Research and Research Application

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

First, I am not using this pulled quote as an attempt to single out, ridicule, demean, or deride the author in any way, shape, for form. I am just using it to illustrate a research concept (while I am putting together the future posting Research 105: Artifacts and Relics).

"Were they a clone of the originals? Probably not, but they are certainly within realistic parameters that any logical person can understand."

There are four “competencies” at work here, that meet different academic, scientific, personal, and hobby needs:

1. The term “reproduction’ means to continue the CW period material culture’s abilities, materials, and methods to manufacture/create/make the very next “widget” since the last one was made in, say, 1861-1865.

2. The term “copy” means to approach NO. 1 above, but to substitute modernisms to:

A. Replace unknown, lost, or cost and time prohibitive materials and manufacturing methods (may be nothing more “sinister” than using a power drill instead of a brace and bit to drill a hole).
B. Keep costs and production time down to keep “repro widgets” affordable and sellable (especially when using “Psychological Standards.” Meaning substituting materials and methods that to the naked and unaided human eye, short of microscopic work, chemical, analysis, or metallurgical testing- CANNOT be determined as different from their “proper” ones in the Past).

3. Whether one’s impression is based upon the need for as precise historical accuracy as expressed by having a repro widget that can be set down and lain next to a surviving original and look as the original did when it was new and in use.

This tends to be a more “military” competency.

4. Its counterpart can found in the 18th Century World.
The skill and knowledge required to research and replicate an actual 18th century artifact (in the state it was in when actually in use and not with 220+ of patina, age, and destruction is only the “B Grade.” The “A Grade” comes from starting at the “B Grade” to learn what is needed, and then producing not a “copy of an artifact” but rather a period correct 18th century item that is made of the correct raw materials, according to the material culture technology of the 18th century, that would be in NO way seen as anything different to someone, say in 1781, seeing and handling it. It is indistinguishable from any other 18th century “item of clothing” or “article of gear” in ALL ways, but not just a “mere copy” of another artifact.

(Note: This does work when reproducing such things as longrifles, where regional “schools,” individual gunmakers, and the times over which they work are critical. For example, a “Dickert” rifle from the 1780’s has critical key elements that make it distinct and different from a “Beck” of
the 1790’s.

In the broad 18th century black powder community, there are “longrifles” that are intended for the various segments of the hobby, such as:

1. Interpretive Style. These are “flintlocks” built to what the modern builder likes and the buyer or customer likes ands wants with no regard to history or the “artifact pool.” (A friend of mine built one of these by going through the parts shop and picking out what he liked. So he ended up with parts and components from many different guns ranging over a spread of 1770
to 1840.

2. Copyists. As described above, these longrifles are exact copies of surviving guns.

3. Traditionalists. As described above, but not copying any particular 18th century maker, school, or regional longrifle- but instead being able to make a period proper in all ways, that is NOT a copy but could be set down next to an original in the 18th century and NOT be noticed as different or out of place.

The problem with using such weak “arguments” such as “We don’t know everything they had.” or “Not everyting that existed has survived until this day for us to examine.“ or “They may have had one like this, but none of them survived to this day for us to know about.“ is NOT that such statements are not, or can not, be true in Time and History.
Their danger lies in taking those “small truths” and then using them as the basis for:

1. Not doing research
2. Accepting errors, inaccuracies, and flaws in raw material, patterns, construction methods, and usage.
3. Allowing run-of-the-mill, Brand “X“ “Sutler Row” vendors to sell poor Indian and Pakistani goods at high profits (please refer to C.J. Daley’s postings of price listings for Pakistani wares).
4. Fostering a false sense of acomplishment and/or acceptance that “poor is good enough” because “We don‘ t know everything about the Civil War, and it is possible that they COULD have had a Widget exactly like this Pakistani one I use.”

This is the Dreaded Pitful of “When EVERYTHING is possible, NOTHING is probable.

There is, rightfully and undeniable so, a Time and a Place for such thinking and applications- as well as a large number of people whose current (and maybe life long) Mental Picture embraces such a philosophy in thought, words, and activities. And that is fine- no criticism or slight wished, intended, or implied!

The statement that "within realistic parameters that any logical person can understand” can be a highly investigative and intuitively sound working appreciation for the subtleties of CW era artifacts.

On the other hand, it can be the mantra for the so-called Militant Farb if one does appreciated its far reaching implications for our “hobby,” and particulary this Forum. (Again, I am NOT saying this IS the belief or practice of the particular author who penned that, and his intent and meaning may likely be far from it.)

Can you choose wisely?

Kameraden! That time and place is not here on the AC Forum. There are other for a where it is, and that is fine, fitting, and proper.
Keep it there where it belongs, do not bring it here.
It is not encouraged or welcomed.

In the past few years, there has been a decline in the AC Forum as more of the “older ,experienced, and knowledgeable ” posters leave, and are replaced with “newer, less experienced, and less knowledgeable” posters (some of which having “migrated” from other fora- but rather than having progressed and advanced on their own Journeys, come here carrying much “baggage” they are not quite ready to put down yet. And it shows in some of the quality of the questions and replies being posted).

Again, I not criticizing or putting down anyone or anyone’s Mental Picture here at all.

Although this Forum is not perfect, it does strive for the goal of furthering and promoting research, accurate clothing and gear, more historically faithful activities- as well as the serious, documentable, if not also scholarly discussion of the Civil War era.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
AC Forum Member and Moderator Mess

[BHoover]

Re: Research and Research Application

I thought I was understanding until it came to the part about 18th century reproductions, and then I got totally lost. It seems that there are some similarities but also many difference since we often have better information, more examples, and less temporal distance between those 18th century items and the ones the we are more interested in from the 19th century. Sorry to be confused.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Research and Research Application

Here's a paradox:

Let's say one makes an exact copy of a surviving artifact, indistinguishable in every way except that it's new instead of 140 years old. Let's say we know that John Smith owned and used the original in 1862.

No matter how accurate the copy is, one thing we can be certain of is that it's inaccurate for anyone to use it at an 1862 event, unless they're portraying John Smith.

That's a trivial point for items that were made virtually identically by the thousands, like uniforms and muskets, but it gains more significance for items that were made individually, where the original goal was to have variation. And it gains even more significance if there's a relatively small pool of surviving artifacts compared to a large pool of opportunities to wear the new items. A re-created village where every third woman is wearing an identical spoon bonnet, for example, is not an accurate village, no matter how carefully those bonnets are copied from the same original.

But to complicate it more, if we then try to make a new item in the style of the originals, but with variations within the parameters that we decide are typical, is it supposed to be, in theory, a copy of an item that no longer exists, or an *additional* item added to the finite number that existed in the 1860s?

To get into the really deep stuff, all this applies to re-created people and behavior too, not just artifacts. Some of the questions that seem trivial for artifacts, like the one above, become more significant when applied to people. For example, say you're doing a living history, and someone says, "My great great grandfather was the musician here, historically. Is he here? Is that him with the drum?"

To give a logical answer, you need a clear decision about whether 1) in this alternate 1860s universe, the real drummer exists out there somewhere but he isn't present right now and his duties are being filled by this additional fictional person, or whether 2) that reenactor with the drum is portraying a typical/fictional man who has replaced the real drummer who no longer exists in this alternate version of the 1860s, or whether 3) that reenactor over there is indeed portraying the historic drummer and no people have been changed or inserted compared to the real 1860s.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Research and Research Application

The answer is, of course, 42.

:)

Very good points raised by this discussion! Hank, I agree that there are many difficult considerations when going beyond copying an extant item, or even copying an extant item too heavily. I see a need for continuing and great research, so that those reproducing material culture items for the era, or even interior culture details, can determine what, if any, norms exist, and what typical techniques, materials, etc can be legitimately used in creating an item, or setting up a situation, that may not have existed in that precise form in the 1860s, but is consistent with known details of the time.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Research and Research Application

Hallo Kameraden!

I am sorry...
Perhaps I should not have thrown in the "18th century paradigm" as it is not is it hard to master but it is hrader to understand. That is why so many folks never really get beyond the mere pure copying.

HOWEVER, to bring that back around more clearly (hopefully and succiently...)

(To oversimply for a number of reasons)- For the era of the Civil War military , the "State of the Art," "The Perfection of the Craft," "The Cutting Edge," "The Level To Be Striven For and Achieved," and the "Ultimate Expression of the Time Warp/Time Machine Model" of our knowledge and art IS the ability to copy a PEC surviving artifact to the full measure of its raw materials; patterns, forms, and dimensions; period manufacturing technology; and using period tools to do so.

Everything else is on a "lesser, sliding scale" that we see stretched across hundreds of levels, interests, and applications under the umbrella of CW "reenacting."

Now, the discussions centering around using modern electricity to power tools versus period steam, water, or hand power; using aniline dyes versus period vegetable dyes, etc., etc, involve d a different concept called "Psychological Standards" I will not bring up here (Psy Standards are those that short of microscopic, chemical analysis, or metalurgical testing are NOT discernable to the human eye or senses. Modern steel for period iron would be one. An aniline dye color for indigo that looks exactly like indigo dyestuff. Etc. etc.)

As Herr Hank well shares...

If we are talking about, say a cartridge box, produced to the number of 100,000 from Allegheny Arsenal and we COPY one of those- we are "doing better" than using the "folded leather envelop called a 'cartridge box' by NAvy Arms in the 1970's."
If we know that "our regiment" received cartridges boxes from Allegheny Arsenal on June 1, 186 and our "impression" is based on that unit on June 1, 1862- we are more PEC and authentic to have the precise copy of one of those original boxes than we would be using one of the Navy Arms' "folded leather envelopes (my first "box" actually...) and saying "Since we do not know everything about the Civil War, and not all originals used have survived for us to examine- a logical person can look at the Navy Arms' envelope and understand why it is okay for us to use it."

There are times and places where Navy Arms' fodled leather envelopes are fine and good. Kameraden, it just isn't anywhere near the concept of applied authenticity and the AC Forum.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt