Comments | folo1: A Fly on Hadrian's Wall

folo1

A Fly on Hadrian's Wall

Jan 11, 2010 14:46

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.
( cut for the benefit of folks who don't give a hang about accuracy and still call themselves reenactors )

Comments 6

3fgburner January 11 2010, 21:00:45 UTC

Enlighten me -- I don't do 18th C, so am not familiar with the discussion. Is the argument about whether dining flies were used in the AWI?

folo1 January 11 2010, 22:56:00 UTC

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 ( ... )

stitchwhich January 12 2010, 04:16:54 UTC

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 January 12 2010, 04:50:35 UTC

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.)

Thread 6