Seeking Crafters!!!

Call out to combine theory with practice over the summer months.
I am seeking expressions of interest from textile crafters willing to discuss and practice textile skills. I am hoping to contact textile crafters living along the east coast of Ireland but will consider online tutorial/discussion styles too.
Currently, I am studying for my PhD in early medieval Irish textiles and a key aspect of this project is the utilisation of experimental archaeology. The aim is to understand the transfer of knowledge through action practice and translating that action into a disseminating format.
If interested, please comment or message me at Early Medieval Textiles Ireland and beyond-Experimental Archaeology Facebook page. Thank you in advance.


The PhD beginnings………

 “Weaving Stories: Reconstructing the Manufacture, Uses and Discarding of Textiles and Cloth in Early Medieval Ireland and Beyond, AD 500-1100”

A new post-it’s been a while!  That big, beautiful title, above, is my official thesis title and I started my IRC (Irish Research Council) funded research this September 2018. And, with tongue in cheek, I have adopted a working title “Game of Threads” it, just so, happens to fit very nicely!

The serious work, however, is the need to select and begin the integration of a theoretical framework in order to start, research and make sense of the above title. As this process started, I thought, constantly, of many little motivational sound bites.  But the real motivation, guidance and steady advice came from my fortnightly supervisory meetings and from my fellow PhD students who welcomed me into their workspace in a warm, collegiate manner. All guaranteed to stop me disappearing through and into……………


As archaeologists, we tell the story of our past through physical pieces and places and we recorded the data in different forms, one of these is through quantitative methods. A relatively new tool to assist in the analysis and presentation of this method is the R open source programming language.

R manages and analyses data and has wide graphical and statistical capabilities and the word ‘open’ makes this an extensive and, continually, expanding, recording and analytical tool. For those of you who are interested in more details- And for archaeology, specifically, see Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Using R-David L. Carlson. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. This manual is divided into sections or tutorials showing the route to compute descriptive statistics, tables, charts and graphs, to data transformation, confidence intervals and hypothesis testing. I came across the use of R in archaeology in early 2018 and intend to integrate it into my textile research.

In order to assist me with this goal, I chose as part of my structured PhD a learning master module on ‘Quantitative Data Analysis using R’ (QDA using R). At this stage, let give you some background to my past relationship with figures, graphs, theorems, geometry and that mysterious couple, x and y that make guest appearances amongst numbers!!!  I sat my Irish Leaving Certificate exam in 1980 and my maths grade was a fail, my poor parents had arranged extra tuition and I did try, really, I did but to no avail!!! Now, fast forward to September 2018 and with screaming memories in my head, I sat in a two-hour lecture and lab slot for QDA using R, for twelve weeks.  Yes, I was challenged but I attended all lectures and workshops, asked questions, sought help and applied myself to the learning process of QDA.  Results are due at the end of the month, but I think I have a C grade.  Reflecting on this grade, I, now, have a platform to work from, I know, I can use and improve on this application in my research. Note to a very confused 1980s Leaving Cert student, you can do it and you did it!!!

Learning through doing and shared learning is a process that I was lucky enough to be part of in my first semester as a PhD student, my previous post ‘Textiles and Tales’ provides the details of that interdisciplinary opportunity. Currently, I am working on another style of an interactive workshop for ‘Early Ireland: continuity and change’ for the School of Irish, Folklore and Celtic Studies, UCD.

A far scary teaching opportunity was given to me by my supervisor for early November-leading a seminar in the MSc in Experimental Archaeology and Material. That syndrome of feeling like an imposter was raising its head but this time, that 1980s student, me, asked the 2018 student, me, ‘what is this syndrome?’ ah, the confidence to try anything in your youth!! So, bearing that in mind, I have included below my seminar outline:

Textiles Seminar – thinking and testing perishable materials by replication, ways of accessing knowledge and insights through experimental archaeology

Part One: A Textile from Deer Park Farm: Exploring cloth production. Tuesday 6th Nov-10.00-11.00am

  1. Preparing wool for spinning.
  2. Spinning

 Part Two: A Textile from Deer Park Farm: Exploring cloth production. Wednesday 7th Nov-12.00-2.00 pm

  1. Warping the loom.
  2. Weaving.

The topic for this two-part seminar is an introduction to a particular textile from Deer Park Farm, Co Antrim. A small group of textiles were excavated from the Rath Period Phase Two and Phase Six deposits. The textile group consisted of seven pieces, three wool and four, possible plant fibre, fragments. Our focus for these two seminars is on the fragment labelled:

F2062-What is F2062?

  • A tabby wool cloth with a pronounced ribbed effect. Divided into five, further, fragments
  • Excavated from the Rath Period Phase Six, Structure X, the northern bedding area. Comprising of fragment measurements: 6.5cm x 3.00cm, 15.5 cm x 8.2 cm, 4.4 cm x 4.6 cm, 7.0 cm x 6.0 cm, 5.0 cm x 6.0 cm.
  • All coloured very dark grey and very dark brown 10YR 2/2.


Over the course of the next hour, the objective is to prepare the wool by cleaning through the fibres and removing any debris. The next stage is to comb the wool in order to organise the fibres, in much the same fashion, as hair is combed. After this combing stage, the wool is termed worsted wool, it appears as strong, smooth and straight fibres ready for spinning. Finally, we will hand spin the wool using the spindles provided in order to move towards part two of the seminar, the replication of F2062.

As we are experiencing this raw resource, we can ask ourselves – What are the possible research questions? I have provided some contextual details below to assist in formulating questions.

 The sheep of Deer Park Farm.

Few keds (parasites that live in sheep wool) were identified at Deer Park Farm. This absence is suggestive that the sheep were shorn, and the fleeces cleaned off-site or sheep were rooed (the plucking of wool by hand directly from the animal), this follows the sheep’s natural moulting cycle. The estimated wool yield for Early Medieval sheep is 1.5 kg which equates to thirty 50g balls of wool in modern standards.

 Textile tools of Deer Park Farm.

  • Spindle whorls of both stone and wood were recovered across the occupation dates at the site.
  • Bone pin beaters were found in the Rath Period deposits.
  • A leather tablet with four holes may indicate tablet weaving.
  • Bone combs for combing the wool fibres.
  • One iron needle.
  • A bone distaff (to organise fibres while spinning) also a possible bone needle.
  • Shears.

F2062 is a fragment of wool cloth produced in a tabby or plain weave. The yarn used to weave this cloth was spun in the Z or clockwise direction and plied in the opposite direction with the final outcome-S spun thread.

spinning blog

F2062 had no evidence of selvedge (the edges of the cloth). Hence, it is not possible to, definitively, distinguish the warp from the weft in the weaving system unless under a microscope or to estimate the size of the loom used.

warp and weft and sel

However, the tight spin of one set of threads may indicate that these were the warp threads (warp threads tend to be more tightly spun to give strength under tension on a loom).

The other set of threads are less firmly spun and of a thicker yarn (diameter c.1.25mm) with 16 threads to the cm. These are the threads that we will aim to spin today.

Part Two: The Textiles of Deer Park Farm: Exploring cloth production.

  1.  Warping the loom.
  2. Weaving.

F2062 is a style of plain weave described as ribbed weave also called a repp (transverse ribbed surface) plain weave. These surface ribs/textures are created by the differing densities of weft threads and by the action of packing these threads up tight against the previous ones.

F2062 in the wider context: the production of tabby or plain increased in NW Europe (c.5th-8th century) with 54% of the textiles found in Scandinavian graves of tabby weave system including a small amount of this ribbed style. The ribbed tabby style of cloth also appeared in the graves from the Merovingian period (c.5th-8th century AD) Western Europe pointing to wide geographical distribution. Anne Stine Ingstad’s 1988 work on Scandinavian grave textiles (c. 10th century) saw these ribbed or repp cloths as imports and groups the style with the Lagore crannog finds. Ingstad had accepted the later date of the 10th century for the Lagore Crannog, Ratoath, Co Meath (the most directly comparable with the Deer Park finds although of a finer quality) whereas now it seems the date is the 7th century-

“this type of tabby with repp effect is not a common find in Norwegian finds of the 10th century and when they do occur it is in the context of a richly furnished burial often with imports”


The textile is still on the loom so, to be continued………………

Another different style of learning came my way at the end of November 2018 with an invitation to demonstrate and present the archaeological perspective at an inaugural conference in Trinity College, Dublin entitled ‘Trinity HistoryCon’.  The theme of the conference was the celebration of history across popular media from stage, comics, film, television and the internet. I chose comics and my focus was the use of the three Norns from Norse mythology by Stan Lee in his 1964 comic #102 Journey into Mystery. Those wise women served to show-case textiles and the textile technology, as central to life and to living, both functional and symbolic.



