Here's how the skirt looks now.  It's 144 cm by 38 cm, fringed area, with ties of 27 cm and 40 cm.

Here's the Egtved original again, for comparison.

(hey look!  the original ties are very different in length, too!  Hmmm…must think about this, in the backstrap vs. extended weaving configuration issue.)

I took the skirt off the loom and despite having used a jig to get the fringes all the same length, the deviation from the mean was more than I expected. 

However, the fringes all have to be connected still, and loops constructed, and that will change the appearance further.  I am a bit dismayed that my effort to control quality wasn't as totally effective as I thought it would be.   I think the culprit is the sway on the span of tabletweaving, pulling to the side, which did give me a challenge to manage.  I am more impressed than ever with the Bronze Age craftswoman.

(tabletweaving loom, clamped to warping board, with folding rod – that's the 'jig' – tied on right.  see the pull of the fringe against the straightness of the waistband weaving?  that was very difficult to prevent, from a tension point of view, though it did become easier with practice.)

I used a loom that has no basis in early period Europe, that rolls the warp and completed narrowwares up below front and back beam.  My reading implies that the more historic way to do narrowwares is to stretch the warp out straight, but then the sidepull "deviation from straight" would be even further.  Alternately, a back strap loom situation would give finer control over the tension of the waistband, but I don't know how one might make a jig to control fringe length in a backstrap loom situation.  I'll keep an eye out for those ideas.

I'm wondering if there might be a way to run a guide string, as a simple "temple", to remind me that "this line is straight".  When I learn to set up warp-weighted-loom warps I will try to remember this.

Other challenges and shortfalls:

The last thread in the warp on the fringed side, just didn't want to stay mushed together with its brothers.  I solved this partially by taking care to alternate the loop path over and under it, so that when the loop plied on itself, the twist would snug up the thread, but it was still a problem.  I see similar fraying on the Egtved skirt, but not as much.  I hope the copper embellishments will help.

Working with overtwisted weft requires one to be vigilant that it is always pulled taut, and that self-plying isn't happening where you don't want it.  However, when the loops are set free to twist, that is rather magical.

I don't know what the real material of the skirt was.  (Hald's Ancient Danish Textiles probably has it; I just haven't checked.)  I used alpaca, in a natural dark grey, because I had it, and because alpaca does not felt easily, so I would have less tangling issues in the fringe.  However, the alpaca looks markedly fuzzier than both extant finds, and I'm wondering what the original material was.  It's unlikely that it was camelloid (as alpaca is).  I used one skein of "Prime Alpaca", approximately 665 yards, imported by Joseph Galler, Inc.  What I have left I hope will do the loops and embellishment spacing chaining.  The alpaca is very soft and the whole skirt is quite slinky.

I don't know what size the Egtved original was overall, versus just fringed area; i.e., how long the ties are.  I suppose I could scale them off the width dimension.

I stopped weaving fringed area possibly a bit short, because I was concerned about running out of material for wrapping the loops and spacing the metal decorations.

I don't know what the exact gauge is, either in thread, or in fringes/cm.  I think my finished product looks pretty similar to Egtved, but it'd be nice to know the numbers.

When overtwisting the weft, I could have taken more care to twist all lengths consistently.  I judged the twist by feel, and it didn't vary too badly, but there are definitely some loops that are more tightly twisted than others.

Other thoughts about context:

When trying on the skirt, it is obvious that even at a double thickness, it doesn't "cover" nudity really at all.  This supports Barber and Jorgensen's descriptions, and how scandalized Danish historians were when these garments were first found.  The more I think about it, and consider if very practical clothing like the outfit at Borum Eshoj is contemporary and not far away, I wonder if the string skirt outfit wasn't a ritual outfit.

? – A special dress, that belonged to a special woman, a woman with a particular role to play, for which she needed such dress, which reinforced the special identity.  Therefore she'd be buried in it.

When wearing the skirt, and thinking of the bronze acrobat figures, I'm reminded of cheerleader skirts, and ballet tutus…both of which garments have special contexts, they aren't worn in regular life.

Also, this skirt was not nearly as time consuming to make as solid cloth, for more useful protection, so they would be a cheap luxury as far as community resources were concerned.  I have about 16 hours in it so far, and I'm fumbling around.  Someone very practiced at the skill and knowledgable about the challenges and techniques would be far faster.

Furthermore, for women to sit around bare-bottomed with no textile or other membrane to protect them – it isn't really safe or sanitary…I find it difficult to believe that even at 1300 BC, the basic idea of keeping grime out of cavities and crevices hadn't been understood.

After I finish this (and come back from Pennsic), I want to go back and survey the various Bronze Age finds – to chart which were coffins, as this was, and which were bogs, since an intentionally buried body can convey an intentional and edited message, whereas an accidental death might say more about daily life.  As opposed to what those people wanted their deceased to appear in the afterlife/to their gods.

Next step: stringing together the loops.  Though I might skip over to working the metal next.