Re: Living History

Posted By Dan on May 4, 2012

One of the main reasons I enjoy reenacting with as much authenticity as I can really boils down to “I love realism”. Nothing is more likely to get me “in the moment” or let me “know what it was really like back then” than real participation.  Although we never will know exactly what life was like “back then”, the glimpse allowed via realism and active, total participation  far outstrips pretending.

Although one could argue that historical re-enactment is “pretending to go back in time”, for me it’s more about understanding the past through recreation and reliving rather than pretending to you’re actually there.  That may be one reason I’m not as keen to do first-person reenactment; I don’t want to pretend to be someone else.  As a side note, I suppose that’s also one reason I have absolutely no interest in going to Disney World (Epcot) either. Why pretend to go to a foreign country and be among pretend exotic creatures and people when you could just put that money towards actually going there? But I digress.

Some of the public as well as fellow reenactors wonder why I would want to relive the past in such detail. Being miserable in the rain, working hard, sleeping on the ground doesn’t sound much like fun after all.  While that certainly can be true, generally speaking it’s actually not as bad as is often imagined. In fact the experience runs the whole gamut from surprisingly easy, to being on target with expectations, or some experiences are not nearly as fun or easy as imagined.  But those surprising revelations are part of the excitement of reenactment. Just weeks ago we resumed our ongoing roundhouse project by placing uprights and starting some wattle walls.  We were very surprised at just how easily and quickly the construction went.  In fact at out current stage, gathering the materials took longer than the actual construction.  This meant two things to us; first, our ancestors could very well have built an entire roundhouse in only a couple of days if materials were procured.  Second, we’re going to have to stockpile and prep our materials to keep construction flowing.

Other revelations of actually living in the Iron Age include social life and time management. There is often enough time consuming physical work to do just to provide for typical Iron Age daily life (especially cooking), that working together is really the only way to get above a survival level.  But even though you may be very busy, many of the tasks are “simple”. That is, once you’ve learned and practiced it a bit they’re repetitive enough that your mind is free to do other things.  Which leads to singing and storytelling to pass the time while the chores are being done.  But we were also left with a fair amount of time after the chores were done and the sun went down.  With no electronics and very little artificial light  it’s no wonder that time was filled with song, dance, stories and art.

Signs also show that there is also increasing interest by members of the public (MoPs) to eschew simulations particularly those on computers. Some comments from a recent museum poll about the inclusion of computers into history museums was quite telling.  While most reenactors don’t use computer simulations as part of their repertoire the general idea is still pertinent. Not only did school children dislike computers in the museums because it made the trip “too much like school”, they also indicated quite strongly that they preferred working with real objects over virtual ones. Which, for those that do public demonstrations, is a good indicator that really doing tasks and having tasks that the public can try out beats static displays or pretending especially for kids in the audience.

So give realism a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised by what you can learn!

Category: General Commentary | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Dan on March 6, 2012

Many times the general view of our ancestors is that because they lacked the technology and skills we have today that they were stupid. While I’ve only heard some of the general public voice that sentiment directly, many of them often shake their heads and wonder at “how could they have done things that way?” thereby insinuating the same thing.  But having worked with primitive technologies I rarely, if ever, come to that conclusion.

While the surfaces may not be perfectly smooth the fit of the joinery is solid.

Generally speaking our ancestors did things in a practical and efficient manner. Consider timber framing or masonry; at first glance the results can seem crude to modern eyes. Rough cut stone or wood with lines or surfaces that are not 100% smooth, plumb, or square.  Yet, on closer examination the joinery is typically superb and many of these structures still stand after many hundreds of years. The concentration of construction effort was put in the areas that needed it the most and greatly reduced the time wasted in areas that didn’t need it.  A great example of how this contrasts with our modern perceptions comes from a Colonial Williamsburg podcast which went something like this*:

All things being equal, if the average person were given hand tools, timber, and asked to build a simple shed it would take him ten times longer than his period counter part.  This difference comes not from a lack of experience, but from modern presumptions.  Today’s woodworker typically approaches such a project by using the hand tools to make dimensional lumber, then proceeds to build the shed. In contrast early period craftsmen will use sections of the tree “as-is” as much as possible to minimize the amount of manipulation that needs to be done.

Probably the most interesting example of using features found in natural resources I’ve seen is found on the underside of a Celtic wagon. The structure supporting the rear axle is all one piece.  This was accomplished by using the “Y” crook already existing in the tree.

This Hallstatt era wagon shows an economy of effort in its construction. The wainwright used timber that had an existing "Y" for the rear framework.

Design is another area where period practices may be misunderstood when viewed in a modern context.  After standing for 150 years our Civil War era house fell prey to significant water damage of the sills and foundation. The house was designed to utilize rain gutters, but 30 years ago the owners removed them all thereby starting the chain of events that lead to the damage.  Many systems our ancestors put in place were designed to overcome problems that they encountered.  Sometimes changing the design or second guessing their choices can lead to a repeat of the problem or development of a new issue. A similar issue occurred when a nearby church had it’s slate roof replaced with modern materials. Because the new materials had different restrictions water runoff was rerouted too close to the foundation. After decade this saturated the ground and caused the foundation to start shifting forcing the close the church.

