The importance of Roman Reconstruction Archaeology

[Endre Fodstad]

Isn't it in many ways so these days that the relationship between the archaeological or historical academic community and reenactors/living historias have matured quite a bit from the birth of reen/lh back in the 60s/70s? One thing is that quite a few modern-day historians and archaeologists have a background (or indeed are active) in "our" community, another is that "we" have added a great deal of experimentation and practical knowledge to that of the archaeologists - which many of them are grateful for. At the same time, there are a lot of cavorting ninnies (wonderful expression) out there...

There will always be some snobbish academics who prefer their armchairs, just as there will be some overeager reenactors that just can't resist showing up archaeologists with examples of mistaken interpretation on the academics' side based on a lack of practical knowledge instead of just quietly offering an opinion in a respectful manner. However, I think at least the first group is shrinking these days.

[Graham Sumner]

Hi John
A very interesting debate and your last post also raises some other important issues too.

Any claim to educate the public involves a commitment to authenticity

societies should not behave like real Roman soldiers.

Well I certainly do not think you should go about slaughtering the inhabitants north of the border once a season, seize money from civilians or crucify anyone. However if groups are doing a public parade shouldn't they at least try and look like Roman soldiers on parade? Isn't that also part and parcel of trying to be authentic in every way?

Interaction with the public can be done via the commentator as in your Group and as others do or after the main display.

That is why groups like Comitatus stage marches and camp authentically

.

I think we are getting back to your original doubts here. Playing Devils advocate, who says you are camping authentically etc, etc...? ( I do not totally share some of the following views but I have heard them said and mention them here for the purposes of this debate)

I guess there will be those who say that as re-enactors equipment is generally not made with the same materials as the originals, by the same methods or with the same level of skill as the originals then what can we learn from using them?

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.

If you think marching is enjoyable then there are no doubt going to be some people who will say that you are definitely not doing things authentically!!! :wink:

Seriously, there will be people who will doubt the authenticity of what you are wearing and doing and will therefore ask, 'what do your marches prove'? Perhaps nothing more than that modern unfit people can wear 'fancy dress', live outdoors for a few days and that badly made kit will fall apart! I do not know what was in the original email that sparked this debate but perhaps at a guess it was something along these lines?

From my own experience you could show a tunic for example to a local archaeologist who might say it is wonderful. However in reality you probably know more about textiles than they do. Show your tunic to a textile expert and you will doubtless get a different opinion and possibly not a flattering one!

The group Quinta used to test the various types of third century weapons but always stressed when they published their findings that any results they achieved would always be the minimum. However it was always interesting to see that even at the first attempt many missiles thrown from the reconstructed wall at South Shields hit the outer edge of the reconstructed inner ditch!

So perhaps like you I have had doubts myself about what re-enactment achieves. Nevertheless like you I still believe that reconstructions and reenactors do have a valid and important role to play.

Graham.

[Hibernicus]

..... I still believe that reconstructions and reenactors do have a valid and important role to play.

One of the ways we learn to make gear better is by using it, putting it to the test.

We've beat the beejeezuss out of our early segmentatas. We learned a great deal from that. "How come that rivet pulled through or why did that strap tear?" We examined the archaeology... made repairs with the new knowledge (experience and better understanding of the finds), made adjustments in how we assemble and TA-DA! a segmentata that doesn't fall apart. Now our segs are very durable under extreme stress... Interestingly the more they look like the finds the better they do under stress.

Another example: We forge a variety of dolabra and then use them. Learned a better way to set the head on the handle as a result.

Yet another example: From use we've come the the conclusion that the deeply curved broad headed axe style dolabra functions better as a woodworker's broad axe than as a trenching tool.

An added problem is the inconsistency across the Roman re-enactment playing field in regard to the "historicalness" of equipment. One reenactor's experiences will be different than another's when the equipment is different.. Segmentata internal leathers affixed using galvanized double roves compared to one made with small coper alloy roves or none!

[Graham Sumner]

Hi Sean

An added problem is the inconsistency across the Roman re-enactment playing field in regard to the "historicalness" of equipment. One reenactor's experiences will be different than another's when the equipment is different.. Segmentata internal leathers affixed using galvanized double roves compared to one made with small coper alloy roves or none!

Which is why I mentioned the importance of re-enactors publishing the results of their tests and experiences.

Graham.

[John Conyard]

It certainly is an interesting question. Somewhere within it lies why many of us re-enact, and how well we do it. I think we've done well to have the debate without picking on individual groups and saying one society is better than another.

I am writing a paper about late Roman reconstruction. Nothing grand, and I was perfectly happy in my view that the good groups could show authentic reconstructions to the public, while the best groups actually could provide data and information about how things worked, their limitations etc. Certainly how things made can be important, but let us let that issue rest for the present.

The email I received was from a friend who works at an academic institution. He's pointing me in the right direction with regards to some Germanic items. He had no idea what I was writing. But he did very forcibly and without any prompting on my part state that academics would never take re-enactment seriously. He was completely honest, it is a deeply held view. That's what made me post the question.

I think that Roman re-enactment does help add to the collective knowledge. It certainly compares very favorably with other re-enactment periods. I also think that Roman military research is an area open to all to contribute, enthusiast, academic, professional or whatever. But not to "cavorting ninnies".

I am greatly enjoying the debate. I note that we all strive towards authenticity, and we all aim for authentic kit. I also note that not many examples of what that kit can teach us have been cited. There have been some. Just not many. I would like to know of more.

But I would still re-enact and strive for authenticity even if nobody cared about what we did. This interest is my own, and it is great to share it with you guys.

I don't mind you playing devil's advocate Graham. You would make a good imp of Satan. Very Andy Hamilton. I admit to playing devils advocate myself earlier in the thread. I'm sure I should be nice to "cavorting ninnies", it is the adult grown up thing to do. But I would rather cheer for Liverpool.

I honestly haven't heard the adverse comments regarding marches to test kit etc. To be honest (apart from the bit about being unfit ) they are fair comment. Such marches can only show that our kit doesn't fall apart. Perhaps we use well made fancy dress! My use of the authentic word was in relation to the re-enactment style camping as opposed to "plastic camping". I certainly would never mean we camped truly as Romans would etc etc.

And yes we should strive to create the correct impression in the arena and in the camp. People should look like Roman soldiers. I would even go a little further and say that as well as showing good quality reproductions of equipment, we can show some of the skills of the army as well. We don't need to be great at throwing weapons, using bows, riding without stirrups etc. But we must be better than the public watching us. We can show them something they can't do.

The liberal deep inside me does make me distrust semi-military organisations. That's just a personal view. Comitatus has no military ranks within it. We have annually elected admin. posts. Not very Roman I know! But when in the arena if the group were asked to go ethnic cleansing north of the Wall, they would only ask - how long have we got?

[Kate Gilliver]

I discuss - I hope in a fair and non-discriminatory way - re-enactment, its advantages and disadvantages, in my undergraduate course on the Roman army. I have been known to set coursework on the value of re-enactment to the study of the subject. But other than the occasional piece, such as Peter Connolly's Britannia article on the saddle, I've found the bibliography to be fairly limited on this subject, at least in the context of academic publications. If there is discrimination out there rather than rational scepticism based on a full appreciation of all the evidence, discourse in academic publications is one of the better ways to convince those academics that they're wrong.

What dismays me about the discussion in this thread is that I've clearly been using completely the wrong terminology in lectures. Instead of 'nutters' I should have been talking about 'cavorting ninnies'. I shall remedy this failing next time I teach the course.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think we are getting back to your original doubts here. Playing Devils advocate, who says you are camping authentically etc, etc...? ( I do not totally share some of the following views but I have heard them said and mention them here for the purposes of this debate)

I guess there will be those who say that as re-enactors equipment is generally not made with the same materials as the originals, by the same methods or with the same level of skill as the originals then what can we learn from using them?

I think we must strive to become authentic, but at the same time remember we can never actually achieve that goal. Ever. Something like that slave behind the Imperator during his parade, repeating over and over: "Remember thou art unauthentic". "Remember thou art unauthentic". "Remember thou art unauthentic". :wink:

Seriously, there will be people who will doubt the authenticity of what you are wearing and doing and will therefore ask, 'what do your marches prove'? Perhaps nothing more than that modern unfit people can wear 'fancy dress', live outdoors for a few days and that badly made kit will fall apart! I do not know what was in the original email that sparked this debate but perhaps at a guess it was something along these lines?

I agree with Graham on this point. Please continue what you are doing John, but remember that in the eyes of some people it will just never be enough. Personally I'm going for a good impression of a Late Roman soldier, but then I fully realise that I'm only halfway a 'fancy dress' and an imperfect reconstruction. But I also realise there's nothing wrong with that, either. My goal is to educate and have a good time, not primarily to achieve that Holy Grail of re-enactment - authenticity.

The group Quinta used to test the various types of third century weapons but always stressed when they published their findings that any results they achieved would always be the minimum. However it was always interesting to see that even at the first attempt many missiles thrown from the reconstructed wall at South Shields hit the outer edge of the reconstructed inner ditch!

I must say I was a bit disappointed by their plumbatae results though.. Does Quinta still exist or is it part of Comitatus now?

[philsidnell]

Hmmm, The Confessions of a Cavorting Ninny - leave the sexual adventures in it and I can see it beeing a bestseller. Not one for us at Pen & Sword I'm afraid, but I have contacts with some of the big general publishers...


Seriously though, this has been an interesting thread. I'm another MoP as I don't 'reenact' myself (apart from one trial weekend with a Napoleonic group in my teens), although I have had an abortive attempt at 'reconstructive archaelogy' where I was actually trying to test a specific point as research. Coming to this site recently as a publisher I have been impressed by the level of research and thirst for knowledge of many of the contributors here. I have even commissioned a couple of you to write for me. Like the reenactors I also am trying to reach out to the 'general' public and both entertain and educate them about this subject all of us here love so much, and (because P&S isn't a university press and is not -yet- well known for ancient warfare) I too have encountered a certain amount of snobbery from academics. Like the academics, I too have to also worry about credibility. For what it is worth I think good reenactors have a lot to offer both to academic research and to the general public.

Besides, don't beat yourselves up too much about your credibility. It could be worse, you could be wargamers like myself...


Phil Sidnell

p.s John Conyard, I believe you used to know an old friend/colleague of mine, John Coles. Small world.

[Salvianus]

Useful discussion. I think reconstruction archaeology is quite a specific branch of archaeology and these days has to follow specific scientific rules to qualify as such and be worthy of publication, as already outlined.

For me, these include testing a specific hypothesis, stating the methods, expectations or criteria for 'success' & limitations on interpretation from the outset. Results ought to be repeatable and interpreted in the light of other relevant evidence and literature. These are high standards, I know, better than much early archaeology, but while I teach 7 year olds by day, I'm a scientist by blood and upbringing. I'd love to see more published experiments, honest about their limitations but helping us build ever further our 'everyday' re-enactment authenticity and historical understanding of artefacts and culture.

Clearly re-enactment groups can do a lot more besides these specific experiments that can support archaeology and I think another, less exacting term would be useful a great deal of the activities which attain a certain level of authenticity, without requiring that the man who pumped the bellows in the forge that produced the spearhead had lung disease. This may be where most of us place 'Living History', although that, I believe technically implies anthropological studies to some. 'Experimental Re-enactment' occurs to me of the bat.

[zugislander]

Well, I must admit to finding this a very interesting thread myself. At the risk of causing myself considerable discomfort I will admit that I am sort of in the middle on this particular discussion. I am a history professor at a college here in the states. I also bring many of my "kits" into my classroom as part and parcel of my courses. The students even face an exam focused on "material culture" in these courses.

My fellow professors view me as "eccentric", but while they have no intention of joining me in presentations, they also admit to the academic value in my practices. I have received nothing but support from the college administration. I have also gotten some re-enactors as my students, unfortunately none from this period (American Civil War, and the War of 1812 are the big ones around here), as well as some SCA folks. I have even gone to some re-enactments in the area in the past. Although, my ever increasing family (fourth child due any day now) has curtailed such activities lately.

The reason why I do the "kits" is fairly simple. Students have told me for years that they would prefer to "see" what is being talked about in the course. Once upon a time I took some education courses and learned that the majority of people, as well as students, are "Visual Learners". They learn best by visualizing, or even better, actually seeing what is being talked about. Eventually these two facts clicked in my head and I figured out that I should look for ways to show the students things, as well as talk about things to try and help more students, learn more.

I am far from perfect, and I constantly rework "kits" and presentations to try and make them better. I have plagued Matt Amt with endless questions about Romans, Greeks and Saxons, but of course remain responsible for all of my own doings. Currently, I seem to spend as much time working on finding other things to actually let the students get their hands on, and see what they can make of, "history" themselves (spears in students hands is a bad idea). In any event, I have no illusions that I am the "vanguard" of the future in history professorship. But my students do better on their exams, thus appearing to learn more, and that is what I am supposed to be doing.

I think that re-enactment/reconstructive archeology has a very vital place in history and the teaching of history. The key I think is finding the right balance. Which, as usual, is not an easy thing to accomplish.

Well there are my thoughts.

Cordially,

Michael Broyles

[Neuraleanus]

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

I've previously asked this question, but I do not think that I received a satisfactory answer, something that appears to be gaining popularity here in the states is roman needle-felt battle, and I'm curious of the opinions of the members of RAT as to how this activity fits in with the historical part. Needle-felt combat may be fun, but from a historical reenactment point of view does it fit in? Provided that tactics are rigorously adhered to, I think that it has potential. I would particularly like to hear from my Fratres Romani on the other side of pond what they think.

[Salvianus]

something that appears to be gaining popularity here in the states is roman needle-felt battle, and I'm curious of the opinions of the members of RAT as to how this activity fits in with the historical part.

Bear in mind I have no experience of such things, but I gather needle-felt is a safe replacement for a weapon, so my simple answer is yes: I'm interested in theatre, education & entertainment, so I see nothing wrong with anything much at all, so long as one's conceits, the differences from reality, are very very clear.

I am most happy with my own group's position: we have sharps to show the public and for missile displays and hastiles with big caps to demonstrate training with as per Vegetius. Some of us also show sparring with re-enactment blunt spatha as well, though this deviates from Vegetius' rudis and wicker shield, one can at least imagine armoured legionaries having a friendly go with steel.

I am much happier with this approach for educating the public about the Roman Army than with mock battles, taking weak hits from blunt weapons aimed at very limited targets or pretending to die horribly as someone finishes you off across the jugular with no blood, but I do that too with other groups - the aims and conceits are just different.

I think if you want to show more realistic blows and or targets, or engage in free sparring with partners you don't know you would be better off with safer 'weapons' than blunt steel or heavy rudes, so other substitutes might be fair game - I tend to think of the realistic looking latex swords used for Live Action Roleplay (but not boffers, I'm not sure what they're about) - but you can't have it all ways : light safe weapons won't act like real ones in the hand either and they can look pretty funny if they bend!

To be honest to demonstrate battle tactics accurately these days you might be closer to start with computer graphics like RTW. Finding the thousands for large scale Roman re-enactment seems harder than for American Civil War battles.

[M. Demetrius]

Needled felt works ok, and you can hit fairly authoritatively without using full power, and still not injure your opponent. I've received a couple of rug burns, so to speak on forearms, but that's about all. And the cool thing is that you can stage a battle without any blood at all, and the audience (when there is one) doesn't seem to mind at all. If they want movie blood, there's plenty of that being spilled on big and small screen.

The big plus is even old, fat guys can do the action, and still get up and go to work the next day. NF started in Europe, where the felt is used as carpet pad. Here, we have to buy it from scientific supply houses, and it's fairly expensive. Dan Peterson is credited with bringing NF sword system to the US, from Germany.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

My first exposure to Neddlefelt was at the Pompeii event in Mobile this past February. I must admit that I prejudiced against it from the outset. I am accustomed to watching live-steel work by our local gladiators and other groups at Higgins Armory. Although most of their fights are choreographed to prevent injury and to demonstrate actual techniques they are certainly exciting as well as instructive. The greatly reduced danger of needlefelt weapons would, I assumed, ruin the show. In fact, in some ways it was better. Watching participants freed to hack and bash with greater abandon quickly overcame the sight of fuzzy gray blades. Did the mock combat greatly advance the world's knowledge of Roman gladiatorial combat? Hardly, but did it entertain a crowd and perhaps capture the interest of some youngster who may go on to make that great discovery? When I play fanfares on cornu or tuba for the arena I use tunes that the modern crowd will recognize such as Taps, Rocky, Stormtroopers March, and such. Those tunes elicit a predictable response from the crowd and make them feel like part of the show. Historically accurate? Of course not. Even if research yields the musical version of the Rosetta Stone I'd still use the modern equivalents in that venue. I'd love to attend recital and learn the original notes for the sake of knowledge alone. I'd gladly share them with the general public before or after the games, but there are times when context trumps content.
The term Cavorting Ninnies is both descriptive and pleasant to the ear. Quite properly British one might say..... Of course such "fancy talk" probably won't survive the trip across the pond. I suspect many of us rude colonials will continue to use words like Yahoos (often pronounced yay-hoos) :lol:

[Syr Ateas]

Interesting debate here. I hope you don't mind me wading in :?

Speaking as an archaeologist based at university and also as a reenactor of 20 odd years I have noticed the change in the last 5 in the attitude of academics towards reenactors getting better and better. But back in 1996 I remember having a stand-up argument with a Professor who thought all reenactors should be banned for 'destroying the context of history'. Today its more of a muttered 'reenactors destroy a sense of place but they are vital to many sites'.

One interesting point I always mention to those who poo pooh reenactment is that teachers find it a superb way of engaging their otherwise bored children into the past and distracts them from their Nintendo DS!

As for academics reenacting - I know several archaeologists who spend the weekend in kit, and I helped found one group (of a much later period) of which the membership solely consists of academics including 3 Doctorate holders because we all share a love of bringing the past to life and experimenting with archaeology. Together we are working towards getting academia to accept reenactment as a vital tool towards understanding what we might dig up one afternoon in the pouring rain in a muddy field in Yorkshire :lol:

In the meantime I am working on a Scythian assemblage. I shall be experimenting and reconstructing clothing etc using the evidence presented to me to see what works and how it worked. I don't think I would have even considered doing that if I wasnt a reenactor.

As a final pointer, did anyone see the Experimental Archaeology conference held at Exeter University recently:
http://www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/archaeology/ ... amme.shtml