This lesson could also be subtitled “20+ Things You Thought You Knew About Anglo-Saxon Clothing.”   The following are a list of things that are frequently seen in reconstructions of clothing from this era, whether in films or pictures, or by re-enactors, all of which are incorrect in some way.   The list is comprehensive but not exhaustive, there are probably other faux pas that have been omitted.   They have been grouped together to follow the structure of the classes.

Textiles
Coarse rough weave
Many people, particularly filmmakers, have the idea that Anglo-Saxons dressed in crudely woven, rough ‘homespun’ cloths.   As we have seen, the cloth types commonly woven by Anglo-Saxon weavers was fairly fine and even, with thread counts in the region of 10-20 threads per cm (25-50 threads per inch) for woollens, and somewhat finer for linens.   These fabrics were often in fine twills.

Drab dirt colours no bright colours
Another common misconception (again particularly common amongst filmmakers) is that Anglo-Saxons dressed in drab, dirty colours such as greys, browns and earthy greens, and they couldn’t afford bright colours.   Whilst it is true that the Anglo-Saxons could achieve these drab colours (sometimes a great expense however), the colour palette available to the Anglo-Saxon dyer was far more varied.   Bright reds and yellows, light olive greens and pale blues and lilacs were all obtainable cheaply and easily, as were greys and browns.   Rich or dark greens, along with dark blues and deep burgundy reds were more difficult to obtain, but not altogether impossible, just very expensive requiring imported dyestuffs and much overdying.

Bad (tablet) braid 
This is a common fault amongst re-enactors and filmmakers alike.   In the case of film costume (and some re-enactors) upholstery braids and the like are often substituted for good tablet braid.   These braids are generally incorrect in almost all respects – width, materials, colours, weave, etc.   Whilst many re-enactors do make the effort to get tablet-braid, it is often of very poor quality, i.e. the wrong colours, made of overly thick wool and often slapped anywhere on the clothing.   This is to some extent understandable, particularly when they let modern, not period, considerations guide them.   The most common error is simply that the braid is too coarse – after all an inch wide braid woven on 12 or so tablets is quick and easy to make, and gives a broad, highly visible braid.   In the period, braids of such a width would be much finer, woven on between 25 and 50 tablets.   A braid woven on only 10-12 tablets would have been in the region or ¼-½ an inch wide only, and this is the type of braid commonly encountered in archaeology.   If you are going to add tablet braid to a garment remember sometimes less is more, a narrow, well made braid is infinitely more preferable than a wide, badly woven one.

Clothing - Women
Peplos too tight
A common fault when making a peplos gown is to skimp on the fabric.   There are two main reasons for this – cost or the desire to have a nice form-hugging garment that shows off the figure.   Whilst the latter can be enjoyable for any men looking on, it is not true to the period!   The gown was a loose fitting garment, and if made with too little fabric several problems can occur – tightness under the arms, seams tearing when you walk, etc.   Generally 2½-3 yards of fabric need to go into the gown for a person of medium build, more for larger sizes.

Huge overlap on peplos turned over at the shoulders
Although the Greek peplos often featured a large fold of fabric being turned over at the top, there is less evidence for this with the Germanic version.   The Greek style seems to have used a larger piece of cloth than the Germanic style, enabling the larger fold to be made.   One reason this method of wearing the gown is that the surviving example from Huldermose (often illustrated in costume books) is displayed this way.   However, it should be remembered that this item was first displayed the Classical world was the inspiration for many things, so it was displayed in the Greek manner, despite the fact there was no direct evidence for the garment having been originally worn in this way.   Whilst it is not impossible that excess length was take up in a fold, the small amount of pictorial and archaeological evidence we have points more towards the excess length being taken up by blousing over a belt.

Clothing - Men
Men all wearing phyrigian caps regardless of period
The Phyrigian cap is the most commonly illustrated form of Anglo-Saxon male headwear, whether in pictures, films or by re-enactors, but is in fact very hard to prove the existence of.   The reason is that in a number of 9th-11th century manuscripts this type of hat is shown being worn, so people making a cursory study of the costume of this period assume it was widely worn.   This is, however, likely to be an erroneous assumption as most of these manuscripts can be shown to be copies of late Roman manuscripts where such hats were worn to symbolise a freeman.   On it’s own this neither proves nor disproves that Anglo-Saxons wore them.   However, when we study ‘original’ (i.e. there is no late Roman prototype) Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, where the figures are more likely to have been based on what the artist saw about him, these hats are almost entirely absent, and men are generally shown bare-headed.   Where hats are shown they are not of true phyrigian style, but rather simple domes or conical styles.   The matter is further complicated by the fact that these manuscripts are considerably later in date than the period under consideration in these lessons.   On the whole the lack of evidence for these items seems to greatly outweigh the evidence for them, making their use unlikely, but not impossible.

Tunics too short or too long
As we have seen in lesson 4, the lengths of tunics seems remarkably consistent, and on most men would reach to somewhere between the upper and mid-thigh, depending on the amount of blousing.   Despite this tunics that reach to just below the belt or right down to the knee or below are often seen in modern reconstructions.   The short tunics are probably down to the influences of modern fashion, whilst the longer ones are inspired by later (Christian period) Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, where knee length tunics are the norm.  We know, however, that these longer tunics represent a change in fashion introduced by the Church (a point which will be discussed in more detail in the class on Middle-Saxon clothing).

Tunics too tight
Although garments like the Thorsberg tunic were quite close fitting, the skin-tight garments worn in many modern reconstructions (films and re-enactment) owe far more to late 20th century fashion than to Early Anglo-Saxon styles!

Trousers which look like modern ones (because that's how they are constructed!)
Another common error is to construct simple trousers which are generally similar to modern ones, being reasonably tight around the lower body and loose on the legs.  This is the complete opposite of the period look, which was loose about the body and tight on the legs.

Cross bindings
Cross bindings worn on the lower legs are another common modern misconception, and stem from similar sources to the phyrigian caps.   What we see as cross-bindings are probably degraded versions of late-Roman high, laced sandals.#1   The type of leg bindings shown more commonly in ‘original’ Anglo-Saxon manuscripts are the spiral ‘puttee’ type, and this type is also supported by archaeological evidence.
 

Jewellery
Brooches upside down
A number of brooch types, most notably small-long brooches, square-headed brooches and cruciform brooches, have a right and a wrong way up.   It is a convention when illustrating these brooches in reports and books or when displaying them in museums to show them with the ‘head’ uppermost.   Unfortunately this leads to them being worn that way up in modern reconstructions when, in fact, archaeology shows they were worn with the head down (or in some cases, worn horizontally).   This can also lead to problems with brooches coming undone as the fabric of the garments pulls against the pin in the incorrect manner.

Amber chipped necklaces
A common mistake made by modern re-enactors is the use of chipped amber on necklaces.   This is usually because such necklaces are relatively cheaply available.   However, none of the surviving amber necklaces are of this type (in fact, such chips would probably have been relegated to glue making); all the surviving amber beads show signs of shaping and smoothing.   The quality of the shaping is often quite crude, though many examples are well-shaped globes, discs or teardrops.   If you are going to include amber beads in your outfit a few shaped beads are much better than many chips of amber.

Men wearing beads
Quite simply, there is no certain evidence of men wearing strings of beads.   This error occurs most often because of misidentification of the gender of burials (or double male-female burials being poorly excavated), or modern reconstructors not checking the gender of the grave the beads came from.   Where gender can be safely determined, strings of beads are found exclusively in female graves.   A few beads are known from male graves and are found singly, most often in association with belts or weapons where they may have served as some kind of toggle or fastening.

Men wearing female brooches
As with the beads, brooches are found almost exclusively in female graves.   Unfortunately this does not stop many men wearing them in modern reconstructions, most often a single brooch to fasten a cloak (which, whilst not impossible, is unlikely based on the available evidence), although I have seen men at re-enactment events wearing a pair of brooches on the shoulder, sometimes complete with string of beads between them (completely incorrect, unless perhaps the wearer was a cross-dresser! [Which we also have no evidence of from the Anglo-Saxon period!])
 

Accessories
Leather purses
A common error when reconstructing Anglo-Saxon dress is the overly common use of the lidded leather purse or pouch.   Whilst such items do seem to have existed, they appear to have been uncommon, probably associated in some way with rank or status.   Contrary to the image portrayed in films, pictures and re-enactment, this item was not found dangling from belts universally.   Where they are found they do not seem to be the simple all-leather constructions made from any old leather seen being worn by re-enactors.   They were usually made from several carefully selected grades of leather with the addition of other materials for stiffening and/or decoration.   This habit amongst modern reconstructors is probably down to influences from later medieval dress when a lidded leather purse was a common accessory.

