Re-enactment vs Experimental Archaeology

[Tim Edwards]

In the last few years I have heard numerous re-enactors who claim to be doing experimental archaeology.

I thought that this was all good, until I read a very thought provoking paper by the late Peter Reynolds.
(obituary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2001/oct ... humanities )

He writes very passionately, and I think, persuasively:

At the outset, it is a fundamental tenet that experiment has absolutely nothing to do with the exercises of 'living in the past', 'dressing in period costume', 're-enactment of past events' or, indeed, the teaching of well understood techniques - which may well have been originally established by the experimental process - like, for example, lithic technology, pottery manufacture or laying mosaics.
The former are at best theatre, at worst the satisfaction of character deficiencies; the latter are simple skills which, should they wish to be acquired, require learning. It is extremely unfortunate that these activities have become generally subsumed under the overall title of experimental archaeology since their inclusion militates against the real value of experiment and its acceptance professionally.
The labelling of an activity like shaving with a flint flake or even a Roman bronze razor as an experiment rather than exploration is clearly absurd. It advances our knowledge not one iota and serves generally to increase our prejudices of history and pre-history.

The misunderstanding of experiment in archaeology has been brought about by the confusion of three separate issues: experiment, experience and education. Experiment will be dealt with at length below. Experience is a completely different issue and invariably involves people doing things and discovering for themselves the nature and application of a range of technologies. To manufacture a flint arrowhead for example is to experience, learn and/or execute a technology. Similarly to coppice a hazel woodland, to till a field, to mix daub, to manufacture a pot is to come to terms with material on the one hand, and on the other to appreciate the nature of hard physical work.
That all of these and a myriad other activities are of value is undeniable. Indeed they are all the more laudable in that understanding of the requirements of these activities is gained and thus an increased sympathy if not empathy with the past is occasioned. There is nevertheless a great gulf between the experimental and the experiential.

Full article: http://www.butser.org.uk/iafexp_hcc.html

I'm inclined to agree with him on one count - re-enactment is not default experimental archaeology, but I feel he almost contradicts himself in that second paragraph. There is a clear value to experience and education, aside from experiment.

My concern is that there are so many re-enactors who claim to be practicing experimental archaeology who really do not understand what it is.

[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

[Medicus matt]

Griffiths wrote an interesting piece in JRMS 11 (Re-enactment as Research:towards a set of guidelines for re-enactors and academics), which tried to help both sides get over their stereotype-based predjudices (some archaeologists think all re-enactors are just playing at dressing up, some re-enactors think all archaeologists rely to much on theorising and not enough on practical application).

In my own experience, many archaeologsists are very receptive to the opportunities afforded by interaction with re-enactors. For example, they sometimes have practical experience of using equipment that might explain a particular wear pattern on an excavated artifact. As Peter said though, these experiences do not constitute 'experiments'

I'm not belittling the skills of someone who demonstrates a craft for a few hours over a weekend at an event (something I still do myself) or denying that sometimes we make discoveries during these demonstrations that are both interesting and informative but, unless these experiments have a clearly defined initial scope and the results have been written up and made available for wider consideration (as I did with my week long experiments in the smelting and working of locally sourced iron ore at Chedworth Villa - now sadly lost in the great 'Hard Drive Crash' of 2007), they shouldn't really be considered as 'experiments' in the strictest sense of the word.

I've been called a performance archaeologist before, maybe that's a better term.

I met Peter a couple of times and he wasn't a fan of 'Beer and Bash' re-enactors based on experience but he did have a lot of time for people who could demonstrate craft skills effectively to visitors.

As an aside, well known 'Experimental Archaeologist' (:wink David Sim will be at Butser on August 1st, demonstrating that evil falx that he made.

[Tim Edwards]

I agree.

I remember attending the Theoretical Roman Archaeology conference in 2003, where the conference was shown a series of images of the Roman Army. One picture was of the Ermine Street Guard, and there were some approving comments. The next picture was half a dozen sorry looking bash and crash types with poorly fitting Indian armour fighting three 'celts' in a field, in front of a very small, ambivalent looking audience. There were several derisive snorts around the lecture hall!

I think 'academics' are generally more on side than we think, and like Claire, there is no reason why one cannot be a hybrid, ie academic and re-enactor. Markus Junkelmann is a good example of someone who has sucessfully bridged the gap, though I'd argue that not all his work is experimental archaeology in the strictest sense of the term.

There is an alarming tendency to don costume and assume an omnicient air of practical all knowingness in front of joe public, without having read anything.
We certainly shouldn't be claiming to be conducting experimental archaeology if we don't know what the term implies.

One of my favourite re-enactment clips is here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/GeminaProje ... V-LoFMG7AA

About 5 mins in there is a very interesting character casting aspersions on academics. I don't know whether he was deliberately being tongue in cheek, but it makes me smile!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

What was their criteria for the ooohs and ahhhh's for the Ermine street guard?

[Tim Edwards]

I didn't ask.
I was however stood at the back of the hall, and the difference in reception between the two images was audible.

[John Conyard]

Hi Tim,

This is an interesting question, and one that has been touched on before on RAT. I don't have time to do it justice but suspect the answer may be mirrored in the three fold classification of:-

1) Beer and bash types/cavorting ninnies which may entertain but perhaps rarely educate.
2) The majority of re-enactors who try and use the correct equipment and probably have much practical experience to offer.
3) Those who provide hard data and get it published to add to the overall level of knowledge provided by archaeologists and historians. This generally involves not just reconstructing the artefact but finding out how it was used.

I remember reading an article on "experimental archaeologicy" where two students described how they learnt to make fire and cook bread during the holidays - definitely not experimental at all :lol:

[Robert]

There is a clear set of quidelines for any experiment, be it archeological or otherwise. It is called the emperical approuch. The base line is really that the experiment is conducted under controled conditions to prove or disprove a pre-formulated hypothesis.

Say you want to set up an experiment to determine whether or not a Roman arrow could penetrate period mail. This calls for a lot of study and perhaps even pre-experiments just to set up the parameters you are going to stick into the equasion. You have to research Roman arrowweight, arrowhead weight and shape, drawweight and powerstroke of the Roman bow etc. to work out the velocity of that arrow. Then, you can rig a mounted crossbow, bow or compressed air firing rig which will deliver that arrow at preset and repeatable velocities to the target. Ah, yes, the target. More research on the period chainmail itself. Way of manufacture, metal itself, way of closing the rings etc. Then you have to mount it on a torso which is as close to possible of the human body in mass, density, abily to move under an impact etc. Then there is the clothing of that torso as mail was not worn on the bare skin (iconographic evidence?), so tunica, a subarmalis etc etc will need looking into. The different choices made should be documented and motivated by scientific findings, preferably based on good archeology. You will see that re-enactment has nothing to do with experimental archeology in a general way (compressed air firing rig ... hock: ).

So indeed, a lot of the trial and error attemps labeled "experimental archeology" in my opinion class as shooting at a stand of trees and then calling the tree you hit the target. In the above example, shoot a handfull of arrows with a high powered Grozer bow at an old Indian made mail shirt drawn over a bale of hay would illustrate the non-emperical way of doing it. Nothing to do with proving or disproving a hypothesis except mayby that you can hit a target with a bow. But man, can they be FUN :twisted: .

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I didn't ask.
I was however stood at the back of the hall, and the difference in reception between the two images was audible.

:lol: I can see the image now.

Unfortuantely, I would have to agree to a certain extent, as it never seems as authentic as it could.
However, I would hate to be bundled into a stereotytpe based on a photograph.
The comparison between what we do with the RMRS and what we as a small fledgling group up in Aberdeen
are forced to compromise over, could just as easily face the same criticism, if based on 2 comparison photos.

[John Conyard]

Did sombody mention arrow testing..... http://www.comitatus.net/romanarrowtest.html

Sorry, I couln't resist.