reenactment

[Pippin]

Hi

Based on another post in this forum i would like to discuss reenactments groups and their funktion.

I have been drawn to reenactment for many years, but have not engaged in ti yet. I have played Liveroleplay and sail viking long ships, but have never done reenactment.

Here is the article on wikipedia on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reenactment

What do we gain from reenactment. Does it gives us a better perspective on historie or is it just cirkus.

There are two kind. The most commen is the SCA/reenactmentgroups, tho goes around and hit each other on the head with swords and there are the historical centers who does experimental archeology.

The first kind is after my oppinion just roleplay, for the fun of onlokers and participants. It doesnt relly gives us any new knowledge. I really like it thoug as a person, but not as a "historian".

The second kind is very interresting and gives us a lot of new knowledge. Close to my town we got Lejre Forsøgscenter (Lejre experimental center) who does a lot of these things: http://www.lejre-center.dk/index.php?id=185

Kim

[War Arrow]

Well, you can read Shakespeare or, if you like, study drama and get yourself a part in one of his plays. Assuming you like Shakespeare. Not sure I do, personally...

I think there's definitely worth to any action (and I don't mean just the events of which you speak) which offers the possibility of seeing something from the perspective of whatever historical peoples take your interest, even if that perspective may be diluted by lakefuls of beer after the event (unless you're researching ancient beer consumption I guess) - that said, I don't know how many theories I'd like to see defended to the point of shouting matches if they're derived mainly from spending half a day dressed as a roman (if you see what I mean), but otherwise yep, why not?

After all, Thor Heyerdahl's trips might just be seen as a form of re-enactment, and I don't know where you'd draw the line between worthwhile re-enactment and pointless re-enactment (unless you're re-enacting great battles of the future or something).

[War Arrow]

Double post deleted. Nice to see that we're back.

[Pippin]

Hi

Thor Heyerdahls boat/raft expeditions are in the catagory of Experimental Archeology. They didnt dress up in costumes, but tried out theories of how boats could sail in ancient times.

Kim

[Minimalist]

Even though I have a Civil War Springfield rifled musket and bayonet I was never tempted to join a reenactor group. Marching around Virginia or Tennessee in a wool uniform in July is NOT my idea of a good time.

I visited the Manassas (Bull Run) national park one year in the summer with my son and even though we were dressed in shorts and t-shirts we damn near died. Temperature was in the high 90's and the humidity was higher than that!

Those people were TOUGH!

[War Arrow]

Hi

Thor Heyerdahls boat/raft expeditions are in the catagory of Experimental Archeology. They didnt dress up in costumes, but tried out theories of how boats could sail in ancient times.

Kim

True, though I'm suggesting it's a matter of degree, albeit quite extreme degree. Another example might be that group of people who adopted a stone age existence for the benefit of a BBC TV programme on the same (or was it iron-age?) in (I think) the 1970s.
A map is not territory, and any step onto territory, no matter how small, has the potential of revealing something that the map has failed to describe.

I haven't been over there in a while, but this BB (http://www.allempires.net/forum_topics.asp?FID=17) used to be quite interesting, plenty of folks there making atlatls or similarly archaic weaponry and testing them out in the field. So there's been some interesting insights coming out of it. Not a bad BB, though there's a bit of a games theme running through some of the threads. Which I find a bit confusing.

[Minimalist]

They didnt dress up in costumes, but tried out theories of how boats could sail in ancient times.

You know, Pippin, that's an interesting point and worth thinking through a bit.

I was kidding you yesterday about the rain hats but on a long voyage on the ocean with waves and spray the crew would have been wet....and cold. They had to have a way to compensate for those conditions because the impact on the crew of sustained wet and cold conditions would be dire. It really isn't just about the survivability of the boat. One has to make allowances for the survivability of the crew.

[Digit]

Give it a try! If you don't like it you'll at least know why.

Roy.

[john]

Hi

Thor Heyerdahls boat/raft expeditions are in the catagory of Experimental Archeology. They didnt dress up in costumes, but tried out theories of how boats could sail in ancient times.

Kim

True, though I'm suggesting it's a matter of degree, albeit quite extreme degree. Another example might be that group of people who adopted a stone age existence for the benefit of a BBC TV programme on the same (or was it iron-age?) in (I think) the 1970s.
A map is not territory, and any step onto territory, no matter how small, has the potential of revealing something that the map has failed to describe.

I haven't been over there in a while, but this BB (http://www.allempires.net/forum_topics.asp?FID=17) used to be quite interesting, plenty of folks there making atlatls or similarly archaic weaponry and testing them out in the field. So there's been some interesting insights coming out of it. Not a bad BB, though there's a bit of a games theme running through some of the threads. Which I find a bit confusing.

Pippin -

Where to begin?

OK. To me it isn't, and never has been, a game.

Beginning with very early childhood, I was fascinated with both

The knowledge and execution of ancient ways of life.

So, for example, I can build several different types of bows, know the
local species

of good wood for arrows, both mainshaft and foreshaft,

Can fashion stone projectile points or build them out of bone or wood,

And fasten them correctly, and feather them correctly.

I also know the various ways of holding a bow and drawing and

Releasing an arrow.

I know the fiber plants, and can spin fiber on my thigh or

On a drop spindle. For many years I built spinning wheels.

I can weave using a backstrap loom or a Hopi loom.

Or I can plait cloth or netting by hand.

I can cut and shape an ancient Southern Californian recurved fish hook

Out of haliotis shell or contruct a Northwestern style halibut hook

Out of wood, bone and sinew.

I can build a hand adze and use it, similarly

A bow drill for fire starting, similarly

Bone and stone scrapers and burins, similarly

HANDAXES,

Although EVERYONE knows handaxes don't exist in North America.

And a whole lot of other stuff picked up over the years.

The above isn't a boast,

But a personal recapitulation of the hard-won experience of just what

The ancient peoples faced, and

How they survived successfully.

So, again, none of this knowledge is a toy to me.

Instead, each piece has a complementary, much larger field

Of knowledge of materials, and their distribution and seasonal availability,

Likewise knowledge of resources, both plant and animal,

Season and weather,

Water and mountain,

Timber and flower,

Root and seed,

And their habitat and habits.

What I am saying is that there is a HUGE knowledge base

Which accompanies each item, whether it be a bone needle,

Or the bones of a fish caught and eaten long ago,

Or hematite, or the ability to construct and navigate watercraft.

This knowledge base also includes the spiritual and shamanic,

Which comes from the progressively intuitively obvious

Understanding of the universe as an independent and fully

Functional entity separate from modern day man's

Feeble and absurd cry that

"I am really, really the boss of all this".

Bullshit. Squared.

Additionally, this knowledge base is categorically not "stone age",

i.e. cognitively impaired.

It is extremely sophisticated and demanding, and,

Frankly, puts far more of a cognitive demand and the consequential

Ability to plan and execute than

Most modern day Homo s. will see in their lifetimes.


hoka hey


john

[Minimalist]

Most modern humans, particularly in the West and the developed parts of Asia don't have to face nature everyday in an effort to survive. It is handed to them. The stresses of modern life are self-imposed or self-inflicted wounds.

Again, if suddenly forced to fend for ourselves, how many could survive as well as our forebears did?