Reflections on Early medieval Mosquitoes

Tomáš Vlasatý
1. September 2026

Abstract

This study examines the role of mosquitoes as a significant environmental factor shaping daily life, settlement strategies, and clothing culture in the Early Middle Ages. The gap in current research is addressed through an interdisciplinary approach combining the analysis of written sources, the mosquito biological cycle, and experimental archaeology. The article analyses the close connection of the Early Medieval population with aquatic environments and wetlands, historical methods of passive and active protection against mosquitoes (environmental management, fumigants, plant-based repellents), and especially the influence of exposure to this ectoparasite on the construction and layering of period attire. A comparison of reenactor experiences suggests that, alongside aesthetic and thermoregulatory functions, Early Medieval clothing also served as a mechanical barrier against insects. The text defines textile parameters as well as specific cut and combination features of men’s and women’s wardrobes that effectively minimise the risk of attack.

Keywords: Early Middle Ages; mosquitoes; reenactment; experimental archaeology; clothing culture.

Introduction

One of the progressive trends in archaeology over recent decades has been the examination of latrines in order to search for the remains of parasites from which Early Medieval humans and their animals suffered (e.g., Buckland 2008; Buckland – Perry 1989; Nansen 1991; Nansen – Jørgensen 1977; Reilly 2024; Søe et al. 2015; 2018). In this search, ectoparasites have been somewhat overlooked, including arguably the most influential ectoparasite in human history – the mosquito, to which, as far as we are aware, no standalone publication dedicated to the Early Middle Ages has been devoted. Yet, as we shall demonstrate, it was an annual companion that shaped the era more than we are willing to admit.

We have decided to fill this gap with the following text, the purpose of which is to create as vivid a picture as possible of life in the Early Middle Ages and to outline period solutions for getting rid of mosquitoes. The text is divided into five stops. In the first stop, we discuss the close connection of people with the element of water in the Early Middle Ages. In the second, we briefly describe the life cycle of European mosquitoes, whilst emphasizing that the author is not a biologist and therefore certain biological inaccuracies may have occurred. The third stop is devoted to selected Classical and Early Medieval literary descriptions of mosquitoes. The penultimate stop serves as an outline of the ways in which an Early Medieval individual could defend themselves against mosquito attacks. Following this chapter, the final stop proposes the possibility that Early Medieval garments were, to a certain extent, designed not only with weather in mind, but also mosquitoes. If you are a reenactor, you may skip to the final chapters of this article.

Stop 1: Human Coexistence with Water in the Early Middle Ages

In the Early Middle Ages, water was not merely a landscape feature for humans, but a primary artery of life, livelihood, and security. The European landscape was interwoven with unregulated watercourses featuring extensive meanders, impenetrable floodplain forests, and marshes that shaped the daily rhythm of the inhabitants of the time. The relationship with watercourses was driven by economic interest, as a river meant the collection of tolls, trade, a source of fish, water for economic activities, and energy utilized by watermills (e.g., Brady 2006; Kotyza 2014).

Waterways represented the fastest and easiest mode of transport for both people and goods during this period. Rivers such as the Danube, Rhine, Elbe, or the East European Dnieper functioned as the superhighways of the medieval world. Early Medieval people utilized simple dugout canoes carved from a single trunk (Arnold 1995; Martinelli – Cherkinsky 2009; Poláček et al. 2000), flatboats (Carnap-Bornheim – Kühn – Nakoinz 2005), boats, and sailing vessels (e.g., Cederlund 1993; Crumlin-Pedersen et al. 2002; Fircks 1979). Trade emporia and settlements were established along coastlines, major fords, and river junctions.

Fig. 1: An example of the connection between Early Medieval humans and water.
Haithabu site, Germany. Source: author’s archive, 2016.

The defensive aspect of water fundamentally influenced the architecture and military strategy of the Early Middle Ages. Water served as the most effective natural shield against enemies. Early Medieval hillforts and proto-urban centres were systematically founded within river meanders, on islands, or on the shores of sea bays. A typical example was Slavic hillforts, where moats and surrounding wetlands prevented the deployment of siege engines and cavalry. As Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub stated:

„Most of the strongholds are built by the Slavs in this manner: They find meadows rich in water and thickets and mark out on them a round or square area, according to the shape and size they wish the stronghold to have. Then they dig around it and pile up the earth, securing it with planks and stakes. In this way, they raise ramparts until the walls reach the desired height. Then they measure out a gate for the castle on a suitable side and build a bridge to it. Crossing over it, they enter the stronghold.” (Marsina et al. 1999: 242; see also Bahbouh 2019: 31)

In other words, Early Medieval humans spent a large portion of their lives along water, and were thus very likely regularly exposed to mosquito attacks. This is evidenced, among other things, by numerous place names containing the root word for mosquito (Profous 1949: 290-291; Rymut 2003: 77-8; Štefánik – Lukačka 2010: 183). However, the intensity of mosquito presence varied across different regions (see Schats 2026).

Fig. 2: Graphic reconstruction of a lake village.
Āraiši site, Latvia. Source: Apals 2008: 82.

Stop 2: The Life Cycle of European Mosquitoes

The life cycle of European mosquitoes follows a precise seasonal and daily schedule, determined primarily by air temperature and the availability of standing water. In European nature, the most common species encountered are the common house mosquito (Culex pipiens), which inhabits both human settlements and the open countryside, and the large, cold-tolerant ringed mosquito (Culiseta annulata). In floodplain forests and along untamed rivers, massive nuisance swarms are formed by the inland floodwater mosquito (Aedes vexans), accompanied by woodland species such as Aedes cantans or Ochlerotatus sticticus. In Central and Southern Europe, mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles, particularly Anopheles maculipennis and Anopheles claviger, have historically and presently been abundant, whereas in recent years the invasive Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) and Egyptian mosquito (Aedes aegypti) have been spreading from the south.

Blood is sucked exclusively by fertilised females, while males feed on sweet nectar and plant juices throughout their lives. Females do not use blood as basic nourishment for their own survival, but as an essential source of protein and iron for the maturation of eggs in their ovaries. They can fly hundreds of metres in search of food (Browning – Nicovich 2026). Most European species, such as Culex pipiens or Anopheles maculipennis, show peak activity at twilight, during the night, and early in the morning, as direct sunlight and low air humidity would rapidly desiccate adults. Conversely, woodland species of the genus Aedes and the invasive Aedes albopictus attack aggressively even in the middle of a sunny day in the shade of deep forests.

Fig. 3: Inland floodwater mosquito (Aedes vexans).
Source: Katja Schulz, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The reproductive cycle begins with aerial mating, where males form characteristic swarms and attract females through the sound of their wingbeats. Following successful fertilisation and blood-feeding, the female searches for a suitable aquatic environment to lay her eggs. Species of the genera Culex and Anopheles lay eggs directly onto the surface of standing water – Culex pipiens creates floating “rafts” made of hundreds of eggs, whereas Anopheles claviger and Anopheles maculipennis lay eggs individually with built-in floats into cleaner pools. Representatives of the genus Aedes lay eggs on damp soil in areas where flooding is expected during thaw or rain events. Larvae hatch from the eggs in the water, breathing at the surface, feeding on organic debris, and after four moults transform into a mobile pupa from which the adult emerges.

The main mosquito season in Europe typically lasts from May to September, peaking in June and July. In warm summer weather, development from egg to adult takes a mere one to two weeks, which, given sufficient rainfall, leads to rapid overpopulation. In autumn, the survival strategies of individual species diverge significantly. Females of Culex pipiens, Anopheles maculipennis, and Culiseta annulata seek out cool, damp places such as cellars, caves, or tree hollows, where they hibernate in a state of torpor until spring, though Culiseta annulata may bite even during mild winter days. Mosquitoes of the genus Aedes die off as adults in autumn, and only their resistant eggs deposited in the soil survive the winter, patiently awaiting spring inundation.

Mosquitoes are primarily attracted to humans by a combination of exhaled carbon dioxide, body heat, and moisture; however, why they select specific individuals depends mainly on the skin microbiome and genetics – bacteria on the skin break down sweat into specific chemical compounds (such as lactic acid or ammonia), whose unique odor profile varies in attractiveness to insects. Furthermore, pregnant women (who exhale more CO₂ and have a higher body temperature), individuals undergoing physical exertion, persons with certain infections, and to some extent people influenced by specific dietary components or lifestyle factors exhibit higher attractiveness to mosquitoes (Ellwanger – Cardoso – Chies 2021). Mosquitoes are considered the greatest enemy in human history, having caused the deaths of at least hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people (Blassingame 1975: 93; Whitfield 2002; Winegard 2019: 353). Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe (with the exception of Iceland and the Faroe Islands), malaria caused by the protozoan Plasmodium vivax and transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes was prevalent. To illustrate the grim atmosphere of the Early Middle Ages, we can quote several excerpts from the work of O. Knottnerus (2002: 342, 345):

„Though the coastal inhabitants had created a niche in the wetlands protecting them against human predators, their defence against natural enemies was largely insufficient. (…) In these zones death-rates were 25-50 pct higher than in inland areas. This was not caused by tropical malaria, but by the prolonged debilitating effect of tertian and quartan fevers. (…) [Even in the 16th–18th centuries] every fourth or fifth death was indireetly eaused by malaria or related diseases. (…) While tertian fevers mainly attacked children and adolescents, adults are known to have suffered from quartan fevers for many years. (…) The local population will develop a certain immunity, which, however, can only been acquired through a brutal selection process which kills many children under five years old. Moreover, the immunity acquired is specific only for a distinctive strain. Any one who has endured a tertian infection, can always catch another quartan or tropical infection. Foreign immigrants, seasonal workers and travellers who lack immunity will be heavily affected too. (…) Only Iceland remained free from malaria.“

The study of mosquitoes in the Early Middle Ages does not solely concern humans, but also livestock, which represented a substantial investment. As an example, we may look to the Arctic, where mosquitoes occur in vast numbers (Culler – Ayres – Virginia 2015; Koltz – Culler 2021). Already in the Early Middle Ages, herds of hundreds of reindeer were kept in this region (Salmi 2023; see The Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan). During the polar day, reindeer face continuous, 24-hour pressure from Aedes mosquitoes, with 3,328 to 6,080 individuals attacking a single animal over the course of a fortnight (Reshetnikov 2022). This extreme pressure induces acute entomosis in reindeer, causing the animals to run in panic or circle within the herd to complete exhaustion, leading to the trampling of weaker individuals and calves. Within a few days, hundreds or even thousands of animals in a herd of a thousand can perish at once.

Fig. 4: A swarm of mosquitoes. Source: Welch 2015.

Stop 3: References to Mosquitoes

Early Medieval references to mosquitoes are relatively rare and incidental, rarely forming large, continuous passages of text. It is important to understand that Early Medieval knowledge in this regard was rooted in Antiquity, and the Early Middle Ages brought no noticeable new insights into the study of mosquitoes. Important Classical texts were owned by Early Medieval thinkers, copied, translated, and cited. It should be added that these sources do not consistently employ standardized terminology, meaning the term “mosquito/gnat” (culex) could conceal other, visually similar insects (terminology was not standardized until the modern era, see Chiari 2022).

The first author who can be cited as a keen observer of the mosquito life cycle was Aristotle, who left us mentions of mosquitoes in his works History of Animals (Historia animalium) and Generation of Animals (De generatione animalium). Aristotle classifies the mosquito as a two-winged animal without teeth, equipped with a proboscis located at the front of its body, which it uses as a weapon to pierce and sting. Regarding reproduction, he holds the view that mosquitoes and related species (similar to fleas or flies) do not arise from mating, but through spontaneous generation from decaying matter. Aristotle himself acknowledges the limits of his knowledge and does not attempt a comprehensive classification system, as observations of mating insects were insufficient. He describes mosquito development as red, worm-like larvae forming in mud, which after a time straighten out on the surface, harden, and from their split casing emerge adults that fly away after drying in the sun or wind. In the natural food chain, he notes that mosquitoes and their larvae serve as food for birds, such as woodpeckers, which drive them from tree bark by pecking. Aristotle claims that mosquitoes, unlike bees, do not like sweet things and alight exclusively on pungent or sour substances (History of Animals I:5, IV:7, IV:8, V:19, IX:9; Generation of Animals I:16).

The mosquito appears both in Aesop’s Fables (Adrados – Dijk 2002: 333-4) and in Aristophanes’ comedy The Clouds, in which it is humorously debated whether a mosquito buzzes through its mouth or its rear (French 2005: 7).

Another author who wrote extensively on mosquitoes was Pliny the Elder in his Natural History (Naturalis Historia). In his writings, under the term “culex”, he conflates a wide variety of insects – from parasites and pollinators to various types of larvae or wood-boring pests. At the same time, he hides neither deep respect nor wonder at the perfection, ingenuity, and skill with which Nature sculpted such a minute creature, placing into its tiny body all senses, a piercing voice, wings, long legs, a thirst for human blood, and a sophisticated mouth apparatus functioning simultaneously as a drill and a tube for sucking. In addition, Pliny makes a remarkable observation regarding the origin of amber, inferring that it must have originated as liquid resin because trapped ants, lizards, and indeed mosquitoes – stuck to the fresh sap – can clearly be seen inside hardened amber. According to Pliny, mosquitoes come into being through spontaneous generation from sour or decaying moisture, being found also as white or reddish larvae in long-lying snow. The birth of mosquito-like insects also takes place inside watery blisters on oak leaves, from the sap of decaying wood, from elm excrescences, or from sweet sap beneath the bark of ailing trees. According to Pliny, they play a crucial role in wild fig trees, hatching in their fruit and, upon flying out, opening pathways for sun and air through their biting, thereby aiding the ripening of cultivated figs; however, certain species known as “stinging flies” are highly aggressive, killing useful mosquitoes and dying in the process. The developmental cycle of mosquitoes and their larvae lasts 21 days according to him. Anatomically, mosquito wings have no notches, and their stinger is located in the mouth, where it serves as a tongue for stinging and sucking blood, seeking out acidic substances rather than craving sweet things. In nature, they serve as a favourite food for bats, and some species attack bees. They occur primarily in damp gardens with bushes, but are absent from mines, as toxic fumes generated during the smelting of metals such as lead are fatal to them. Pliny lists a wide array of recipes against their presence and bites (Natural History I:74, X:81, X:90, XI:1, XI:19, XI:34, XI:41, XI:43, XIII:12, XIII:20, XV:21, XVI:10, XVI:80, XVII:37, XVII:43, XIX:58, XX:71, XXII:74, XXIII:61, XXV:91, XXVII:28, XXXIV:50, XXXVII:11).

Later texts provide significantly fewer details. A mention of mosquitoes was left by Palladius of Galatia at the beginning of the 5th century (Lausiac History 17:4; also Arnott 1973: 228). Paraphrased, the story reads roughly as follows: “When Saint Macarius was sitting in his cell one morning, a mosquito landed on his leg and bit him. Feeling the pain, Macarius squashed the blood-filled mosquito with his hand. Immediately, however, he began to reproach himself for giving in to a desire for revenge. As punishment for his act, he condemned himself to sit naked for six months in the marshes of Scetis in the great desert. The mosquitoes there were as large as wasps and could pierce even the hide of wild boars. As a result, his entire body was covered in bites and swelled so badly that some people thought he suffered from elephantiasis. When he returned to his cell after his six-month penance, his brethren could only recognize him by his voice.“

Isidore of Seville, in his Etymologies (XII:8) from the early 7th century, interprets the mosquito as follows: “The gnat [culex] is so called from its sting [aculeus], because it sucks blood. It has a tube in its mouth shaped like a spike, with which it pierces flesh in order to drink blood.” A similar description was adopted in the 840s by Rabanus Maurus (see On the Natures of Things VII:7).

Let us add two further mentions. The History of Leo the Deacon (Book X:I) from the 10th century mentions Bishop James, who in the 4th century defeated the Persians with a miraculous army of mosquitoes. According to the rhymed chronicle Roman de Rou by Master Wace (lines 8129–74) from the 12th century, the English referred to thick showers of arrows at the Battle of Hastings as “mosquitoes”, a parallel to poetic kennings for arrows known from Scandinavian skaldic poetry (e.g., Þorbjǫrn hornklofi: Glymdrápa 5).

For comparison, we may briefly present how the topic of mosquitoes was handled in Early Medieval Chinese literature. The mosquito was perceived primarily through two main literary traditions: realistic and allegorical, similar to the European sphere. In realistic depictions, mosquitoes appeared as a naturalistic element of daily life and landscape, representing an annoying seasonal threat whose buzzing, constant presence, and bites disrupted peace in homes. At the same time, however, the mosquito functioned as a socio-political symbol; its blood-sucking and persistent nature served poets as a metaphor for corrupt officials, slanderers, and parasitic courtiers who profit from the labour of others and destroy justice in the state. Towards the end of this period, an erotic motif also developed peripherally, where mosquito bites and insects penetrating bed curtains were metaphorically compared to nocturnal visits by lovers or the loss of virginity (Milburn 2017).

The Persian philosopher Al-Ghazali (12th century) viewed insects, including mosquitoes, with immense wonder, seeing in them a mirror of divine perfection. In his work Ihya’ ‘ulum ad-din, he pays attention to ants, bees, and mosquitoes, pointing out that the mosquito with its “proboscis” is in no way inferior to the giant elephant. He draws upon the concept of the microcosm and the principle that even the smallest creation helps explain the highest – understanding minute creatures leads us to marvel at the whole of creation and human nature itself (Ormsby 1984: 46; 2007: 111, 124, 133).

Stop 4: Protection Against Mosquitoes

Protection against mosquitoes can be viewed as multi-layered, ranging from preventive measures to highly targeted ones. The connection between malaria and mosquitoes was not established until the modern era; prior to that, it was believed that malaria was caused by bad air rising from marshes (Sallares 2002: 45-6; Weeda 2026: 293). The first layer can therefore be understood as landscape management and avoiding areas with standing water. People generally shunned swamps, regarding them as liminal spaces where the order of human society ceased in favour of natural chaos; the marsh was the antithesis of the hall (Schjødt 2008: 323; Starý – Kozák 2010).

With the exception of fortresses, bridges (Kola – Wilke 2014; Kurnatowska 2000; Poláček 2014; Ramskou 1977), and canals or mill races (Ettel et al. 2014; Zielhofer et al. 2014), we know very little about large-scale engineering projects in Europe involving wetland drainage. It is possible that in Persia, areas free of mosquitoes were deliberately chosen for founding cities (Scheiner – Toral 2022: 52-3), and the aristocracy intentionally built their residences in elevated locations to escape mosquito reach (Le Strange 1900: 157). Areas with standing water in inhabited zones were likely actively utilized for harvesting reeds, as suggested by agricultural harvesting tools (Borzová 2016: 83, 89) and regulations stipulating that every hide of land pay two hundred sheaves of reeds on St John’s Day (Charter of Ermenfrid, Abbot of Gorze). Thatch made of reeds was presumably one of the main roofing materials requiring constant renewal (Šalkovský 2001; Vařeka 2004). We also have references to burning reed for military reasons (Anna Komnene, Book 14, Ch. V.8). During military movements, camps were nevertheless pitched along water bodies for security and ease of transport (Hedenstierna-Jonson – García-Losquiño 2023). A primitive method of killing mosquito larvae in water bodies – though only documented from the 18th century – was pouring oil onto water to create a continuous film (Blassingame 1975: 105-6).

Fig. 5: Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare).
Source: Daniel Ballmer, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Another level of protection involves securing houses or tents. One potential solution, difficult to execute in the Early Middle Ages, would be separating living quarters from large livestock, which mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles prefer (Becker 2008: S22). Houses frequently lacked windows, or the size and number of openings were minimized, leaving doors and smoke vents as the primary entry points for mosquitoes (for windows see e.g. Harmadyová – Staššíková-Štukovská 2000; Schmidt 1994: 92-3, 122; Sode – Gratuze – Jessen 2023). Dwellings were heavily smoky, which may have repelled insects, though it caused respiratory issues for inhabitants (Christensen – Ryhl-Svendsen 2014). References in Roman (Sallares 2002: 48), Byzantine (Smith 2019: 132-8), and Anglo-Saxon sources (Berkhout – Doubleday 1973) suggest the use of mosquito nets. Classical authors, including Pliny the Elder, suggest fumigants made from wormwood, fennel seeds, black cumin, lupin, or pomegranate bark; modern research confirms their genuine efficacy – for instance, wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) can incapacitate and kill mosquitoes in enclosed spaces (Sallares 2002: 48). Anglo-Saxon versions of the late antique Herbarium of Apuleius favour using crushed fleabane against mosquitoes:

“CXLIII. The herb xóvυζα
For bite and driving off of snake, and against gnats, and midges, and fleas, and wounds.” (Cockayne 1965: 55)

“CXLIII. This wort, which is named xóvυζα, and by another name fleabane, is of two kinds, though the one be greater, the other less; the less than hath small and diminutive leaves, and a very agreeable odour; and the other hath larger leaves, and fat or fleshy, and an oppressive smell, and the roots of these worts are useless; but the stem of this wort with the leaves, strewed about, and set on fire, puts to flight snakes; and also it, when pounded and wrought into a plaster, healeth bite of snakes, and it killeth gnats and midges, and fleas, and it also cureth moreover, all wounds, and it stirreth strangury, and it healeth the kings evil, morbus regius, or jaundice, and when exhibited in vinegar, it healeth the epileptic.” (Cockayne 1965: 265-7)

Burning fleabane to drive away mosquitoes and fleas is also documented among Native Americans (Kindscher 1992: 97). Experiments with hanging plants (lavender, mint, rosemary, tansy were tested) in tents demonstrated that certain aromatic herbs can repel insects. In literary works from Early Medieval Japan, a mosquito fumigant known as kayaribi is mentioned (Verschuer 2016: 38). Hypothetically, one could experiment with candles and oils infused with herbal additives, functioning similarly to modern repellent candles.

In the 10th century, Constantine Porphyrogenitus devoted an extensive chapter inspired by Democritus to mosquitoes in his agricultural encyclopedia Geoponika (XIII:11), collecting a wide array of practical instructions and folk recipes for repelling and exterminating them. According to this text, mosquitoes can be prevented from entering a dwelling by stretching horsehair across doorways and interiors. To drive them away, fumigation using blue vitriol with black cumin, wood soaked in vinegar with oregano, bdellium resin, or a more complex mixture of fleabane, ammoniacum incense, hemlock spruce, and crushed shells of sea snails can be used; spraying the house with a decoction or infusion of rue, fleabane, galbanum, cumin, or frankincense works similarly, as does smearing walls with smoking dung (cf. Mukherjee – Ghosh 2020). For personal protection against bites during sleep, the text recommends hanging a sponge soaked in strong vinegar near the head and feet, or placing a flowering sprig or hemp leaves beside the bed.

Fig. 6: Wormwood (Artemisia absinthium).
Source: Matt Lavin, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Further protection against mosquitoes via clothing will be addressed in the following chapter, but it can be noted here that a substantial part of the body can be protected using thick or layered attire. Based on available sources, it is impossible to determine whether personal repellents were used in the Early Middle Ages; however, Pliny the Elder recommends rubbing the body with oil mixed with wormwood to repel mosquitoes (Natural History XXVII:28), and Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentions smearing the body with a mixture of insect mana, vinegar, and olive oil (Geoponika XIII:11). It should be kept in mind that repellents are not 100% effective and have limited longevity, particularly natural ones. The purpose of a repellent is to mask human odour and irritate mosquito olfactory receptors. In period conditions, birch tar could serve as a repellent (Siemssen – Hearne – Rigterink 2024), though it is carcinogenic. Plant-based repellents offer another possibility. Cloves, used effectively today against mosquitoes (Trongtokit et al. 2005), were imported to Europe and not commonly available (Drauschke 2008: 408; Werner 1950: 45-6; see also Seipel 1999: 97-8). If we restrict ourselves to native European flora, extracts of onion, garlic, various wormwood species, parsley, or hemp-agrimony are recommended as repellents (Chiej 1984: Cat. nos. 17, 18, 41, 127, 225).

If a bite occurred, an Early Medieval individual would certainly have used herbal remedies (such as the aforementioned fleabane) to reduce swelling, while simultaneously employing spoken charms, symbols, and similar practices influenced by a pluralistic understanding of causation (Vlasatý 2023). Anglo-Saxon leechcraft texts recommend making the sign of the cross with fingers over the bite and chanting specific formulas thrice (see Against a Sting). Pliny the Elder recommends washing bites from venomous creatures with seawater and hot vinegar (Natural History XXXI:33).

Stop 5: The Mosquito as a Determinant of Clothing

In early August 2026, the author and his colleagues attended the Wolin festival, which presented one of the worst experiences with mosquitoes in his twenty-year reenactment career. This event forced the author to reconsider the suitability of certain clothing elements and combinations when near bodies of water, prompting the creation of this text. The following chapter serves as an addendum of sorts to previous papers on Early Medieval garment construction (Vlasatý 2023b; 2023c).

Despite the discomfort, these unique conditions were utilized as research material with the potential to enrich the international academic and reenactment communities. The data presented are based on the author’s observations and evaluations from five other participants (two men and three women), whose experiences show both partial agreement and divergence. The findings were subsequently compared against a broader sample of festival attendees.

Case 1: Tomáš Vlasatý (Author)

The author was equipped with the following basic kit:

Fitted linen breeches in plain weave, reaching from the waist to mid-thigh.
Loose woolen trousers made of coarse wool (2/2 twill), covering from waist to ankles.
Low ankle socks made using the nålbinding technique, covered by low ankle shoes.
A loose linen tunic reaching to the knees with a simple oval neckline and sleeves long enough to pull over the fists.

This protection proved insufficient on several levels:

The linen layer on the torso is too thin to offer protection against mosquitoes, requiring reinforcement with a second tunic made of thin wool (2/2 twill) of a similar cut to the undertunic.
With two layers on the torso, wrists became the primary targets for mosquitoes, though they could be covered by pulling down the long sleeves. Exposed neck and face areas were an uncomfortable vulnerability, which the author could have covered with a woolen hood (unused due to high temperatures).
The gap between socks and trousers presented a severe issue, leaving part of the ankle bare. This area, along with the shins, was reinforced with woolen leg wraps (herringbone twill) overlapped by the socks.

Fig. 7: The author’s equipment (left) at the Wolin 2026 festival.

Case 2: Jakub Machek

Participant Jakub shared details of his kit:

Linen and modern underwear, worn interchangeably.
Relatively fitted woolen trousers of thin wool, extending from waist to ankles.
Woolen ankle socks made via nålbinding and low shoes.
Woolen leg wraps (herringbone twill), covering from ankle to knee.
A plain-weave linen tunic reaching above the knees, with sleeves that do not cover the fists.
A coarser woolen tunic (2/2 twill) reaching above the knees.

This kit presented the following pitfalls:

A double layer on the torso provided sufficient protection; however, the most acute problem emerged in the area between the leg wraps and the lower hem of the tunic. The entire thigh area was targeted.
The backs of the hands also suffered.
The joins between socks and leg wraps around the ankles proved problematic and inadequately covered.
Jakub notes that he was bitten around the perimeter of his face. Theoretically, this could have been prevented by wearing a hood, which was omitted due to high temperatures.

Fig. 8: Jakub Machek’s winter kit (left).
During the festival, Jakub did not wear gloves or a hood. Mosquito bites on the knees (right).
Source: archive of Jakub Machek.

Case 3: Lukáš Hrubý

Participant Lukáš’s experience can best be described as a nightmare, serving as a testament to how unexpectedly a festival can unfold for an individual. Upon arrival, he began pitching tents while exposed, suffering painful sunburns on his torso, which forced him to wear a modern cotton t-shirt as a base layer for the remainder of the event. Simultaneously, he was waiting for colleagues in a second car carrying his woolen clothes, leaving him to spend the first day in linen garments (breeches and a linen shirt).

Although his sunburned torso was spared from mosquitoes by the combination of a modern t-shirt and a linen shirt, protection for his limbs was inadequate, resulting in a severe attack. The woolen tunic could not be worn due to the sunburns, leaving his arms exposed. Owing to the mosquito attacks on the first day, woolen trousers and leg wraps were avoided for the rest of the festival due to severe discomfort, leading to further bites. This resulted in severe swelling.

Case 4: Lenka Janošková

Participant Lenka was equipped with a linen dress, a woolen dress, and a headscarf that did not cover the neck. She evaluates the system of two long dresses as positive and sufficient. Main vulnerabilities were exposed legs while seated and an exposed neck due to a wide neckline. When wrapped in a cloak, only the face presented a problem.

Case 5: Anna Myšková

Participant Anna wore a linen dress, a woolen dress, two lightweight headscarves, low shoes, and woolen socks. The double-dress combination proved effective, as did the headscarves covering her head and neck. Anna emphasizes that the headscarves were highly practical even at night, allowing for relatively peaceful sleep. The main deficiency was the area around the ankles, which suffered while sitting and sleeping; she would have appreciated taller socks, trousers, hose, or leg wraps. The backs of her hands were also bitten. She notes that in her opinion, spending time by the fire helped, as it imparted a distinct smoke odour.

Fig. 9: Anna Myšková’s equipment. Source: archive of Anna Myšková.

Case 6: Johanka Horáčková

Participant Johanka utilized a woolen apron and a woolen coat over her linen dress. Her legs were covered with leg wraps extending down into her shoes, and her head was protected by a hood. She admits to taking Vitamin B, using citronella candles, and hanging lavender at the tent entrance, resulting in only 10–15 bites over a five-day period.

Implications for Garments

A fundamental issue in attempting to reproduce Early Medieval clothing is that garments are predominantly made to satisfy the owner’s aesthetic preferences. Since clothes are primarily used during the summer season, the main demand – besides looking good – is breathability or the ability to maintain a comfortable microclimate for the wearer. Notably, garments are constructed in the comfort of home without long-term knowledge of natural conditions at historical event sites, which can result in reenactors arriving completely unprepared (snow and frost in July, week-long rain, etc.). Reenactors still think of clothing as an aesthetic accessory shaped by climate. However, our observations suggest that construction and wearing methods (especially layering and overlapping) can be driven by other environmental factors – in this case, mosquitoes (and similarly, ticks). Total protection against mosquitoes is impossible; it is rather a matter of damage limitation and maximizing comfort. Speaking of damage, we specifically refer to diseases and autoimmune reactions caused by mosquito bites (Does – Labib – Yosipovitch 2022), as well as damage to the garments themselves, which can become blood-stained when crushing engorged insects.

It is worth noting that clothing suited for cold and wet conditions proved equally effective against mosquitoes. First and foremost, the ability of textiles to protect against mosquitoes depends on several inherent fabric properties:

Looseness / tightness of fit: A mosquito’s proboscis measures approximately 1.5 to 2 mm; if the garment is not in direct contact with skin, the mosquito cannot reach it. This experience was explicitly mentioned by festival participant Jakub Machek, whose tight trousers caused significant discomfort.
Fabric weight: This factor should be viewed with some caution as it was not scientifically measured, but based on experience, a single layer of natural fabric weighing 150–200 g/m² is insufficient, whereas adequate protection is achieved around 300 g/m², whether in a single thick layer or layered fabrics.
Weave density: A tightly woven fabric creates a mechanical barrier that mosquitoes cannot penetrate. Weave type was not conclusively proven as a decisive factor, though elastic 2/2 twill may stretch and alter density at high-tension flex points (knees, elbows), thereby increasing a mosquito’s chances of success.

In practice, a tight garment made of densely woven fabric with a low weight will fail to provide expected protection, whereas a looser garment with a higher fabric weight proves more effective, even if it has a slightly lower thread density. Understanding these relationships allows us to consider garment construction and layering methods. A limitation of cold- and rain-weather items (cloaks, hoods, gloves) that could work against mosquitoes is the hot summer climate. They can certainly be deployed when necessary, but at the cost of a different form of discomfort. It is therefore more practical to wear garments shaped purposefully to minimize exposed body parts without subjecting the wearer to the risk of overheating.

Fig. 10: Bites on an exposed ankle, one week after the historical festival.
Smaller bites were caused by mosquitoes, the larger one by a spider.
Source: archive of Heather English.

Men’s Clothing

For the upper body, tunic constructions featuring extra-long sleeves and a skirt reaching to the knees when belt is hidden in the folds of tunic proved exceptionally effective (see Vlasatý 2023b). Such a tunic provides necessary ease over the chest, allowing the garment to breathe while preventing direct skin contact. Sleeves can be pulled over the hands as needed. Because anti-mosquito measures aim to cover every square centimetre susceptible to attack, garments should feature the smallest possible neck opening. A stiff standing collar serving to protect the neck would be an extremely useful feature. Properly constructed kaftans, particularly if lined, offer the same benefits.

The lower legs including the knees are partially shielded by outer garments. Although knee-length tunics cover the thighs and reduce attacks, the thigh area remains vulnerable. Adding volume to trousers around the thighs (see Vatican, BAV, MS Reg. lat. 1263, f. 68v) or using baggy pants was considered good protection by participants. Leg wraps proved to be a useful accessory, though they create join lines vulnerable to attack. Reenactor Jovan Perea cited a severe case where wearing knee-length wide trousers without leg wraps resulted in over a hundred bites. The worst vulnerability occurs at the junction of trousers, leg wraps, and socks. The common reenactment practice of wearing socks over leg wraps – driven by the desire not to remove wraps when taking off socks (for wading or saving shoes) – proved unsuitable, warranting a revised approach. Options include starting the leg wrap inside the sock (around the foot), wearing higher socks, or adopting higher three-button boots (e.g., Volken 2014: 125). The best and most reliable solution is replacing leg wraps with trousers featuring integrated feet (e.g., Kania 2007) or hoses reaching at least to the knees (e.g., Cardon 1996: 159-160; Herget 2011: 58, 173-7; Müller-Christensen 1960: Pl. 34-37; Orfinskaja 2001: 206). High riding boots also offer excellent protection (e.g., Runyč 1971), as demonstrated by Hungarian festival participants who experienced no lower-leg issues.

There is no effective period textile protection for the entire face. Festival participants noted that mosquitoes on the face are easier to control because they are visible and audible. Interestingly, certain hairstyles and beard shapes can offer a degree of physical protection (Dean – Siva-Jothy 2011). While one reenactor lacking a full facial beard described bites along the face’s perimeter, another reenactor with such a beard experienced no such issues. Aside from integrated or separate hoods, specific headwear covering the neck can provide protection (Brandenburgh 2012; Vlasatý 2024). Vulnerable areas that are difficult to protect with clothing or must remain exposed for work and heat management (notably the face, neck, and hands) can be protected with natural repellents. In theory, clothing could also be impregnated with repellent substances, similar to modern mosquito-proof suits (Luan et al. 2021).

Leather clothing constitutes a unique category capable of providing protection even in a single layer. Currently, large leather garments are largely considered hypothetical (Gjaerum 2006), supported by only a minor quantity of Early Medieval archaeological finds (Bendefy – Petkes – Türk 2017: 505; Budinský-Krička – Fettich 1973: 78-9; Kovács 2003: 206; Ostrowska 1961; Samsonowicz 1982: 86). The best parallels originate from Iron Age and Roman Denmark contexts (Mannering et al. 2010). Among literary references, the Life of Saint Guthlac (Ch. 28) notes that the saint retreated to the marshes wearing “neither woolen nor linen garments nor any other soft material, but spent his whole solitary life in garments made of skins“. While such ascetic descriptions are typical of hagiography, leather or skin appear undeniably as a far more practical material for marshland habitation in this context. Felted or partially fulled textiles would exhibit similar protective properties.

Fig. 11: Alanic costume, 9th century. An example of male attire suitable against mosquitoes.
Long, lined kaftans with long sleeves accompanied by a neck-covering cap, hose, and high boots.
Source: Szymala 2025.

Women’s Clothing

Women’s fashion offers alternative solutions to specific issues, with differences stemming from distinct garment anatomy and function. To begin with, not all solutions known from archaeology and iconography are suitable for mosquito-infested areas (sleeveless dresses being a prime example of unsuitable attire). It can be assumed that mosquito exposure times were statistically higher for men, who travelled more, than for women.

Basic protection can be achieved through overlapping layers, analogous to male attire. Linen, identified as the dominant clothing material for women (Ewing 2006: 21-2), does not provide adequate protection on its own and must be supplemented by a second layer – an overdress, coat (Bau 1981: Fig. 2; Malmius 2001; Orfinskaja 2018: 425-6; Orfinskaya – Pushkina 2011), or cloak (Thunem 2026). Pleated fabric also offers advantages by keeping mosquitoes from reaching the skin (see Bau 1981; Hägg 1974; Thunem 2015).

A key difference between male and female Early Medieval attire lies in the degree of fit. Female garments are presumed to have been very loose, which serves as an important defense against mosquitoes. Skirt length proved crucial, as full-length skirts restrict or prevent mosquito attacks while standing. Skirts are ideally combined with hose (Jerusalimskaja 2012: 211), leg wraps (see Clauss 1976: Fig. 5; Kirjavainen – Riikonen 2007; Owen-Crocker 2010: 189-190, 226, 257-9), or long socks (Fatjunina 2018: Fig. 1; Walton 1989: Fig. 142) to protect legs exposed while seated. Reenactor Ann Asplund shared an experience of receiving over 70 bites around her ankles during a historical festival. Wide necklines accommodating breastfeeding, as well as the neck and parts of the face, can be draped with large, light headscarves.

