Re-enactment vs Experimental Archaeology

[Cheyenne]

I am inclined to agree with you Tim. He does undergo an elemental U-Turn in his second paragraph. The problem is also one that has created divisions between archaeologists and living historians for a number of years. I am both an archaeologist and living historian that undertakes experimental techniques to create items that inevitably hold an interpretation in the present. Collingwood (1989) acknowledges that contextually, both the past and present when thinking about experimental archaeology are important from a social perspective. Attempting to use traditional techniques to achieve an outcome based upon archaeological evidence today tells us much more than just how something was made - but rather the practicitioner undergoes a transformation socially and becomes aware of how their actions contribute to a social understanding of the past.

I get the impression from that extract that he is very much like some of my academic archaeological colleagues, who lump all 'experimental' archaeologists under one banner - that of 'beer and bash'

Unfortunately, some of them cannot be convinced that variation exists in modes of experiential/experimental archaeology.

A book that can iron out some of the really complex dichotomies of this conundrum is

Ingold, T. (2000) Perceptions of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling & Skill. London. Routledge

Good topic and one I am researching for postgrad study into experimental forms in nature and culture