[MR] At last - an interesting discussion on Vikings!

[mhwag at aol.com]

 Winter may be "down-time" on
the farm for men, but not so much for women. There are always children
to take care of, and men to take care of. And in winter when outdoor
work isn't possible, indoor work like production of cloth and clothing
takes up a lot of time. And speaking of clothing, I agree that the
Norse overdress (which is actually more of a wrap dress than an apron), even the blinged-up version, is remarkably adaptable for work and the various stages of
maternity wear - cut a well-placed slit in the underdress, drop the
apron loop - Easy access! 

I had the incredibly great good fortune to go to Iceland a few years ago, where I saw a few museums and displays (alas, most were closed until spring, which begins around, oh June.....).One thing that I remember seeing/reading in a couple of different places was that genetic testing showed that the majority of "male" Icelandic DNA was Norse in derivation while the majority of female DNA was Celtic in origin, which they accounted for by the large number of Irish women taken as slaves to Iceland. There was one legend? about an Irish slavegirl who was believed to be mute until she was overheard talking to her son, at which point she was elevated to second-wife status because she could bear children and thus produce heirs while the Norse wife (who still retained first-wife and head of household status) could or did not. 

I got the impression that slavery for the Norse wasn't much like the Old South plantation model, but more like bonded servitude, except that it wasn't voluntary, unless you consider losing a skirmish and surviving to be voluntary. For a remote colony like Iceland, it might have been more like pioneers who took their slaves with them out west. Based on what I saw there, I got the impression that Irish slaves, especially women, were vital to their ability to establish remote colonies, since they tended not to take their Norse wives with them. "Okay, so we're going to check on our holdings in Iceland, but first we'll stop off in Ireland and grab a few females for the new guys....."

And here's an interesting and rather horrifying U.S. history tidbit - when the Cherokee were sent west, some of them were slaveholders, and their slaves were almost the only "possessions" they were allowed to retain. 


 
Aileen

"Whatever you are, be a good one" 



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marianna Molin di Salerno <mariannamolindisalerno at yahoo.com>
To: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Sent: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:25 pm
Subject: [MR] At last - an interesting discussion on Vikings!










Wow, what an exciting discussion!
  This discussion makes the point much better than I ever could - there is much 
conflicting information in circulation about Vikings.  It is easy to see why I 
get confused!
  My limited understanding is that vikings were farmers who went on . . . find 
and fetch missions.  The farms were small, nuclear family kind of farms, rather 
than big extended family compounds/plantation farms. The quote about the sword 
throwing ceremony (where the father says, "Here, I give you this sword to make 
your way, and nothing else . . .)   seems to support this notion.  Life on farms 
in marginal areas (short growning seasons for what ever reason) must be 
adaptable.  Slaves can be seen as an adaptation..  However, slaves in marginal 
areas are a paradox - they provide needed labor but at a  cost, they must be 
fed, clothed, and housed, even when they cannot contribute to the farmstead 
(winter time is down time on a farm, and the Norse areas had long, long 
winters).  Our own country has had both kinds of farms - small nuclear family 
farms (The Laura Ingalls Wilder type Farm), and the large family 
compound/plantation, complete with slaves (Gone with the Wind).  It
 seems to me that many people seem to put vikings in one role or the other - As 
the Little Long House on the Prairie, or as Tara of the Norse.  What I need, is 
Gil Grisome, or some other excellent CSI, who can read what evidence, and 
reconstruct exactly what happened, free of cultural influences.
  If the Little Long House on the Prairie is a better model - clothing that can 
shift from maternity to post-partum, back to maternity is needed.  If Tara of 
the Norse is a better model (complete with wet nurses, and hot and cold running 
slaves), then specialized clothing becomes a status symbol.
  If examing extant evidence about how slaves dressed, we have only to look at 
the photographs of our own society, of the not too distant past. Or look at the 
paintings of Egypt.  In both it seems that slaves clothing, was a version of 
comtemportary clothing, not something that was vastly different. 
  In any case, a society is as successful as the number of children it manages 
to raise, not just produce.  Rather than speculate on when viking females became 
fertile, I am curious about the mortality rate of viking children.  Anyone have 
any info on this?  It does have a bearing on the discussion, plus I am just 
wondering . . .
  Again please forgive me if I have given offense, I am just intensly curious
  With Deepest Respect,
   Bera the Blessed
  . 


Bene agendo nunquam defessus.
(Never grow tired of doing good.)
       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
========================================================================
                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
  Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia