Bob Hoover wrote:

> These discussions revolve around the impossibility of
> COMPLETELY duplicating an historical event in all details.
> Because of this, some say that we should not do it at all;
> while others believe in the value of doing the best job
> possible today for its value to public education and for
> the insights that this experimental "archaeology" provides.

The argument that a modern reenactment is inevitably flawed
and therefore not worthwhile is a bogus one, and those who
advance it should consider their own residence in glass houses.
The same limitations apply to historical scholarship and
archaeology, both of which have their own limitations. If one
accepts that only a perfect interpretation of the past should be
permitted, then the historians and archaeologists should all
give up and go to work for Starbucks, too. By that standard,
the past is a closed book and unknowable by anyone, period.

I'm not a reenactor myself, but I've known a number of them, including
one who gleefully described himself and his compatriots as "the lunatic
fringe of living history." On the whole, most of them are quite
sincere about learning first-hand about the past, although they are also

generally irreverent about most things, which makes those unfamiliar
with
them be somewhat dismissive. They range from "hard-core"
reenactors to "farbs" (a derogatory term that you'll have to read
about in Tony Horowitz's book, _Confederates in the Attic_), but they
almost always have some useful insight to share that doesn't show up
either the archaeological or historical record. While we may not (will
not) ever piece together a PERFECT picture of the past, contributions
from all areas of experience is necessary to do the best job possible.

------------> AH