Viking dress - the hangerock, specifically

Just when I had some confidence about what is and is not an "authentic" hangerock...

I have found two European sources that suggest that the two-part, split-front hangerock is re-enactor quality. I have to admit that the arrangement is fetching and goes a long way toward explaining that trim-only-between-the-broaches thing.

However, the conventional wisdom holds that the loose front apron - which developed when we were debunking the split-sided apron dress tradition - creates a hazard and hassle for a woman who is doing things like cooking over a fire and taking care of small children. On the other hand, the split-front apron might have advantages for nursing if not for that tunic underneath.

Apparently fairly conventionally, locally (dang, that's a lot of -ly) we use the construction suggested by Carolyn Priest-Dorman - a solid tube of fabric, fitted or not based upon the century and location of the impression. Good fabrics, a pair of broaches, a modest amount of bead festoons... and the impression is as authentic as we could hope it to be.

It should be noted that the hangerock ("suspended skirt") is - based on the archaeological evidence - a garment worn by wealthy women [1], and then probably only on significant occasions. Is it fair then, to apply the impracticality of the free-hanging two-part hangerock to a woman who is doing "women's work"? I would say not; if the lady is stepping out, then consideration of ease and practicality don't apply. One is supposed to be decorative at a social function, or when the neighboring Jarl comes for dinner.

The Vikings (UK) , (the parent organization of the North American organization Vikings Vinland with whom I've played, and thus from whom I take my notions about historical Viking-era stuffs) also accepts this arrangement of the outer garment(s). I take some exceptions to the essay by Russell Scott  in which The Vikings' clothing standards for women are laid out; there's just too much in there that's dubious. All that braid in places that make no sense, for example. Mr. Scott isn't the only source of confusion in the re-enactment community; I'm pretty sure that Thor Ewing was smoking something, and Nille Glaesel also has some 'spainin to do. (Having said that, my complaints with Mr. Ewing are limited and in general he presents a lot of very good information.)

I have to admit that my initial forays into "authentic" Viking-era clothing were pretty frustrating. We don't have a lot of evidence about the clothing, and what evidence we do have has been interpreted and re-interpreted from a variety of angles and through a variety of lenses, including accidents of printing reversals. We have more questions than we have answers, and a lot of people who want to provide the answers. Many of them don't have the experience in experiential archaeology that would prompt answers that seem logical and practical. And so we tend to stick to the conventional forms - the Haithabu hangerock which is fitted, and the Birka one which is not; both closed or overlapped - effectively closed - tubes of fabric. There is some additional interest over the Kostrup dress, which has a pleated front, but remains a closed tube of fabric.

And so, the two part, split front apron dress becomes a fourth variation. Russell Scott mentions it as one of Flemming Bau's constructions based on the gold Hnafatafl piece from Tuse in Denmark. I have some reservations here; that game piece really doesn't look like a female form, but I haven't seen it in person. (Flemming Bau used the highly stylized pictorial evidence of women to interpret the archaeological record ... depictions which chiefly show a mantle that covers all the juicy details!)

Agnes Geijer described the hangerock as:

"a square of cloth wrapped around the body and supported by straps over the shoulders." [2]

We usually interpret that to mean that the cloth is wrapped so the opening is on the side of the body, and even that two sheets might be worn on opposing sides. [3] However, it seems that Scandanavian re-enactors and museums interpret this as wrapping Geijer's open cloth square to the front, based on the pictorial evidence. So, two examples from the other side of the pond.

http://haandkraft.blogspot.com/2013/08/hello-all.html

This lady works at Bork Viking Harbor, and as such, I have to consider this version trustworthy. Besides, that's one cute baby. The baby's cap is madder-dyed silk, and is naalbinding. (It's an interesting blog, so go read!)














And then there is this commercially available version from the Reenactors Shop. One of the things that I love is the bar pin that holds the apron dress together in the center front. Yes, it's the magpie in me; I can't help it. Click on the link to see the arrangement and the lady affixing the fibula to the two parts. The thing is... this hangerrock is still gored and fitted, just like the conventional closed Haithabu version. And note that the fibula that secures the two sides is visible at the breast, above the front apron.

http://www.reenactors-shop.de/product_info.php?info=p2119_Viking-Woman--180-s-Apron-Dress---blue---yellow.html

In a related observation, note the lack of belts. Shelagh Lewins describes a fragment of what is apparently a hangerrock, with a felted line at the waist - likely the place where a belt was worn. Belts are practical; they hold a small knife, or the woman's key; they keep the skirts contained; they add warmth to the clothing. But they didn't need to hold a great deal for a woman, and there is no evidence that they were anything other than fabric; there are few if any metal, bone, or antler belt fittings found in female graves. A tablet-woven band is likely and perhaps even a conventional apron.

What does this mean? The fact is that there is some evidence for quite a number of arrangements of post-peplos styles - we've been able to debunk some arrangements (a pair of sheets, front/back), and some just seem too illogical to be possible. However, with some certainty we can depend on the conventional closed versions from Haithabu and Birka, the Kostrup pleated front - and probably this two part open front that Ms. Bau postulates. (The double-wrap version has some legitimacy, too, although this seems to be what is used in the European community and turned 45 degrees into the split front.) I'd like to see more variation in the SCA and re-enactment communities; in a culture that spans thousands of miles across the north Atlantic, and at least 150 years (that is to say pre-Christianity, when the hangerrock would have been worn), we should expect more than two styles.

I see a new hangerock in my future.

[1] Not poor women nor slaves. Neither would the gentry - the ruling classes - have worn this garment, if we take as example the Osberg burial.
[2] Geijer, Agnes.  "The Textile Finds from Birka" in Cloth and Clothing in Medieval Europe (N. B. Harte & K. G. Ponting, eds.).  Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.: London, 1983.
[3] Per Dress in Anglo-Saxon England