The importance of Roman Reconstruction Archaeology

[John Conyard]

Thank you for your reply. It is an interesting question, and I would like to hear as many opinions as possible.

Historical reconstruction is often defined and graded by the use of period tools and techniques. But I seldom/never feel a reproduction is 100% like the original. Even when using period tools to make bone buckles etc. I have to acknowledge the animal from which I derive the bone is fed differently, a different size etc. And the man making the item has different artistic sensibilities. But in some ways recreating the item is less important than how it is used. I will always admire a good reproduction of a helmet, but at the end of the day it's a helmet. I know what it's for. But something like a saddle is more interesting because I want to know how it works.

I also think that some groups as well as individuals collectively try to maintain a high standard of interpretation. And data gathered from a large sample is very useful.

I suspect, compared to some subjects, the study of Roman military equipment is less subject to an academic/non-academic divide. There are some fine academics with whom I've enjoyed a pint or two. Hugh Elton and Jon Coulston spring to mind.

But the email I received has really made me question my view. For me this question is very important.