Re-enactment and academic scholarship

[Saskia]

Hi all,
I am working as an academic at the University of Manchester, and am also a medieval reenactor. There is often quite a gap between historians, who think re-enactors are not serious scholars and can therefore make no useful contributions to scholarship, while re-enactors seem to think that academics only read books and do not use results from re-enactment.
I am now working to create a panel on reenactment of Roman military history and its value for shcolarshiop, to be presented at the Classical Association, 15-18 April 2011 in Durham ( http://classicalassociation.org/Events/Diary.html ). This is the biggest meeting of scholars on ancient history in the UK. I am looking for a reenactor (preferably not an academic) who has done serious research into Roman military history by recreating ancient weapons, and who is willing to give a presentation at this meeting.
The purpose of the panel is to bring together people with various views about the value of reeactment, so even if you think that academics are useless and only read books, then you are welcome!
Please let me know if you are interested, or know someone who might be interested: saskiaroselaar @ hotmail. com

[John Conyard]

Take a look at <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=19634">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=19634<!-- l

[Nerva]

Salve Saskia,

May I suggest 3 people. Len Morgan, Tom Feeley and Dr. Alan Wilkins. All have over 30 years experience in the research and manufacture of Roman reproduction armour, weapons and artillery and in re-enactment - Len Morgan with the RMRS and Tom Feeley with the Ermine Street Guard. If you are interested in making contact with these experts please drop me a PM and I'll pass on their contacts (once I've cleared it with them of course :wink: ). I think they could make a significant contribution to your work.

Vale,

Nerva.

[mcbishop]

There is often quite a gap between historians, who think re-enactors are not serious scholars and can therefore make no useful contributions to scholarship, while re-enactors seem to think that academics only read books and do not use results from re-enactment.
I am now working to create a panel on reenactment of Roman military history and its value for shcolarshiop, to be presented at the Classical Association, 15-18 April 2011 in Durham

Luckily, I am too polite to point out that the Classical Association are lagging 27 years behind ROMEC and the original Roman military equipment research seminars. :-) -o o I still remember the moment in the second military equipment seminar when Jürgen Oldenstein, confronted by re-enactors for the first time, 'got it'. But then of course he was an archaeologist ;-) )

Mike Bishop

[Nerva]

There is often quite a gap between historians, who think re-enactors are not serious scholars and can therefore make no useful contributions to scholarship, while re-enactors seem to think that academics only read books and do not use results from re-enactment.
I am now working to create a panel on reenactment of Roman military history and its value for shcolarshiop, to be presented at the Classical Association, 15-18 April 2011 in Durham

Luckily, I am too polite to point out that the Classical Association are lagging 27 years behind ROMEC and the original Roman military equipment research seminars. :-) -o o I still remember the moment in the second military equipment seminar when Jürgen Oldenstein, confronted by re-enactors for the first time, 'got it'. But then of course he was an archaeologist ;-) )

Mike Bishop

Touche...

[A_Volpe]

If it's any consolation, from the U.S. Side:

From doing School and College/University visit programs portraying a Roman soldier, as well as public demos at Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, MA over the years, I can say the response from the "Academia" side has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive of what 'we reenactors' "do". I've actually found myself 'correcting'...Umm not a good term, at least mentioning different theories and discoveries as a reenactor to a Classics scholar or researcher on topics or specifics they may not have known about, or had 'older' information. (Although I think some of this lingers because of 'older' textbooks and information, and even misinformation)

But again, most of the people who are academics and scholars, as well as [Latin] teachers, museum curators, have been thrilled to see Romans being portrayed and being researched/reconstructed so diligently here in the States.

[We] do still get the question or reference to movies like Gladiator, but that is only to be expected, and certainly to be taken advantage of as an ice-breaker or de-myth-ing conversation. I'm always nervous giving Roman programs to Latin/Classics students, but I try to make mention/keep in mind that we're coming from two different approaches, but both of which benefit each other equally. It always ends up being a great experience, and, as Leg. III Cyr., have even gained interest, support and membership from Academics/Scholars of various levels.

I can't really comment about why some Academics et al seem to snub or look down on reenactors, it's unfortunate to say the least. It's not without saying, there are some phonies and yahoos out there in the reenacting world who make up a lot of silly stuff with little or no research merely to support an inflated ego/sense of authority or need for attention, but, that's how the world works. If anything it ought to get others who like to ask questions to delve deeper in their own research and develop their own conclusions.

From the Academic and Archaeological/Institutional sectors, I'd certainly like to see more catalogs and archives of Roman finds that have been "buried" in archives and collections unseen to researchers and reenactors alike, published and made available. Although I understand that requires people, funding, and time....Which is what we -ALL- seem to be in desperate need of nowadays.

But in the end, at least from my experiences, it's been a positive and supportive environment.

[Saskia]

There is often quite a gap between historians, who think re-enactors are not serious scholars and can therefore make no useful contributions to scholarship, while re-enactors seem to think that academics only read books and do not use results from re-enactment.
I am now working to create a panel on reenactment of Roman military history and its value for shcolarshiop, to be presented at the Classical Association, 15-18 April 2011 in Durham

Luckily, I am too polite to point out that the Classical Association are lagging 27 years behind ROMEC and the original Roman military equipment research seminars. :-) -o o I still remember the moment in the second military equipment seminar when Jürgen Oldenstein, confronted by re-enactors for the first time, 'got it'. But then of course he was an archaeologist ;-) )

Mike Bishop

Lol... I think that justifies my attempt to organize a panel and try to convince them yet again - although there are many academics who do take it seriously, there's still too many who don't.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Saskia, why dont you contact the Gemina Project through their site or directly through a member of this board; Paul Karremans ?

They are Dutch, have a lot of members who did their own research and could also help you find others.

M.VIB.M.

[Endre Fodstad]

If it's any consolation, from the U.S. Side:

From doing School and College/University visit programs portraying a Roman soldier, as well as public demos at Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, MA over the years, I can say the response from the "Academia" side has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive of what 'we reenactors' "do". I've actually found myself 'correcting'...Umm not a good term, at least mentioning different theories and discoveries as a reenactor to a Classics scholar or researcher on topics or specifics they may not have known about, or had 'older' information. (Although I think some of this lingers because of 'older' textbooks and information, and even misinformation)

Now I'd argue Jeffrey and the other guys at the Higgins were convinced before you guys came along; they are exactly the sort of Museum that thrives on reenactors. Great people, with some great people in their reenactment circle: Bill Short is The Man for U.S. Viking reenactment.

I have had mixed receptions of my hobby. Some academics have been very positive and some have used our information in their work. Some plan to do so. Some have been quite rude, snobbish and unpleasant. Some have been indifferent. I think it depends on how open the academic scene is, and whether we're talking about academics working outside of "proper" academia - i.e. not at a big university or the Ivory Tower folks, who can often give off a rather inpenetrable attitude...

[SeleukosNicator20]

Unfortunatly, the lagging that is alluded to in this post is all to real. I am studying both Classical History and Archaeology and I have already run into an establised order that can at best be frusterating, and at worst down right hypocritical. The disconnect that many of us are experienceing seems to come from a establishment that is very reluctant to give up on ideas even when they have been proven wrong or inpractical. Although this is a Roman army talk forum I can't help it but point out Victor Davis Hansons assetion that Hoplites fought in a cramped rugby scrum that amounted to nothing more than a pushing match between heavily armed farms. A friend and I did a very impromptu, (and might I add not ver scientific) attempt at replicating this kind of fighting and found that it was nearly impossible to actually weild a weapon or even move if this idea is correct. I no longer believe this idea, and it came from practical experience, not reading books. Personally even as an academic I would love nothing more than being able to get an entire group of reanactors together with period equipment and tactics and put to the test once and for all some of these assertions we read in the histories.

[jvrjenivs]

Saskia, why dont you contact the Gemina Project through their site or directly through a member of this board; Paul Karremans ?

They are Dutch, have a lot of members who did their own research and could also help you find others.

M.VIB.M.

Indeed, from the Netherlands I would say ask Paul Karremans or Peter de Haas (both from Gemina and recently pronounced Lid in de orde van Oranje Nassau for their work for the Gemina Project. Also Robert Wimmers (Of the Themapark Limes foundation) could be of any help. Did a lot of work with reconstructing all kinds of ironwares.

[Caratacus]

Dudicus wrote:
I'd certainly like to see more catalogs and archives of Roman finds that have been "buried" in archives and collections unseen to researchers and reenactors alike, published and made available. Although I understand that requires people, funding, and time....Which is what we -ALL- seem to be in desperate need of nowadays.

Ah yes! Well - even 'retired' people like me find difficulty in organising such things! It took me six years to put together the Lorica segmentata catalogue (published 2003). Thanks to the good offices of Mike Bishop, it was done eventually (and an up-date is underway, honest Mike! Carlisle is being added even as I speak.) You have no idea how difficult it is to get in to see these things. It isn't just obstructionism (although that happens). It's sometimes just that the museum doesn't know it's got the stuff (not as daft as you might imagine - a large box labelled "plainware" at Caerleon turned out to include samian, coarsware, tiles, bricks, amphorae, human bones and a chunk of slag!)

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Phaichtos]

Well this seems like a great idea to me! I'm at university doing history and classics myself and I can vouch for the mixed feelings myself. Some people look at reenactment and think it's the coolest thing in the world; others think it amounts to not much more than a bunch of uneducated, overweight cubicle-jockeys playing war. I'm obviously closer to the former view myself, but I've met a few folks who are definitely in the latter camp. I think the problem isn't necessarily with the individual though, but rather the whole institution of academia. It can be very competitive just getting papers published, and you can have your reputation destroyed by giving a flawed paper at some conference somewhere. I think that with some academics anyway, there might be an impression that reenacting isn't "peer reviewed" and such can't be taken seriously. There is also the (unfortunate) stereotype that especially if a reenactor hasn't gone to university, then they don't know what they're talking about, since they haven't had to "endure the rigors" of the academic process. I guess I understand the argument, but in their heart of hearts all academics have to know that it's a flawed argument, because you can still learn a lot about things on your own time.

Personally I think the two groups have a lot to gain from one another. I hope that one day when I'm teaching somewhere I'd be able to scrape together some reenactors (maybe including myself at that point??) to maybe demonstrate some of the stuff we read about in books all the time. I wish one of my profs were able to do that while I was in undergrad