In this context, some Early Medieval pouches – predominantly found in female graves – are interpreted as containers for strongly aromatic textiles, plants, and similar items (Duczko 1978-1979: 349; Krumphanzlová 1963: 101; Koch 1967: 42-3). The most remarkable find is a 7th-century box from Horburg containing cloves (Werner 1950: 44-5). Traditional interpretations view this as church incense; however, some pouches or kaptorgas may have fulfilled repellent functions alongside magical ones. Wearing them near the neck supports such a function.

Fig. 12: Hungarian costume, 10th century. An example of female attire suitable against mosquitoes.
Long kaftans with long sleeves accompanied by a headscarf, hose, and cloak.
Source: Bernadett Sarka and János Mestellér, Kazár Bazár.

Acknowledgements

The clothing section was created with significant help from respondents, whom we would like to thank. They were Johanka Horáčková, Lukáš Hrubý, Lenka Janošková, Jakub Machek, and Anna Myšková. Our observations also draw upon Hungarian colleagues János Mestellér (Kazár Bazár) and Ferenc Türk. We are indebted to Kristýna Wernerová, with whom the article was continuously consulted and who added valuable comments. Thank you.

We hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact us or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support our work, please, fund our project on Patreon, Buymeacoffee, Revolut or Paypal.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Charter of Ermenfrid, Abbot of Gorze = Charta Ermenfridi, abbatis Gorziensis. In: Polyptique De L’abbé Irminon, Ou Dénombrement Des Manses II. Ed. M. B. Guérard, Paris 1844, 351-352.

The Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan = Plavby Óhthera a Wulfstána. Transl. Klára Petříková. In: Čermák, Jan (ed.). Jako když dvoranou proletí pták, Praha 2009, s. 540–545.

Against a Sting = Proti bodnutí. Transl. M. Komarec – V. Revická. In: Čermák, Jan (ed.) Jako když dvoranou proletí pták, Praha 2009, 175.

Anna Komnene = Anna Komnena : Paměti byzantské princezny. Transl. Růžena Dostálová, Praha 1996.

Aristotle : Generation of Animals = Aristotle : Generation of Animals. Transl. Arthur Platt, Oxford 1910.

Aristotle : History of Animals = Aristotle : History of Animals. Transl. D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Oxford 1910.

Felix : Life of Saint Guthlac = Felix’s Life of Saint Guthlac. Transl. Bertram Colgrave, Cambridge 1985.

Isidore of Seville : Etymologies = Isidor ze Sevilly, Etymologie XII. Transl. Jana Fuksová, Praha 2004.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus : Geoponika = Geoponika – Farm Work. A Modern Translation of the Roman and Byzantine Farming Handbook. Transl. Andrew Dalby, London 2011.

Leo The Deacon : History = The History of Leo The Deacon. Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century. Transl. Alice-Mary Talbot – D. F. Sullivan, Washington 2005.

Palladius : Lausiac History = The Lausiac History Of Palladius. Transl. W. K. Lowther Clarke, London – Ney York 1918.

Pliny the Elder : Natural History = Pliny the Elder : Natural History. Transl. H. Rackham – W. H. S. Jones – D. E. Eichholz, London 1938.

Rabanus Maurus : On the Natures of Things = Rabanus Maurus : De rerum naturis. [2026-08-04]. Available here.

Wace : Roman de Rou = The History of the Norman People: Wace’s Roman de Rou. Transl. G. S. Burgess, Woodbridge 2004.

Þorbjǫrn hornklofi : Glymdrápa = Þorbjǫrn hornklofi : Glymdrápa. In: Whaley, Diana (2012). Skaldic poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages, Vol. 1, Poetry from the kings’ sagas 1 : from mythical times to c. 1035. Transl. and ed. Edith Marold, Turnhout, 73–91.

Secondary Literature

Adrados, F. R. – Dijk, Gert-Jan van (2002). History of the Graeco-Latin Fable: Volume III. Inventory and Documentation of the Graeco-Latin Fable, Leiden – Boston.

Apals, Jānis (2008). Araišu Arheoloģiskais Muzejparks. Ceļvedis, Riga.

Arnold, Béat (1995). Pirogues monoxyles d’Europe centrale. Construction, typologie, évolution. Tome 1, Neuchâtel.

Arnott, P. D. (1973). The Byzantines and their world, New York.

Bahbouh, Charif (2019). Češi a Slované v arabských rukopisech, Nejstarší zpráva o Praze, Brandýs nad Labem.

Bau, Flemming (1981). Seler og slæb i vikingetid. Birka’s kvindedragt i nyt lys. In: KUML 1981, 13-47.

Becker, Norbert (2008). Influence of climate change on mosquito development and mosquito-borne diseases in Europe. In: Parasitology Research 103, Suppl 1, S19–S28

Bendefy, M. K. – Petkes, Zsolt – Türk, Atilla (2017). Archaeological evidence for leatherworking in the Hungarian Conquest period (Sárbogárd-Tringer-tany, Grave 33). In: Hadak útján XXIV, Budapest – Esztergom, 499–521.

Berkhout, C. T. – Doubleday, J. F. (1973). The Net in Judith 46b-54a. In: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 74(4), 630-634.

Blassingame, Wyatt (1975). The Little Killers. Fleas, Lice, Mosquitoes, New York.

Borzová, Zuzana (2016). Poľnohospodárske náradie včasného stredoveku na Slovensku, Nitra.

Brady, Niall (2006). Mills in Medieval Ireland: Looking Beyond Design. In: Walton, S. A. (ed.). Wind and Water in the Middle Ages. Fluid Technologies from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Tempe, 39-68.

Brandenburgh, Chrystel (2012). Old Finds Rediscovered. Two Early Medieval Headdresses from the National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden, the Netherlands. In: Medieval Clothing and Textiles 8, 25-47.

Browning, D. C. – Nicovich, J. M. (2026). A ‘useless marsh … breeding fever and insect pests’: assessing malaria risk on roads through Cilicia Pedias (modern Türkiye) and its historical impact in antiquity and the Middle Ages. In: Parasitology, 1–17.

Buckland, Paul (2008). The North Atlantic Farm: An Environmental View. In: Brink, Stefan et al. (eds.). The Viking World, London – New York, 598–603.

Buckland, P. C. – Perry, D. W. (1989). Ectoparasites of sheep from Stóraborg, Iceland and their interpretation. Piss, parasites and people, a palaeoecological perspective. In: Hikuin 15, 37–46.

Budinský-Krička, Vojtech – Fettich, Nándor (1973). Das altungarische Fürstengrab von Zemplín, Bratislava.

Cardon, Dominique (1996). Des vêtements pour un comte. Habillement funéraire du comte : apports à l’histoire des techniques textiles dans le bassin méditerranéen et en Europe du Sud. In: Crubézy, Éric – Dieulafait, Christine (eds.). Le comte de l’An Mil, Limoges, 155-187.

Carnap-Bornheim, Claus von – Kühn, H. J. – Nakoinz, Oliver (2005). Wrack 4 von Haithabu. In: Offa 59/60, 235-238.

Cederlund, C. O. (1993). The Årby boat, Stockholm.

Clauss, Gisela (1976). Beobachtungen an merowingerzeitlichen Gräbern bei Hockenheim, Rhein-Neckar-Kreis. In: Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 6, 55–64.

Cockayne, T. O. (1965). Leechdoms, wortcunning, and starcraft of early England. Being a collection of documents, for the most part never before printed, illustrating the history of science in this country before the Norman conquest, Vol. I, London.

Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole et al. (2002). The Skuldelev Ships I. Topography, Archaeology, History, Conservation and Display, Roskilde.

Culler, L. E. – Ayres, M. P. – Virginia, R. A. (2015). In a warmer Arctic, mosquitoes avoid increased mortality from predators by growing faster. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282, 20151549.

Dean, Isabelle – Siva-Jothy, M. T. (2011). Human fine body hair enhances ectoparasite detection. In: Biology letters 2011 Dec 14;8(3), 358–361.

Does, A. V. – Labib, Angelina – Yosipovitch, Gil (2022). Update on mosquito bite reaction: Itch and hypersensitivity, pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment. In: Frontiers in immunology 2022 Sep 21;13:1024559

Drauschke, Jörg (2008). Zur Herkunft und Vermittlung „byzantinischer Importe“ der Merowingerzeit in Nordwesteuropa. In: Brather, Sebastian (ed.). Zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalter, Berlin – New York, 367–423.

Duczko, Władysław (1978-1979). Vikingatida silversmycken i Mora-skatten. Den icke-monetära delen av en nyupptäckt silverskatt från Dalarna. In: TOR 18, 311-358.

Ellwanger, J. H. – Cardoso, J. D. C. – Chies, J. A. B. (2021). Variability in human attractiveness to mosquitoes. In: Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases 2021 Nov 2;1, 100058.

Ettel, Peter et al. (2014). Großbaustelle 793 – Das Kanalprojekt Karls des Großen zwischen Rhein und Donau, Mainz.

Ewing, Thor (2006). Viking Clothing, Stroud.

Fatjunina 2018 = Фатюнина, О. А. (2018). Кожаные туфли с шерстяными чулками из Монастырского курганного могильника у Пронска // Археология Подмосковья 14, 166–177.

Fircks, Jochen von (1979). Wikingerschiffe : über ihren Bau, ihre Vorgänger und ihre eigene Entwicklung, Rostock.

French, Roger (2005). Ancient Natural History, London – New York.

Gjaerum, Helena (2006). Förslag till vikingatida sjökläder, Sundsvall : Mittuniversitetet.

Harmadyová, Katarína – Staššíková-Štukovská, Danica (2020). Vitrážové sklá s maľbou z hradu Devín. In: Bisták, Peter (ed.). S licenciou 007. Zborník príspevkov k 70. narodeninám Petra Baxu, Bratislava – Praha, 87-99.

Hägg, Inga (1974). Kvinnodräkten i Birka: Livplaggens rekonstruktion på grundval av det arkeologiska materialet, Uppsala.

Hedenstierna-Jonson, Charlotte – García-Losquiño, Irene (2023). Viking Camps: Case Studies and Comparisons, Abingdon – New York.

Herget, Melanie (2011). Des Kaisers letzte Kleider. Neue Forschungen zu den organischen Funden aus der Herschergräbern im Dom zu Speyer, München.

Chiari, Sophie (2022). The Plague of Gnats in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. In: Chiari, Sophie (ed.). The Experience of Disaster in Early Modern English Literature, New York, 107-121.

Chiej, Roberto (1984). The MacDonald encyclopedia of medicinal plants, London.

Christensen, J. M. – Ryhl-Svendsen, Morten (2014). Household air pollution from wood burning in two reconstructed houses from the Danish Viking Age. In: Indoor Air 25, 329-340.

Jerusalimskaja 2012 = Иерусалимская, А. А. (2012). Мощевая Балка. Необычный археологический памятник на Северокавказском шёлковом пути, Санкт-Петербург.

Kania, Katrin (2007). Die Thorsberg-Hose – ein Meisterwerk eisenzeitlicher Schneiderkunst. In: Leskovar, Jutta – Karl, Raimund (eds.). Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Tagungsbeiträge der 2. Linzer Gespräche zur interpretativen Eisenzeitarchäologie. Oberösterreichisches Landesmuseum, Linz, 277–291.

Kirjavainen, Heini – Riikonen, Jaana (2007). Some Finnish Archeological Twill Weaves from the 11th to the 15th Century. In: Rast-Eicher, Antoinette – Windler, Renate (eds.). NESAT IX – Archäologische Textilfunde – Archaeological Textiles, Braunwald, 18.-21. Mai 2005, Ennenda, 134-140.

Kindscher, Kelly (1992). Medicinal Wild Plants of the Prairie. An Ethnobotanical Guide, Lawrence, KS.

Knottnerus, O. S. (2002). Malaria around the North Sea: a survey. In: Wefer, G. et al. (eds.). Climate development and history of the North Atlantic realm, Berlin, 339–353.

Koch, Robert (1967). Bodenfunde der Völkerwanderungszeit aus dem Main-Tauber-Gebiet – Text, Berlin.

Kola, Andrzej – Wilke, Gerard (2014). Wczesnośredniowieczne mosty przy Ostrowie Lednickim Tom II: Mosty traktu poznańskiego, Kraków.

Koltz, A. M. – Culler, L. E. (2021). Biting insects in a rapidly changing Arctic. In: Current Opinion in Insect Science 47, 75-81.

Kotyza, Oldřich (2014). K počátkům vodních mlýnů v českých zemích aneb o existenci vltavských jezů a hydraulických mlýnů v Praze 10. století. In: Boháčová, Ivana – Sommer, Petr (eds.). Středověká Evropa v pohybu. K poctě Jana Klápště, Praha, 461-499.

Kovács, László (2003). Beregszász-Birka: Beiträge zu den mützen mit blechspitze des 10. Jahrhunderts. In: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 54 (1-2), 205–241.

Krumphanzlová, Zdenka (1963). Příspěvek k vývoji lidového šperku 10. stol. v Čechách. In: Památky archeologické 54(1), 87–113.

Kurnatowska, Zofia (2000). Wczesnośredniowieczne mosty przy Ostrowie Lednickim Tom I: Mosty traktu gnieźnieńskiego, Lednica – Toruń.

Le Strange, Guy (1900). Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate from contemporary Arabic and Persian Sources, Oxford.

Luan, Kun et al. (2021). Mosquito-Textile Physics: A Mathematical Roadmap to Insecticide-Free, Bite-Proof Clothing for Everyday Life. In: Insects 2021 Jul 13;12(7):636.

Malmius, Anita (2001). Textilanalyser. In: Nordahl, Else (ed.). Båtgravar i Gamla Uppsala. Spår av en vikingatida högreståndsmiljö, Uppsala, 75-92.

Mannering, Ulla et al. (2010). Dating Danish textiles and skins from bog finds by means of 14C AMS. In: Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 261–268.

Marsina, Richard et al. (1999). Slovensko očami cudzincov (Pramene k dejinám Slovenska II), Bratislava.

Martinelli, Nicoletta – Cherkinsky, Alexander (2009). Absolute Dating of Monoxylous Boats from Northern Italy. In: Radiocarbon 51(2), 413-421.

Milburn, Olivia (2017). The Chinese Mosquito: A Literary Theme. In: Sino-Platonic Papers 270.

Mukherjee, Gopeswar – Ghosh, Sandipan (2020). Use of Cow Dung as Mosquito Repellant. In: International Research Journal of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences 3(1), 61-62.

Müller-Christensen, Sigrid (1960). Das Grab des Papstes Clemens II. im Dom zu Bamberg, München.

Nansen, Peter (1991). Finds of Parasite Eggs in Manure Layers. In: Bencard, Mogens et al. (eds.). Ribe Excavations 1970-76 – Volume 3, Esbjerg, 37-41.

Nansen, Peter – Jørgensen, R. J. (1977). Parasite eggs identified in material from archaeological excavations in Ribe (The Viking Age). In: Nordisk veterinærmedicin 29, 263-266.

Orfinskaja 2001 = Орфинская, О. В. (2001). Текстиль VIII-IX вв. из коллекции Карачаево-Черкесского музея: технологические особенности в контексте культуры раннесредневековой Евразии, Москва.

