Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Viking Dress Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Travis Gorrie




Location: Springfield, Illinois
Joined: 21 Apr 2004

Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu 28 Feb, 2008 7:26 pm    Post subject: Viking Dress         Reply with quote

Found this link about Viking dress, its kind of interesting. The guy looks pretty spiffy - here's the link:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uu-vdn022508.php
View user's profile Send private message
Ville Vinje




Location: Uppsala
Joined: 20 Apr 2006

Posts: 142

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 3:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Annika Larssons research is highly controversial and should be seen as a product of her own research and nothing more.

This is her most personal theory and if you ask me it is not a very good one.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 654

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 6:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ville wrote, "Annika Larssons research is highly controversial and should be seen as a product of her own research and nothing more.

This is her most personal theory and if you ask me it is not a very good one."


Ville. OK, if you say so, but you can you give us some reasons why her research is highly controversial and that her theory is not a very good one?

On the basis of the article in the link it seemed to me that her claim for women's clothing seemed to make more sense than for the men's clothing.

Proving or disproving something like this seems pretty tough. There are (obviously) no photographs nor are there paintings as far as I know and the carvings I've seen pictures of don't show a lot of women or a lot of detail of clothing. So how good is the archeology? I would think fabric would be pretty far gone after being in the ground for a thousand years.



Thanks,



Ken Speed
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 6:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This article has been mocked on every Norse board I have seen in the last few days as it makes it rounds. Anyone who studies historical clothing will get a good laugh at the idea of wearing your white linen underwear over your expensive silk robe WTF?!
James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ville Vinje




Location: Uppsala
Joined: 20 Apr 2006

Posts: 142

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 7:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ken Speed wrote:
Ville wrote, "Annika Larssons research is highly controversial and should be seen as a product of her own research and nothing more.

This is her most personal theory and if you ask me it is not a very good one."


Ville. OK, if you say so, but you can you give us some reasons why her research is highly controversial and that her theory is not a very good one?

On the basis of the article in the link it seemed to me that her claim for women's clothing seemed to make more sense than for the men's clothing.

Proving or disproving something like this seems pretty tough. There are (obviously) no photographs nor are there paintings as far as I know and the carvings I've seen pictures of don't show a lot of women or a lot of detail of clothing. So how good is the archeology? I would think fabric would be pretty far gone after being in the ground for a thousand years.



Thanks,



Ken Speed


As far as we know her theory is based on the assumption that the breast buckles covered the nipples rather then the upper chest (she uses a find from a Birka grave) . To back this theory up she refers to the 2006 Pskov finds.

When a dead sitting woman decays her breasts (being made up of fat) rots first. The effect (well documented) is that the buckles fall into the body of the dead women, thus lowering the position of the buckles.

Just as Annika Larsson says the fabric in the pskov grave is unusually well preserved. The problem is this; First the fabric was neatly folded together tucked away in a container under the wooden floor of the grave. How can Annika know how the woman wore the fabric? Secondly, the russians themselves, actually having seen the actual grave, have made reconstrutions of how the dress could have looked. They do not in any way resemble Annika Larssons dress.

Moreover Annika Larsson seems to have totaly ignored the the well known theory that says that the female viking dress might be related to the earlier european peplos dress wich uses fibulas the same way a viking dress uses buckles.

Until Annika Larsson answers these questions (and several others) I at least will regard them as a work of her own imagination.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marc Blaydoe




Location: Maryland
Joined: 29 Sep 2006

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 9:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It is also worth noting that this "theory" leaves a rather long "train" of cloth dragging behind. If this was everyday wear, all that cloth dragging through the dirt or mud or whatever would have been very impractical.

All in all it is very speculative with very little evidence, cultural, forensic, or otherwise to back it up.
View user's profile Send private message
Ville Vinje




Location: Uppsala
Joined: 20 Apr 2006

Posts: 142

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 9:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Marc Blaydoe wrote:
It is also worth noting that this "theory" leaves a rather long "train" of cloth dragging behind. If this was everyday wear, all that cloth dragging through the dirt or mud or whatever would have been very impractical.

All in all it is very speculative with very little evidence, cultural, forensic, or otherwise to back it up.


I do not think Annika Larsson sees the dress as everyday wear. After all, people usually go to the afterlife dressed in their finest Happy

The cloth dragging behind is based on the "valkyria" pictures on picture stones and jewelry.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hugh Fuller




Location: Virginia
Joined: 01 Oct 2003

Posts: 256

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 12:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I am not arguing her position one way or the other except to note that it is easier to get published with a challenge to accepted ideas than with something that follows an already well-traveled road. But I would really like to see a depiction of her interpretation of that woman's dress.

BTW, I see nothing especially controversial in her depictions of male dress for Eastern Route types.

Hugh
Still trying to walk in the Light
Please see 1 John 1:5
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 654

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 1:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh wrote, "I am not arguing her position one way or the other except to note that it is easier to get published with a challenge to accepted ideas than with something that follows an already well-traveled road. But I would really like to see a depiction of her interpretation of that woman's dress.

BTW, I see nothing especially controversial in her depictions of male dress for Eastern Route types."

Yeah, I don't have a dog in the fight either, I was just curious. About the male clothing, it seems to me that the traders that were going across Finland to Russia and Constantinople would be more likely to emulate the dress of the richest and most urbane city, Constantinople, as opposed to a less rich, less cultured city in Russia. Thats all. It seemed that there was less to substantiate her views of male dress. Probably they wore whatever was at hand that would keep them warm and dry and didn't worry overmuch about being stylish.

Ken Speed
View user's profile Send private message
Shamsi Modarai




Location: On wuda bearwe, under actreo in žam eoršscręfe.
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Reading list: 16 books

Posts: 110

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 1:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I just have a problem with people going around saying that on one hand, viking dress was more varied than we thought, and then in despite of what they've just said, going ahead and claiming that their interpretation was "probably" the most common way that people dressed! I can believe that there was variation in fashion, but I find it hard to believe (based on her claims) that no, Viking women didn't wear the hangerok (which is quite practical but still "provocative" in its own way), and rather wore gowns that flapped about, hung in pieces and were basically fire hazards, and got all ripped and dirty in the mud. Razz Its true that, in the sagas at least, clothing that was long and trailed on the ground was considered feminine, but that doesn't mean that this was because *all* women wore extremely long garments *all* the time. Also, the brooches, along with the beads and other jewelry that hung from them, would probably have accentuated the chest-area of the women even if the brooches did not sit exactly on the woman's breasts. Having worn them myself, they do create quite the "bling" effect and draw people's eyes in that direction even without being situated as she claims they were. Wink

Sorry...admittedly I've only just recently begun studying Viking women's clothing, so I really can't claim to know more than this lady. Something about it just sits wrongly with me, that's all..... Confused [

Wa biš žam že sceal of langože leofes abidan.

~ The Wife's Lament
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 654

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 6:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Barker wrote, "This article has been mocked on every Norse board I have seen in the last few days as it makes it rounds. Anyone who studies historical clothing will get a good laugh at the idea of wearing your white linen underwear over your expensive silk robe "

Yes, I suppose people have laughed at it but that doesn't mean that its wrong. I think that people thought that Schliemann, the man who discovered Troy was a joke too. She could be wrong, so what? Thats how people learn, right? I notice someone else pointed out that people are not, as a rule, buried in their work clothes. Why then would we not expect Viking age women to be buried in formal attire?

I guess I don't care too much if she's right or if she's wrong but I'd rather see the theory given a fair examination than see it dismissed out of hand.



Ken Speed
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Viking Dress
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum