Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
64
Introduction
Textile production was one of the more important
household activities of Icelanders in the 10th century.
Produced entirely by women, textiles rapidly gained
importance, becoming a significant trade commodity
exported to Norway in the early medieval period,
with growing markets expanding first to the British
Isles and then to Northern Europe (Gelsinger
1980:69–70; Hayeur Smith, in press). Within Iceland,
cloth became the basis of the economic system,
used as currency to pay taxes, tithes, debts, and fines.
Medieval literary sources suggest strict legal guidelines
that were implemented regulating the size,
length, and quality of this currency (Dennis et al.
1980, 2002; Hayeur Smith 2014:732–733; Hoffman
1974:213; Þórláksson 1991).
All textile production in Iceland was done using
the warp-weighted loom and drop or high-top whorl
(see Fig.1; Andersson Strand 2011:5,6,8,9; Bender
Jørgensen 1992:11; Hayeur Smith 2014a:732; Hoffman1974:
226; Robertsdottir 2008:67). Basic weaves
encountered varied through time, with most diversity
in weaves found during Iceland’s Viking Age (Hayeur
Smith 2013b) and rapidly declining so that the main
weave types which dominate the assemblage in the
early medieval period are the 2/2 twill and the tabby1
or plain weave (Fig. 2; Hayeur Smith 2014:738)
By the last decades of the 10th century, when the
Icelanders sailed to Greenland to settle, they brought
with them this important textile tradition and continued
to produce cloth for household needs. Cloth had
many utilitarian functions—as clothing, sails, tents,
and household equipment—but cloth did not retain
its value as a form of currency in Greenland as it had
done in Iceland. Instead, Greenlandic cloth production
evolved in a very different direction, one that
was based more on local consumption.
Midden excavations were carried out in southwestern
Greenland on the eastern shore of the Igaliku
Fjord at Ø172 Tatsipataa between 2009 and 2010,
and were part of the Vatnahverfi project focusing on
understanding Norse farming and hunting strategies
as well as local resource management (Smiarowksi
2012:3). The site of Ø172 was selected following
coring and surveying of the area, though it was the
midden, located in close proximity to a Norse farm,
that was the focus of the project and from which a
sizeable quantity of archaeofauna and textiles were
found (Fig. 3). Organic remains such as these, well
preserved in permafrost, are becoming increasingly
rare due to climatic fluctuations and overall warming
trends (Smiarowski 2012:4). Widespread degradation
of the archaeological record seems inevitable,
and the preservation of so many textiles is an important,
if unexpected, contribution from this site. The
textiles from Ø172 are also important as a result of
having been excavated under controlled conditions
from a well-stratified sequence. As information from
a properly contextualized site, they offer a unique
opportunity for contributing to understanding the
evolution of textile production in Greenland as well
as identifying important strategies that were adopted
as climate changed in Greenland during the start of
the Little Ice Age.
These textiles were sent to Brown University and
were cleaned and curated by Alex Allardt, consulting
Dress, Cloth, and the Farmer’s Wife: Textiles from Ø 172 Tatsipataa,
Greenland, with Comparative Data from Iceland
Michèle Hayeur Smith*
Abstract - Midden excavations at Ø172 (Tatsipataa), on the eastern shore of the Igaliku fjord in southwestern Greenland,
produced a significant textile collection consisting of 98 fragments. This collection is important as it stems from a wellcontextualized
and well-stratified sequence, allowing significant insights into the evolution and nature of cloth production in
Greenland. Analysis of this collection showed that while the earliest fragments mirror Icelandic counterparts of comparable
ages, the Ø172 collection changes considerably by the 14th century. From this point onward, Greenlandic women wove a
weft-dominant cloth unique to Greenland. This cloth type has previously been noted in other, later, Greenlandic collections,
but the Tatsipataa collection provides new evidence for the date of its first production. The sudden appearance of this
distinctive weft-dominant Greenlandic homespun in the mid-14th century suggests that its production was a domestic adaptation
to the initial climatic fluctuations of the Little Ice Age. Overall, the Tatsipataa collection suggests that Greenlandic
textile production did not follow the evolutionary trajectory of Icelandic textiles, which became a form of currency from
the early to the later Middle Ages. Instead, Greenlandic textiles appear to have been consistently produced for household
consumption, without the intense standardization for trade observed in medieval Icelandic collections.
In The Footsteeps of Vebæk—Vatnahverfi Studies 2005-2011
Journal of the North Atlantic
*Haffenreffer Museum,Brown University, 300 Tower Street, Bristol, RI, 02809, USA; Michele_Smith@brown.edu.
2014 Special Volume 6:64–81
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
65
conservator for Brown University’s Haffenreffer
Museum of Anthropology and were analyzed by the
author. This paper presents preliminary results of
this analysis, placing this material into a larger context
of cloth production in the North Atlantic during
the medieval period.
The Data and its Analysis
Textiles from Ø172
Textiles from the North Atlantic and Scandinavia
have been the topic of numerous scholarly works
(e.g., Scandinavia: Andersson 2003; Andersson
Strand 2011; Bender Jørgensen 1986, 1992; Christensen
and Nockert 2006; Hagen 1994; Hägg 1974,
1984a, 1984b, 1986, 1991; Kjellberg 1982, Kjellberg
and Hoffman 1991; Vedeler 2007. Icelandic textiles:
Damsholt 1984; Guðjonsson 1962,1965,1970,1973,
1980, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1998a, 1998b; Hayeur
Smith 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2014, in press; Robertsdottir
2008, Walton Rogers 2012. Greenlandic
material: Nørlund 1924, 1925; Østergård 1998,2004,
2005).
Figure 1. The warp-weight loom. The illustration was done based on a replica of a warp-weighted loom on display at the
National Museum of Iceland. The extra warp yarns braided to the side may not always be displayed in this manner, and the
set up may vary slightly from region to region. (Illustration © Hayeur Smith 2014).
Figure 2. Weave types encountered in medieval Iceland:
to the left a tabby or plain weave, and to the right a 2/2
diagonal twill (Bender Jørgensen 1992:12)
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
66
Figure 3. E172 Site plan with the excavation areas marked in red. Areas A–C are the largest red square NW of str. 4. Area D
is the smaller square NW of Str. 4, and Area E is the small square SE of Str.4. Plan by C.K.Madsen. (in Smiarowski 2012:6).
The textile collection from Ø 172 was catalogued
under 63 field numbers, although the actual number
of fragments (98) associated with these fieldassigned
numbers was far larger after conservation
and analysis. The majority of the textiles from Ø172
came from Area C (76), with fewer from Area B (22).
Preliminary dating of the midden phases by K.
Smiarowksi (Hunter College, CUNY, NY, New
York, USA) are shown in Table 1. Each piece
was analyzed for fiber type, object dimensions,
thread counts (warp and weft), warp and weft yarn
dimensions, spin tension (when possible), construction
details, color, weave pattern, evidence for
incorporation within larger garments or objects,
adhering or incorporated non-textile materials, and
unique features. All objects were photographed
using a digital DinoScope® microscope at magnifications
of 70x– 200x and a Nikon digital camera.
Samples have been taken from select pieces of cloth
and await further analysis for fiber and dye identification,
which will be carried out by McCrone Assocaites,
Inc. (Chicago IL, USA).
The range of textile finds from the site is shown
in Table 2. Most of the textiles analyzed are 2/2
twills, some warp-faced with dominant warp thread
counts. An additional 12 items were very fragmented,
although it is most likely that these were 2/2
twills, as well. There are two 2/1 twills, and 1 possible
tabby, although the weave was too disarticulated
to be certain of this identification. Additionally
Table 1. Midden phases from Ø 172, and their preliminary dating
and number of textiles found.
Phase Date Number of textiles
Phase 1 AD1000–1100 59
Phase 2 AD1100–1200 34
Phase 3 AD1200–13004 5
Table 2. Distribution of types of textiles found.
Possible Clumps
2/2 2/2 2/1 of raw
twills twill twill Tabby Cordage Yarn wool Vegetal
69 12 2 1 3 5 3 3
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
67
there are cords of wool, raw wool, and three fragments
of vegetal material, with preliminary visual
identification as sphagnum moss by Heather Trigg
(University of Massachusetts, Boston’s Fiske Center
for Archaeological Research, Boston, MA, USA).
The spinning pattern for all of these textiles follows
a pattern previously noted on Icelandic cloth:
warp yarns are single z-spun while weft yarns are
s-spun. Visual identification indicates that the warp
fibers tend to be noticeably more coarse that the weft
fibers because the warp yarns are spun from the outer
hairs—the tog—and the weft from the softer and
fluffier inner coat—the þel—of the “northern short
tail” sheep (Østergård 2005:81; Ryder 1982:224;
Walton Rogers 1998, 2011). This feature is unique to
the Norse textile tradition and is first noted in Viking
Age Norway according to Bender Jørgensen (1986,
1992), and may be have been adapted to the structure
of the warp-weighted loom and the need for strong
and coarse fibers able to withstand being suspended
from the loom, though this remains inconclusive and
requires further investigation. The same pattern was
noted in other Greenlandic textile collections by Walton
Rogers, who pointed out that that Greenlandic fibers
were of the hairy- and hairy-medium fleece type,
with a mean of 33–56 microns for the warp and 21–38
for the weft fibers (Walton Rogers 1998:69; Walton
Rogers in Østergård 2004:83). Icelandic textiles offer
similar ratios, with large warp fibers often >100 μ
displaying continuous medullas, medium fibers in
the range ≈30–60 μ, and the undercoat fibers in some
cases very fine with the smallest diameters ranging
around 10 μ (Ordoñez 2011). Preliminary testing
is also underway on the Ø172 textiles to determine
whether other types of fiber such as goat hair and
rabbit fur were incorporated into them, as noted by
Østergård (2004) in other Greenlandic collections.
In other archaeological contexts, Spin direction2
has often been linked to geographic regions (Bender
Jørgensen 1986, Minar 2001:384). In Iceland, the
choice to spin z/s textiles may have some association
with foreign textile traditions that made their way
into Iceland during the Landnám period, as more
than half of Icelandic textiles from the Viking Age
are spun like those most characteristically found in
Norway during the Viking Age: z/z (Hayeur Smith,
in press).3 Yet a significant proportion of textiles,
even in the Viking Age, were z/s, and by the 12th–
13th century, this spin pattern became dominant
in Iceland (ibid.) and in Norway as well (Vedeler
2007:285–384). In Iceland, this rapid shift in spin
direction could be linked either to the ethnic origins
of the women doing the spinning or by trade with the
British Isles, Scandinavia, and Continental Europe
where this spin tradition was widespread (ibid.).
The tension of the yarns used in weaving cloth is
affected both by the technological structure and requirements
of the warp-weighted loom and the needs
of the weavers (Mårtensson, et al. 2009:396–397).
Most of the warp yarns in the Ø172 collection are
hard spun, between 30–45˚, while wefts are fluffier,
between 15–30˚, which promotes more napping on
the surface of the cloth.
Unique Aspects of the Ø172 Textiles and their
Relationship to other Greenlandic Collections
Modifications, sewing, and weaving features
The transformation of textiles into dress items is
usually visible by the presence of stitching, hems,
embroidered eyelets, patching, or particularities in
the cloth itself such as the presence of starting borders.
Although none of the latter were noted in this
assemblage, these borders are common features used
to identify the use of the warp-weighted loom in textile
production. Another commonly identified feature
in North Atlantic assemblages are selvages—the
borders or edges of the piece of cloth created during
the weaving process. These features, when present,
offer insights into the use of cloth in various areas of
life, into dress practices, and into functional contexts
of textile production for sails, tents, blankets, etc.
Twenty-three of the ninety-eight textiles from Ø172
present some of these technical details, shedding
light into their use as objects (Table 3).
Utilitarian items
No. 1363a from Area B, layer 195C, may have
been a part of a sail or tent as it has a visible large,
stitched eyelet with a diameter of 14.90 mm (Fig. 4)
similar to a sail cloth eyelet (Trondenes 06) found
in 1994 within the Trondenes Church by Jon Bojer
Godal (Cooke et al. 2002:204) and radiocarbon
dated to AD 1280–1420 (ibid). It is made using the
eyelet stitch (similar to the button hole stitch; Fig.
5; Thursfield 2001:54–58). Eyelets which served to
rig the ship with ropes were stitched or embroidered
directly into the sail. Sail cloth is difficult to identify
archaeologically, is uncommon, and it is generally
thanks to eyelets such as these or the presence of
surface treatment making the sails stiff that they can
be identified (Cooke et al. 2002:204).
Table 3. Textile fragments from Areas B and C offering information
on household items, dress, or weaving technology.
Tablet
woven Hem/ Striped
Eyelet piping Patching seams Selvage textiles
Area B 0 3 0 4 1 1
Area C 1 0 1 7 1 4
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
68
Typically, Scandinavian sail cloth was made of
a 2/1 twill. This pattern is particularly characteristic
of Danish and Swedish sails from the 11th–13th
centuries, but in Iceland they were almost always
2/2 twills (Cooke et al. 2002:204) such as with the
Greenlandic sample No. 1363a. The Oseberg ship
sails were also made from a 2/2 twill (Christensen
and Nockert 2006:20).
Experimental trials at Roskilde, Denmark, undertaken
to reconstruct the Skuldelev ships, indicated
that wool performed better than linen for making
sails, providing more stretch and elasticity in strong
winds (Cooke et al. 2002:207). Through experimental
trials, it was also noted that different grades and
weights of wool produced different results and that
sails needed to be treated to reduce airflow (ibid).
This surface treatment, or
smörring, consisted of rubbing
the cloth in animal fat,
resin, and red ochre (Cooke
et al. 2002:209). Although
Ø172 1363a did not display
such properties, further analysis
is required to test for the
presence of these materials.
Undoubtedly, similar surface
treatments would also be required
for tents, particularly
in the rainy and windy conditions
of the North Atlantic.
Clothing fragments and
sewing
Ø172 offered several examples
of stitching, patching,
discarded hems, or finishing
touches done on garments. Of
particular interest are the tablet-
woven piping fragments
found in Area B: 386a,b and
286 (Fig. 6). This decorative
technique was used to
edge garments and prevent
the cloth from fraying. Tabletwoven
piped edges use a combination
of tablet weaving and
stitching whereby the weft
thread in the tablet weave also
acts as the sewing thread that
secures the edge of the cloth
(Østergård 2004:104).
Selvages can also be used
to edge garments. They are
produced as the natural edges
that form while weaving on
the warp-weighted loom and
are not decorative, as are the
tablet-woven piped edges.
Østergård (2004) noted two
different types of selvage
in Norse Greenlandic cloth.
In one, the weft threads are
crossed once at the end; in the
Figure 4. No. 1363a—possible eyelet from a sail or tent (Photograph © M. Hayeur
Smith 2012).
Figure 5. Close up of No. 1363a showing details of the eyelet stitch (Photograph ©
M. Hayeur Smith 2012).
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
69
withstand being patched before they were discarded
in the middens of Norse farms.
This level of cloth recycling cannot be overstated
and is a significant characteristic of textiles and their
use in the Norse colonies of the North Atlantic as
well as in Scandinavia (Vedeler 2007). Despite the
variability that might exist between skins, furs, and
different grades of cloth, it is interesting to consider
that parkas, for example, while made of skins and
fur, lasted on average one year if worn daily and
were recut and transformed into blankets, etc., thereafter
(Kobayashi Issenman 2000:40). Once cloth began
to fray and wear, it could be salvaged and reused
to make other household items
or used as patches on existing
garments. A few noteworthy
pieces, such as the shirt
from Búaland, Iceland (H.
Gestsdóttir, Fornleifastofnun
Íslands, 2011 pers. comm.;
Róbersdóttir 2008:vi), include
17–20 patches on a single
shirt. This intense recycling
of clothing is also apparent in
the numerous discarded hems
found in Icelandic middens,
often interpreted as “cording”.
When the cloth is folded onto
itself and stitched down to
create a finished edge at the
base of a garment it becomes
permanently fixed, creased,
and no longer flexible for reuse.
It is easier to cut the hem
off rather than work painstakingly
at undoing the stitches
and attempting to flatten the
cloth for reintegration into a
new garment or object. Several
of these hems were noted at
Ø172, including 1365b, 1129
(2), 1151e,h, and 1409 from
Area C, and 600b and 444a,b,c
from Area B.
Stitching is visible on
these discarded hems—386a,
noted for its tablet-woven
piping, also shows evidence
of having been patched and
stitched. Stitching is often
visible on both Icelandic and
Greenlandic cloth due to the
use of a plied thread, which
is more solid and helps create
other type, they are crossed over twice to create a
cluster of threads grouped in fours (see Østergård,
2004:65, figs 33, 34). Selvages were noted on No.
1151a from Area C, and 343 from Area B (Fig. 7).
One of these examples appears to be of the first type,
while the other is inconclusive due the size of the
piece and deterioration of the weave.
Patching was also identified at Ø172, and is very
widespread in Icelandic collections, suggesting that
cloth was commonly worn to the extreme and that
no piece of cloth was wasted. As a result, clothing
identified in the archaeological collections was frequently
patched until the garments could no longer
Figure 6. No. 386a with tablet-woven piped edging. (Photograph © M. Hayeur Smith
2012).
Figure 7. Selvage, type 2 identified on No. 343 from Area B. (Photograph © M.
Hayeur Smith).
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
70
a more durable stitch. Typically, overcast or hemming
stitches are used to keep garments together
(Thursfield 2001:44). No. 1151g, while very small,
may also have been an eyelet of some sort. As intense
napping on the surface of the cloth obstructs
visibility, it is only possible to see the outlines of
some eyelet stitching on this piece.
Other interesting features at Ø172 include two
sets of cloth from Area B (no. 708) and from Area
C (no. 1179 a,b,c) with striping made from two
colors of yarn: light and dark brown in color (initially
probably white and tan). A similar piece was
recorded from the Farm Beneath the Sand (GUS),
(64V2-III-555), that originally combined black
2/2 twill of goat hair with narrow stripes of white
fur from Arctic hare (Østergård 2004:71). A recent
re-analysis of fibers from textiles from the Farm
Beneath the Sand site using ancient DNA studies,
has determined that several of the initial species
identification were incorrect, though the arctic hare
(64V2-III-555) remains inconclusive (G. Nyegaard,
Greenland National Museum and Archives, Nuuk,
Greenland, 2014 pers. comm.). The “hare” fur from
the fragment found at the GUS was noticeably different
from the rest of the fibers. This was not the
case at Ø172, though further testing is required.
Number 1179 a,b,c, along with others, await analysis
for fiber content identification.
Two additional pieces, 1090 and 1370 (both from
Area C), show a crease or anomaly in the weave that
is difficult to discern visually. This may be due to
idiosyncrasies of the weaver and therefore part of
the cloth or the result of being folded and crushed in
a midden for the last 700 years.
Weft-dominant cloth
One of the more unique features of Greenlandic
cloth is the dominance of noticeably high weft
thread counts in the archaeological textile collections.
Arriving in Greenland, the Norse brought
with them textile traditions from Iceland that, as a
rule of thumb, incorporated more warp threads than
weft threads in their weaves. This warp-dominant
characteristic was noted in the earliest textiles found
at Ø172. As elsewhere in Greenland, it is almost impossible
to discern Icelandic from Greenlandic cloth
in these earlier phases.
Østergård (2004) attributed the weft-dominant
cloth, which appeared later in her sequence, to
women looking to make warmer clothing in the face
of increasingly harsh winters (Østergård 1998:62,
65; 2004:62–63; 2005:81), and this change clearly
would be an effective adaptive strategy in garment
construction (M.T. Ordoñez, University of Rhode
Island, Kingston, RI, USA, 2012 pers. comm.).
Østergård (2005:81) felt that the use of more underwool
that was then beaten more closely on the loom
created a more firm and warmer product. Alternative
solutions might involve surface treatment of the textiles,
which surprisingly none of the Ø172 textiles
display. Østergård never identified a specific date
when this transition took place, only stating that this
was a characteristic that could be used to identify
Greenlandic vaðmál in other archaeological settings
and that it seemed to appear in later contexts (ibid.).
Ø172 is unique in this regard as it has the
advantage of having a relatively well-controlled
chronological sequence spanning several centuries
that allows this behavioral feature to be tracked
through time despite its relatively small sample size
in comparison with other Greenlandic collections. In
Area B, no textiles were noted with high weft-thread
counts; all were like their Icelandic counterparts.
However, Area B also had far fewer textiles than
Area C and the absence of weft-dominant textiles
there may simply reflect sample size. By contrast,
textiles from Area C show this shift in weaving patterns
occurring in the second and third phases of
the site’s sequence4 (Fig. 8). It appears that weavers
were experimenting with this technological anomaly
before implementing it fully into their cloth tradition,
as there is a clear chronologically sensitive
sequence from warp-dominant textiles in Phase 1
to equally balanced and weft-dominant textiles in
Phases 2 and 3, (as mentioned above, phase 2 and 3
date dated to later periods [1100–1300+]). In Area
C, textiles from layer 114 (Phase 1) begin to show
textiles with equal thread counts, as do textiles from
layer 93 in Phase 2. By layer 86, in Phase 2, this
trait is well established and weft threads start to
outnumber warp threads significantly, with thread
counts of 10/15 or 8/13 and with the numbers of
weft-dominant textiles increasing through time. Figure
8 displays thread counts for the various phases at
Ø172: Phase 1–2 textiles clearly mirror the Icelandic
vaðmál, yet by late Phase 2 things begin to change,
with an increasing amount of cloth produced using
weft-dominant weaves. The only textile from Phase
3 has a weft-dominant weave, as was also the case at
the later Norse site of Herjolfsnes, where this weftdominance
intensifies with extremely high weftthread
counts.
In order to establish an approximate date for this
shift in weaving, two fragments of cloth from Area
C were sampled and submitted for AMS dating at
Beta Analytic Laboratories (Fig. 9): No. 1142b, from
Context 93 (Beta-320126), produced a radiocarbon
age of 600 ± 30 bp, calibrated at 1-sigma to calAD
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
71
abilities under both curves, the best estimate for the
age of E172-1090 is calAD 1323–1415 at 1-sigma
and calAD 1308–1428 at 2 standard deviations.
These samples’ ages are statistically identical at
P > 0.95 (T = 0.8888889). Given their stratigraphic
comparability (based on the excavators’ Harris Matrix
placement), their similarity as the earliest Greenlandic
weft-dominant cloth samples in the site, and
the probability that the garments they represent were
in use for more than a single (or even a few) years
and may have been recycled and reused for quite a
few years, an average of the two dates is reasonable
and may provide a closer approximation of the age
of the later deposits from which both samples came.
The pooled average of these two samples, 580 ± 21
bp, calibrates to calAD 1320–1405 at 1-sigma, with
a 68.3% internal probability under the 1-sigma curve
that the actual date for these deposits falls within the
interval calAD 1320–1349. At two standard devia-
1309–1398 and at 2-standard deviations to calAD
1297–1408. Internal probabilities suggest the most
likely estimate for its actual age is calAD 1309–1361
under the 1-sigma curve (P = 0.797) with a far lower
(P = 0.202) probability of falling within the secondary
curve, calAD 1386–1398. At two standard deviations,
there is an internal probability of 0.74 that
the date for this sample falls in the interval calAD
1297–1373. With fair certainty, the best estimate for
the age of this sample is ca. calAD 1300–1365.
No.1090, from Context 86 (Beta-320125), produced
a radiocarbon date of 560 ± 30 bp, calibrated
at 1-sigma to calAD 1323–1415 and at 2-standard
deviations to calAD 1308–1428. Internal probabilities
under the 1- and 2-sigma curves are almost exactly
evenly split between the intervals calAD 1323–
1347 and calAD 1392–1415 (under the 1-sigma
curve) and 1308–1361 or calAD 1386–1428 (under
the 2-sigma curve). Given the even internal prob-
Figure 8. Thread counts recorded from Herjolfsnes (Østergård 2004) and Ø172 phases 1–3.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
72
“The textiles from urban sites are mainly
z/s woolen twills, viz. both plain diagonal
twills, broken twills, and diamond twills and
sometimes 2/1 lozenge twills whereas tabby
is relatively rare. Fabrics with z/z spin are
rare too, whereas this spin combination is
common in the graves both of Anglo-Saxon
England and of Viking Scotland and Ireland.
The Viking graves as just described exhibit a
strong predominance of z/z tabby and a few
z/z twills …” (Bender Jørgensen 1992:40).
The main distinction appears to be spin direction,
which has close correlations with geographic distribution
and cultural affiliation as mentioned earlier
(Minar 2001:384). Viking Age burial sites from the
British Isles and Iceland share similar textile traditions
with Viking Norway, with z/z textiles as the
preferred spin directions. Textiles from settlement
sites from the same period in Iceland share textile
traditions with British urban sites and continental
Europe, with greater numbers of z/s cloth (Fig. 10;
Hayeur Smith, in press).
Comparisons between Greenland and Iceland’s
Landnám period are impossible, and textiles from
the earliest phases at Ø172 meet with more limited
comparative datasets from early medieval Iceland
due to a general paucity of archaeological material
for the 11th–13th centuries in the Icelandic archaeological
record. Despite this, it is possible to gain a
sense about what textiles were like from the few
specimens that do exist and from textiles dating to
the early or mid-1200s.
Very early on in the Commonwealth
period it appears
that Iceland turned its cloth
production strategies towards
manufacturing very standardized
cloth (Hayeur Smith
2014:733). Based on analyses
carried out on Icelandic textiles
by the author,5 textiles
are predominantly 2/2 twills,
the majority of which have
hard spun warp threads and
fluffier wefts; all are z/s spun
with a warp thread count range
between 4–14 (ibid.) Certain
sites such as Bergþórshvoll
appear to have been engaged
in producing this type of cloth
in a quasi-industrial fashion.
The data clusters in Figure 11
clearly illustrate the growing
importance of vaðmál as a
tions, the range for the age of these samples is calAD
1308–1413, with an internal probability of 67.5%
under the 2-sigma curve that the most accurate age
estimate for the initiation of the deposition of weftdominant
cloth at Ø172 commences somewhere
around calAD 1308–1362 (Fig. 9).
While the data here is meager and only represents
one site, the pattern suggested appears to
follow other textile data from Greenland: the transition
to weft-dominant cloth was a feature that appeared
later rather than earlier on in the settlement.
Furthermore, the results do confirm the suspicions
voiced by Østergård (2004:63) that weft-dominant
cloth was developed because “Greenlanders wanted
clothes that were warmer.”
Ø172 Textiles in Light of Comparative Material
from Iceland
Contemporaneous Icelandic textiles
Icelandic textiles from the Viking Age share
common features and form a distinct cluster of
textiles within a chronology of North Atlantic cloth
production (Hayeur Smith, in press). These early
textiles tend to include more diversity in weaves,
color, and spin direction and also share many features
with Norse colonies in the British Isles. It was
noted by Bender Jørgensen (1992) and Walton Rogers
(1989) that textiles in Great Britain from the 9th
and 10th centuries show differences between grave
finds from Scotland, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and
urban sites:
Figure 9. Probability Distributions for calibrated radiocarbon dates on textiles from
Ø172.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
73
legal currency and trade commodity (Hayeur Smith
2012, 2013a, 2014), while the thread counts resonate
with records that exist on the topic of legal vaðmál
studied by Helgi Þórláksson in his doctoral dissertation
(Hayeur Smith 2014:733). Additionally, it is
clear that cloth currency did not diminish in importance
after the 13th century, as has generally been
thought. Instead, a more complex and nuanced picture
emerges, with a tapering off of cloth currency as
a trade commodity in the 16th or 17th centuries. The
continuing significance of vaðmál as a trade product
into the late 16th century was observed in the English
harbor records examined by Helgi þórlaksson
(1991):
“August 1596, for example, a 60 ton English
ship engaged in Icelandic trade docked
at Yarmouth, England carrying 640 yards
of vaðmál, 240 vaðmál socks, 720 vaðmál
mittens, and 18 vaðmál cassocks, which the
harbormasters assessed as being worth more
than all of the fish that filled its hold” (þórlaksson
1991:262; K.P. Smith, Haffenreffer
Museum of Anthropology, Brown University,
Providence, RI, USA, translation).
In Figure 11, this standardization is noted especially
in data from the sites of Gásir, Möðruvellir,
Kúabot, and Bessastðair, with thread counts centered
around 8, 10, and 12 warp threads per centimeter. On
average, weft thread counts almost never go beyond
10 weft threads per centimeter.
Looking at medieval records, the archaeological
data resonates with the sources, and each cluster
noted at 8, 10, or 12 warp threads per centimeter
corresponds to a different quality of vaðmál (H. Þórlaksson,
University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland,
2012 pers. comm.). In fact, both Hoffman (1974)
Figure 10. Distribution of spin direction for Iceland, Scandinavia, the British Isles, and continental Europe during the 10th
and 11th century. Note the similarity in spin between the British Isles and Iceland, suggesting strong cultural ties between
these two regions. (Hayeur Smith, in press).
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
74
and Þórláksson (1991) offer some ideas as to how
cloth was intended to be woven based on medieval
sources. Hoffman (1974:213) noted that in Búalög,
the legal guidelines were frequently inconsistent,
but she argued for a range between 4–14 warp
threads per centimeter for legal cloth. Þórláksson
(1991:252), on the other hand, identified legal guidelines
enacted at various periods around AD 1300 and
then again between AD 1613 and 1640 stating that
gjaldavoð was to have 220 warp threads per 2.5 ells6
(9–10 warp threads per cm), klæðavoð 260 warp
threads per 3 ells of cloth (11 warp threads per cm),
and smávoð 320 threads per 3.25–3.5 ells of cloth
(11–14 warp threads per cm).
It is the author’s opinion that this standardization
reflects the growing importance of cloth as a
form of legal currency and item of trade in Iceland,
which may have been triggered by pressures from
international trade markets in cloth (Hayeur Smith
2014:741). Dugmore et al. (2007:20) suggest that
by AD 1200 Iceland had intensified its production
of sheep for surplus wool as well, a pattern that fits
nicely with the Icelandic textile data. This pattern differed
in Greenland, where sheep appear to have been
largely bred for milk and not surplus wool (ibid.).
Textiles from Ø172 and their Place in the North
Atlantic during the Little Ice Age
The textiles from Ø172’s earliest phase bear no
distinct features to distinguish them from Icelandic
cloth and present themselves in so similar a fashion
that it is difficult to tell them apart. It is only in
the later material, from late Phase 2 onwards, that
distinctive traits emerge, with Greenlandic cloth developing
its own idiosyncratic style within the North
Atlantic continuum. Numbers of cloth from Phase 3
are not as abundant as they are on other Greenlandic
sites because Ø172 is a site with few to no late-14thand
15th-century deposits. The few items that do
exist from Phase 3 are weft dominant—confirming
patterns in textile production observed elsewhere in
Figure 11. Thread counts for Iceland’s medieval period showing intense standardization of cloth by 1200 and possibly earlier
(Hayeur Smith 2014a, 2013a). Circle and dashed oval reflect standardization of thread counts at 7-12 warp threads per
centimeter and 14 warp threads per centimeter.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
75
ity of earlier textile traditions in Iceland and Greenland,
while Figure13 illustrates the separation noted
by Østergård (2004) and in this paper. While Iceland
Greenland that this feature developed in the early
14th century and expanded across Norse Greenland
by the 15th century. Figure 12 illustrates the similar-
Figure 12. Textiles from Ø172 Phase 1 compared with early and late Viking Age Icelandic textiles (Hayeur Smith 2012,
2014a, 2013a).
Figure 13. Textiles from Ø172 Phase 2 compared with high medieval textiles from Iceland (Hayeur Smith 2012) and Herjølfsnes
(Østergård 2008).
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
76
AD 1500, with a first cold spell occurring sometime
between AD 1320–1350.
The shift in cloth technology to weft-dominant
cloth occurs, according to the dates obtained from
samples at Ø172, between AD 1308 and 1362—well
within the range noted for this first cold transition
(see Fig. 14). The textile data also seems to suggest
that some kind of experimentation may have taken
place before weft-dominant cloth became implemented
on all cloth.
This type of behavior, so rarely visible in the
archaeological record, brings to mind decisions that
women—the sole weavers in Norse society—had to
make regarding the way they produced cloth. Weaving,
cordage and cloth technologies, overall, have
been noted by textile analysts to be culturally conservative
and to change very little over the course
of time (Adovasio 1986, Carr and Maslowski 1995,
Drooker 1992, Johnson and Speedy 1991, Kuttruff
1988, Minar 2001, Petersen and Wolford 2000).
When the weather started getting cold, how would
one make warmer garments?
appears to have focused its textile production on
economic concerns, intensifying its wool and textiles
for trade and currency, the Greenlanders appear
to have been focused on staying warm.
The Little Ice Age affected Iceland and Greenland
in different ways (Fig.14). While temperature
drops observed in Greenland seem to commence
around 1300, Iceland began experiencing sustained
climatic deterioration between AD1475 and
AD1520. The 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th centuries have generally
been described as ones of extreme poverty and
famine, not to mention the beginning of a cold spell
that intensified, ruining crops and making subsistence
generally difficult (Hayeur Smith 2012:14,15).
Correlating temperature fluctuations in the North
Atlantic with textile production in Greenland may
provide more definitive answers to the technological
adaptations that Norse Greenlandic women chose to
implement in their cloth production. According to
McGovern (1980:246), Mann et al. (2009:1257), and
Dugmore et al. (2007), the North Atlantic experienced
cooling effects from the Little Ice Age before
Figure 14. Climate deterioration in the North hemisphere and North Atlantic from multiple proxy records. Adapted from
Mann et al. (2009).
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
77
though without radically changing the overall appearance
of the cloth.
With these ideas in mind, it is possible to draw
up a list of priorities required for the transformation
of cloth into something warmer by the women who
produced it:
• The cloth should look nearly the same as the old
cloth—dress styles in non-industrial contexts
are notoriously conservative and change very
slowly through time (Entwhistle 2000, Hayeur
Smith 2004, Polhemus and Procter 1978, Sapir
1931). In this regard, weft-dominant cloth
would have looked almost exactly like regular
vaðmál from earlier periods and would have
required no significant differences in the overall
appearance of garments.
• Making it should have required as little extra effort
as possible and should have been something
that any farmer’s wife might be able to do as a
part of her regular weaving chores. This consideration
would have been particularity important
given the long list of tasks these women had to
do around the farm in addition to textile work
and clothing their household. Adding more weft
yarns does not change the weaving process
dramatically. Current research into Icelandic
textiles is demonstrating that women were very
accustomed to working with the wool from the
northern short tail sheep and knew well that the
inner fibers are soft and fluffy and bind easily.
Just like Icelandic cloth, wool analyzed from
the GUS textiles was treated, combed, or carded
so that the two fiber types were separated and
the coarse outer hairs used as warp yarns with
the fine underwool used as the wefts (Walton
Rogers 1998:66, 80). The shift to adding more
weft yarns than warp yarns7 (at Ø172, one finds
6/10, 8/13, 10/13, so a ratio of 3:1, 4:1, and even
5:1) only makes sense if by using more of the
underwool it was beaten closer on the loom in
order to obtain a more firm and warmer product
(Østergård 2005:81).
• The final product could not be too different from
the original vaðmál in terms of weight, thickness,
etc., and not too thick to adversely affect
sewing and any other work involved in garment
construction. It had to carry the same properties
as those to which they were accustomed.
Weft-dominant cloth appears to have been the
Greenlandic answer to this conundrum.
One solution would be the inclusion of furs into
clothing, which while not widespread, does occur.
For example, from the GUS in Greenland a textile
fragment was found to have rabbit fur incorporated
into the weave. As pointed out by Walton Rogers,
fur is notoriously difficult to use as the fibers are
very slippery—in this case the rabbit hair was plied
twofold to make it stronger, undoubtedly producing
a warm and soft fabric but somewhat weak and
fragile (Walton Rogers 1998:68). Many furs were
probably too valuable for everyday use, and at least
some were sent to Norway as tax payments to the
Norwegian king (Dugmore et al. 2007:18, McGovern
1980:257–258). Creating greater numbers of
vararfeldir—pile-woven cloaks (see Guðjónsson
1962:13)—was another option but would also have
been labor intensive and costly, requiring greater
quantities of wool.
Ideally, no new tools would be introduced, no
extra labor or people required, and no extra material
should be used or wasted without a correspondingly
strong need or expectation of return. The latter may
have been a concern in Norse Greenland, where the
focus was not on producing surplus wool (Dugmore
et al. 2007, Smiarowski 2012).
Another concern might be overall conservatism
of the late Greenlandic Norse population. Looking at
the social dynamics of Norse Greenland during the
periods leading up to the end of the colony, many
features suggest that things were out of balance
socially, and that a powerful ecclesiastic elite may
have been to blame for their demise. While this elite
certainly looked towards Europe for cultural contact
with Greenland, they also consumed a disproportionate
amount of the country’s foreign imported
goods and were responsible for the building of large
manors and churches, such as that at Gardar, which
had room for as many as 150 cattle (McGovern
1980:266, 2000:338). Smaller farmers, on the other
hand, did not fare as well, and the elite may have
monopolized most of the colony’s resources for
themselves while imposing a cultural conservatism
and their “carefully maintained cultural barriers”
vis-a-vis the Inuit, who were moving into Norse settlement
areas by the late 13th or early 14th centuries
(McGovern 1980:266). This social situation may
have impacted the clothing and weaving traditions in
Greenland and resulted in the refusal to adopt the efficient
skin clothing of the Inuit in favor of European
woolen garments that were not well adapted to the
cooling climatic conditions of the little Ice Age (Mc-
Govern 1980:265). As a marginalized community at
the edge of the western world, they tried to adapt in
a different manner, through their textile production,
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
78
Conclusion
In its earliest phases, the cloth produced and used
at Ø172 easily fit within the production patterns
identified for Icelandic cloth from similar periods.
In both of these North Atlantic Norse colonies, the
cloth produced during the 11th–13th centuries was
warp-dominant, generally a 2/2 twill, and z/s spun
with warp yarns made from the outer hairs of the
northern short tail sheep, and the weft yarn made
from the softer þel. It is only circa AD 1308–1360
that Greenlandic cloth changed, becoming unique
to this specific cultural landscape with weft threads
outnumbering warp threads significantly. As noted
by Østergård (2004), it may be possible to use this
unique weft-dominant feature to identify the movement
and trade of Greenlandic cloth outside of
Greenland, along with future isotope analyses testing
the provenance of the wool. It does not appear
that Greenlanders were as invested in the cloth trade
as the Icelanders who traded homespun with Norway
and the British Isles throughout the Medieval period
and intensified their own production by increasing
sheep farming and standardizing cloth production
(Dugmore et al. 2007). Norse Greenlanders’ farming
strategies appear to have been designed largely for
milk and not surplus wool (ibid.), and in their cloth
incorporated goat hair and other fibers as Østergård
(2004) has demonstrated at The Farm Beneath the
Sand and at Herjolfsnes. The impression provided
is that Greenlandic women were more introspective
and inwardly focused, and by the early 14th century,
were striving to create warmer cloth in response to
colder winters rather than trading this much-needed
commodity to the outside world.
Ø 172 has provided a glimpse into the past. It has
provided information on the decisions that women,
so frequently absent from the archaeological record,
took as weavers deliberately trying to survive
the harsh Greenlandic climate. Comparable reactions
were not noted in Iceland during this period;
although later in the 16th and 17th centuries, when
temperatures plummeted again, Icelandic cloth production
strategies changed as well, providing yet
another solution to making cloth and staying warm
during the little Ice Age (Hayeur Smith 2012). More
detailed analysis on fibers and dyes will help expand
the results from this preliminary analysis and expand
our understanding of cloth production and its transformations
in medieval Greenland.
Acknowledgments
This research was made possibly with funds from
the National Science Foundation, Arctic Social Sciences,
Polar Programs award numbers 1023167 and 1303898,
and with the help from the following institutions and
individuals: the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology,
Brown University; the Greenlandic National Museum and
Archives; the Danish National Museum; Hunter College/
CUNY; the National Museum of Iceland; Fornleifastofnun
Íslands; the University of Rhode Island’s Department of
Textiles, Design and Fashion Merchandising; and Konrad
Smiarowksi, Georg Nygaard, Jette Arneborg, Thomas Mc-
Govern, Margaret Ordoñez, Ramona Harris, Howell Magnus,
Lilja Árnadóttir, and Guðmundur Óláfsson. Special
thanks to Konrad Smiarowski, for sharing with me his unpublished
data, to Jette Arneborg and Thomas McGovern
for getting the textiles to me and making it all happen, and
to Kevin P. Smith, my husband, for his encouragement,
help, and support while preparing this paper, and for his
assistance editing it.
Literature Cited
Adovasio J.M., 1986. Artifacts and ethnicity: Basketry as
indicator of territoriality and population movements in
the prehistoric Great Basin. Pp. 43–88, In C.J. Condie
and D.D. Fowler (Eds.). Anthropology of the Desert
West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Andersson, E. 2003. Tools for textile production from
Birka and Hedeby. Birka Studies Vol. 8. Stockholm,
Sweden.
Andersson Strand, E. 2011. Tools and textile- production
and organization in Birka and Hedeby. Pp.1–17, In A.
Holt, G. Sigurðsson, G. Ólafsson, and O. Vesteinsson
(Eds.). Viking Settlements and Viking Society, Papers
from the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Viking Congress,
Reykjavik and Reykholt, 16–23 August 2009.
Hið Íslenzka Fornleifafélag, and the University of
Iceland Press, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Bender Jørgensen, L. 1986. Fornhistoriske textile I Skandinavien,
(Nordiske Fortidsminder Series B, vol. 9.)
Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Bender Jørgensen, L. 1992. North European Textiles until
AD 100. Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Aahrus, Denmark.
Carr, C., and R.F. Maslowski, 1995. Cordage and fabrics:
Relating form, technology, and social processes. pp.
298–343, In C. Carr and J.R. Neitzel (Eds.). Style,
Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological
Perspectives. Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA.
