The importance of Roman Reconstruction Archaeology

[Robert Vermaat]

I'd actually like to be called a cavorting ninny. There's nothing wrong with it.

The uncanny thing is that, when I type 'cavorting ninny' into Google, I get this thread as the first hit (shudder)...

They may mislead the public, but since the public can't tell the difference between an Imperial Gallic I and a bucket, is that really so important?

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!!

Does mistaking a neck guard plate for a piece of armour count too? That happened to the excavators of Richborough. Let's not make the mistake of thinking the professioknowalls know it all and us amateurs don't. :wink:

John Conyard wrote:

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.

I second that. And sometimes the archaeologists (as well as historians) have a keen eye for such research, too.

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.

Well, doesn't that go for most societies these days?

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.

Yes and no. Looking like a real soldiers would indeed guaranteee us being taken more seriously, I agree to that. But acting like real soldiers would also cause us to lose contact with the broader audience, who would not like to be barked at in a military manner, but who much more like to hear things explained to them by people they can relate to. But that's my experience.

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.

Amen to that.