Today’s craftsmen are accustomed to having a wide variety of tools are their disposal.  It’s not uncommon for me, as a blacksmith, to hear people remark at how impressive it is that so much can be done with so few tools. But, in fact many tools that we consider mainstays, such as a ruler or tape measure,  were rare simply because there are other practical alternatives. For the average daily projects physical results can be more important than the actual measurement.  For instance, the sliding bevel does a fine job of accurately finding and transferring angles and calipers can be used to transfer sizes all without the craftsman knowing the specific degree or measurement.

Many early tools (like this Slide Bevel) that were a craftsman's mainstay relied on transferring a direct measurements unlike modern tools.

This also lead to some differences in the methodology of work, particularly with precision mechanisms such as locks. Another anecdote from Colonial Williamsburg relates how the blacksmith shop carefully disassembled and measured every aspect of an 18th Century lock. They then painstakingly recreated each of the parts one by one, but when it was time to assemble the reproduction it wouldn’t fit.  Double checking their work they verified that their measurements were correct and the parts had been faithfully reproduced.  What they hadn’t been reproducing was the typical construction method of the 18th Century.  Rather than using meticulous measurements to make lock parts ahead of time, each part was completed and fitted to the one proceeding.   This process assured any discrepancies were adjusted for as the lock progressed.

With out a doubt there are many more examples of ways our ancestors used skills, tools, and their brains to develop unique and highly practical solutions that were decidedly “low-tech”.  But just because a problem is solved via a low-tech method it in no way means the people who developed it were stupid.

*Unfortunately, I was unable to locate the exact podcast and do a direct quote so what follows is my best recollection

Category: Skills | 1 Comment »
Tags:

Posted By Dan on January 30, 2012

In a previous article I discussed the growing trend of civilian reenacting. But despite the interest and historical accuracy such portrayals bring there are still hurdles to clear. The bulk of these have to do with the history of reenacting as a hobby and the role of women in that hobby.

While not commonplace, some time periods DO have ample evidence for direct female participation in combat. (WWII Russian sniper)

All of the three major time periods in US reenacting (Medieval, Revoutionary War, US Civil War) really came to critical mass around the same time, the early 1960′s. The SCA’s most basic origins started with sword/shield combat and tournaments, while both the Rev War and the ACW’s origins started mainly from black powder enthusiasts. But the common theme is weapons and the military. Additionally, the majority of the founding members of the Rev War and ACW groups were from a generation where gender roles were rather fixed.

In contrast to the founders of the original groups, today’s reenactors are from generations X, Y, & the Millennials. These generations have an attitude that is less tolerant of the traditional gender roles common for the WWII generation and early boomers. Many in the younger generations look at structures like the Women’s Fire Axillary,  the ‘males only’ membership of the Masons, or labeling domestic activities as ‘women’s work’ as archaic. So it should not come as a surprise that they also chafe at the “boys club” mentality left over from the founding of the modern reenactment movement.  Groups have handled this shift in attitude in various ways.

Stuck in the Mud – Some groups have remained unchanged either from a “it’s always been this way” mentality, or a belief that there’s nothing  for women, children and families to do.  I’ve also heard some members in these groups indicate that they don’t want their wives, family, or even women in general participating because it’s “time to be with the guys”. Although there’s nothing to lose by approaching a group such as this with ideas for updating and expanding to include civilian/female portrayals, chances are good that the ideas will be ignored, poo-poo’ed, and generally resisted.  So, don’t push it, or you could end up with the next group type.

Begrudged – In some instances pressure to change has grudgingly forced groups to “make up something  for the girls to do”; even though a closer look at history often finds women working in a number of capacities even in military situations and in a few instances women were active participants in combat. Thus there may be no need to make up anything, but to simply expand and more accurately portray history.  Regardless of historical accuracy though, once a group has been forced to take steps it doesn’t want to it can easily become a breeding ground for resentment and continued resistance.

Some reenactment groups (or sub-groups) may be formed for specific non-millitary functions, such as Civil War ballroom dancing.

Auxiliary/Sub-Groups - Of course not all groups have the inclusion issue facing old-style military reenactment groups. Some groups have discovered that enough of their members have an interest in non-military life they have formed civilian auxiliary units. Often these units aren’t mere “tag-alongs” but can function on their own.  They hold their own events, teach historical skills and educate the public.  Sometimes these auxiliary groups have a specific focus such as period medicine, music, dancing, horticulture, agriculture, or a specific skill such as weaving (“sheep to shawl”). These groups benefit from the ground work laid by it’s parent organization while at the same time they provide additional accuracy, diversity and interest in this growing hobby.

Scratch all that – The final solution to dealing with groups who do not want to change, is simply to start another group.  Although it also comes with the drawbacks one associates with reinventing the “wheel”, it does have the huge advantage of delivering the exact type of group the members want.  Additionally, a group formed specifically for civilian portrayals can offer the public a view of reenacting that many would never have imagine existed before, stir interest in those who would have never considered the hobby, and provide an alternate path for the future of reenactment.

Although these issues may not go away quickly, one thing is certain; the the face reenactment is changing.

Category: General Commentary | 1 Comment »
Tags: