
          > garments: no shoulder seams, slit front neckline.
          > I don't know why the
          > armholes are curved, since no mention of that is
          > made in anything I've read
          > about Birka. The pleating is sweet, and you can see
          > the needle holes that
          > remain from the needle pleating the entire garment
          > was given. However, the
          > pleats are not nearly as deep and full as the ones
          > in the actual remains
          > (inside several oval brooches). And I'm not
          > convinced that the intensive
          > labor of needle pleating the arms like they've done
          > (see all the parallel
          > rows of pinpricks going around the arms?) would have
          > been justifiable.
          > Also, what's with the overlay on back of the neck?
          >
          > Overdress -- This is unusual. The scoop neck and
          > shoulder seams and
          > rounded armholes are typical Hedeby stuff. But the
          > doubled side gores,
          > with their curved upper ends, are nothing so much as
          > post-Viking
          > Herjolfsnes, especially when taken in conjunction
          > with the front and back
          > gores! The sleeves are Hedeby too. And according
          > to the text the bodice
          > (with its "overlay" style ornament) is from Birka
          > Grave 735. Now for the
          > critique. First, the sleeves. I have made a
          > full-scale replica of the
          > Hedeby sleeve on which this is based. To begin
          > with, it's much too small
          > for me to wear (might have been a pubescent child's
          > sleeve). Additionally,
          > the secondary pieces (there are two in the original
          > rather than the one
          > used in this reconstruction) are much smaller in
          > comparison to the large
          > main piece than this reconstruction would have them.
          > Further, the
          > two-color construction resembles nothing so much as
          > a patch, that is,
          > second and third pieces of cloth sewn where an
          > original piece had worn out.
          > It's such a weird piece, Hagg even speculates that
          > it could have been an
          > ornamental sleeve (like on some of those later
          > period overgarments, with
          > hanging sleeves that were never to be put on) rather
          > than a functional one.
          > Now, the silk overlay bodice with tablet weaving.
          > I'm okay on the concept
          > of applique on the chest of women's tunics in the
          > 10th century, but I don't
          > think I like this take on it. I have combed through
          > Geijer, Hagg (1974)
          > and Hagg (1986) in search of this. Geijer and Hagg
          > 1986 appear to be in
          > accord that the Grave 735 overlay comes from a
          > *man's* tunic and not a
          > woman's. I have not translated all the Swedish in
          > Hagg 1974, but there's a
          > lot of it about this grave, and maybe she had some
          > different theories then.
          > If she did, then it may be that the researchers
          > used Hagg 1974 to support
          > their use of this overlay on a woman's gown. (The
          > original overlay had 11
          > bands, by the way, not two, and it was rectangular
          > in shape rather than
          > bodice-shaped.)
          >
          > Apron-Dress -- Now this looks familiar. ;> They've
          > done the full-length
          > side gores (which lead to the fitted look). I
          > cannot tell you how
          > gratifying it is to finally see a museum using this
          > interpretation,
          > although it's still a modification of the original
          > which has one
          > straight-grain edge on the side gores. It's based
          > on the 10th century
          > Hedeby stuff, though, not on anything from Birka.
          > The fabric seems to be a
          > balanced tabby weave (does that sound right? I
          > didn't see any specifics
          > mentioned in the website), which is not the textile
          > I'd choose. Based on
          > the number of broken lozenge twills and repps (=
          > unbalanced tabby) among
          > the the extant Birka apron-dress finds, I'd have
          > chosen one of those weaves
          > instead. It's difficult to see the details of the
          > strap, particularly the
          > end of the longer strap. I would like to know if
          > it's a tight little loop
          > or, like the finds, a larger loose loop. I've done
          > both, and there's not
          > much of a performance difference between the two,
          > but the loose loop looks
          > pretty much identical to the finds, while the tight
          > one doesn't.
          >
          > Headcovering -- The website seems to acknowledge
          > that not much is known
          > about headwear, and that the scarf is not
          > necessarily correct. They've
          > chosen to edge their linen headcovering with a wool
          > braid, which reminds me
          > a bit of the treatment on the edges of the Dublin
          > caps. I wish they'd
          > elected to follow one of the Birka graves and used a
          > tablet woven headband,
          > fillet, or diadem like the ten or twelve such that
          > were found in women's
          > graves there!
          >
          > For civic men's dress, we have the following:
          > undertunic, "caftan" (I'd
          > call what they've made a Hedeby-style jacket),
          > Pumphose (balloon pants),
          > belt and pouch, and cap. Again, I'll take them
          > point by point.
          >
          > Undertunic -- Other than the curved armholes (not a
          > Birka element), there
          > are no particular problems with the cut of this,
          > although I do wonder why
          > he's not wearing some sort of a closure device at
          > the keyhole. But then
          > again, my husband lets his necklines gape open too,
          > which drives me mad but
          > never seems to bother him. (Is this a guy thing?)
          >
          > Pumphose -- Hmmm. Unexpected. This pattern is
          > somewhat modified from the
          > Hedeby one, which is pretty close to Thorsbjerg at
          > least in crotch
          > construction. I don't quite understand the wide
          > square panel across the
          > base of the spine. It doesn't seem to convey any
          > advantage, and it must
          > have been fiddly to insert. The long crotch strip
          > seems unnecessary given
          > the very wide "rise" of the crotch, too. Also,
          > what's the closure method
          > for the waist and leg bands, I wonder?
          >
          > Caftan -- Not sure about that trapezoidal back
          > neckhole. I'd call this a
          > jacket, myself. But Hagg merely comments that the
          > caftan from that
          > particular grave (832) had no buttons evident, so
          > maybe their take on the
          > concept is that the ones with no evident buttons
          > were wraparounds like
          > this. (Another possible answer is that the missing
          > buttons were
          >
          === message truncated ===


          =====
          It takes a village to raise a child, it takes a VIKING to raze a village!

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
          http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
        • Carolyn Priest-Dorman
          ... method (as im afraid the hooks might tear the bindings when put under alot of pressure (as in a big fat guy going to his knees to fight;)
          Message 4 of 17 , May 30, 2002
            Halvgrimr wrote:

            >>Legwrappers -- Blue herringbone twill, very snazzy. ;> But I'm puzzled by
            >>the lack of anything under them, like stockings or maybe even hose. Also,
            >>I wonder why they're secured with little penannular brooches?
            >
            >---ack, im starting to wear winingas to fight in and was considering this
            method (as im afraid the 'hooks' might tear the bindings when put under
            alot of pressure (as in a big fat guy going to his knees to fight;) <

            After winding them, my husband (225 lb, but no armour any more) simply
            tucks the ends into the tops of his. They manage to stay up, though, even
            when he does archery (crossbow, he uses a sitting position), goes into
            court, and does woodworking in camp. Doesn't seem to be a problem for him,
            although from all the buzz this issue has generated over the years I gather
            some people have real problems with it. He never let me try the hook
            method on him, as he was afraid it would interfere with his crossbow
            stance. (That was back when he was competing regularly.) So I don't have
            any direct experience with it.

            The brooch solution sure does seem like a puncture wound waiting to happen.
            Wouldn't want to take a shot to that area, that's for sure! Besides, I
            can't doc it. ;>

            >i have also seen a few of the UK reenactors use some sort of belt/garter
            to secure the bindings, do you have any definite info on this set up?<

            I think they must be going on the evidence of depictions. Parts of the
            Bayeux Tapestry show this sort of gartering, as do some manuscript
            illuminations. And remember, as much as we'd like them all to be Vikings,
            they still have that inexplicable Anglo-Saxon and Norman bias over there. ;>

            I haven't seen anything to support this in Viking Age graves, but there may
            be something in the Frankish, Norman, or A-S corpus. The Franks especially
            seemed to really like fancy little garters; maybe the Normans inherited that.

            My husband hates garters, even the all-cloth ones; he says they give him
            much more trouble than the legwrappers.


            Carolyn Priest-Dorman Þóra Sharptooth
            http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/thora.html

            "Never trust anything that can think for itself if
            you can't see where it keeps its brain."
            -- J.K. Rowling
          • Becky Day
            ... It is rather a mish-mash, isn t it? If you look at the large picture of the tunika/overdress layer, there are these two gold thingees that look like they
            Message 5 of 17 , May 30, 2002
              Thora wrote:

              >Okay, that's enough for now, until I get a better look at the whole site.
              >Anybody else got comments?

              It is rather a mish-mash, isn't it?

              If you look at the large picture of the tunika/overdress layer, there are these two gold thingees that look like they are holding the bib (well, that's what it looks like to me, anyway). What are they supposed to be?

              However, I think the apron dress is something other than tabby. Go to the close up jpeg of the straps - http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/drakter/vkvinna/storhangsle4.htm
              I think it's some type of twill, but the resolution on my monitor isn't good enough to work it out.

              I really wish I read Swedish.

              Fun site, though, and I loved Thora's critique. You go, girl...

              Mairghread






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • jamesahowell@juno.com
              I d love to know what they are using for documentation for their belt pouches. I have been making mine like this for years, but they are based on later period
              Message 6 of 17 , May 30, 2002
                I'd love to know what they are using for documentation for their
                belt pouches. I have been making mine like this for years, but they are
                based on later period illustrations and guess work from things like
                Sutton Hoo. The only doco for pouches I know of are: the cloth one from
                Birka that they use for this site-
                http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~gnott/Miklagard/Costume/Rus/Trader/Rus_desc
                ription.html
                Plus the Birka coin wallet, the Irish book budgets, and some Anglo-Saxon
                pouches that I have heard about but never seen the writeups on, and of
                course, Sutton Hoo.
                I think the big thing on wicklebander is adequate overlap of each
                wrap, so that you can take advantage of wool's vecro-like properties.
                Þhora, I don't know what problem you were having, it loaded
                pretty quickly for me, and I am running something just slightly more
                advanced than an adding machine ;-{)> Maybe you just caught them during
                a high traffic time.

                Regards, Finnr

                On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:12:19 -0400 Carolyn Priest-Dorman
                <capriest@...> writes:
                > Jorunn wrote:
                >
                > >I found a new (to me) site with clothing reconstructions.
                > >http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/drakt.htm
                > >Some of the stuff looks nice, I have to wonder about some of the
                > choices
                > >though.
                > >
                > >Opinions? Discussion?
                >
                > Nice tablet weaving. ;> But jeepers creepers, this site sure runs
                > slowly
                > from my site! It's taken the best part of two days for me to get a
                > look at
                > the Viking Age clothing--and that's without viewing the large .jpgs.
                > And I
                > still haven't read/translated a good deal of it; mostly I've skimmed
                > for
                > specific information. (Swedish is not my first, second, third,
                > fourth, or
                > even fifth language....) So this is just a preliminary take. Also,
                > I see
                > Inga Hagg is credited (along with about 75 other people) for this
                > project,
                > although it's not clear what her role was. Looking at some of the
                > design
                > decisions, I have to wonder....
                >
                > Okay.... For women's dress, we have the following: tenth-century
                > Birka-style pleated underdress, tenth-century Hedeby-style
                > overdress,
                > tenth-century Hedeby-style apron-dress, and ninth-century Norwegian
                > shoes.
                > Oh, and unprovenanced (read "made-up") headwear. I'll take them
                > point by
                > point.
                >
                > Underdress -- The cut more or less conforms to what we know
                > of Birka
                > garments: no shoulder seams, slit front neckline. I don't know why
                > the
                > armholes are curved, since no mention of that is made in anything
                > I've read
                > about Birka. The pleating is sweet, and you can see the needle
                > holes that
                > remain from the needle pleating the entire garment was given.
                > However, the
                > pleats are not nearly as deep and full as the ones in the actual
                > remains
                > (inside several oval brooches). And I'm not convinced that the
                > intensive
                > labor of needle pleating the arms like they've done (see all the
                > parallel
                > rows of pinpricks going around the arms?) would have been
                > justifiable.
                > Also, what's with the overlay on back of the neck?
                >
                > Overdress -- This is unusual. The scoop neck and shoulder
                > seams and
                > rounded armholes are typical Hedeby stuff. But the doubled side
                > gores,
                > with their curved upper ends, are nothing so much as post-Viking
                > Herjolfsnes, especially when taken in conjunction with the front and
                > back
                > gores! The sleeves are Hedeby too. And according to the text the
                > bodice
                > (with its "overlay" style ornament) is from Birka Grave 735. Now
                > for the
                > critique. First, the sleeves. I have made a full-scale replica of
                > the
                > Hedeby sleeve on which this is based. To begin with, it's much too
                > small
                > for me to wear (might have been a pubescent child's sleeve).
                > Additionally,
                > the secondary pieces (there are two in the original rather than the
                > one
                > used in this reconstruction) are much smaller in comparison to the
                > large
                > main piece than this reconstruction would have them. Further, the
                > two-color construction resembles nothing so much as a patch, that
                > is,
                > second and third pieces of cloth sewn where an original piece had
                > worn out.
                > It's such a weird piece, Hagg even speculates that it could have
                > been an
                > ornamental sleeve (like on some of those later period overgarments,
                > with
                > hanging sleeves that were never to be put on) rather than a
                > functional one.
                > Now, the silk overlay bodice with tablet weaving. I'm okay on the
                > concept
                > of applique on the chest of women's tunics in the 10th century, but
                > I don't
                > think I like this take on it. I have combed through Geijer, Hagg
                > (1974)
                > and Hagg (1986) in search of this. Geijer and Hagg 1986 appear to
                > be in
                > accord that the Grave 735 overlay comes from a *man's* tunic and not
                > a
                > woman's. I have not translated all the Swedish in Hagg 1974, but
                > there's a
                > lot of it about this grave, and maybe she had some different
                > theories then.
                > If she did, then it may be that the researchers used Hagg 1974 to
                > support
                > their use of this overlay on a woman's gown. (The original overlay
                > had 11
                > bands, by the way, not two, and it was rectangular in shape rather
                > than
                > bodice-shaped.)
                >
                > Apron-Dress -- Now this looks familiar. ;> They've done the
                > full-length
                > side gores (which lead to the fitted look). I cannot tell you how
                > gratifying it is to finally see a museum using this interpretation,
                > although it's still a modification of the original which has one
                > straight-grain edge on the side gores. It's based on the 10th
                > century
                > Hedeby stuff, though, not on anything from Birka. The fabric seems
                > to be a
                > balanced tabby weave (does that sound right? I didn't see any
                > specifics
                > mentioned in the website), which is not the textile I'd choose.
                > Based on
                > the number of broken lozenge twills and repps (= unbalanced tabby)
                > among
                > the the extant Birka apron-dress finds, I'd have chosen one of those
                > weaves
                > instead. It's difficult to see the details of the strap,
                > particularly the
                > end of the longer strap. I would like to know if it's a tight
                > little loop
                > or, like the finds, a larger loose loop. I've done both, and
                > there's not
                > much of a performance difference between the two, but the loose loop
                > looks
                > pretty much identical to the finds, while the tight one doesn't.
                >
                > Headcovering -- The website seems to acknowledge that not
                > much is known
                > about headwear, and that the scarf is not necessarily correct.
                > They've
                > chosen to edge their linen headcovering with a wool braid, which
                > reminds me
                > a bit of the treatment on the edges of the Dublin caps. I wish
                > they'd
                > elected to follow one of the Birka graves and used a tablet woven
                > headband,
                > fillet, or diadem like the ten or twelve such that were found in
                > women's
                > graves there!
                >
                > For civic men's dress, we have the following: undertunic, "caftan"
                > (I'd
                > call what they've made a Hedeby-style jacket), Pumphose (balloon
                > pants),
                > belt and pouch, and cap. Again, I'll take them point by point.
                >
                > Undertunic -- Other than the curved armholes (not a Birka
                > element), there
                > are no particular problems with the cut of this, although I do
                > wonder why
                > he's not wearing some sort of a closure device at the keyhole. But
                > then
                > again, my husband lets his necklines gape open too, which drives me
                > mad but
                > never seems to bother him. (Is this a guy thing?)
                >
                > Pumphose -- Hmmm. Unexpected. This pattern is somewhat
                > modified from the
                > Hedeby one, which is pretty close to Thorsbjerg at least in crotch
                > construction. I don't quite understand the wide square panel across
                > the
                > base of the spine. It doesn't seem to convey any advantage, and it
                > must
                > have been fiddly to insert. The long crotch strip seems unnecessary
                > given
                > the very wide "rise" of the crotch, too. Also, what's the closure
                > method
                > for the waist and leg bands, I wonder?
                >
                > Caftan -- Not sure about that trapezoidal back neckhole.
                > I'd call this a
                > jacket, myself. But Hagg merely comments that the caftan from that
                > particular grave (832) had no buttons evident, so maybe their take
                > on the
                > concept is that the ones with no evident buttons were wraparounds
                > like
                > this. (Another possible answer is that the missing buttons were
                > organic--e.g., wood, textile, bone--and decayed.) However, Grave
                > 832 also
                > had the remnants of what Hagg thinks could have been an ornamental
                > non-leather belt (silk, with passement knots), which makes me wonder
                > why
                > there's a leather belt in this ensemble. Also, the Grave 832 caftan
                > was
                > ornamented with strips of silk twill and passement knots, although
                > this one
                > isn't.
                >
                > Legwrappers -- Blue herringbone twill, very snazzy. ;> But
                > I'm puzzled by
                > the lack of anything under them, like stockings or maybe even hose.
                > Also,
                > I wonder why they're secured with little penannular brooches?
                >
                > Hat -- How nice to see a Viking hat without fur!!! The
                > cutting draft
                > seems based on the Moscevaja Balka caps (some of which were for the
                > inside
                > of helms), with their tapered sections that fit together into a
                > round
                > crown. Or maybe based on some of those Roman Iron Age caps from
                > the
                > Netherlands? I dunno for sure. But the website says it's based on
                > Birka
                > 958. That seems a little weird to me because Hagg (1986) says that
                > 958 has
                > no headcovering. But the hat from Grave 832, that went with the
                > caftan
                > (remember the caftan from above, based on Grave 832?), was a Type B.
                > And
                > this is a pretty fair take on a Type B hat. The TW band seems like
                > a
                > standard mount with its silk ground strip.
                >
                > Belt and Pouch -- I'm not so sure about the pouch, but they
                > source it to
                > Jämtland and I haven't figured out what the rest of that paragraph
                > says
                > yet. The leather pouch with buckle and strap-end is something
                > that's more
                > often found with the buttoned caftan than with the caftan without
                > evident
                > buttons, which type they seem to be interpreting as a wraparound
                > jacket.
                >
                > Shoes -- Basic ankle boot with tie, okay.
                >
                > For fighting man's soft clothes, ;> we have the following:
                > undertunic,
                > Pumphose, overtunic, shoes. Again, I'll take them point by point.
                >
                > Undertunic -- Well, it's nice to see some good publicly
                > available .gifs of
                > the Viborg shirt out there in cyberspace, even if they *didn't* base
                > their
                > undertunic on it. ;> It's not clear to me what pattern they *did*
                > use,
                > though; there doesn't seem to be a link to the cutting draft the way
                > there
                > are on so many of the other garments.
                >
                > Pumphose -- These appear to have drawstrings at waist and
                > knees. To the
                > best of my knowledge, drawstrings are not present in the Viking Age
                > find
                > corpus. The closest mechanism is the Viborg tunic's neck closure,
                > which
                > has been tentatively reconstructed to include two short ties that
                > slip
                > through knots; but even that's not a drawstring run through a
                > casing, like
                > these.
                >
                > Overtunic -- No big surprises here; they seem to have gone
                > with the Hedeby
                > model again. Scoop neck, curved armholes, shoulder seams. (I
                > couldn't get
                > the .pdf for this to print properly.)
                >
                > Shoes -- Those boots are too high. The basic look is taken
                > from Hedeby
                > Type 8 shoes (my favorite of all the Viking Age shoe types), but
                > none of
                > the originals extend that far up the leg. Also, that looks like a
                > really
                > thick, non-turnshoe type sole--and is that a separate stack heel I'm
                > seeing???
                >
                > Okay, that's enough for now, until I get a better look at the whole
                > site.
                > Anybody else got comments?
                >
                >
                > Carolyn Priest-Dorman Þóra Sharptooth
                > http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/thora.html
                >
                > "Never trust anything that can think for itself if
                > you can't see where it keeps its brain."
                > -- J.K.
                > Rowling
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >


                "Better is alive than lifeless to be; the living can always get a cow.
                The halt can ride a horse, the hand-less drive a flock, the deaf can
                bravely battle.
                A blind man is better than a burned one; a corpse is useless to all."
                Havamal
                My home page http://www.geocities.com/yarnvidi
                The Manx http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheManx
              • Schuster, Robert L.
                After winding them, my husband (225 lb, but no armour any more) simply tucks the ends into the tops of his. They manage to stay up, though, even when he does
                Message 7 of 17 , May 30, 2002
                  After winding them, my husband (225 lb, but no armour any more) simply
                  tucks the ends into the tops of his. They manage to stay up, though, even
                  when he does archery (crossbow, he uses a sitting position), goes into
                  court, and does woodworking in camp. Doesn't seem to be a problem for him,
                  although from all the buzz this issue has generated over the years I gather
                  some people have real problems with it

                  --the big problem with tucking it in while fighting is that it works its way loose with all the flexing of the calf muscle during combat (i also have this problem when walking great distances, like at war), pretty embarrassing to charge in and trip on your own leg bindings;)


                  The brooch solution sure does seem like a puncture wound waiting to happen.
                  Wouldn't want to take a shot to that area, that's for sure! Besides, I
                  can't doc it. ;>

                  --hadn't thought of that puncture wound thing, as thick as my bindings are over a pair of trousers i dont think it will be a problem but now ill probably have a new piercing the next time i fight;)
                  I was pretty sure it wasn't documentable but i was hoping you'd have some sort of little known piece of info;)


                  My husband hates garters, even the all-cloth ones; he says they give him
                  much more trouble than the legwrappers.

