![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
frualeydisI'm better today, I haven't been sick since last night and today I've mostly been very tired. So I've spent today like I did yesterday (except the puking part): resting and reading a dissertation in archaeology called "Klädd krigare" by Annika Larsson. English title: "Warriors clothing. Shift in Scandinavian costume in the vicinity of the year 1000" (I think she could have benefited from some of the help I got with the english abstract from you my LJ-friends).
It is interesting, though I am a little dubious about some of her reasoning, for one she assumes that Sweden was predominantly pagan until the year 1000, something that both archaeological and historical sources contradict. In fact the usage of the word Sweden shows a too vague understanding of society in what is now Sweden at the time. She also believes in remnants of viking age clothing in folk costumes (documented in the 19th century). This was a favourite idea in the late 19th and early 20th century and has since been deserted, and for good reasons. But in general the research she's using outside the textile archaeological specific seems old and dated; for the origins of the word scarlet she cites writers from the 50s, but does not mention John H Munro's important article from the early 199s, where he convincingly demonstrates that these earlier interpretations were wrong.
She claims to be a textiles expert, so I think it's odd that I should know more about it than her.
But then there are other very interesting parts where her argumentation is strong, usually the parts where she deals in a very concrete way with metal ornaments found in Birka, but also others where she disputes the common assumption that the Birka "kaftans" should have their origin in Byzantium.
I haven't finished it all, but I'm glad I took the time to read it, I seldom have the time to read whole books these days so it feels good.
It is interesting, though I am a little dubious about some of her reasoning, for one she assumes that Sweden was predominantly pagan until the year 1000, something that both archaeological and historical sources contradict. In fact the usage of the word Sweden shows a too vague understanding of society in what is now Sweden at the time. She also believes in remnants of viking age clothing in folk costumes (documented in the 19th century). This was a favourite idea in the late 19th and early 20th century and has since been deserted, and for good reasons. But in general the research she's using outside the textile archaeological specific seems old and dated; for the origins of the word scarlet she cites writers from the 50s, but does not mention John H Munro's important article from the early 199s, where he convincingly demonstrates that these earlier interpretations were wrong.
She claims to be a textiles expert, so I think it's odd that I should know more about it than her.
But then there are other very interesting parts where her argumentation is strong, usually the parts where she deals in a very concrete way with metal ornaments found in Birka, but also others where she disputes the common assumption that the Birka "kaftans" should have their origin in Byzantium.
I haven't finished it all, but I'm glad I took the time to read it, I seldom have the time to read whole books these days so it feels good.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 03:07 am (UTC)(I got here via a link in florentinescot's journal (http://florentinescot.livejournal.com/60696.html))
Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 08:07 am (UTC)/Eva
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 04:33 pm (UTC)Hope you are better soon.