Belts
Anglo-Saxons wore belts, of this there is no doubt.   However the type of belt and way of wearing it is commonly misrepresented by re-enactors and filmmakers alike.   It is almost a convention when reconstructing Anglo-Saxon belts to knot them around the buckle and leave a long end dangling, complete with its attendant strap-end.   However, whilst this method was common in the middle-ages, the evidence we have (as limited as it is) suggests this was not the case in the Anglo-Saxon period.   The long end of the belt was most likely simply wrapped around the fastened part of the belt, and if a strap end were used (in the case of sword-belts for example) it probably hung at the hip rather than the groin or between the thighs.
 

Footwear
Footwear is one of the areas where a reconstructed costume is let down (this applies to many eras, not just Anglo-Saxon unfortunately), perhaps because getting accurate footwear is often viewed as difficult and expensive (which it can be, but need not be).

Shoes with soles (because “at least they are made from brown leather”)
Many people decide a pair of simple brown leather shoes, or even moccasins, are ‘close enough’ and this has spoiled many an otherwise excellent outfit.   The construction of a period shoe is very different to a modern one, and the lack of a heel can take some getting used to for modern feet.   However, correct footwear is pretty easy to make, and if your modern feet have trouble the addition of a thick leather insole and/or a sheepskin insole can soon fix this problem.

Anything which looks remotely like leather wraps as shoes
Perhaps one stage better than above, many people seem to think that any old piece of leather wrapped around the foot and laced in place is acceptable.   Whilst it is possible that on occasion an Anglo-Saxon may have come up with this as a temporary measure, it should be remembered that shoemaking was an art several thousand years old at this time.   Whilst shoes may have been simple in comparison to more modern examples, they were well made and fitted to the foot well.
 

Overall Appearance
Men have swords and other weapons, or women have ornate jewellery but wear clothing a slave may have turned their nose up at
A long title, but it sums up a problem commonly encountered in re-enactment and film.   Many people spend a lot of time, money and/or effort obtaining a flashy sword, spear, necklace, brooch(es), etc, then wear them with shoddily made garments of poor quality cloth.   As has been mentioned earlier in this lesson, it is important that an outfit is constructed as a whole.   If you could afford such items, your clothing would have reflected such wealth/status in terms of quality, colour, decoration and construction.

Ironmonger’s shop on belt!
We have seen that there were many items, which could be suspended from the belt (particularly for women).   A common error amongst re-enactors is the “I want it all!” syndrome where every possible accessory is seen dangling from the belt, giving the impression of an ironmongers shop hanging from the waist.   When deciding on what accessories beyond the universal knife to attach to the belt, keep in mind that the number of such items was usually not great, and that many of the items would have been in the purse/pouch.   Also, beware of mixing items needed for the work to be performed with the items that denoted you didn’t have to do such work!

Torn/unhemmed clothing
Perhaps one of the most common mistakes seen, and one of the most unlikely to have been witnessed at the time.   It should always be remembered that cloth at the time was PRECIOUS!   (If you don’t believe me then go out and shear a sheep or two with hand shears, wash the fleece, spin miles and miles of yarn on a drop spindle, collect your dye-plants and then dye your yarn, then weave sufficient cloth to make a garment on a warp-weighted loom!  After that, you might find the loss of that expensive brooch less distressing than the tear in your dress!)   Although clothing would have become worn, frayed or torn, there is plenty of evidence to show such damage was repaired quickly (usually by darning or patching), and that old garments were often recycled into other garments or items (e.g., the old clothing torn into strips and used for caulking in Hedeby).   Although to the modern mind such clothing might convey the idea of poverty, in reality the poor were the ones who could least afford such damaged clothing, as frayed edges significantly shorten the life of a garment.

1.   This type of binding does seem to give us one of the earliest examples of ‘re-enactors getting it wrong’ as when Charlemagne decided to model his Empire on that of the Romans, what the Carolingian Franks thought Roman dress was like (without modern archaeology to help) was adopted at the Royal court, and we see a few surviving illustrations of long shoe-laces being wrapped up the leg, OVER the puttee style bindings, in a criss-cross pattern, to give a ‘Roman’ look to the outfit!   back

Having problems with this webpage contact: questions@costumegallery.com