                  --just to clarify i was talking about a garter built into the wrapping, are we on the same page?

                  Halvgrimr



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Carolyn Priest-Dorman
                  ... these two gold thingees that look like they are holding the bib (well, that s what it looks like to me, anyway). What are they supposed to be? Hmm. I
                  Message 8 of 17 , May 30, 2002
                    Mairghread wrote:

                    >If you look at the large picture of the tunika/overdress layer, there are
                    these two gold thingees that look like they are holding the bib (well,
                    that's what it looks like to me, anyway). What are they supposed to be?

                    Hmm. I dunno! I didn't see these at all until I looked at the big .jpg.
                    But when I blew them up I still couldn't make out what they are.

                    The bib overlay thingie is made of silk. Did anyone notice what the
                    underlying fabric of the tunic is?

                    >However, I think the apron dress is something other than tabby. Go to the
                    close up jpeg of the straps -
                    http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/drakter/vkvinna/storhangsle4.htm
                    >I think it's some type of twill, but the resolution on my monitor isn't
                    good enough to work it out.

                    Yes, now that I've looked at both the close-up .jpgs (that one and the
                    plain one of the cloth below), I see they chose to use our old friend the
                    BLT. ;> Good. I feel much better now.


                    Carolyn Priest-Dorman Þóra Sharptooth
                    http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/thora.html

                    "Never trust anything that can think for itself if
                    you can't see where it keeps its brain."
                    -- J.K. Rowling
                  • Lena Strid
                    Hi all!Just looked at the site again, and I m wondering about what they say about the apron-dress: ... but much indicates that the apron-dresses during
                    Message 9 of 17 , May 30, 2002
                      Hi all!

                      Just looked at the site again, and I'm wondering about what they say about the apron-dress:
                      "... but much indicates that the apron-dresses during this period [10th century] were more
                      often made of linen than of wool." Does anyone have a reference for this? I know that some, if
                      not all, apron-dress straps in Birka were linen, but the archaeological finds of apron-dresses
                      that I know of (Hedeby and Odense(?)) were wool. Of course, linen is a lot easier to wash
                      than wool (good thing for an outer garment :-) ). I really ought to browse the diagrams on the
                      Birka finds, but I just can't be bothered to find that article (It's in a binder somewhere, but
                      where? And which binder? Aaarrgh!).

                      So, does anyone have any comments on this?

                      Lena

                      --
                      _______________________________________________
                      Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
                      http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
                    • Susan
                      I can t access this site-can anyone tell me what s wrong?http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~gnott/Miklagard/Costume/Rus/Trader/Rus_d esc THANKS! Lucia ... From:
                      Message 10 of 17 , May 31, 2002
                        I can't access this site-can anyone tell me what's
                        wrong?http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~gnott/Miklagard/Costume/Rus/Trader/Rus_d
                        esc
                        THANKS! Lucia
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: <jamesahowell@...>
                        To: <Norsefolk@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 4:42 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Norsefolk] New clothing reconstructions (really long!)


                        > I'd love to know what they are using for documentation for their
                        > belt pouches. I have been making mine like this for years, but they are
                        > based on later period illustrations and guess work from things like
                        > Sutton Hoo. The only doco for pouches I know of are: the cloth one from
                        > Birka that they use for this site-
                        > http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~gnott/Miklagard/Costume/Rus/Trader/Rus_desc
                        > ription.html
                        > Plus the Birka coin wallet, the Irish book budgets, and some Anglo-Saxon
                        > pouches that I have heard about but never seen the writeups on, and of
                        > course, Sutton Hoo.
                        > I think the big thing on wicklebander is adequate overlap of each
                        > wrap, so that you can take advantage of wool's vecro-like properties.
                        > Þhora, I don't know what problem you were having, it loaded
                        > pretty quickly for me, and I am running something just slightly more
                        > advanced than an adding machine ;-{)> Maybe you just caught them during
                        > a high traffic time.
                        >
                        > Regards, Finnr
                        >
                        > On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:12:19 -0400 Carolyn Priest-Dorman
                        > <capriest@...> writes:
                        > > Jorunn wrote:
                        > >
                        > > >I found a new (to me) site with clothing reconstructions.
                        > > >http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/drakt.htm
                        > > >Some of the stuff looks nice, I have to wonder about some of the
                        > > choices
                        > > >though.
                        > > >
                        > > >Opinions? Discussion?
                        > >
                        > > Nice tablet weaving. ;> But jeepers creepers, this site sure runs
                        > > slowly
                        > > from my site! It's taken the best part of two days for me to get a
                        > > look at
                        > > the Viking Age clothing--and that's without viewing the large .jpgs.
                        > > And I
                        > > still haven't read/translated a good deal of it; mostly I've skimmed
                        > > for
                        > > specific information. (Swedish is not my first, second, third,
                        > > fourth, or
                        > > even fifth language....) So this is just a preliminary take. Also,
                        > > I see
                        > > Inga Hagg is credited (along with about 75 other people) for this
                        > > project,
                        > > although it's not clear what her role was. Looking at some of the
                        > > design
                        > > decisions, I have to wonder....
                        > >
                        > > Okay.... For women's dress, we have the following: tenth-century
                        > > Birka-style pleated underdress, tenth-century Hedeby-style
                        > > overdress,
                        > > tenth-century Hedeby-style apron-dress, and ninth-century Norwegian
                        > > shoes.
                        > > Oh, and unprovenanced (read "made-up") headwear. I'll take them
                        > > point by
                        > > point.
                        > >
                        > > Underdress -- The cut more or less conforms to what we know
                        > > of Birka
                        > > garments: no shoulder seams, slit front neckline. I don't know why
                        > > the
                        > > armholes are curved, since no mention of that is made in anything
                        > > I've read
                        > > about Birka. The pleating is sweet, and you can see the needle
                        > > holes that
                        > > remain from the needle pleating the entire garment was given.
                        > > However, the
                        > > pleats are not nearly as deep and full as the ones in the actual
                        > > remains
                        > > (inside several oval brooches). And I'm not convinced that the
                        > > intensive
                        > > labor of needle pleating the arms like they've done (see all the
                        > > parallel
                        > > rows of pinpricks going around the arms?) would have been
                        > > justifiable.
                        > > Also, what's with the overlay on back of the neck?
                        > >
                        > > Overdress -- This is unusual. The scoop neck and shoulder
                        > > seams and
                        > > rounded armholes are typical Hedeby stuff. But the doubled side
                        > > gores,
                        > > with their curved upper ends, are nothing so much as post-Viking
                        > > Herjolfsnes, especially when taken in conjunction with the front and
                        > > back
                        > > gores! The sleeves are Hedeby too. And according to the text the
                        > > bodice
                        > > (with its "overlay" style ornament) is from Birka Grave 735. Now
                        > > for the
                        > > critique. First, the sleeves. I have made a full-scale replica of
                        > > the
                        > > Hedeby sleeve on which this is based. To begin with, it's much too
                        > > small
                        > > for me to wear (might have been a pubescent child's sleeve).
                        > > Additionally,
                        > > the secondary pieces (there are two in the original rather than the
                        > > one
                        > > used in this reconstruction) are much smaller in comparison to the
                        > > large
                        > > main piece than this reconstruction would have them. Further, the
                        > > two-color construction resembles nothing so much as a patch, that
                        > > is,
                        > > second and third pieces of cloth sewn where an original piece had
                        > > worn out.
                        > > It's such a weird piece, Hagg even speculates that it could have
                        > > been an
                        > > ornamental sleeve (like on some of those later period overgarments,
                        > > with
                        > > hanging sleeves that were never to be put on) rather than a
                        > > functional one.
                        > > Now, the silk overlay bodice with tablet weaving. I'm okay on the
                        > > concept
                        > > of applique on the chest of women's tunics in the 10th century, but
                        > > I don't
                        > > think I like this take on it. I have combed through Geijer, Hagg
                        > > (1974)
                        > > and Hagg (1986) in search of this. Geijer and Hagg 1986 appear to
                        > > be in
                        > > accord that the Grave 735 overlay comes from a *man's* tunic and not
                        > > a
                        > > woman's. I have not translated all the Swedish in Hagg 1974, but
                        > > there's a
                        > > lot of it about this grave, and maybe she had some different
                        > > theories then.
                        > > If she did, then it may be that the researchers used Hagg 1974 to
                        > > support
                        > > their use of this overlay on a woman's gown. (The original overlay
                        > > had 11
                        > > bands, by the way, not two, and it was rectangular in shape rather
                        > > than
                        > > bodice-shaped.)
                        > >
                        > > Apron-Dress -- Now this looks familiar. ;> They've done the
                        > > full-length
                        > > side gores (which lead to the fitted look). I cannot tell you how
                        > > gratifying it is to finally see a museum using this interpretation,
                        > > although it's still a modification of the original which has one
                        > > straight-grain edge on the side gores. It's based on the 10th
                        > > century
                        > > Hedeby stuff, though, not on anything from Birka. The fabric seems
                        > > to be a
                        > > balanced tabby weave (does that sound right? I didn't see any
                        > > specifics
                        > > mentioned in the website), which is not the textile I'd choose.
                        > > Based on
                        > > the number of broken lozenge twills and repps (= unbalanced tabby)
                        > > among
                        > > the the extant Birka apron-dress finds, I'd have chosen one of those
                        > > weaves
                        > > instead. It's difficult to see the details of the strap,
                        > > particularly the
                        > > end of the longer strap. I would like to know if it's a tight
                        > > little loop
                        > > or, like the finds, a larger loose loop. I've done both, and
                        > > there's not
                        > > much of a performance difference between the two, but the loose loop
                        > > looks
                        > > pretty much identical to the finds, while the tight one doesn't.
