Comments on 'Reconstructions as an aid to History' by David Yeomans

These are a few comments on Dr. Yeomans’ welcome and interesting attempt1 to generalise on the theory and practice of ‘reconstructions’ in which a number of the points raised are open, it seems to me, to further consideration and some difference of opinion. I largely agree with the author’s introductory remarks, all somewhat reminiscent of my own, albeit on a broader front, in connection with cathedral studies.2 However, I would not dismiss the purely visual or illustrative reconstruction too readily. I recall my own students being very struck by the sheer size of the Wright Brothers ‘Flyer I’ as well as aspects of other ‘mock ups’ so such things are not without their merits. Also from the fi eld of aeronautics is the intriguing fact that the reconstructed aeroplanes made for ‘Those Magnifi cent Men’ turned out to be more than mere fi lm stars. Although they were not, by all accounts, ultra-faithful copies of the originals, especially with regard to every little detail of materials and construction and not at all in the choice of engines, nevertheless they did fl y and their pilots found their behaviour in the air of some interest with regard to pre-WWI aviation. What mattered, essentially, were aerodynamics and power/weight ratios, not perfect reconstruction. Fortuitously, therefore, this unexpectedly instructive case emphasises that when a reconstruction is intended to investigate behaviour or performance, a crucial prerequisite is that purpose and method need to be very clearly defi ned. Slavishly accurate reconstruction for its own sake might be at least irrelevant and at worst an impediment to achieving useful results. To that extent on two fundamental points I fi nd myself in agreement with the author. If an engineering historical reconstruction is to be useful for research and scholarship then (i) it must be unambiguously clear what the problem is and (ii) the reconstruction must be designed, perhaps even exclusively, for that problem. Otherwise it is all too easy, and examples are numerous, to unwittingly drift away from the correct solution rather than to work with certainty towards it. Ship reconstructions raise some very basic issues. Personally, I doubt that Ra is all that well known, but in recent years the Athenian trireme, Olympias, certainly has been. The diffi culties of reconstructing a trireme and the problems of objectively testing it — not to mention the degradation of the whole enterprise by the combined effects of entertainment, nationalism and sporting enthusiasm — were matters I once raised.3 Some basic points emerged: