The importance of Roman Reconstruction Archaeology

[John Conyard]

I received an email a few days ago about the value of reconstructive achaeology. It has prompted me to ask a question of this forum.

I believe the best Roman re-enactment groups demonstrate accurate reconstructions to the public. Let's assume for the moment I don't care how or with what tools they were made.

The very best groups go a little further. They consider how artefacts were used, wear patterns, limitations etc. Hopefully some hard data will be produced. But re-enactment is largely a hobby, and the work is done by enthusiasts.

How much use is this information to academic historians or to archaeologists? Is it worthy of consideration, and if so how much? Or is reconstruction forever tainted by a perception that re-enactment is full of middle-aged overweight white men hitting each other? Is that all it can ever be, apart from fun?

And finally, perhaps selfishly, do any of these attitudes matter? Put simply I rely on archaeologists to dig things up. I rely on historians to put things in context. My interest then leads me to find out for myself how something works. This is my interest, and perhaps a few other like-minded people. Who cares what others think? After all if we did care, we should be publishing one paper after another on our findings, rather than enjoying ourselves so much!

My own opinion is that reconstructive archaeology is of some value to archaeologists, and perhaps less value to historians. My correspondent believed that academics will never take it or re-enactment seriously.

Opinions please.