I also took the opportunity of tweeting throughout the conference, dissemination!!

Some links to read a little more about this excellent and innovative conference.

Speaking of invitations………….another email came to me, asking would I contribute to ‘Gorey 400’ a planned publication that is hoped will become a landmark in this year’s 400 years of town charter commemoration to Gorey, Co. Wexford, Ireland. Some background details: 

and progress to date:

My contribution is based on the historical archaeology of the Palatines of North Wexford in the 18th century and I am sure I can find textiles somewhere in there!!! I will blog regular updates on this writing assignment over the month of January.

The final outreach activity that I designed for 2018 was a daily tweetathon, started on December 1st till 31st December. All tweets had continuity in the hashtags used, one, two or three images were used, and all tweets had an Early Medieval textile winter/religious theme with a geographical spread from Ireland, Britain, Germany, and France.

For September to 1st December my tweet impressions numbered 63,900, I had engaged regularly over those three months but not daily and not always with original tweets. The results for my December tweetathon 1-31st numbered 83,400 impressions, I calculated the mean for Sept-Nov 2018, and the result on percentage increase was 291% and the follower base increased too impressive impressions!!

In summary to the first months as a PhD student, a lot achieved but my priority is to nail down, a conceptual framework from which to craft a theoretical framework and start a robust literature review………… this space.




Wincott Heckett, E. (2011) ‘The Textiles’, in Lynn, C.J and McDowell, J.A. (eds) in Deer Park Farm. The excavations of a raised rath in the Glenarm Valley, Co. Antrim. Norwich: Stationery Office,354-366.
Bender Jorgensen, L. (2013) ‘Spinning faith’ in Stig Sorensen, M-L. et al. (eds) Embodied Knowledge Historical Perspectives on Belief and Technology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.128-136.
Von Holstein, I. et al.,(2016).‘Provenancing Archaeological Wool Textiles from Medieval Northern Europe by Light Stable Isotope Analysis (δ13C, δ15N, δ2 H)’, PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0162330 October 20, 2016. pp 1-28.


Textiles and Tales

At the end of this summer, I received an invitation from Dr Linda Doran (School of Irish, Celtic Studies and Folklore, UCD) to design and present a textile workshop for her module on Vikings in the Celtic World. The brief was to bring medieval textile technology into the classroom and use it to offer another layer of interpretation to the literary sources.

Two sources were chosen, ‘The Woof Of War’ from the Burnt Njal Saga (full poem here: and ‘The Banner of Sigurd, Earl of Orkney’. ( In the previous tutorial, Linda had interpreted the symbolism involved in these two sources. for her students and how it was my task to outline the textile technical terms in the Woof of War, asking questions such as ‘Are these terms still in use today?’ ‘Would it be possible to use heads as loom weights?’  It was about disentangling fact from fiction and asking questions about embodied knowledge.

The second source was the banner of Sigurd and this source formed the basis of our active hands-on textile workshop. The banner featured a raven and I used small cardboard squares warped with red threads with a raven template like a tapestry frame for the students to recreate a sense of making a banner.

IMG_1962 (3)

Seventy frames in total. Although the lines in the source stated that “it was a finely made banner, very cleverly embroidered”  it was more efficient and cost-effective to adopt the tapestry cardboard style.  Although, the two styles are closely aligned and this was explained to the students. Using needles and wool for the next part of the tutorial, all heads and fingers engaged with the task of replication Earl Sigurd magic raven banner.


IMG_1968 (1)


At the end of the tutorial, the students took away their work and for me, I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to work in this inter-disciplinary fashion. I wish to thank Dr Doran and my supervisors, Prof Aidan O’Sullivan and Dr Brendan O’Neill for allowing me the time to engage with this style of teaching and of course, thank you to all those wonderful banner makers, the students of Vikings in the Celtic World.

Shoppin’ for whorls!!!

A spindle whorl is a perforated weight that sits on a spindle shaft to facilitate the twisting of fibres into yarn.  The weight of the whorl acts on the fibres in two ways by stretching them under its weight and when set spinning the weight increases the amount of energy (twisting load) delivered into the fibres which affect the character of the finished yarn.

Small spindles are used for thin threads because they rotate faster and heavy spindles are used for plying yarn (Woodland 1990, Andersson, 2003).  The average pre-spinning wheel households would have possessed a variety of spindle whorls suitable for producing the types of yarn needed for clothing and household textiles.  Stone, ceramic, wooden and bone were among the main raw materials used in the manufacture of whorls excavated from secure Viking contexts.  All have different properties such as weight, durability and spin characteristics. Coppergate, York is one such secure context and the comprehensive report by Penelope Walton Rogers (1997) on the stone spindle whorls of York provides an insight into the use and manufacture of whorls of this period.

Before we examined the manufacture and use of whorls, we need to establish what makes a whorl, a whorl and not a bead, amulet or ordinary weight.  The main feature of a whorl is its central hole which accommodates the spindle shaft, the shafts are tapered so as to hold the whorl in a fixed position at a given distance from either the top or the bottom of the spindle shaft.  It has been established that whorls of this period generally have a hole diameter of no less than 9mm and no more than 11mm.  These holes are always neatly drilled no matter how crude or roughly shaped the whorl.  This is the case across the range of material used in whorl manufacture and suggests some sort of drill was used to make the holes. Whorl tend to range in weight from 10 to 30 grams for textile spinning. The whorl can be placed at either the top or bottom of the spindle, this will affect the tension in the yarn the general rule of thumb is:

  • Bottom – low speed –loose.
  • Top –high speed- tight.

Oseberg whorls blog

The shape of the whorl can also affect the spin characteristics of the spindle: for example, globular whorls like the Oseberg type where all the weight is close to the spindle shaft, they tend to spin fast and tight and produce a fine yarn.  Whereas a cup-shaped whorl where the weight is concentrated around the rim will spin slow and produce a thicker yarn. Various methods have been employed in the construction of whorls.  Different construction processes leave behind different tool marks which allow for the identification of the construction method.  Methods employed such manual paring, rasping or abrading to mechanical with the whorl being turned on a lathe. Many of the whorls of this period seem to be homemade and with geological characteristics dictating the method of shaping a stone whorl.  Soft stone such as chalk is easily pared down with a knife, there is also evidence of rasping with a tool similar to a file, as well as abrading against another stone. The most readily recognised production method is that of using a knife to pare the stone, as this method leaves tell-tale sharp “irregular facets”.  This type of whorl also tends to be the most highly decorated, suggesting a personal connection with the object perhaps a gift or love token specially made for someone. Mechanically created whorls, those turned on a lathe have a characteristic “smooth profile and fine encircling lines” which is all but impossible to achieve when working freehand. Whorls made by abrading tend to have rounded facets and a smooth surface.  Whereas the ones formed using a rasp display linear striation indicative of the tool’s teeth scoring the surface of the stone.

Whorls featured in many female burials across Scandinavia as well as trade and settlement sites, so question one asked: In the context of the female burials, were the whorls just a reminder of the industry of spinning or did they have more symbolic meanings?  Is the same true of the scales and weights found in female graves in Scandinavia, does this mean that women traded solely or did the scales and weights represent her family activity?

Bettina Arnold and Nancy Wicker, authors of Gender and the Archaeology of Death (2001) write that 22% of the Birka female burials had balance scales and weights in their graves.  The primary source of Ahmad Ibn Fadlan who encountered a party of Viking traders on the upper reaches of the Volga River reported of the trade in glass beads amongst the men for their women.

Did women trade amongst themselves for items such as whorls?

Or did whorls form part of the wider trading network?

In order to attempt answers, we looked towards the trading hub of Hedeby


A significant trading settlement in the Danish/German borderland from the 8th to the 11th century.  Located in a similar geographical position to Islandbridge (Dublin)/Woodstown (Waterford)

  • Standardization of the size and shape of almost a thousand ceramic whorls at Hedeby suggests that these were being mass-produced.
  • A possible ‘yes, to whorls being part of the wider trading network’.


The Birka archaeological site is located on Björkö Island in Lake Mälar and was occupied in the 9th and 10th centuries.  Hovgården is situated on the neighbouring island of Adelsö and together, they make up an archaeological complex which illustrates the elaborate trading networks of Viking-Age Europe and their influence on the subsequent history of Scandinavia.

  • Half of the 429 whorls found in the Birka area were of stone, soapstone. Evidence pointed towards probable importation from Norway (Andersson 2003).
  • There were definite differences in shape among Birka whorls of different materials. Stone whorls were usually discoid or flat-convex. Conical and biconical whorls were usually ceramic.
  • The whorls from Birka ranged from 4-100 g, with most falling in the 5-29 g range with stone whorls tend to be heavier because of the greater density of stone (Andersson 1998, 2003).
  • The diameters of whorls of all types ranged from 25-45 mm (1-2 inches).  Whorls of this diameter are common because they spin well.  The height of stone whorls is 5-20 mm, with a 7-12 mm hole.

In relation to examining an answer to our questions, the pattern that emerges from Birka is not as clear-cut towards mass-production. It tends to point back in favour of domestic use or as tools of the individual industry i.e.: small-scale trade among women themselves, evidence for a possible answer to the question regarding ‘did women trade amongst themselves’.


Another trading settlement of Viking life in the ninth century and its 1970s excavations brought to light, several whorl types.

  • Among them were 92 stone spindle whorls with a quarter manufactured by a lathe.
  • This evidence tends to support the existence of an individual industry as opposed to a collective industry of whorl construction for the wider trading network.
  • The most common shape for a whorl at York, especially in soapstone, was plano-convex (contact-lens shape). Other whorl shapes such as discoid, sub-conical, globular, and bi-conical, cylindrical and doughnut. All these shapes represented several progression in shape preference over time and Walton (1997) noted that the globular whorl as found at Oseberg and pictured below, was relatively uncommon.spindle

Walton Rogers, Penelope. Textile Production at 16-22 Coppergate. The Archaeology of York, vol. 17, 11. York: Council for British Archaeology, 1997.

The evidence from all three sites in the ninth and tenth-century points towards the manufacture of spindle whorls, in the majority, to serve the individual industry. Evidence from Hedeby supports a move towards the collective manufacture but the Birka and York evidence supported a regional organised trade amongst women as further evidenced by the finds of scales and weights at the Birka burials.



Andersson, Eva. 1998. Textile production in late Iron Age Scania – a methodological approach. NESAT 6.

Andersson, Eva. 2003. Tools for Textile Production from Birka and Hedeby. Birka Studies 8. Excavations in the Black Earth 1990-1995. Stockholm.

Walton Rogers, P. 2000. Stone spindle whorls. Pp. 2530-2533 in: A.J. Mainman and N.S.H. Rogers. Craft Industry and Everyday Life: Finds from Anglo-Scandinavian York. Vol 17: The Small Finds, Fasc. 14. York Archaeological Trust.

Woodland, Margery. 1990. Spindle-whorls: Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester. Oxford University Press.


























































On Wednesday 19th September, the official announcement and welcome occurred:

“Welcome to all new @IrishResearch scholars and fellows!”

Among the 75 awardees for University College Dublin, I read my name with pride and delight. I want to take this opportunity to say “Many, many thanks to many, many people” who supported, encouraged, and with much loyalty believed in my ability. Throughout my fifty-four years, I have worked hard and always tried to reach my best version of me, at times this was successful, at times not but I never stopped trying. To those who doubted or underestimated my resolute ability to achieve, give your hands, and jump on board with the majority on the Kearney PhD train. You will enjoy the journey!!!!

Dolores Kearney IRC Scholar

The title for my research work is “Weaving stories: Reconstructing the manufacture, uses and discarding of textiles and cloth in Early Medieval Ireland and beyond, AD 500-11oo”.

I have a Facebook page:

A Twitter account which will detail the activities of the UCD Experimental Textile Archaeology Group: and of course, on here, I will add updates.

Once again, many thanks to everyone xxx

The stockings of Texel

On Saturday the 7th of July in my blog entry from the recent summer school on textiles, I mentioned the third presentation of the day was a blueprint for citizen science and experimental textile archaeology.  Now, that I have more time I want to write up that presentation entitled:

Reconstructing the 17th-century silk stockings from the Texel shipwreck.  The advantages and challenges of a citizen science project-Chrystel Brandenburgh.

The star of the Texel shipwreck excavation was this dress.

Texel stockings

However, the focus of the reconstruction project was this pair of unworn silk stockings.

More informal details on the dress may be read at a blog post from TRC Leiden (Textile Research Centre):

So, why were the stockings the focus of a reconstruction project?

The main objectives was to gain knowledge into the production and usage of the silk stocking in the 17th century using history and experimental archaeology.

The research questions for the project:

  1. How were the stockings made?
  2. How were the stockings used?
  3. Were the stockings custom made?
  4. Were the stockings made to a one size fits all pattern?

The project was designed, of course, to answer the research questions but it was also designed to create knowledge, to share knowledge and to learn by doing through citizen science/citizen experimental archaeology.

The Project Design

  • Research and documentation (questionnaires and workshops)
  • Test swatches production through workshops
  • Testing techniques
  • Knitting full reconstructions through workshops
  • Experimental research-How did the reconstructed stockings fit, how did the stockings perform in shoes over time?


Funding and participants

In order to address the two issues above, the project co-ordinators took to social media and its global connectivity in virtual time. The call was put out for twenty knitters and over a hundred responded but these volunteers needed to be organised in real time and as we know real time takes time. It was a challenge to organise the project from time frames, requirements,  collecting data, to monetary challenges.  For example, the scientific analysis was required to understand the silk structure of the stockings, was it reeled or spun silk?  and the degumming of the silk was required in order to dye, and what of the knitting direction aka pattern that also needed analysis so the 100 knitters could learn how to knit like it was 1699!!!

Crowd funding through social media was utilised alongside sponsorship was also used to fund the cost of materials and for the organisation of workshops.

Workshop One

This workshop gathered about 25 global knitters together where instructions were given on how to knit 5 x 5 cm swatches using three types of silk with needles (1 mm and 0.7 mm). The estimation was that each knitter would produce three swatches and this amount of swatches acted as a template for future costing of complete pairs of stockings (ten pairs required), The end result was a production output of 160 swatches with each swatch taking five hours with various knitting techniques, directions and questionnaires to fill out for any issues that may arise. The platform of Ravelry was used to track the participants progress outside of the workshop.

IMG_1351 (2)
Dr Brandenberg presenting the Texel experimental archaeology project

Workshop Two

This workshop of knitters involved further lectures, demonstrations of various knitting techniques, problem solving and knitting. Assignments were allocated for the stocking knitting, ten pairs and, again, with questionnaires that would act as the citizen science record. This project is still ongoing and currently, TRC at Leiden are writing a detailed publication and planning a conference.

A visual round-up of the Texel silk stocking presentation






Thank you


Day Eleven-The last day at KU Summer School, Textiles and Fashion in Theory and Practice through 3,000 years.

Last night, we visited the Designmuseum ( and the task there was to decode the representation of fashion through two displays “Fashion and fabric” and “Danish Design Now”. Then, this morning we discussed what was the general narrative, identify the target audience, what was, both, the strengths and weaknesses of the exhibits and “what seems to happen to fashion when it is “musealised” and becomes part of our public heritage management? This term, generally, means placing lives (from the recent and distant past), the activities of those lives and associated material culture into a freeze frame (museum).

One example, the late Alexander Mc Queen and Savage Beauty exhibition (Costume Institue at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, US) 2011 and at the Victoria and Albert Museum in 2015

McQueen designed as a craftsman, he knew the lines of his craft so well and to quote him…

rules and MC Q

He had learnt the tradition of making clothes, he used it to underpin his own talented craftsmanship and he experimented by cutting cloth beyond the measure in order to present material in a myriad of curated McQueen themes.  The retrospective Savage Minds exhibition presented a freeze frame of his creative life, its activities and its material culture.

A mc Q


Continuing with the theme of fashion and museums, the class listened to the history of fashion in museums.  We, as a group, listened and observed and grasp what a difficult concept for museums to curate…………fashion, a work always in progress not linear but cyclical

Linear Hangars Circular hangars

Our final session took us into the land of Google with Louise Rytter (Content editor for Google Arts and Culture’s We Wear Culture Project) (

An interesting platform and tool with many opportunities to observe and learn but it is a tool and that is all it is.

Why do I say this?

Well,  a scenario was recounted to us that two reality garments were laid out in a room surrounded by tools of virtual reality technology and no-one touch the real garments, sad!!!! I utilise technology constantly, I want to and I choose to, however, I do not want the V&A, the Victoria and Albert Museum to become the G&A Museum, the Google Arts Museum.  I want to use both reality and virtual reality and what I object to is the subtle manipulation of choice that is already in our daily lives. Are we in danger of being musealised as we live or as it happened already…………….think, Instragram ready!!!!

I want to finish tonight by thanking my fellow students for the great support and advice and the super laughter. To the staff at the Centre for Textile Research, Saxo Insitute, Copenhagen thank you all for invaluable words of guidance, encouragement, informative lectures, and readings, I learnt so much.

I want to extend an invitation to you all to visit the Centre for Experimental Archaeology and Material Culture, University College Dublin.

The very best of luck with all presentations and the exam in August.