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

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 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

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:

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 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 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

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. :p 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. ;)

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: [

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