Tartan, 1572

[macwilkin]

I agree with you completely. However even the "interpretation" of the U.S history has much mythology and lacking in logic in certain circles. I've watched people drone on for hours about how America is or is not founded on Christianity or God. How the forefathers were or were not deists or atheists or Masons or you name it.

So with U.S. history being very recent and is still subject to "mythology" and "interpretations" how much more so for more ancient history as in Scotland where the documentation gets more scant.

Ah, but you're talking esoteric -- I'm talking very basic history. I've had students who couldn't put well-known historic events in a simple timeline.

T.

[Galician]

My only question here is why everybody is bashing poor Prof. Tolkien??!!

[DWFII]

The point about movies and reenactments was precisely to illustrate how far astray people can go if presented with erroneous information. Ask any of the daily reenactors at Colonial Williamsburg about public perception and where it comes from. One of the most common questions in the shoe shop is "where's your sewing machine?"

But to the point...a reenactment has a script and actors and costumes and most times even cameras. A beginning and an end, a plot and a denouement, and even production values and a budget. And now (or so it seems), to my surprise, even a certain indifference to accuracy. Am I wrong?

What does a movie have besides ticket prices that a reenactment doesn't have?

[macwilkin]

The point about movies and reenactments was precisely to illustrate how far astray people can go if presented with erroneous information. Ask any of the daily reenactors at Colonial Williamsburg about public perception and where it comes from. One of the most common questions in the shoe shop is "where's your sewing machine?"

But to the point...a reenactment has a script and actors and costumes and most times even cameras. A beginning and an end, a plot and a denouement, and even production values and a budget. And now (or so it seems), to my surprise, even a certain indifference to accuracy. Am I wrong?

What does a movie have besides ticket prices that a reenactment doesn't have?

Uh, not really. Yes, reenactments do have scripts, but I can't say I've ever seen one go exactly as planned. Perhaps you're thinking of a documentary, a la the History Channel?

And remember, the word reenactment means different things to different people. To the general public, any event where costumed individuals are portraying a past event is a reenactment. To the Park Service, as reenactment is a mock combat scenario, while living history is a educational talk which highlights a specific activity, etc.

T.

[Tony Miles]

What does a movie have besides ticket prices that a reenactment doesn't have?

ummm cool special effects??

well obviously some groups will strive for more accuracy than others as the original poster has stated - movies on the other hand are created to make money - you really can't compare the two

[macwilkin]

ummm cool special effects??

well obviously some groups will strive for more accuracy than others as the original poster has stated - movies on the other hand are created to make money - you really can't compare the two

A generalization that is quite accurate, Tony -- there is such a creature as an accurate historical movie -- "Tora, Tora, Tora", for example. Granted, it didn't make much money, but I would have no issue with students watching it rather than the travesty that was "Pearl Harbor".

T.

[DWFII]

So with U.S. history being very recent and is still subject to "mythology" and "interpretations" how much more so for more ancient history as in Scotland where the documentation gets more scant.

And if we accept that....and if that's so...how do we ever know what really happened?

History and historians are getting a bad rap here, it seems to me, because, allowing for all these "interpretations" and "ambiguity" (which I think is pretty much antithetical to the whole notion of "history and historians" puts them in the position of crystal ball gazers and guessers. Even second-guessers.

Look, it appears I need to reiterate (for the nth time) here...first, I'm not an historian. Second, it is reasonable to assume that kilts were worn before 1594. But it is not history. It is an assumption, period.

In terms of reenactments, turn it around...we know that prior to the late 16th century, shoes didn't have heels. For the sake of argument, let's set the date the same as for kilts--the first hard evidence of heels on shoes would be 1594. Let's further assume that in actual fact the first heeled shoe did appear in that year (shoes were an item of clothing everybody wore and a paradigm shift of that sort would have been noticed immediately). So then how many pair of heeled shoe would you have expected to see people wearing in 1595? Or 1605? Or even 1615?

If you're doing a reenactment depicting the year 1600 which would be more authentic and true to the times? Or even the spirit of the times? Shoes with heels or shoes without? We know shoes with heels existed. But it is doubtful very many people would have worn them.

[Woodsheal]

DWF, if you truly believe that historians should not engage in speculation and interpretation, all I can say is that you have an odd notion of the profession. There is a vast difference between "chronologies" and "histories." You apparently are confusing the two....

[Tony Miles]

And if we accept that....and if that's so...how do we ever know what really happened?

We don't - it's that simple - and we never really will know. That is simply an undeniable fact. We have incomplete information and it's human nature to try and fill in the gaps the best we can. So one has to ask what is "reasonable and prudent".

The OP sounds like he has a good grasp on what that might be for the era described

[Woodsheal]

History is the study of the past, not a mere listing of past events. The historian theorizes and interprets, or he is simply a chronicler.
A chronology of when various shoe-making techniques first appeared is just that - a list of dates. It is not history. Now, when someone delves into the "whys and wherefores" of the appearance of these techniques - for example, did technique Y or shoe style X come into practice due to technological innovation or the whims of fashion? - now we're talking history...!