                        > >
                        > > Headcovering -- The website seems to acknowledge that not
                        > > much is known
                        > > about headwear, and that the scarf is not necessarily correct.
                        > > They've
                        > > chosen to edge their linen headcovering with a wool braid, which
                        > > reminds me
                        > > a bit of the treatment on the edges of the Dublin caps. I wish
                        > > they'd
                        > > elected to follow one of the Birka graves and used a tablet woven
                        > > headband,
                        > > fillet, or diadem like the ten or twelve such that were found in
                        > > women's
                        > > graves there!
                        > >
                        > > For civic men's dress, we have the following: undertunic, "caftan"
                        > > (I'd
                        > > call what they've made a Hedeby-style jacket), Pumphose (balloon
                        > > pants),
                        > > belt and pouch, and cap. Again, I'll take them point by point.
                        > >
                        > > Undertunic -- Other than the curved armholes (not a Birka
                        > > element), there
                        > > are no particular problems with the cut of this, although I do
                        > > wonder why
                        > > he's not wearing some sort of a closure device at the keyhole. But
                        > > then
                        > > again, my husband lets his necklines gape open too, which drives me
                        > > mad but
                        > > never seems to bother him. (Is this a guy thing?)
                        > >
                        > > Pumphose -- Hmmm. Unexpected. This pattern is somewhat
                        > > modified from the
                        > > Hedeby one, which is pretty close to Thorsbjerg at least in crotch
                        > > construction. I don't quite understand the wide square panel across
                        > > the
                        > > base of the spine. It doesn't seem to convey any advantage, and it
                        > > must
                        > > have been fiddly to insert. The long crotch strip seems unnecessary
                        > > given
                        > > the very wide "rise" of the crotch, too. Also, what's the closure
                        > > method
                        > > for the waist and leg bands, I wonder?
                        > >
                        > > Caftan -- Not sure about that trapezoidal back neckhole.
                        > > I'd call this a
                        > > jacket, myself. But Hagg merely comments that the caftan from that
                        > > particular grave (832) had no buttons evident, so maybe their take
                        > > on the
                        > > concept is that the ones with no evident buttons were wraparounds
                        > > like
                        > > this. (Another possible answer is that the missing buttons were
                        > > organic--e.g., wood, textile, bone--and decayed.) However, Grave
                        > > 832 also
                        > > had the remnants of what Hagg thinks could have been an ornamental
                        > > non-leather belt (silk, with passement knots), which makes me wonder
                        > > why
                        > > there's a leather belt in this ensemble. Also, the Grave 832 caftan
                        > > was
                        > > ornamented with strips of silk twill and passement knots, although
                        > > this one
                        > > isn't.
                        > >
                        > > Legwrappers -- Blue herringbone twill, very snazzy. ;> But
                        > > I'm puzzled by
                        > > the lack of anything under them, like stockings or maybe even hose.
                        > > Also,
                        > > I wonder why they're secured with little penannular brooches?
                        > >
                        > > Hat -- How nice to see a Viking hat without fur!!! The
                        > > cutting draft
                        > > seems based on the Moscevaja Balka caps (some of which were for the
                        > > inside
                        > > of helms), with their tapered sections that fit together into a
                        > > round
                        > > crown. Or maybe based on some of those Roman Iron Age caps from
                        > > the
                        > > Netherlands? I dunno for sure. But the website says it's based on
                        > > Birka
                        > > 958. That seems a little weird to me because Hagg (1986) says that
                        > > 958 has
                        > > no headcovering. But the hat from Grave 832, that went with the
                        > > caftan
                        > > (remember the caftan from above, based on Grave 832?), was a Type B.
                        > > And
                        > > this is a pretty fair take on a Type B hat. The TW band seems like
                        > > a
                        > > standard mount with its silk ground strip.
                        > >
                        > > Belt and Pouch -- I'm not so sure about the pouch, but they
                        > > source it to
                        > > Jämtland and I haven't figured out what the rest of that paragraph
                        > > says
                        > > yet. The leather pouch with buckle and strap-end is something
                        > > that's more
                        > > often found with the buttoned caftan than with the caftan without
                        > > evident
                        > > buttons, which type they seem to be interpreting as a wraparound
                        > > jacket.
                        > >
                        > > Shoes -- Basic ankle boot with tie, okay.
                        > >
                        > > For fighting man's soft clothes, ;> we have the following:
                        > > undertunic,
                        > > Pumphose, overtunic, shoes. Again, I'll take them point by point.
                        > >
                        > > Undertunic -- Well, it's nice to see some good publicly
                        > > available .gifs of
                        > > the Viborg shirt out there in cyberspace, even if they *didn't* base
                        > > their
                        > > undertunic on it. ;> It's not clear to me what pattern they *did*
                        > > use,
                        > > though; there doesn't seem to be a link to the cutting draft the way
                        > > there
                        > > are on so many of the other garments.
                        > >
                        > > Pumphose -- These appear to have drawstrings at waist and
                        > > knees. To the
                        > > best of my knowledge, drawstrings are not present in the Viking Age
                        > > find
                        > > corpus. The closest mechanism is the Viborg tunic's neck closure,
                        > > which
                        > > has been tentatively reconstructed to include two short ties that
                        > > slip
                        > > through knots; but even that's not a drawstring run through a
                        > > casing, like
                        > > these.
                        > >
                        > > Overtunic -- No big surprises here; they seem to have gone
                        > > with the Hedeby
                        > > model again. Scoop neck, curved armholes, shoulder seams. (I
                        > > couldn't get
                        > > the .pdf for this to print properly.)
                        > >
                        > > Shoes -- Those boots are too high. The basic look is taken
                        > > from Hedeby
                        > > Type 8 shoes (my favorite of all the Viking Age shoe types), but
                        > > none of
                        > > the originals extend that far up the leg. Also, that looks like a
                        > > really
                        > > thick, non-turnshoe type sole--and is that a separate stack heel I'm
                        > > seeing???
                        > >
                        > > Okay, that's enough for now, until I get a better look at the whole
                        > > site.
                        > > Anybody else got comments?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Carolyn Priest-Dorman Þóra Sharptooth
                        > > http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/thora.html
                        > >
                        > > "Never trust anything that can think for itself if
                        > > you can't see where it keeps its brain."
                        > > -- J.K.
                        > > Rowling
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > "Better is alive than lifeless to be; the living can always get a cow.
                        > The halt can ride a horse, the hand-less drive a flock, the deaf can
                        > bravely battle.
                        > A blind man is better than a burned one; a corpse is useless to all."
                        > Havamal
                        > My home page http://www.geocities.com/yarnvidi
                        > The Manx http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheManx
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Carolyn Priest-Dorman
                        ... century] were more ... It could come from one or maybe two places. Geijer (Birka III) thought the whole apron-dress might be of linen based on the large
                        Message 11 of 17 , May 31, 2002
                          Lena wrote:

                          >"... but much indicates that the apron-dresses during this period [10th
                          century] were more
                          >often made of linen than of wool." Does anyone have a reference for this?

                          It could come from one or maybe two places. Geijer (Birka III) thought the
                          whole apron-dress might be of linen based on the large number of linen
                          straps found at Birka. Hagg 1986 says that, although only one definite
                          example of an all-linen apron-dress is known from Birka, the lack of finds
                          from this layer of garment in the 10th century (although the brooches and
                          straps are frequently found) could signal a transition to the use of linen
                          for this layer.

                          Both were talking specifically about the Birka finds; perhaps this website
                          is doing so too.


                          Carolyn Priest-Dorman Þóra Sharptooth
                          http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/thora.html

                          "Never trust anything that can think for itself if
                          you can't see where it keeps its brain."
                          -- J.K. Rowling
                        • iamjorunn
                          I _know_ I ve seen these little brooches _somewhere_ in the material I have. I m afraid I didn t pay much attention at the time, Oh look, more brooches. I
                          Message 12 of 17 , May 31, 2002
                            I _know_ I've seen these little brooches _somewhere_ in the material I
                            have. I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention at the time, "Oh look,
                            more brooches." I think I probably noted them as similar to the
                            Gotland and Finnish fibula for pinning on an apron. It seems a bit
                            odd to me to use them as they are in this construction. They seem to
                            be purely decorative, as the bodice is sewn on, and they are
                            completely covered by the oval brooches. I'm in a frenzy right now
                            prepping for Lilies War. I'll buzz through the stuff I have on the
                            hard drive when I break for lunch and see if I find them.

                            Thanks for your critique, Thora. I knew you'd have loads to say with
                            the documentation to back it up! :)

                            Jorunn


                            --- In Norsefolk@y..., Carolyn Priest-Dorman <capriest@c...> wrote:
                            > Mairghread wrote:
                            >If you look at the large picture of the tunika/overdress layer,
                            there are
                            > these two gold thingees that look like they are holding the bib
                            (well,
                            > that's what it looks like to me, anyway). What are they supposed to
                            be?
                            >
                            > Hmm. I dunno! I didn't see these at all until I looked at the big
                            .jpg.
                            > But when I blew them up I still couldn't make out what they are.

                            >
                            > Carolyn Priest-Dorman Þóra Sharptooth
                            > http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/thora.html
                            >
                            > "Never trust anything that can think for itself if
                            > you can't see where it keeps its brain."
                            > -- J.K.
                            Rowling
                          • Schuster, Robert L.
                            ... From: Susan [mailto:patchworkpalace@voyager.net] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 5:06 AM To: Norsefolk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Norsefolk] New clothing
                            Message 13 of 17 , May 31, 2002
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Susan [mailto:patchworkpalace@...]
                              Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 5:06 AM
                              To: Norsefolk@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [Norsefolk] New clothing reconstructions (really long!)


                              I can't access this site-can anyone tell me what's
                              wrong? http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~gnott/Miklagard/Costume/Rus/Trader/Rus_d
                              esc
                              THANKS! Lucia

                              you can also access the same info at http://users.bigpond.net.au/quarfwa/Miklagard/Costume/Rus/Trader/Rus_main.htm

                              i was surprised when the link Finnr gave worked for me, as far as i knew that site was dead, guess it risen from the ashes;)

                              Halvgrimr





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • jamesahowell@juno.com
                              Truncation error. I was afraid of that. Any time you have a web address that is longer than your width of page for an e-mail, there is a possibility that the
                              Message 14 of 17 , May 31, 2002
                                Truncation error. I was afraid of that. Any time you have a web
                                address that is longer than your width of page for an e-mail, there is a
                                possibility that the part that ends up on the second line will become
                                "unlinked", thus rendering the address useless unless you cut and paste
                                it into your browser window. However, Halvgrimr seems to have a more up
                                to date address that at least on my computer came through intact, so you
                                should be alright now.

                                Regards, Finnr
                                >
                                > I can't access this site-can anyone tell me what's
                                > wrong?
                                > http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~gnott/Miklagard/Costume/Rus/Trader/Rus_d
                                > esc
                                > THANKS! Lucia
                                >
                                > you can also access the same info at
                                >
                                http://users.bigpond.net.au/quarfwa/Miklagard/Costume/Rus/Trader/Rus_main
                                .htm
                                >
                                > i was surprised when the link Finnr gave worked for me, as far as i
                                > knew that site was dead, guess it risen from the ashes;)
                                >
                                > Halvgrimr
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                >
                                >


                                "Better is alive than lifeless to be; the living can always get a cow.
                                The halt can ride a horse, the hand-less drive a flock, the deaf can
                                bravely battle.
                                A blind man is better than a burned one; a corpse is useless to all."
                                Havamal
                                My home page http://www.geocities.com/yarnvidi
                                The Manx http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheManx
                              • Frojel Gotlandica
                                OK mystery solved, its actually a small piece of braid Cheers Sandy Mairghread wrote: If you look at the large picture of the tunika/overdress layer, there are
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jun 9, 2002
                                  OK mystery solved, its actually a small piece of braid
                                  Cheers
                                  Sandy

                                  Mairghread wrote:

                                  If you look at the large picture of the tunika/overdress layer, there are
                                  these two gold thingees that look like they are holding the bib (well,
                                  that's what it looks like to me, anyway). What are they supposed to be?


                                  Fr�jel Gotlandica Viking Re-enactment Society.
                                  http://www.frojel.com/
                                  frojel@...
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.