11-27-2007, 06:25 PM
John Conyard wrote:
As someone who has been involved with reconstructions in one way or the other for many years I would certainly agree that reconstructions are very useful for archaeologists. The Peter Connolly Saddle is the most obvious example.
It helps if re-enactors publish their findings and experiences in the right places, again the most obvious publication would be JRMES, as members of the Ermine Street Guard did in 1999. The Guard also publishes it's own journal Exercitus and many well known experts in the field contributed, which I am sure they would not do if they themselves thought the society had no value.
I always thought myself that two of the reasons why the Guard was so respected amongst academics was that firstly they did not regularly take part in mock battles and that secondly when the public were not around they did not pretend to be Romans.
From my own point of view I know my own published work has been of great interest to archaeological textile experts who were perhaps not always aware of the range of garments that the military might have used.
Other re-enactors who have published their findings are Alan Wilkins, Len Morgan and RAT'S own Aitor Iriarte on catapults, while Arik Greenburg has also published an article on the Newstead Lorica. Apologies for any others I have missed out. As an archaeological illustrator I certainly find the work of re-enactors useful.
Matthew wrote:
I would certainly agree with that and try to do the best I can myself in my own work.
From an archaeological illustrators perspective (pun intended) and as a member of the public I would much rather see a bunch of guys who at least look and or try and act like soldiers. I know there are some groups who if taken to task on this might well reply that they are also doing re-enacting for fun. Personally I see no difference in that response than a film director of a Hollywood epic who says they are not making a documentary but entertainment.
As Matthew says even if the public do not know all the differences, the re-enactment event they see, just like a movie will make an impression and also like a movie they will believe that what they are seeing is correct.
Finally MVM, since when has the Gemina project been wearing late Roman Spangenhelms? :wink:
Graham.
Quote:So I think I'm safe in summarizing that reconstruction archeology is of some use to archaeologists and less use to historians, but it does add to overall understanding and collective knowledge etc.
As someone who has been involved with reconstructions in one way or the other for many years I would certainly agree that reconstructions are very useful for archaeologists. The Peter Connolly Saddle is the most obvious example.
It helps if re-enactors publish their findings and experiences in the right places, again the most obvious publication would be JRMES, as members of the Ermine Street Guard did in 1999. The Guard also publishes it's own journal Exercitus and many well known experts in the field contributed, which I am sure they would not do if they themselves thought the society had no value.
I always thought myself that two of the reasons why the Guard was so respected amongst academics was that firstly they did not regularly take part in mock battles and that secondly when the public were not around they did not pretend to be Romans.
From my own point of view I know my own published work has been of great interest to archaeological textile experts who were perhaps not always aware of the range of garments that the military might have used.
Other re-enactors who have published their findings are Alan Wilkins, Len Morgan and RAT'S own Aitor Iriarte on catapults, while Arik Greenburg has also published an article on the Newstead Lorica. Apologies for any others I have missed out. As an archaeological illustrator I certainly find the work of re-enactors useful.
Matthew wrote:
Quote:I realize that this may have been asked rhetorically, but I like to hammer home that this is the Big Point of reenacting. The ignorance of the public (or any audience) is NOT an excuse for doing things wrong, but the FUNDAMENTAL REASON for being as accurate as possible!!
The audience treats us as teachers, subconsciously or otherwise. We do not by any means have to have all the answers, but it is our duty to do what we can as well as we can,
I would certainly agree with that and try to do the best I can myself in my own work.
From an archaeological illustrators perspective (pun intended) and as a member of the public I would much rather see a bunch of guys who at least look and or try and act like soldiers. I know there are some groups who if taken to task on this might well reply that they are also doing re-enacting for fun. Personally I see no difference in that response than a film director of a Hollywood epic who says they are not making a documentary but entertainment.
As Matthew says even if the public do not know all the differences, the re-enactment event they see, just like a movie will make an impression and also like a movie they will believe that what they are seeing is correct.
Finally MVM, since when has the Gemina project been wearing late Roman Spangenhelms? :wink:
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
