[Regia-NA] My response to Colors, Getelds, Etc.

[Hrolf Douglasson]

There are snips and comments included in this posting. My blood is up; you
proceed at your peril!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lori Rael Northon" <lesseley@attbi.com>
To: <list-regia-na@lig.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 9:05 PM
Subject: [Regia-NA] My response to Colors, Getelds, Etc.


> I am responding to a couple of comments from a couple of emails.
>
> Where is the documentation to support your inferences regarding what was
> used or not used in the construction of Getelds as to material, color, how
> that material was achieved, decorations, techniques used to achieve that
> decoration, and who used the Geteld from the Anglo-Saxon society?
Citations
> only, no arbitrary conclusions or leaps of faith or analogies to other
> societies or references to respected older members.  Give me documentation
I
> can use.
>         OK...Getelds only exist in manuscript illustrations. Excavated
tents, as far as I recall, are limited to the Gokstad ship burial. where the
material is wool. Similar wool to the sail...which appeared  to have been
painted or dyed red. Not any of us having unlimited time or money, sadly,
the majority of Regia UK settle for modern canvas tents, albeit in the style
of either the Gokstad tents, or the manuscript getelds. I forget which
manuscript it is ( I will go look for you), but one of the pictures very
clearly shows a two-colour tent, with decoration along the ridge-pole.
Medwaeg made a copy, and jolly fine it is too. That usable enough for you?
> I will admit that the conclusions I've arrived at based on the
documentation
> I have at hand -  'Anglo-Saxon Wills' and about 4 or 5 manuscript
> illuminations portraying a variety of Getelds - may not be exact, but at
> least I've tried my hardest to find supporting documentation for the
Geteld
> I've created.  I have yet to be told about any solid documentation
regarding
> Getelds (with the exception of the single entry for a "red Geteld" from
Roll
> that I found by searching the Regia UK archives) by any member of Regia -
UK
> or NA.
        See above...there isn't any. But then, there isn't any solid
documentation for the existence of children, either. We know this, we have
three on site, and trying to explain them away is just the pits...:-))
BUT! There is the reference to a red tent. It's a start....have you any
documentation for a dark blue one?
>
> I have been told to paint my Geteld using red ochre and horse dung and
urine
> and a variety of other things, when the citations as quoted clearly tell
us
> about sails being water-proofed from a different time period or society.
> Nothing about Anglo-Saxon Getelds.
        I must take exception here. You were NOT "told" to do anything. You
were provided with an idea, clearly provided within its own terms of
reference, ie, out of period sails, along with a supporting opinion. You
have an opinion that a blue geteld is acceptable. We have a different
opinion! The recipie works, by the way. Ask any bargeman.
>
> I'm told to consider "use and means" when using documentation I run
across,
> okay, then that means that every single reference or citation for Getelds
> that I've found was meant for or portrays only the highest of the clergy
and
> the highest of the royalty, because the manuscripts were not meant for or
> used by either the lesser clergy nor the common people in the time period
we
> portray.
        Hold on, whoa there! Any Historian worthy of the name will be aware
that all documentation is highly open to misinterpretation, selective
editing...or it may just be telling you a total pack of lies for reasons of
its own (eg, the AS Chronicles). The higher clergy and nobility used the
written manuscripts, because they had  more access to education, and
therefore literacy. There is not a single document from our period that
claims authorship by a Commoner, and even Alfred admitted he found literacy
hard going in his early life. The manuscripts in documents like the Julian
Work Calendar were the cartoon strip/ comic book of their day; these were
the bits the commoners could see and understand without the continual
intervention of their local and probably overworked priest. So there is a
strong likelihood that said Commoners would know what a geteld was, if only
through pictures of the things. Using historical documents without
considering what they are, why they were produced, and who they were
produced for, is a bomb waiting to explode in your face (Mr. Experience
talking, here!). Context is essential.
 The !only! conclusion I can come to is that no one within our
> group portraying an Anglo-Saxon, with the exception of the highest of
> Royalty or the highest of the clergy would be allowed to use a Geteld or a
> conical tent.  End of conversation.  I guess we all sleep under tree
limbs,
> blankets, furs, other people or out in the open.
        Could be....or, if one examines the illustrations and the Gokstad
remains, it is equally plausible to conclude that these things are actually
massive, bigger than a modern frame tent; the Karmoy Viking Club (Norway)
have a canvas replica of the Gokstad tent, and it's the size of a small
house. These things do not appear to have been intended for the Anglo-Saxon
Nuclear Family, or the Thegn and His Armour....no, they appear to have been
intended to sleep an entire extended household under one roof. Time to
rethink, perhaps? House styles of the period, both from archaeology and
documents, point towards a far less privacy-oriented lifestyle than today,
so communal sleeping, either at home or on the road, would not have been the
problem for our ancestors that it is for us. Want to share a tent with my
kids? Thought not....nor, most mornings, do I!
>
> I'm told blue was a difficult and horribly expensive color to obtain (?)
and
> that since the Anglo-Saxon people were living at subsistence levels (?)
they
> would not have access to or use the color blue (?).  I'm also told the
only
> way to obtain blue in the quantities I would need to achieve dark blue
would
> be to use indigo from India (?).
        I refer you to Hazel Uzzell's email to this group on 15th february.
Despite your lack of enthusiasm for "respected old members", Hazel's
understanding of the subject is exhaustive and accurate, the result of
decades of research and practical experimentation.
     It is my understanding from countless
> references too numerous to even mention, as well as many dye "experts"
> across the board, that a very dark blue is achievable using woad.
        Care to document these references and "experts"? If we have missed
something, we would like to know, please...
 It is my
> understanding that woad was and continues to be a highly invasive weed
that
> was used by the "cottage" dyers in the time period we portray.
        That, in my understanding, is Weld, not Woad. Weld does indeed grow
everywhere, but gives yellow dyes, not blue. Woad is harder to grow,
especially in my area (NW England); I know of numerous failures, but very
few successes.
 The chemical
> component in woad is exactly the same as the component in indigo, just
found
> in smaller amounts in woad than indigo, and is indistinguishable under
> chemical analysis.  So can anyone please give me a citation from the
period
> that tells me the common Anglo-Saxon people did not use woad and did not
dye
> any of their material blue?
        As far as I am aware, there is no citation that says common people
used, or did not use, ANY dyes at all! There are continental references to
reservations regarding use of certain colours, blue among them, from our
period, and later into the Middle Ages in England, these were enshrined in
law; which brings us back to the relevance of context, and the frequent need
to extrapolate from what we know, into what we think, in order to get
anywhere at all. We cannot say for certain that lower-class Anglo-Saxons
were not using woad for their own clothing. We can, however, say that, given
the evidence for the period from mainland Europe, and given later
developments within Britain, it is highly unlikely that they were.
>
> I'm told also that the modern eye cannot distinguish the difference
between
> chemically achieved black dye and black achieved using period methods.
I'm
> also told that period black will fade over the course of its lifetime when
> exposed to sunlight and eventually turn brown.  I have no problem with the
> fading issue, but modern chemically achieved blacks will do the exact same
> thing.  I do have a serious problem with modern eyes not being able to
> discern the difference.  If this is true for black, then it holds true for
> all colors, and it holds true for all members within Regia as well.  We
all
> have modern 20th century eyes.
        Why is this a problem for you? Our eyes, and come to that our ears
and our noses, are all hideously desensitised in our modern world, in a way
that would strike our ancestors as bordering on disablement. It is possible
to train the eye to discern the modern components within dyed fabrics. But
to say that if it is true for one then it is true for all, is a nonsense,
without foundation in any sort of fact. Do you have concrete evidence for
this?
>
> I could go on, but I won't.  I will say again, that I will not compromise
my
> beliefs regarding my own research or that of others I know to be factual.
I
> will hold an absolutely open mind, however, and if anyone can provide me
> citations and references to support a different conclusion about any of
the
> things I question, I will most certainly change my conclusions.  Until
then,
> I must again respectfully agree to disagree with the arbitrary and
erroneous
> ( totally in my opinion) conclusions that some members of Regia have
reached
> apparently based on their own preconceived notions and not on factual
> evidence.  All are free to disagree or agree with my viewpoints.

        Your disagreement is noted, but I fail to find any sign of even
grudging respect for the corpus of evidence and research that has been
assembled, and continues to be added to, by regia members both in UK and US
(and other far-flung outposts). In all of this, you have not yet presented
any evidence as to why you should put a dark blue tent on site, but appear
to have concetrated on why nobody else should be allowed to dissuade you, or
even suggest that there may not be much supporting evidence for such an
object. It is difficult to see how you cannot compromise your beliefs whilst
still holding an absolutely open mind; you demand that we support our
position with solid evidence, yet decline to provide any in support of
yours. Having made this Geteld, I salute the effort; however, I find it
unlikely, given your stance so far, that any evidence presented to you would
be sufficient to get you to either abandon it, or modify it to fit what
evidence there is.

    You have also insulted my wife, my Group members, and my friends, on an
open list. Vara and I are unlikely to reply to further postings or requests
for assisatance from this source.

    Hrolf
    Wirhalh Skip-Felag
    Regia Anglorum UK
>
> For now, we have far more important things to discuss like how to get our
> members authorized for Skills then to continue quibbling amongst
ourselves.

    You have just belittled the people with the skills you are looking to be
"authorised" in! You really expect this one to go anywhere????
>
> Lori
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> list-regia-na mailing list
> list-regia-na@lig.net
> http://www.lig.net/mailman/listinfo/list-regia-na