Cooke, B, C. Christiansen, and L. Hammarlund, 2002.
Viking woolen square sails and fabric cover factor.
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
31.2:202–210.
Christensen, A.M., and M. Nockert. 2006. Osebergfunnet
bind IV, Tekstilene. Museum of Cultural History, University
Of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Damsholt N. 1984. The role of the Icelandic women in
the sagas and in the production of homespun cloth.
Scandinavian Journal of History 9:75–90.
Dennis, A., P. Foote, and R. Perkins, 1980. Laws of Early
Iceland, Grágás I. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg,
MB, Canada.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
79
Dennis, A., P. Foote, and R. Perkins, 2002. Laws of Early
Iceland, Grágás II. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg,
MB, Canada.
Drooker, P.B., 1992. Mississippian Village Textiles at
Wickliffe, University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa.
Dugmore, A.J., C. Keller, and T.H. McGovern. 2007.
Norse Greenland settlement: Reflections on climate
change, trade, and the contrasting fates of human
settlements in the North Atlantic islands. Arctic Anthropology
44(1):12–36.
Emery, I. 2009. The Primary Structure of Fabrics. Thames
and Hudson, London, UK.
Entwistle, J. 2000. The Fashion Body: Fashion, Dress, and
Modern Social Theory. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
Gelsinger, B.E. 1980. Icelandic Enterprise: Commerce
and Economy in the Middle Ages. University of South
Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, USA.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1962.Forn röggvarvefnaður. Árbók hins
Íslenzka Fornleifafélags 1962:12–71.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1965. Um skinnsaum. Árbók hins Íslenzka
Fornleifafélags 1964:69–87.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1970, The National Costume of Women
in Iceland. Litbrá-offset, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1973. Íslenzk útsaumsheiti og útsaumsgerdir
á miðöldum. Árbók hins Íslenzka Fornleifafélags
1972:131–150
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1980. Note on medieval Icelandic
shaggy pile weaving. Bulletin de liaison du centre
international d'études des textiles anciens. CIETA,
Lyon, France.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1989. Jarnvarðr Yllir. Textile History
20:2.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1990. Some aspects of the Icelandic
warp-weighted loom, Vefstaður. Textile History 21:2.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1992 Um rokka, einkum med tilliti
til skotrokka. Árbók hins Íslenzka Fornleifafélags
1992:11–52.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1994 Um vefstóla og vefara á Íslandi
á 18. og 19. öld. Árbók hins Íslenzka Fornleifafélags
1993:5–50.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1998a. Um vefstóla á Íslandi á 18. öld.
Nokkrar athugasemdir, Árbók hins Íslenzka Fornleifafélags
1996–1997:129–140.
Guðjónsson, E.E. 1998b. Kljásteinavefstaðir á Íslandi
og á Grænlandi. Árbók hins Íslenzka Fornleifafélags
1996–1997:95–120.
Hagen, K.G., 1994. Profesjonalisme og urbanisering,
Universitetets Oldsakssamling Skrifter Ny rekke nr.
16. Oslo, , Norway.
Hägg, I., 1974. Kvinnodräkten i Birka. Diss. Aun 2. Uppsala,
Sweden.
Hägg, I., 1984a. Birkas orientaliska praktplagg. Fornvännen
78:204–233.
Hägg, I., 1984b. Die Textilfunde aus dem Hafen von
Haithabu, mit Beiträgen von G. Grenander Nyberg
und H. Schweppe. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in
Haithabu 20, Neumünster, Germany.
Hägg, I., 1986. Die Tracht. Birka II:2. KVHAA, Stockholm,
Sweden. Pp. 51–72.
Hägg, I., 1991. Textilfunde aus der Siedlung und aus den
Gräbern von Haithabu. Beschreibung und Gliederung.
Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu, herausgegeben
von K. Schietzel, 29 Neumünster, Germany.
Hayeur Smith, M., 2004. Draupnir Sweat and Mardöll
Tears: An Archaeology of Jewellery, Gender, and
Identity in Viking Age Iceland. BAR International
Series 1276
Hayeur Smith, M., 2012 Some in rags, some in jags, and
some in silken gowns: Textiles from Iceland’s Early
Modern period. International Journal of Historic Archaeology
16(3):509–528.
Hayeur Smith, M., 2013a. Textiles from the 1988 Bessastaðir
Excavation. In Guðmundur Ólafsson (Ed.).
Bessastaðarannsokn 1988. Skýrslur Þjóðminjasafn
Íslands 2012. Reykjavik, Iceland.
Hayeur Smith, M., 2013b Viking Age textiles in Iceland.
Unpublished paper presented on December 6th 2013
for Félag fornleifafræðinga, National Museum of Iceland,
Reykjavik, Iceland.
Hayeur Smith, M., 2014. Thorir’s bargain: Gender,
vaðmál, and the law. Pp.730–746, In A. Reynolds, and
K.P. Smith (Eds.). World Archaeology: Archaeology
of Legal Culture 45(5).
Hayeur Smith, M. In press. Weaving wealth: Cloth and trade
in Viking age and medieval Iceland. In A. Ling Huang,
and C. Jahnke (Eds.). Textiles and Economy, Production,
and Trade of Textiles: The Central and Northern
Europe as Example, Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK.
Hoffman, M. 1974. The Warp-weighted Loom: Studies in
the History and Technology of an Ancient Implement.
The Norwegian Research Council for Science and the
Humanities, Oslo, Norway.
Johnson, W.C., and D.S. Speedy, 1991. Cordage twist
direction as a tool in delineating territorial boundaries
and demonstrating population continuity during
the Late prehistoric periods in the upper Ohio River
Valley. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean
City, MD, USA.
Kjellberg A. 1979. Tekstilmaterialet I Oslogate 7 De arkeologiske
utgravninger, in Gamlebyen, Oslo, bind
2. Feltene Oslogate 3 og 7. Bebyggelsesrester og
funngrupper, Øvre Ervik. Pp.83–105.
Kjellberg A. 1982. Medieval textiles from the excavations
in the old town of Oslo. Pp.136–150, In L. Bender
Jørgensen and K. Tidow (Eds). Texilesymposium
Neumünster, Archoaelogishe Textilien. Neumünster,
Germany.
Kjellberg A., and M. Hoffmand. 1991. Tekstiler. Pp. 13–
81, In E. Schia and P. Molaug (Eds.). De arkeologiske
utgravninger i Gamlebyen, Oslo, bind 8, Dagliglivets
gjenstander, Øvre Ervik. Alvheim G1 Eide, Oslo,
Norway.
Kobayashi Issenman, B. 2000. Sinews of Survival: The
Living Legacy of Inuit Clothing. UBC Press, Vancouver,
BC, Canada.
Kuttruff, J.T., 1988. Textile attributes and production
complexity as indicators of Caddoan status differentiation
in the Arkansas Valley and southern Ozark
Regions. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH, USA.
Mann, M.E., Z. Zhang, S. Rutherford, R.S. Bradley; M.K.
Hughes, D. Shindell; C. Ammann, G. Faluvegi, and F.
Ni, 2009. Global signature and dynamical origins of
the Little Ice Age and medieval climate anomaly. Science
326:1256–1260.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
80
McGovern, T. 1980. Cows, harp seals, and churchbells:
Adaptation and extinction in Norse Greenland. Human
Ecology 8(3):245–275.
McGovern, T. 2000 The demise of Norse Greenland.
Pp.327–339, In W.W. Fitzhugh and E.I. Ward (Eds.).
Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Minar. J. 2001. Motor skills and the learning process:
The conservation of cordage final twist direction in
communities of practice. Journal of Anthropological
Research 57(4):381–405.
Mårtensson, L., M.L Nosch, and E. Andersson Strand,
2009. Shape of things: Understanding a loom weight.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28(4):373–398.
Nørlund, P. 1924. Buried Norsemen at Herjolfnes. In Meddelelser
om Grønland Bd 67. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nørlund, P. 1925 Herjolfnes Fundet og Sidste Nordboer
paa Grønland. Nationalmuseets Bog om sjældne Fund
fra de seneste Aar. Copenhagen, Denmark. Pp. 35–50.
Ordoñez, M.T. 2011. Icelandic Textile Report, University
of Rhode Island, Department of Textiles, Design, and
Fashion Merchandising, Kingston, RI, USA.
Østergård, E. 1998. The textiles: A preliminary report. Pp.
58–65, In J. Arneborg and H.C. Gulløv (Eds.). Man,
Culture, and Environment in Ancient Greenland. Report
on a Research Programme. Dansk Polar Center,
Nuuk, Greenland.
Østergård, E. 2004. Woven into the Earth: Textiles from
Norse Greenland. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus,
Denmark.
Østergård, E. 2005. The Greenlandic Vaðmál in northern
archaeological textiles. Pp. 80–83, In F. Pritchard and
P. Wild (Eds.). Textile Symposium in Edinburgh 5th–
7th of May 1999; NESAT VII (2005). Oxbow Books,
Oxford, UK.
Petersen, J.B., and J.A. Wolford, 2000. Spin and twist
as cultural markers: A New England perspective on
native fiber industries. Pp. 101–117, In P.B. Drooker
and L.D. Webster (Eds.). Beyond Cloth and Cordage:
Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas. University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Polhemus T., and L. Proctor, 1978. Fashion and Anti-
Fashion: An Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment.
Thames and Hudson, London, UK.
Róbertsdóttir, H. 2008. Wool and Society, Manufacturing
Policy, Economic Thought, and Local Production in
18th-century Iceland. Makadam Publishers, Göteborg,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Ryder, M.L. 1982, European wool types from the Iron
Age to the Middle Ages. Pp. 224–238, In L. Bender
Jørgensen and K. Tidow (Eds.). Archäologische Textilfunde
May 6th to May 8th 1981. Textilsymposium
Neumünster (NESAT 1.) Neumünster, Germany.
Sapir, E. 1931. Fashion. Pp. 139–144, In E.R. Seligman
and A. Johnson (Eds.). Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences, Vol. VI. Macmillan, New York, NY, USA.
Smiarowski, K., 2012. E172 Tatsip Ataa midden excavation
2009 and 2010. Preliminary excavation report.
Hunter College, CUNY, New York, NY, USA.
Thursfield, S., 2001. The Medieval Tailor’s Assistant:
Making Common Garments 1200–1500. Ruth Bean,
Carlton, Bedford, UK.
Vedeler, M., 2007. Klær og Formspråk i Norsk Middelalder,
Unpublished paper. Oslo, Norway. Provided
by Dr. Christian Keller, University of Oslo, Oslo,
Norway.
Vestergård Pedersen, K., and M.L. Nosch (Eds.) .The
Medieval Broadcloth: Changing Trends in Fashions,
Manufacturing, and Consumption. Ancient Textiles
Series 6:99–108.
Walton Rogers, P. 1989. Textiles, cordage, and raw fiber
from 16–22 Coppergate, Volume 15, Volume 17. Published
for the York Archaeological Trust by the Council
for British Archaeology, York, UK.
Walton Rogers, P. 1998. The raw materials of textiles from
GUS, with a note on fragments of fleece and animal
pelts from the same site. Pp. 66–73, In J. Arneborg and
H.C. Gulløv (Eds.). Man Culture and Environment in
Ancient Greenland. Report on a Research Programme,
Dansk Polar Center, Nuuk, Greenland.
Walton Rogers, P. 2011. Fibres in a Textile from Tjornuvik
Faroe Islands, Unpublished textile report. Provided
by Simun Arge, National Museum of Faroe Islands,
Tórshavn, Faroe Islands.
Walton Rogers, P. 2012, Textiles wool and hair. Pp.
196–217, In G. Sveinbjarnardottir (Ed.). Reykholt:
Archaeological Investigation at a High Status Farm in
Western Iceland, National Museum of Iceland, Reykjavik,
Iceland.
Þórláksson, H. 1991. Vaðmál og Verðlag : Vaðmál í Utanlandsviðskiptum
og Búskap Íslendinga á 13. og 14.
öld. Háskóli Íslands, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Endnotes
1The tabby or plain weave is generally balanced with
an equal number of warp and weft yarns, according to
Bender Jørgensen (1992:13). In many cases, the ratio in
one system can be higher than in the other. When the warp
yarns outnumber the weft and obscure the weft elements
almost completely one uses the term “warp-faced”, while
in the opposite situation one uses the term “weft faced”
(Emery 2009:77).
2Natural fibers of any type have limited lengths and must
be spun into yarn, thread, or the like in order to be extended
enough and provide sufficient length to be used
in weaving (Minar 2001:387). The fibers, through the
process of spinning or twisting, are made to overlap each
other and the addition of new fibers adds to the length
(ibid.). In this process, the spinner has two options; either
to turn the fibers clockwise or counter-clockwise. In
textile terminology, this is referred to as z-spin (or twist)
and s-spin (or twist), z being clockwise and s counterclockwise.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Hayeur Smith
2014 Special Volume 6
81
3Z/z spun cloth appears to have been the norm in Scandinavia
from AD 200 onwards and has been linked to
the adoption of the warp-weighted loom along with the
weaving of 2/2 twills (Bender Jørgensen 1992). By the
Viking Age z/s spun fibers are noted on Scandinavian
sites, though Norway and Gotland in the Baltic appear to
remain more conservative in the persistence of older spinning
traditions with z/z-spun twills (Bender Jorgensen
1992:38–39,138).
4Note that the phasing at Ø172 is still under analysis, and
Phase 2 may prove to be part of an earlier Phase 3, with
Phase 3 exapanding later into the 14th century. I am grateful
to Konrad Smiarowski, Thomas McGovern, and Georg
Nygaard for having shared this data at this early stage.
52010–2103, NSF Award no. 1023167 “Rags to Riches, an
Archaeological Study of Textiles and Gender in Iceland,
AD874-1800”; 2013–2016 NSF Award no. 1303898
“Weaving Islands of Cloth, Gender, Textiles, and Trade
across the North Atlantic from the Viking Age to the Early
Modern Period”.
6At this time, it is said the ell measured 55.6 cm (Hoffman
1974:213)
7In Icelandic medieval vaðmál, there are generally more
warp yarns than wefts so that a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1 is
common.