The importance of Roman Reconstruction Archaeology

[John Conyard]

Reading these posts I think we can all agree that Roman re-enactment can teach us something. How much and whether academics are interested is perhaps open to question.

Certainly recreating the past for the public, and some clients, can be a thankless task. Yet by putting good quality reproductions in front of the public we may achieve something. And lots of public as well as private shows test equipment. Certainly for those of us who are not professional interpreters.

I agree strongly with Robert's last post. I understand the need for data from actual reconstructions. Hard definite quantifiable conclusions. But the research needed to produce the reconstruction can be equally valid. That needs to be clearly understood.

[Robert Vermaat]

What sort of email did you receive, anyway? Sounded sorta scary..

[Matthew Amt]

I must admit I assumed that academics would discriminate against re-enactors. A few personal emails later I suspect re-enactors discriminate against poor foolish academics. I wasn't expecting that view.

I don't think any reasonable reenactor would *discriminate* against an academic simply for not knowing everything. Any good teacher is well-versed in certain aspects of history, and will know a HECK of a lot more about general history, social stuff, political things, etc., than I ever care to know. And probably over a wider range of time than I cover, as well. They just don't know nuts and bolts like I do, and no real reason they should. I have no problem with that at all, as long as they don't blatantly teach crap! (Kinda how I feel about the SCA, eh?) Granted, it is always gratifying to find a teacher wise enough to hire ME to do my military demo for the class! But even if they aren't quite that sharp, being respectful of their position is a civilized attitude anyway.

Matthew

[mcbishop]

Reading these posts I think we can all agree that Roman re-enactment can teach us something. How much and whether academics are interested is perhaps open to question.

When the first Roman Military Equipment Research Seminar was organised back in 1983, we made a deliberate effort to include both known academics, postgraduates working in the field, and re-enactors, as I was firmly of the belief that all had something to contribute. Over the years and the conferences that ensued, the academic opinion of re-enactors seems to have gone up and down (largely, it has to be said, influenced by the prevailing national academic attitudes: in 1985 it was inconceivable that Germans would dress up in seriously researched reconstruction military equipment, as only the decidely nutty British (vide cricket, conkers...) could be caught doing that sort of thing; now look at them!

Many of us treasure the memory of the sight of Jürgen Oldenstein's face when he first saw the Ermine Street Guard - it started out as bafflement and soon turned to delight once he started looking at the stuff they had and saw how serious they were about trying to get it right (and most re-enactors, bless 'em, do try to get it right).

In my Lexicon of Roman Military Equipment (bowdlerised version), re-enactors range from 'Cavorting Ninnies' to 'To Be Taken Very Seriously' (I'm sure as h*ll not telling any of you lot which groups belong where!) but the same can be said of academics: there are good and bad (in the sense of lazy or shoddy researchers...no names, no pack drill).

Are academics interested in the re-enactors? About as much as the re-enactors are interested in the academics, I would say ;-)

Mike Bishop
(who nowadays counts himself as neither re-enactor nor academic, although he has done both!)

[John Conyard]

So I think I'm safe in summarizing that reconstruction archaeology is of some use to archaeologists and less use to historians, but it does add to overall understanding and collective knowledge etc.

I would delicately like to approach the issue of cavorting ninnies. Those who use poor kit or mislead the public in some way. I understand that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a cavorting ninnie, I'm sure they are happy people. 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? Perhaps our goal of authenticity isn't really such a holy grail? Which suggests that if their lack of authenticity tars other re-enactors with the same brush, it is perhaps not really so very important.

Such issues strike at my reasons for re-enacting. I'm off to take the medication already suggested by Tarbicus!

[Hibernicus]

I would delicately like to approach the issue of cavorting ninnies. Those who use poor kit or mislead the public in some way.

Or who choose to emulate Hollywood or use Hollywood as a source...
.... Spartacus through HBO's Rome.... Unfortunately academics often only see the cavorting ninnies sort like a blazing raging zit on the end of someone's nose or a nice pair of.. well, you know.... "Hey, my face is up here!" she said.... It used to be a death nell to tell a history prof that you were in the SCA because of one lone ninny: "Well, I'm in the SCA and I know for a fact that..." Now that's a cavorting ninny you want to send into some deep dark salt mine... not the Prof but the ninny who forever destroyed any chance that the real and legit scholarship you attained while a member of the SCA could be considered real or legit! That prof paints with a power sprayer.. he chucked his broad brush years ago...

On on the obverse side, it is deeply refreshing when an academic takes you seriously; when you can exchange your insights with his knowledge; when he lifts a pilum, for example, feels its weight, its balance point... and you see his face light up as you explain what actually happens when it crashes through a reproduction Iceni shield.. your experiences and the circumstances around them... followed by the approving Academcian's "Ah-hah!"

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

Yikes! I love this one. A Roman is a Roman is a Roman? Though when the sponge on a stick is in the bucket they understand the difference real quick!

...authenticity... holy grail? Which suggests that if their lack of authenticity tars other re-enactors with the same brush, it is perhaps not really so very important.

And then we get into THAT philosophical discussion don't we?..... if the public can't tell the difference then why bother?.... or.. if it looks right until you cut it open who cares?....

I guess that's why there are so many Holy Grails? To each hisown?

Or is that: Holey Grails?? ....and some of whom may be Wholly Grails???

oh, well...

[Matthew Amt]

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!!

The audience treats us as teachers, subconciously 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, and not try to weasel our way out of our shortcomings. The fewer inaccuracies in your kit, the fewer excuses you'll have to make. Obviously, most public demonstrations will rarely go into the breed of sheep used for your tunic wool, or the molecular analysis of the metal in your lorica. So I don't insist on molecular accuracy! Just try to keep the bar high, and aim a little higher all the time.

Now, if your activity has no audience, that's a different story. Go forth and cavort! It's a hobby, so it's supposed to be fun, eh?

Valete,

Matthew

[Graham Sumner]

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.

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 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.

[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.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Finally MVM, since when has the Gemina project been wearing late Roman Spangenhelms?

Well my dear Graham.....

I guess you do not mean the LEG X GEM....... since we FOR SURE dont wear that stuff when displaying.....

I am very very afraid you have seen a display somewhere of the PAX ROMANA group ... who have displayed this year at Fort Vechten Open Days with a line of 1st century Legionaries mixed with 4th Century Christian Late Romans.......... and probably have done so on several other occasions....

But as I am not allowed by my Consul (nor the moderators of this board)
to give you my deep-felt opinion on that particular historically anachronistic display i will send you a PM instead! :twisted:

M.VIB.M.

[Graham Sumner]

Hello Henk

Actually I was joking that your picture of a bucket was a Spangenhlem helmet. (pretending to be a member of the public not knowing the difference). I thought the English and Dutch had a similar humor. So I will also apologize now to Robert and the other Late Romans just in case. :wink:

Robert wrote:

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.

Or the legionary pay chest from Cremona which then became the front plate of a catapult!

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,

You do not have to shout at the audience Robert only your troops. Although Andreas already tells me you do boss him about! :wink:

I always think it is a good idea for members of a group to actually drop out of the display from time to time, go into civvies and stand amongst the crowd watch the show to appreciate how the audience see it and also hear what people in the audience have to say.

Graham.

[Hibernicus]

Some years back I saw an item listed in a catalogue of Roman finds. Labeled as a wood gouge when in fact it was obviously a spoon bit for a drill.

My re-enacting knowledge made that possible... The Notable with PhD after his name who authored the publication simply didn't know. Generously acknowledged the error (after he appropriately checked with another source!) Our value as re-enactors to Academia is broad.


side bar.... click on google images: cavorting ninny!

[Libitina]

Hello

Been following this thread and found it really interesting... and mildly disturbing with the ninny obsession

As a "member of public"/mop I do think groups should strive to be as authetic as they can. I'm far more likely to remember information from a display than a fairly dry library book. I also get that reenacting should be great fun too but the "cavorting ninnies" can potentially let a group down but maybe that is partly the groups fault? I'm all for cavorting but only once the public are thrown out!

I'm going to do some sucking up now to Comitatus... I'd read a tiny amount about weapons etc but after getting to watch their replica balista it really helped the information stick. So I don't know about academics being interested in reconstruction but some of us mere mortals are. I realise most of the public are a bit daft but there are one or two of us in the crowd actually attempting to learn stuff.. honest

I'm waffling a bit so will stop but thought I'd throw in a mops view. Sorry John for taking it a bit off your original topic!

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,

I dunno.. might be quite fun... or scary! :lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

I am very very afraid you have seen a display somewhere of the PAX ROMANA group ... who have displayed this year at Fort Vechten Open Days with a line of 1st century Legionaries mixed with 4th Century Christian Late Romans.......... and probably have done so on several other occasions....
But as I am not allowed by my Consul (nor the moderators of this board)
to give you my deep-felt opinion on that particular historically anachronistic display i will send you a PM instead! :twisted:

Stop moaning HJ, it´s called a multi-period display for the audience in which we show the differences, we don´t pretend to be a legion of 6 soldiers like some groups that I know.. Sometimes we have also a Napoleontic Frenchman present! :twisted: Send me a PM. :wink:

Besides, if you had really looked at us you would have seen none of us wear a spangenhelm. :wink: :wink:

I thought the English and Dutch had a similar humor. So I will also apologize now to Robert and the other Late Romans just in case. :wink: [-quote]
No need Graham, I´m assured by Dan Shadrake that I understand Emglish humour better than some of your countrymen.

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,

You do not have to shout at the audience Robert only your troops. Although Andreas already tells me you do boss him about! :wink:

I´ll try to spare Andreas in future...
No, what I meant was that if you´re going to be real soldiers, the easy manner between your group and the audience is lost, for then you´re no longer one of them. I can´t be a soldier and a scholar at the same time. Nor can I entertain kids with toy plumbatae.. I guess it´s the one or the other.

[John Conyard]

Thank you for all your replies, my doubts about the need for authenticity above all else have being overcome. Cavorting ninnies will be shot on sight, or at least given a good talking too.

I agree that today most Roman re-enactment groups are beyond staging mock battles. Authentic weapons just don't allow it.

And I agree that to engage the public, and for their own sanity, societies should not behave like real Roman soldiers. (I must try and stop billeting myself on the civil population.)

Any claim to educate the public involves a commitment to authenticity, which needs on occasion to be tested. One way of testing kit is to put it in realistic or extreme conditions. That is why groups like Comitatus stage marches and camp authentically. It demonstrates that the clothing isn't just fancy dress, and it sometimes shows how kit was used in the field and it's limitations. It is an extension of the hobby beyond what the Ermine Street Guard etc. were doing in their early years. Interpretation is improving and is now longer just "9-5" for the public. I understand some may consider it as "playing at soldiers". But as a professional interpreter who seems to spend much of his life in historical clothing, to me it seems important that you can actually live in your kit and that it enables you to work in it. Marches etc. can also be very enjoyable.

Best wishes