Orfinskaja 2018 = Орфинская, О. В. (2018). Текстиль Гнездовского комплекса // Гнёздовский археологический комплекс: Материалы и исследования. Вып.1, Москва, 414-542.

Orfinskaya, Olga – Pushkina, Tamara (2011). 10th century AD textiles from female burial Ц-301 at Gnëzdovo, Russia. In: Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 53, 35-51.

Ormsby, E. L. (1984). Theodicy in Islamic Thought: The Dispute Over al-Ghazali’s “Best of All Possible Worlds”, Princeton.

Ormsby, Eric (2007). Ghazali, Oxford.

Ostrowska, Elżbieta (1961). Badania archeologicane na Ostrowie Tumskim we Wrocławiu w 1958 r. In: Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 12, 69-79.

Owen-Crocker, G. R. (2010). Dress in Anglo-Saxon England, Woodbridge.

Poláček, Lumír (2014). Mikulčice River Archaelogy. New Interdisciplinary Research into Bridge No. 1, Brno.

Poláček, Lumír et al. (2000). Holzfunde aus Mikulčice. In: Poláček, Lumír (ed.). Studien zum Burgwall von Mikulčice IV, Brno, 177–302.

Profous, Antonín (1949). Místní jména v Čechách 2. CH-L, Praha.

Ramskou, Thorkild (1977). Vikingebroen. In: Skalk 1977(1), 3-9.

Reilly, Eileen (2024). Dirt, Dwellings and Culture. Living Conditions in Early Medieval Dublin, Oxford.

Reshetnikov, Alexander (2022). Development a Way of Protection for Domestic Reindeer from the Attack of Mosquitoes. In: Muratov, Aleksei – Ignateva, Svetlana (eds.). Fundamental and Applied Scientific Research in the Development of Agriculture in the Far East (AFE-2021), Agricultural Innovation Systems, Volume 1, Cham, 138-146.

Runyč 1971 = Рунич, А. П. (1971). Скальные захоронения в окрестностях Кисловодска // Советская археология 1971/2, 167-178.

Rymut, Kazimierz (2003). Nazwy miejscowe Polski : historia, pochodzenie, zmiany 5, Ko-Ky, Kraków.

Sallares, Robert (2002). Malaria and Rome. A History of Malaria in Ancient Italy, Oxford.

Salmi, Anna-Kaisa (223). The Archaeology of Reindeer Domestication and Herding Practices in Northern Fennoscandia. In: Journal of Archaeological Research 31, 617–660.

Samsonowicz, Agnieszka (1982). Wytwórczość skórzana w Polsce wczesnofeudalnej, Wrocław.

Seipel, Wilfried (1999). Schätze der Kalifen. Islamische Kunst zur Fatimidenzeit, Wien.

Schats, Rachel (2026). Mapping medieval malaria in the Netherlands: A bioarchaeological approach using cribra orbitalia as a proxy. In: Parasitology, 1–14.

Schjødt, J. P. (2008). Initiation between Two Worlds : Structure and Symbolism in Pre-Christian Scandinavian Religion, Odense.

Schmidt, Holger (1994). Building Customs in Viking Age Denmark, Herning.

Scheiner, Jens – Toral, Isabel (2022). Baghdād. From Its Beginnings to the 14th Century, Leiden.

Schuldt, Ewald (1965). Behren-Lübchin. Eine spätslawische Burganlage in Mecklenburg, Berlin.

Siemssen, Tjaark – Hearne, Katherine – Rigterink, Sonja (2024). Midge-Infested Wetlands and the Coevolution of Birch Tar Use in Late Pleistocene Neanderthals. In: Archaeological Review from Cambridge 39(1), 18-41.

Smith, S. D. (2019). Greek Epigram and Byzantine Culture. Gender, Desire, and Denial in the Age of Justinian, Cambridge.

Sode, Torben – Gratuze, Bernard – Jessen, M. D. (2023). Viking Age Windows. A reassessment of windowpane fragments based on chemical analysis (LA-ICP-MS) and their find contexts. In: Danish Journal of Archaeology 12, 1-26.

Søe, M. J. et al. (2015). DNA typing of ancient parasite eggs from environmental samples identifies human and animal worm infections in Viking-age settlement. In: Journal of Parasitology 101, 57–63.

Søe, M. J. et al. (2018). Ancient DNA from latrines in Northern Europe and the Middle East (500 BC–1700 AD) reveals past parasites and diet. In: PLoS ONE 13(4).

Starý, Jiří – Kozák, Jan (2010). Hranice světů: Staroseverský Midgard a Útgard ve strukturalistických a poststrukturalistických interpretacích. In: Religio 18/1, 31–58.

Szymala, Szymon (2025). Inspiration #19, Alanic Elite Warrior. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-08-24]. Available here: https://doi.org/10.59500/VGCR4650.

Šalkovský, Peter (2001). Häuser in der Frühmittelalterlichen Slawischen Welt, Nitra.

Štefánik, Martin – Lukačka, Ján (eds.) (2010). Lexikón stredovekých miest na Slovensku, Bratislava.

Thunem, Hilde (2015). With a Pleated Front – a Possible Reconstruction of the Hangerock (selekjole) in Grave ACQ from Køstrup. In: Lyngstrøm, Henriette (ed.). Refashioning Viking Age Garments, København, 59-66.

Thunem, Hilde (2026). Viking women: Shawls and cloaks. In: Recreating Viking Clothing [online]. [2026-08-24]. Available here: https://urd.priv.no/viking/skikkja.html.

Trongtokit, Yuwadee et al. (2005). Comparative repellency of 38 essential oils against mosquito bites. In: Phytotherapy Research 19(4), 303-309.

Vařeka, Pavel (2004). Archeologie středověkého domu I. Proměny vesnického obydlí v Evropě v průběhu staletí 6.-15. století, Plzeň.

Verschuer, Charlotte von (2016). Rice, Agriculture, and the Food Supply in Premodern Japan, London – New York.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023a). „I carve healing runes“. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-08-24]. Available here: https://doi.org/10.59500/SKCL5377.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023b). Construction of early medieval tunics. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-08-24]. Available here: https://doi.org/10.59500/ADXG6035.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023c). Notes on Early Medieval Women’s Dress. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-08-24]. Available here: https://doi.org/10.59500/XOFS6644.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2024). Identification of a potential hat cone from Tiszaeszlár-Újtelep, Hungary. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-08-24]. Available here: https://doi.org/10.59500/LPCI6289.

Volken, Marquita (2014). Archaeological Footwear: Development of Shoe Patterns and Styles from Prehistory til the 1600’s, Zwolle.

Walton, Penelope (1989). Textiles Cordage and Raw Fibre from 16-22 Coppergate. The Archaeology of York. Vol. 17/5, London.

Weeda, Claire (2026). Pestilential Insects and Public Health in Europe, c.1100–1600. In: Geltner, Guy – Coomans, Janna – Yoeli-Tlalim, Ronit (eds.). Public Health in the Premodern World: Dynamic Balances, Oxford, 285–309.

Welch, Craig (2015). Why the Arctic’s Mosquito Problem Is Getting Bigger, Badder. In: National Geographic [online]. [2026-08-24]. Available here.

Werner, Joachim (1950). Das alamannische Fürstengrab von Wittislingen, München.

Whitfield, John (2002). Portrait of a serial killer. A Roundup of the History and Biology of the Malaria Parasite. In: Nature, October 2002.

Winegard, T. Ch. (2019). The mosquito. A human history of our deadliest predator, New York.

Zielhofer, Christoph et al. (2014). Charlemagne’s Summit Canal: An Early Medieval Hydro-Engineering Project for Passing the Central European Watershed. In: PLoS ONE 9(9), e108194.