09-15-2003, 08:32 PM
Shaun H. and Stormcat,<br>
<br>
I really have to second Shaun's objection to the blanket condemnation from D.M. Varianus of all scholars as hidebound. What a hidebound thing to say. Can you, Sturmkatze, name any? I can name a dozen or so, some of whom are my colleagues. But in comparison to the general public, my experience is that scholars are among the least hidebound segment of society; they cannot afford to be otherwise. Scholars work in evolving fields; the hidebound are the least successful. Scholars are driven by a fundamental desire to learn new things, even if the subject is ancient history. They often disagree, but that is what research and enquiry is all about.<br>
<br>
The field of historical reeneactment is relatively new, and its value to scholarship is generally unproven. It is, in fact, scoffed at in some circles. I have been dismissed at professional conferences as a mere reenactor. I don't get angry or insulted, I prove them wrong with the depth and quality of my evidence and the validity of my practical experiments. But witness the number of excellent scholars in this very discussion group. Some like Shaun and myself, new to this board, teach subjects which are enlivened by and in a constant state of revision because of the contributions of reeactors. We are members here because we love learning new things from those who might know more than we do and try to help from our own knowledge bases when we can.<br>
<br>
At my own university, the history department sponsors my presentations four times a year because it sees the value of making the ancient world come alive for its students. The student communicate the value to the administration and the public. The more progressive faculty members work with and act as advisors to local reenactors because of our access to resources. I don't need to repeat ad nauseum Shaun's caution that every piece of equipment or technique a reenactor does is rooted in scholarship and is, at best, an educated guess. Anyone can guess; it's the educated part that takes discipline (pun in Latin intentional).<br>
<br>
This thread has ranged far afield from the simple question that began it. The variety of positions, procedures, and methods indicates the difficulty of the task itself. I think that as long as reenactors and scholars dismiss each others' work and contributions, the aims of both will be more difficult to achieve. We should be natural allies, not enemies. The more able, already are.<br>
<br>
Wade Heaton<br>
Lucius Cornelius Libo<br>
[email protected] <br>
www.togaman.com<br>
<br>
P.S. Shaun: I used the imperial "we" here since you answered some of the Latin language questions before I got around to it. Are you in ACL, APA, or any of the regional orgs.? <p></p><i></i>
<br>
I really have to second Shaun's objection to the blanket condemnation from D.M. Varianus of all scholars as hidebound. What a hidebound thing to say. Can you, Sturmkatze, name any? I can name a dozen or so, some of whom are my colleagues. But in comparison to the general public, my experience is that scholars are among the least hidebound segment of society; they cannot afford to be otherwise. Scholars work in evolving fields; the hidebound are the least successful. Scholars are driven by a fundamental desire to learn new things, even if the subject is ancient history. They often disagree, but that is what research and enquiry is all about.<br>
<br>
The field of historical reeneactment is relatively new, and its value to scholarship is generally unproven. It is, in fact, scoffed at in some circles. I have been dismissed at professional conferences as a mere reenactor. I don't get angry or insulted, I prove them wrong with the depth and quality of my evidence and the validity of my practical experiments. But witness the number of excellent scholars in this very discussion group. Some like Shaun and myself, new to this board, teach subjects which are enlivened by and in a constant state of revision because of the contributions of reeactors. We are members here because we love learning new things from those who might know more than we do and try to help from our own knowledge bases when we can.<br>
<br>
At my own university, the history department sponsors my presentations four times a year because it sees the value of making the ancient world come alive for its students. The student communicate the value to the administration and the public. The more progressive faculty members work with and act as advisors to local reenactors because of our access to resources. I don't need to repeat ad nauseum Shaun's caution that every piece of equipment or technique a reenactor does is rooted in scholarship and is, at best, an educated guess. Anyone can guess; it's the educated part that takes discipline (pun in Latin intentional).<br>
<br>
This thread has ranged far afield from the simple question that began it. The variety of positions, procedures, and methods indicates the difficulty of the task itself. I think that as long as reenactors and scholars dismiss each others' work and contributions, the aims of both will be more difficult to achieve. We should be natural allies, not enemies. The more able, already are.<br>
<br>
Wade Heaton<br>
Lucius Cornelius Libo<br>
[email protected] <br>
www.togaman.com<br>
<br>
P.S. Shaun: I used the imperial "we" here since you answered some of the Latin language questions before I got around to it. Are you in ACL, APA, or any of the regional orgs.? <p></p><i></i>
