Tartan, 1572

[-B-]

good examples and a truer history here http://historicgames.com/Scottishstuff/scotsattire.html

being kicked out so so there would be two schools of thought to go by an new beginning by donnint the 'native' attire or keep what you have and move forward.

[Scotus]

Historians certainly DO speculate

This is true; however, what the others here are saying is that you don't speculate when doing historical impression. It's one thing to say, "I believe that this or that may have been," but it's quite another to carry that through in historical impression (which is what reenactment is supposed to be). You said that they must then back up their point of view with evidence. What's being said about kilts in 1572 is simply that there is no historical evidence; therefore, one shouldn't give the impression to others that they were worn at that time.

As for "beating a dead horse," IMO this has been one of the most interesting and intellectual threads in this forum in a long time. I've very much enjoyed it and have learned a few things myself.

[DWFII]

I do agree that historians speculate. Human beings speculate. Speculation is imagination. And imagination is the stuff of dreams and hope.

But when we cannot separate speculation from reality it can become a problem.

Historians speculate as scientists theorize--it is part of a process that explores possibility. But when it comes to drawing conclusions, or separating what is known from what is not, historians do not speculate. At least the good ones don't.

At the point where if one cannot (or will not) distinguish between speculation and fact, there is no significant difference between suggesting that kilts were worn in 1584 and that W. Wallace wore a kilt and painted himself blue. It is only a matter of degree. And once you start down that path why not add unicorns and trolls under the bridge and full suits of armor and wrist watches and heels on shoes?

Imagination is a wonderful thing...it can carry you to places that never were and might yet be. But it can also so tear you away from the fabric of reality that you can no longer communicate with others or see to your own survival.

Of course none of this is as serious as all that but, reenactments are historical representations...they are not ren faires. To the degree that they partake of the fantasy and wishful thinking of ren fairs they lose their usefulness and purpose.

In my opinion...

[Woodsheal]

You are carrying the word speculate way beyond the degree I'm talking about, and exaggerating to make your point. No one is suggesting wild flights of fancy, with "unicorns and trolls" and Braveheart garb. Come on!

An example: historians speculate on what really happened inside the Alamo during the 1836 siege, and Crockett's true fate, because of the lack of definitive evidence. They are not out-of-bounds when writing "this probably happened" or "this might have happened" in their histories, and are not condemned as fantasists when they do. Historiography has evolved way beyond the "classic" mode of a recitation of names and dates in the last century, or maybe you hadn't noticed.

I never made the declarative statement that "great kilts were worn in the 1570s." No, based on the sparse evidence available - a 1594 description of mercenaries in Ireland, plus some earlier accounts subject to interpretation - I stated that it's possible, and perhaps even likely, that they were. You compare such reasonable "speculation" - quite common to today's historians - to a Tolkien-ish departure from reality. Unwarrented.

As for reenacting and "living history", I've been involved since the mid-1970's and have always been an "authenticity nazi." But, one thing I've learned over those years is to "never say 'never'." One by one I've seen various "certainties" come crashing to the ground, as ongoing research and new evidence yields surprising results....

[macwilkin]

You are carrying the word speculate way beyond the degree I'm talking about, and exaggerating to make your point. No one is suggesting wild flights of fancy, with "unicorns and trolls" and Braveheart garb. Come on!

An example: historians speculate on what really happened inside the Alamo during the 1836 siege, and Crockett's true fate, because of the lack of definitive evidence. They are not out-of-bounds when writing "this probably happened" or "this might have happened" in their histories, and are not condemned as fantasists when they do. Historiography has evolved way beyond the "classic" mode of a recitation of names and dates in the last century, or maybe you hadn't noticed.

I never made the declarative statement that "great kilts were worn in the 1570s." No, based on the sparse evidence available - a 1594 description of mercenaries in Ireland, plus some earlier accounts subject to interpretation - I stated that it's possible, and perhaps even likely, that they were. You compare such reasonable "speculation" - quite common to today's historians - to a Tolkien-ish departure from reality. Unwarrented.

As for reenacting and "living history", I've been involved since the mid-1970's and have always been an "authenticity nazi." But, one thing I've learned over those years is to "never say 'never'." One by one I've seen various "certainties" come crashing to the ground, as ongoing research and new evidence yields surprising results....

Spot on, Brian, and to further your reference to Crockett and the Alamo, back in the 1970s, when the de la Pena diary was released, everyone was all in a tizzy that Crockett had not died fighting, a la Fess Parker, but rather had surrendered and executed by the Mexicans. Since then, other historians have questioned the authenticity of the diary, causing more speculation as to what happened to Crockett.

There certainly is speculation in the historian's trade, as you state. And DW is also correct that no historian would publish history based only on it -- point is, you're both correct.

Regards,

Todd

[DWFII]

Of course I exaggerated a little bit...I think it very reasonable to test an hypothesis by taking it to its logical extreme.

Why do the ren faire folks insist on their Tolkeinesque interpretation of history? Maybe it's because in every situation where speculation enters into the scenario, you can always find someone who will say "OK, there's no evidence for any kind of heels on shoes before the late 16th century but it had to start somewhere and maybe my character had a short leg." Or "My character's family were Picts and I daub blue paint on my face to honour my ancestors."

I, too, have already stipulated that historians speculate. But history itself is not about speculation. Isn't that the real point here?

Harry Turtledove wrote an "alternative history" in which the South won the Civil War. And he chronicles the play of events as it might have been from the mid 19th century to the mid 20th. The interesting thing is that it is remarkably well researched and convincingly plausible. No one is suggesting it is history. But!! Without the explicit (and implicit) acknowledgment that it isn't history, an ignorant or naive person could reasonably assume it was history.

Could an ignorant or naive person viewing Braveheart take it as history? Isn't such a movie just a form (albeit admittedly distorted and incomplete) of "re-enactment?" I submit to you that ignorant and naive people already do take it as history.

So what is the purpose of a re-enactment? Mindless diversion ala a ren-faire or at least a modicum of education and clarity?

[macwilkin]

So what is the purpose of a re-enactment? Mindless diversion ala a ren-faire or at least a modicum of education and clarity?

That depends on the reenactor, DW. Some do view it as just another hobby, while others see it as an educational experience, not only for the spectators, but also for the participants.

T.

[DWFII]

T%odd,

I understand. And I suppose some people view history as a hobby (present company excluded)...with all the attendant ambiguity...while others consider it a (noble?) pursuit of knowledge.

BTW, I particularly liked your reminder that re-enactments are as much (or moreso) for the participants as the spectators.

[macwilkin]

BTW, I particularly liked your reminder that re-enactments are as much (or moreso) for the participants as the spectators.

Very much so, and in fact, some reenactments have no spectators at all! The WWII reenactment community frequently holds "tacticals" where there are no spectators watching.

T.

[Tony Miles]

Isn't such a movie just a form (albeit admittedly distorted and incomplete) of "re-enactment?"

Of course it's not - you take Hollywood and the entertainment industry way too seriously. Most people take movies for what they are - just some mindless fun. Most people take the ren faire for what it is - just some mindless fun. Don't get me wrong there will always be small segment of the population that think Star Wars is actually real history but to fume over a tiny handful of people taking a movie as real history is really sort of pointless