10-20-2006, 05:17 PM
Quote:The certainty of the written sources and the absence of those archaeological, puts on job the experimental archaeology, not the reenacting. And here I believe that all of you, know how experimental archaeology was born, around the empirical reconstruction of a Neolithic village.
The problem is not the absence of archaeological attestations, and not even to believe in the resistance of the organic materials. Their literary existence has verified without doubt, on the soldiers, in the fight, in the siege. The problem is to individualize its exact function and as them were made.
You see the problem. Perfect. But IMO you have the wrong method / wrong methodology.
Experimental archaeology requires an object already found. It requires a scientific method, and it requires publication. And, after that, discourse.
If you have no object found and start "recreating" (Ahhh! The term! :? )something based on texts and reliefs, you make no experimental archaeology but either
experimental history
or
experimental art-history.
In these scientific subjects you are underway to conquer new land, because you are, apparently, just about to create them.
My 2 cents.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
