A Fly on Hadrian's Wall

[folo1]

There's a bit of a ruckus right now on Revlist. Someone asked about a dining fly in the military camp, and that started it. Anyone in AWI reenactment has hopefully heard it so I won't repeat the arguments here.

Comments

[folo1]

When AWI reenacting started, folks used dining flys of the same sort that was used in bucskinning and ACW, since they've been documented in them by photographs, and most reenactors were coming from thowe discipline. Another example of wht is logical is not necessarily accurate. As AWI reenactors began to look into things more, they found that there were no appearance of flys in military camps, no references to them being used in accounts or listed in regimental possessions. They did use bowers, tarps/blankets set up over limbs, and certain permenant shelters like houses, huts, etc. The only conclusion that seemed likely was that the fly was not used, and their appearance in a military camp would give the wrong impression (it certainly did for many AWI reenactors).

This has been fairly standard in AWI and, coincidentally, in Early Middle Ages reenactment (in fact the Staffordshire Hoard has shaken up some understandings). Sometimes it backfires--in the late 90s, a Grenadier unit with bearskin fur hats heard that bearskin was a type of cloth, got entirely new hats of wool and then discovered that no, they referred to real bearskin :) But there's no way you can legitimately ignore a new interpretation of old facts or of new facts themselves. I'm just certain, though, there are dozens of peopler out there pouring over stuff for a dining fly, for a beard on a military man and probably a Tasmanian Devil tat on someone's face. It's all a part of the evolutionary process in living history, and anyone who is rooted to his familiar old interpretation in the fact of any other more current evidence is just asking for it!

[stitchwhich]

But there's no way you can legitimately ignore a new interpretation of old facts or of new facts themselves.

Word. It rips my shorts when something is "grandfathered in" "because so many of the old-timers are used to doing it that way." I get doing something because we have a need and no knowledge of how that need was met during the time period so best-guess & we'll keep searching for answers happens... but when we learn that a thing was (or wasn't) done - then our practises need to change to mirror the new knowledge.

Sorry. Soapbox. An International Reenacttment group allows a certain type of clothing-construction that has me on a constant soapbox with our newbies... it's flashy and they w-a-n-t it. Drives me crazy. So you hit a nerve.

[pearl]

But there's no way you can legitimately ignore a new interpretation of old facts or of new facts themselves.

*cough* sexy viking women *cough*

But seriously, Annika Larsson's reconstruction is an interpretation of (at the time) a very new find -- the Pskov garments. Now, I don't think that find should be ignored, I think it is an awesome and interesting find. But I don't think her 'sexy' apron dress interpretation should be accepted just because it is new.

I doubt you intended to say that new interpretations should be embraced just because they're new, but that's how I read it.

(I hope that made sense. It's too damn hot right now.)

[folo1]

Consarn you. It's 52 in my office right now! Just for that, yeah, any new interpretation. In fact we enforce that April Fool article last year that announced that Vikings had horns on their caps for real (I never read it to the end when they said it was an April Fool's gag, I was so excited by the new interpretation that I had spped into general use in our group!)

But seriously, yes, you are totally right. I should have stressed that any re-interpretation has to be judged and examined critically and not just adopted thoughtlessly. I thought the fable about the bearskin helmet pretty much said it and showed the drawbacks of jumping with eyes closed off the prepice, but I should have added another line. Blame it on the weather up here!

[pearl]

Oh no, you don't want this weather. It was 110.48 F yesterday, and it's been hovering around 95 F+ and humid from midnight last night until about an hour ago when the cool change hit. Now it's somewhere between 95 and 77 degrees.

Thankfully nothing too exciting has managed to catch fire yet, so I hope this fire season is better than last years.