Gwen replied:
I'm going to have to disagree with you here- there are very clearly grouped classes of garments, and generally at least 3 of each type of garment was found. We could follow this in another thread if you like, I don't want to get derailed from the intention of your question.
----------end quoted material

I think this has more to do with the modern sense of a pattern and needs of mass production. When you open a moden pattern the difference in sizing is mostly an enlargement. However, if you look at the pattern pieces for my G38 based dress (me being about 5'8" and 200lbs with broad shoulders) versus the pattern pieces for my friend's G38 based dress (she being 5'4" 120 lbs and very narrow shouldered) you will find that they are quite different while the resulting drape and silhouette is remarkably similar given how different we look. Modern "stock" patterns accomodate the average body shape and scale for size. Custom patterns work to achieve a similar look on very different body shapes. This is part of the reason i think you will get much further in achieving the right look by draping patterns than trying to find the perfect pattern.

As a corollary there are some around here that espouse that these dresses are most properly vaguely cut then fitted to the wearer, not cut to a specific pattern and sewn with a seam allowance of x. The theory being that a lower or even middle class individual would not waste a dress' worth of fabric on a pattern. I'm not entirely sure what I think of this yet.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/5923/cloth/tunics.html

My interpretation is that the groupings are largely by number, shape, and placement of the pieces. You may draw the groups differently but even on a scatter graph there are clusters to be grouped.

For what it's worth the Nockert book has been reprinted and should be available through dealers like oxbow/david brown. There is an English summary in the back of the book and lots of good pictures.

Did you mean Norlund for Herjolfsnes, or did Nockert write something
too? Margereta Nockert reexamined the Bocksten stuff after Sandklef
and referred back to Norlund's work and the finds, but I'm unaware of
anything she wrote that pertained specifically to Herjolfsnes. What am I
missing here?

"What I was trying to get at was the dissimilarity between most of the
garments. <snip> forgetting any grouping of the garments into different
types (like Nockert), there is clearly no single 'standard' design for the
patterns. Yes, some of the garments are very similar, like nos. 38 and 41,
or 43-45. But if I were to make a plot of the garments by their features,
there would be a lot of scatter"

When you say “there is clearly no single 'standard' design” do you mean you’re looking for one single pattern? Do you interperet the various cuts as being completely different patterns, as opposed to variations on one pattern?

As someone who works with clothing all the time, it seems to me that the Greenland gowns are all of the same style, and the individual cuts are variations of one pattern. I do not see them as being separate patterns.

I believe there *is* a common "method" employed with all of the garments. All of the women's clothes have flat front panels with an inserted gore, and the side/underarm
pieces are made up of 2 or more tapered gores. Looking at the gowns, I have a
feeling that the wealthier women probably wore the gowns with more gores and
the lower class women probably wore the ones with fewer gores, but the method is the same regardless of the number of pieces. I see them as the same gown, following a standard method of patterning (shaped underarm gores, flat fronts, inserted CF gore) achieving a finished garment that is consistent with local fashion as appropriate to the social/economic class of the wearer.

Of course that’s just my interpretation.

Gwen

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptfrau:
Nikki-

Did you mean [b]Norlund for Herjolfsnes, or did Nockert write something
too? Margereta Nockert reexamined the Bocksten stuff after Sandklef
and referred back to Norlund's work and the finds, but I'm unaware of
anything she wrote that pertained specifically to Herjolfsnes. What am I
missing here?
[/B]

---

These references were given for Nockert, and I presume that in at least one of them, she discusses her grouping of tunic types...I don't know that any of them pertain especially to the Herjolfsnes finds (doesn't look like it), I think they are more general groupings.

Nockert, Margareta. Bockstenmannen, Och Hans Dräkt. Halmstad och Varberg: Stiftelsen Hallands länsmuseer, 1985.
[The Bocksten Man and his Clothes.]
Nockert, Margareta. The Högom Find and other Migration Period Textiles and Costumes in Scandinavia
(Archaeology and Ennvironment 9, Högom Part II), Umeå, Sweden: University of Umeå, 1991.
Nockert, Margareta. "A Scandinavian Haberget?" Cloth and Clothing in Medieval Europe. (Pasold studies in textile
history; 2). London: Heinemann, 1983.
Nockert, Margareta. "Unam Tunicam Halwskipftan" S:t Ragnhilds Gilles i Söderköping. (Årsbok 1992)
Söderköping: Tellotryck AB, 1992.

I don't think all of those articles are in English I've been meaning to get the Cloth and Clothing of Medieval Europe volume out of the library for some time now, but it keeps being on reserve or checked out.

quote:

---

When you say ?there is clearly no single 'standard' design? do you mean you?re looking for one single pattern? Do you interperet the various cuts as being completely different patterns, as opposed to variations on one pattern?

---

I meant the number, size, shape, and placement of gores, and the sleeves.

I'll look thru tonite and try and make a comparison of the features of the different designs with the quality of the fabric and sewing, and see if any trends show up.

1) all fabrics were described as 4-shaft twill or 4-shaft twilled frieze. The two twilled frieze garments were for children.

2) all garments had gores except for #63, which had 4 front and 4 back panels, running from the top of the shoulder all the way down.

3) if the number of gores was not mirrored either left/right or front/back, false seams were used to make the pattern look symmetic. So, if there was an extra large gore used on the left, and 4 gores used on the right, and the extra large gore would have 3 false seams in it. i have no idea how these seams were done, and would really like to know.

4) false seams were also used when there was no imbalance, but there were only one or two cases of this.

5) the colors were generally listed as black or brown. but, since this was from an early excavation, i bet they didn't have the tools to analyze the fibers for dye content at the time. Does anyone know if these garments still survive today or have they succumbed to improper handling?

6) the weight of the fabric and number of gores do not seem to correlate with garment quality. the one garment described as particularly sloppily made, #43, was a 'thin twill' with 6 gores. but #41, a 'thin twill' with 10 gores had ornamented backstitches on the seams, bottom hem, sleeves, and gores. And #63, which had no gores, was a 'medium stout twill' with trim on the front and neck, and ornamented stitches on the back seam. #39, a full, heavy, well-made fabric with the warp not visible due to the quality of production, had only 5 real gores (with one false seam), and backstitch ornamentation on the neck and bottom hems, with the raw edge overcast, tho the sleeve hems were turned but not sewn (lined?). #37, which was 'well and regularly woven of firmly spun threads, had 2 real gores, with false seams to create the look of 4 gores. Given this, I would judge the quality of garment more by the level of ornamentation and the quality of the fabric than by the pattern used.

7) The three children's garments all lacked false seams. #62 seems to have been made of scraps of available fabric, and even has a separate torso piece, which is not seen on any other garment. The hems on the childern's garments varied, but none had ornamentation. #62, however, may have been lined, as the hems were turned but none were sewn. The children's garments lacked pockets.

8) slightly less than half of the adult garments had pockets, both mens and womens garments. the pockets were sometimes lined with cord, altho in the case of the sloppily made #43, the pockets were just cut slits in the fabric.

I find two things especially interesting here: the use of false seams, especially when there was no apparent reason (ie, balancing the pattern on the other side of the garment); and the use of backstitches to accent and ornament the seams, especially on the multiple side gores. That sounds like more of a fashion thing, along the lines of 'look how much time was spent sewing this! so many gores!'. But this doesn't mesh with the lack of correlation between fabric quality/ornamentation and # of gores....weird. Admittedly, I'd have to sit down and think of some way to do statistical measures to get a true level of correlation, but given the small sample size, it probably isn't worth it. And I'm wondering what the archaeologists might not have been able to find with the lack of equipment so long ago.

What are you looking for exactly? A standard pattern to use? The justification for something you've done or would like to do?

It's hard to know how to help you when I'm not sure I understand where you're headed.

That first link is BRILLIANT!!! I've just spent the last 45 minutes looking over that Moy dress stuff and just about dying. Thank you for posting the link!!!