Quote:And Yeah pretty much every northern latitude culture I know of has incoporated fur into their wardrobe somehow....at least before agriculture......---john
Again, references, please. This statement is all to easily made, it see it on more place (books, re-enactors, etc) but haven't find any good scientific evaluation of such a statement. (although it might be there, of course, as I know of sources for use of fur in ancient time, although I wouldn't generalize!)
I'm even told, by a re-enactor who says he knows his stuff, that every 'viking' or 'merovingian' clothing item was finished with fur edging. Well, I don't know much about viking nor Merovingian period or clothing, but I found such a statement very unrealistic.
________________________________________ Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma CORBVLO and Fectio ALA I BATAVORUM
Quote:And Yeah pretty much every northern latitude culture I know of has incoporated fur into their wardrobe somehow....at least before agriculture......---john
Again, references, please.
The only way to properly reconstruct a Germanic tribesman in the winter is to take a bath in frozen river (or better - in the bog ;-) ) absolutely naked? .
The point is, that we have no clear evidence of the real dress of the various Germanic tribes. Even basic dress is guessed by the comparison to few bog deposits and few (questionable) roman sources. There is also no evidence that all the Germanic tribes wore tunic and trosers from Thorsberg (3rd century A.D.?) from the 3rd century B.C. to 4th (10th)A.D., but we all use the reconstructions of those clothes. All the "barbarian reenactment" is really barbarian: mostly a vision, more or less a "scientific guess".
There is also no clear, scientific way to know the spear point from that one of the javelin. The length of the shaft usually of can be only guessed. The size of the shield? No idea. Some sources suggest very large (Tacitus), some (several findings) suggest small.
Well, John quoted Tacitus, he is right, the use of furs is rather obvious. The problem is that we have simply no starting evidence. That's the point. It would be useful to talk a while of different possibilities ("Fur clothing the Northern Eurasia and Northern America"- a long, hard work with a little chance for success ). Just to have an idea of the problem. But it is clearly to early to start the substantial reconstruction.
Thaks, Kai - of course, good point. The Tollund man can be the next http://www.tollundman.dk/. But is it the fur "in a careless fashion" or "with more elegance"? (I opt the first one). Can we also regard those examples as of a sort of "regular winter clothing"? By the way: I thought of a sort of "furry tunics" (tailored with more elegance) when I was writing about "no good evidence". But you are absolutely right - let's start from that.
Quote:Just to clarify, I'm not denying the use of fur. I only resist by making bolt statements about it being 'general use'.
Hm... why not? During the winter? According to Tacitus, probably "those of the interior" relied on fur much more than "those living closer to the limes". Probably, because Tacitus wrote his relation as there where no other textile clothing but imported:
Quote:hey also wear the skins of wild beasts; the tribes on the Rhine and Danube in a careless fashion, those of the interior with more elegance, as not obtaining other clothing by commerce
. I hardly think so.
We probably think about two different problems. Correct me if I'm wrong Jvrjenivs: You probably are afraid of "The Flintstones look" of potential reconstructions (that "romantic, stone age" effect is -unfortunately - possible). Am I wright?
But, some people just would like to find out - how they (ancient Germanic tribes) dealt with the winter, snow and so on. You know, all that northern, furry animals that were just asking to be hunted, eaten and skinned... It is worthy to try out.
Amerindians wore buffalo robes (basically just a soft-tanned fur-on buffalo hide). Inuit wear various furs. Roman signifers, imaginfers and other -fers wore bear, maybe wolf, lion, and perhaps leopard skins as part of their military gear. (Roman -fers wore fur, heh)
Medieval kings and nobles wore fur and fur trimmed garments. If I lived in the forest, and it was cold, I'd wrap me in fur if I could get it. Some folks still wear fur, perhaps as much as a fashion statement of sorts as warmth. I've worn an elkskin coat. It's very warm, and stops out even the most bitter biting wind.
I don't think the Germanics were poor, Stone agers who wore fur like is supposed for the "cave men". But then, I don't think the cave men/Neolithic people did, either. They knew how to sew. And weave.
Ditto on the non-Flintstones look. I don't believe that would be the garment worn by anybody. But to wrap oneself in a bearskin or elkskin, or reindeer skin in a blizzard? Yep. Smart move. Documentation? Nope. The ancient Germanics in particular were bad about keeping written records.
Quote:We probably think about two different problems. Correct me if I'm wrong Jvrjenivs: You probably are afraid of "The Flintstones look" of potential reconstructions (that "romantic, stone age" effect is -unfortunately - possible). Am I wright?
Probably, yes. It is hard to post pictures of re-enactors here, as I don't wanna point to specific persons. But I was pointing about people using a furs on EVERY items and ALWAYS.
Some are even more inspired by the look from gladiator, than from the sources:
Of course I know about the cold climate, I also live 'on the edge of the [roman] world', but I can manage perfectly with woolen clothing. I don't need a fur around my neck all year to be able to live.
________________________________________ Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma CORBVLO and Fectio ALA I BATAVORUM
Fair points, Jurjen. But its worth noting perhaps that modern cloths and fabrics (designed for houses and offices with central heating)are considerably lighter than cloths worn even 40 years ago. When I compare the weight of my suits to those of my father's WW2 uniform or suits, there is a major difference. Our experience of managing cold in this particular foggy corner of Europe is very different to even a generation ago.
Clearly the Flintstone look is over the top; but furs do seem to have been a real marker of the Germanic peoples- for example, some of the Latin writers' comments on Batavians, or Goths in later Roman times.
I'm with Paul here. Furs were really useful in colder climates to be ignored in this context. This doesn't mean you have to look like the famous cimmerian barbarian ;-) ...