HEMA and Experimental Archaeology

HEMA and Experimental Archaeology Abstract Experimental Archaeology is one of the avenues in which portions of the past can be reproduced scientifically in the present to determine hypotheses about the past made in the present. For the most part these experiments have been conducted by academics seeking insights into various phenomena as related to the archaeological or historical record. As more and more historical combat treatises are discovered and become more and more accessible to the public, there is a growing interest in the combat arts of the medieval and Renaissance periods. The results of this are that there are many questions which are asked about the feasibility and effect of actions shown in these treatises. Historical Combat Arts and the schools which pursue this endeavour are on the cutting edge of this pursuit and through the techniques of Experimental Archaeology could forge a new era of discovery of the past.

Introduction The following discourse discusses the relationship between Experimental Archaeology and Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA). For the most part, it will be focused on the advantages which Experimental Archaeology can give to HEMA in the areas of professionalism and increased knowledge designed to increase the profile of HEMA in a positive fashion. The discussion itself is not just for HEMA practitioners but also for others as well so that both may understand each other’s perspective. The first part of the discussion is to understand that HEMA is Historical. Without realising it in a lot of cases, there is a lot of research which goes into producing the arts which are seen in today’s practice of Historical European Martial Arts. Unlike modern sports, the sources date back to the medieval and Renaissance period and thus have to be translated and interpreted before they can be used, taking time and some skill. The field of re-enactment has always been seen by academia as amateurs with some varying levels of skill, but because of the lack of research of an academic quality the production of artefacts by these groups was denied. The Western Martial Artist has struggled over the years to pull himself away from this group and into the light and present himself as different from these groups. This is a difficult place to be in some ways semi-professional but with no real recognised skills. Experimental Archaeology needs to be determined as to what it is. Once this is discovered its categories of research will be defined, followed by any limitations on these research options. This is designed to give a basic introduction to Experimental Archaeology before delving into the real details about methods and examinations. Like any other form of experiment in academia Experimental Archaeology follows the scientific method. The hypothesis is proposed, the data is then collected from experiments which are conducted to answer the hypothesis, and the hypothesis is proved to be valid or invalid. It is this idea of a scientific method which Experimental Archaeology can bring to HEMA to make experiments performed more useful and results more accepted. © Henry Walker 2016

Page 1

Research questions must be formed based on some historical or archaeological data which has been found. This question needs to lead to a definite answer. Sometimes it is one large one; sometimes it is small ones which build to answer a large one. This will assist in determining the design of the experiment to be conducted. The design of the experiment is crucial as it must be designed to answer the question or the whole experimental process is a waste of time. One of the major issues with one of the common methods currently employed in HEMA, indeed with all of HEMA is the recording of data. Essentially no data is recorded. No methods are recorded. This is save what is found on YouTube. For the HEMA community to be accepted as serious, this needs to change. Other pitfalls found in the use of Experimental Archaeology will be discussed also; these will be left toward the end of the discussion. What will be noted is that the entire discussion will have an angle toward improving the experimental process with regard to HEMA practitioners using and recording it. The hope is that if the community can start to organise experiments properly and present them in such a way that the academic community begins to take notice of them then the research and hard work which has gone into HEMA over the years may more easily be seen.

Historical Combat Arts – Many Fields of Research “The study of historical combat arts is comprised of archaeology, philology and practical experimentation. All of these domains have their own methodology and they provide answers for markedly different questions. On one hand, archaeology tells us what kinds of weapons existed at a given time period; on the other hand, philology gives us an idea of how they were used based on textual evidence of historical or instructional nature. Naturally, damage to weapons, armour and bones uncovered by archaeologists will also provide important data on how different armaments were used.” (Ijäs, 2014) The true study of historic combat arts, or Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA), involves examining treatises of the period and attempting to recreate what is presented in them. This would seem like a simple process to some, but it is not. Within the depths of this process is hidden many traps and hidden roadblocks which many do not realise, especially in much of the academic community. The practitioner of HEMA, even if they manage to pick something which is relatively native to their own tongue still has hurdles to cross. Languages of the Renaissance and medieval period somewhat resemble our own but there are many different nuances that the researcher must first examine and also many words which do not mean the same thing now as they did then. So linguistics also has to be added to the list which has already been highlighted above. However, this discussion will focus more on the aspects of Experimental Archaeology and how it needs to be embraced by the HEMA community, and the work which this community does do needs to be recognised more by the wider academic community for the services it provides.

© Henry Walker 2016

Page 2

Re-enactment Denied Re-enactors are a part of the modern world. They take a part of history and then as a part of their hobby they attempt to recreate parts of this part of history for their own enjoyment. For the most part, however re-enactment has been denied by academia as a serious pursuit of the truth for archaeology, “Academia writhed in embarrassment and spurned these individual and collective nonsenses. The detail, the discipline and the data were sadly lacking. This, they said, was theatre. Rather than add to the sum of knowledge it fulfilled some inadequacy in the participants.” (Reynolds, 1994:1) According to the academic community because the re-enactment community was not doing “real” research it was not valid. They cited a lack of data and a scientific approach to developing the techniques used and also the serious reproduction of artefacts from the periods associated with the re-enactment. The reason for this is the “outside view”. Very few of these academics have ever seen the actual work which has gone into some of the recreations which have been present. Why is this important? For the most part the HEMA community has been seen as a branch of the re-enactment community. Splinters with a different focus but once again seen as merely a hobby and not “real” research therefore lacking on the academic side of things. The only way to solve this particular problem is for the HEMA community to start producing the sort of academic quality research which is expected from such “real” research and thus present ourselves in a better light.

What is Experimental Archaeology? “Experimental Archaeology refers to the application of experimental methods in data collection and description, interpretation, and explanation of the archaeological record.” (Plew, 2009) Archaeology is often assumed to relate to things which are either in the part of history previous to the historical record or parts recently following its beginning, however archaeology even extends into the modern period. With this in mind, the techniques of Experimental Archaeology apply to the research of historical techniques. More to the point this must be done in the same sort of manner if we expect the same quality to eventuate. “The broad philosophy demanded that experiments should be conceived out of the archaeological data, and thereafter be driven by the scientific discipline specifically involved. Should an experiment be agricultural, it should satisfy an agricultural scientist; if a building, it should satisfy a structural engineer; if a programme of food conservation, it should satisfy a microbiologist. In addition, the human element should be removed as far as possible from any equation.” (Reynolds, 1994:1) Archaeology is one of the places where the disciplines of the Arts and Sciences combine. While archaeology is seen as one of the Arts it is driven by the same scientific principles of its more respected cousins. The same can be said of Experimental Archaeology. The same level of experimental discipline is required for © Henry Walker 2016

Page 3

the experiments, and their results to be respected. Putting together some vague structure and idea is simple not good enough. The experiments need to be of a scientific nature. Reynolds (1994) points out that the scientific disciplines should be satisfied. Then goes on to point out that various experts should be satisfied with the methods and results. For us, being on the fore-front of our research and being the martial artists who are practicing the arts, we are the experts for the most part. This can make things a little difficult. In our case, we need to satisfy the academic community as well, not just experts in the field.

Categories of Research With an idea about what Experimental Archaeology is and the expectations of the field, we can now begin to look at the various categories of research, and see which one or ones will apply to our particular area or areas of endeavour. From the research conducted, there are four or five categories depending on which author you read. What is interesting is that in the reading of the categories is that the number may be different, but they cover much the same sorts of things, if with a different perspective. From Reynolds (1994) perspective there are five categories. “experiment has been divided into five distinct categories. These are respectively construct, process and function, simulation, probability trials and technological innovation.” (Reynolds, 1994:3) What will be noted from this list is a focus on technology. The categories focus on the use of technology and how it came about. What is most interesting is that there is obviously a change in thought over the next fifteen years by the time Plew (2009) comes to write, as while the categories have shrunk to four, and they do cover Reynolds’ list there are more ethnologically concerned elements as well. “Most experimental studies belong to one of four distinct categories. These include replication experiments, testing of methodological assumptions by applying them to known contexts, experiments involving site formation processes, and ethnoarchaeology, or the collection of ethnographic data with specific reference to archaeological problems.” (Plew, 2009) In the case of test-cutting, which is the prime form of experimentation that most western martial artists perform, this is a process and function experiment, “This naturally enough involves the examination of how things actually work.” (Reynolds, 1994:7). The focus of these experiments is to see how the weapons work in a “realworld” situation to validate or invalidate various techniques which may or may not have been performed with them. What this author encourages is a more scientific approach to these experiments. Rather than just “slinging steel” at the target, making informed choices and collecting real data about the experiments.

© Henry Walker 2016

Page 4

Limitations “As with all approaches, experimental archaeology has some limitations. In many instances, experimental evidence is negative, suggesting only that a particular phenomenon or event did not occur. Yet experimentation allows the testing of assumptions about the past by eliminating improbable hypotheses and identifying the range of possible explanations of highly variable archaeological phenomena.” (Plew, 2009) From the above, it will be noted that for the most part, Experimental Archaeology focusses on the negative aspects rather than the positive aspects, where a hypothesis is denied as possible rather than being possible. This limitation does, however allow a certain level of possibilities to other research eliminating negatives and opening avenues to positives in research. From research pointed at a different point of view, positives can be gained demonstrating that using certain techniques with weapons, in our case, that they are a possibility, and thus demonstrating avenues of a particular phenomenon actually occurring. This will require rigorous research on the part of the researcher to demonstrate this. This research needs to be based upon historical evidence of weapons and techniques used with these weapons, and against armours, should they be present in the appropriate time period for these experiments to be valid, and, of course in a valid manner. Thus the manner in which the research is conducted must also be valid.

Overall Method for Experimental Archaeology “the methodology adopted is directly based upon experimental physics. The principles involved are relatively straightforward; a set of data engenders an hypothesis which is then subjected to empirical replicative testing with the primary purpose of destroying the hypothesis. If the testing fails to destroy the hypothesis, then it can be accepted as valid. Validity is a critical concept rather than truth since new data might emerge which could change the basis of the hypothesis. The significance of the methodology is that it is negative in its approach. The selection of data is determined as non-partial. It is not an adversarial argument in the sense of choosing only those data which fit the argument.” (Reynolds, 1994:2) The methodology which is adopted in using Experimental Archaeology needs to be based in science, thus the model is best based in experimental physics. Data is presented, which formulates a hypothesis, which is tested through empirical means which is designed to destroy the hypothesis. If the hypothesis survives the experimentation then it is accepted as valid. Once again this has a very negative approach as expressed by Reynolds (1994) above. He does, however recognise that data may emerge which might change the situation, and is not deliberately negative. Outram (2008) does not approach this process from this primarily negative point of view. From his point of view, a hypothesis is presented, this is tested which is found to be flawed or valid (Outram, 2008). Thus he leaves the option open that the research conducted may actually validate the hypothesis rather than destroying it. © Henry Walker 2016

Page 5

With regard to the functionality of weapons he discusses a researcher, Molloy (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011), who has investigated the functionality of Bronze Age weapons. In this he asserts that Molloy’s research was a qualitative approach and had similar qualitative observations, which can be problematic (Outram, 2008). This is of particular interest to us as it is concerned with the use of weapons. The experiment conducted must be scientific in approach and based on scientific theory and is best based on a quantitative approach, and have quantitative observations to accompany any qualitative ones. Qualitative observations tend to be biased by the observer and experimenter, thus while useful tend to be considered less scientific in nature.

Types of Experiment “Types of archaeological experiment vary widely and a wide range of examples can be found in the textbooks by John Coles (1973, 1979). More recent examples have been published in a variety of journals, including the Journal of Archaeological Science and Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society.” (Brown, 2008) Clearly for the most part many experiments in Experimental Archaeology are focussed on Stone Age technologies, simply going by the mention of “lithics” above. This demonstrates the obvious bias of the field to prehistorical areas of research, however the scientific principles which these examples of experiments are still useful. Regardless of the weapon being used or the other form of research being done in the field the experimentation needs to be based on scientific principles (Outram, 2008). Research by members of the HEMA community into these areas would prove to be valuable to demonstrate approaches to research and even some methods of experimentation.

Research Questions For most experiments, they begin with forming a hypothesis about some scientific phenomenon, for Reynolds (1994) this is not the same for the archaeologist, “for archaeological experiment one begins by not forming the hypothesis but accepting that of someone else.” (Reynolds, 1994:2). In some cases this may actually be denying rather than accepting the hypothesis of others. Either way, it is this hypothesis, or question, which is the essence that drives the research. “At the core of all archaeological experiments should be the overall research question which you wish to answer: ... Having identified the research question you should then consider whether an experimental approach is appropriate for answering the question, either wholly or just in part.” (Brown, 2008) There needs to be one overall question which brackets the entire lot of research which is being performed. In examining the question, whether using the techniques of Experimental Archaeology is appropriate to answering the question should also be asked. Rather than tackling the overall question in one big lump Brown (2008), suggests sub-questions for individual questions to answer which

© Henry Walker 2016

Page 6

relate to the overall question. The question does need to be answered, at least, in part by the performance of the experiment. The answer comes in the form of data.

Data From Experiment to Support Hypothesis “One good approach is to come up with methods which generate tables of data relevant to your research questions: ... Statistical tests will enable you to establish whether the observed differences between your samples are significant. The graphical and statistical patterns in these data will then underpin your interpretations and conclusions.” (Brown, 2008) The most important thing is that the experiments must produce data which can be used to prove or disprove a hypothesis. This data which is produced needs to be of a quantitative nature rather than a qualitative nature in order to retain its credibility and also its scientific nature. Simply put qualitative data allows for too much human interaction in the collection and interpretation of the data, thus can skew the result. Quantitative data is considered more scientific because the “human” element is further removed from the equation. Once the conclusions have been achieved the model can lead to other questions where the format can be used as a frame of reference for other data collection for similar projects.

Designing and Implementing Experimental Procedures “There are no set rules for designing and implementing your experiments, as the range of topics and activities is potentially so extensive. However there are some basic points to be aware of:” (Brown, 2008) Brown (2008), then goes on to note elements which are each important in their own right. These will be presented below in the same order as they are presented by Brown, with notes made about them to demonstrate that the designing and implementing of these experimental procedures are not as simple as they might seem.

What Will Your Experiments Consist of? Seems like something that should be reasonably obvious, but is often forgotten, especially by those who are not professionals in the field. Questions that need to be asked are things like whether the experiments are single or multi-staged? How long will they take? How many variables are there? How many times will the experiments be run? (Brown, 2008) These are questions which Brown 2008, poses. Further in the testing consideration it is best if the experiments are reproducible, so others can use the methods. This means that records need to be kept of every element of the experiment for this to be possible. These all need to be attacked to the research question which is established.

© Henry Walker 2016

Page 7

Anticipate Your Outcomes “what types of data will your experiments generate (NB we are talking about the broad types of data here, not specific results)? While all experiments have the potential to generate the odd unexpected piece of data, there should not be too many of these (it makes recording that bit harder!) if your experiments have been well designed and pre-planned.” (Brown, 2008) Information generated in this consideration allows for the planning of forms and storage for the data which will be collected. If there are vast amounts of data which will be collected, collecting this by hand and then sorting through it will take immense amounts of time so some kind of computer storage would be best for it, whereas small amounts of data can be recorded by hand. Experiments which are properly designed and stick well to their questions should produce outcomes which are expected to a point, and thus easily dealt with in the interpretation of the results.

Data Recording Data recording is vital to the experimental process. Each and every stage of the experiment from construction to action to disposal should be recorded. No element of this process should be thought of as too trivial. “It is very important that you create an archive documenting the results of your experiments. This archive should take the form of detailed notes and numbered and dated photographs, and the archive should grow and change as your experiments proceed. One of the most important parts of your archive should be the clear recording of which contexts or materials you have sampled or analysed in your experiments.” (Brown, 2008) A part of this was presented above in the section on anticipating the outcomes of the experiment, thus making sure you had room to store the data which is produced by the experiment. For the most part the amount of data which an experiment creates is underestimated by the experimenters and thus is often lost. Brown (2008) suggests creating pre-printed forms for recording the data for simply recording the data as it appears with pre-determined headings. This can also allow for easier analysis later on. “it is all too easy to let an experiment progress to its conclusion and only then realise that half of your data has been lost as it has fundamentally changed in character over the second half of the experiment. In short: sketch out the stages of your experiments before you begin (perhaps as a basic flow-chart) and think about what data will be generated, how it will change, and when you should be recording it. You should also remember that data recording can be done in many different ways: e.g. artefact or feature measurements, activity timings, video or audio recordings, and questionnaires or interviews with the experimental participants.” (Brown, 2008) Pre-prepare to record data before any sort of experimentation actually starts. This way any data which is generated can be easily recorded. Attempt to record the data for the experiment in several different methods simultaneously and preferably by more than one person. This allows for better recording of data and less chance of © Henry Walker 2016

Page 8

something being missed in the recording. In the case of HEMA and test-cutting, for the most part, no actual data is actually recorded at all. This needs to be changed for the process to be considered scientific and more than here-say and conjecture to be considered the results of such so-called experiments.

Be Flexible “you may well find during the course of running your experiments that your intended scheme of work needs slightly modifying (e.g. as a result of unfavourable weather conditions or certain activities taking a longer or shorter time than you anticipated). This is not necessarily a problem (although major changes should be avoided if possible, as you’ve usually not had the chance to consider their implications fully), but do remember to fully record any changes in your experimental procedures as you go along.” (Brown, 2008) Brown (2008) is saying, above is that, things will go wrong and things will need modification. The most important thing is that when this sort of thing happens during the experiment, it is vital that any changes which are made to the experiment are recorded. If the experiment needs to be re-started, the previous data should not be discarded but kept for reference. Every change in the experimental procedure needs to be recorded and also the reason for it.

Resources Regardless of the experiment being conducted, they all need resources of some kind. These resources clearly need to be organised ahead of the experiment being conducted. Consider what resources will be needed for the experiment: location, personnel, equipment, time, and finances (Brown, 2008). Each one of these will have an impact to some degree or another. What is even more important in the field of HEMA for accurate experimentation is knowledge, both mental and physical knowledge. “Experimentation and actual physical exercise, which in this context could also be termed "experimental archaeology", should be used to verify the plausibility of using the weapons and armour in the assumed way. Sometimes insufficient knowledge and lack of practical experience can result in rather strange conclusions, which could in the worst case be perpetuated in subsequent literature, thus contributing to the ever-growing corpus of common misconceptions.” (Ijäs, 2014) In the case of experimentation in the field of HEMA the correct method for using the weapon is also an absolutely necessary resource. Without this resource, the results from the experiment performed will result in incorrect reasoning and incorrect interpretation. For the HEMA practitioner, the skills in the use of the weapon are as essential as the skills of the archaeologist in removing an artefact from the ground, or the smith correctly constructing the weapon. With regard to resources, it is also that the experiment in the case of archaeology is a recreation of an historical/archaeological situation for the experiment, so it is essential that the experiment should use material from the period, or as close as possible (Outram, 2008). If a person was to construct and experiment about Iron Age weapons and use a steel sword, it would be pointless, as © Henry Walker 2016

Page 9

would be testing it against a suit of armour from out of the period. For the HEMA practitioner the weapon needs to be historically and culturally correctly placed.

Risk assessment and Health & Safety Most of the experiments conducted by HEMA practitioners will involve the use of weapons of some kind. This will usually be demonstrating the damage capacity of the weapon against a particular target. As a result this will involve the wielding of a weapon against a target. This means that there will be some clear risk issues and also health and safety issues which will need to be addressed before any experimentation occurs. Risk assessments and health and safety need to be considered in consideration of the experiment being conducted (Brown, 2008). In the case of Experiments with any sort of test-cutting, this needs to be with regard to the participants in the test-cutting, but also with regard to others who may be watching or collecting data. Without these considerations there are lots of safety issues which can ensue and the health hazards which can occur are completely unthinkable not to mention the thought of the impact upon the other practitioners of HEMA in general.

Disposal “almost all experimental archaeology will generate quantities of either material debris or archaeological features (e.g. pits or earthworks). You need to consider whether the material debris (e.g. the débitage and tools from stone knapping experiments) is going to be stored (and if so, where, and will this storage generate any costs?) or discarded: if the latter then you need to think very carefully about how you will avoid potentially contaminating the archaeological record (i.e. adding non-genuine materials to it).” (Brown, 2008) In the case of HEMA practitioners, this is usually a simple case of the disposal of test-cutting materials, but still needs to be considered. This is especially the case where animal carcasses are used in the place of human flesh as substitutes. All of this material needs to be disposed of correctly and the area in which the experiment was conducted properly cleaned up so no garbage is left behind.

Recording & Analysing Experimental Data To record and analyse the data properly it is essential that the appropriate skills have been attained. For the most part this will consist of the proper eye to collecting accurate data in the first place and recording it accurately. In the case of data analysis, it must be handled carefully to ensure that proper results and conclusions are gained, based on the evidence which has been collected.

© Henry Walker 2016

Page 10

Data Recording “whether your experiments are generating new artefacts, biological evidence, structures, or features, or modifying such materials through use or the passage of time, you will need to develop a recording system for this material and be able to confidently record the data. ... You will need to make sure that you label all of your samples clearly and logically (e.g. with the site or project name, the sample number, and the date). It is also good practice to keep an incremental list of sample numbers in a notebook to avoid the risk of duplicating numbers.” (Brown, 2008) Some of this process has already been indicated above. The most important part of this process is it must be done logically so that it is easy to compare the data at a later date. All of the data needs to be clearly labelled with dates and times along with all other relevant information so that it is not lost. Every piece of information that can give some clue as to the reason for the result of the experiment, or part of the experiment is important. This will make the data analysis process much easier later on.

Data Analysis “Given the hypothesis, the experiment is designed to recreate it at a 1:1 scale based entirely upon the archaeological data. In this context it is most important to use the best data available. There is little or no point in having to create data in order to substantiate the hypothesis. The experiment itself is conducted within the confines of its scientific nature, and at the end of its process the data yield is directly compared to the original data. If there is a similarity, the hypothesis can be tentatively accepted as valid. If there is no similarity, the hypothesis can be rejected not just as invalid but actually wrong.” (Reynolds, 1994:2) The experiment is designed to recreate a situation as recorded in the archaeological or historical data. This means that the data is important as it will decide the outcome as to the decision as to whether the hypothesis is valid or invalid. The data analysis is the part of the experiment which decides the result not the actual experiment. The experiment is merely the means of collecting the data based upon the performance of some phenomenon based on a scientific method. While qualitative data is sometimes useful and gives an impression of the experimenter’s impression of the success or failure of an experiment, quantitative data is much more useful, and “many experimental projects generate data which is amenable to quantitative analysis” (Brown, 2008). Quantitative data is able to be put into graphs easily and thus represent the results clearly in a very easily understood and scientific fashion. The data needs to be analysed for this to happen.

Potential Pitfalls Unfortunately, with regard to Experimental Archaeology, it is not all easy and some get somewhat side-tracked and fall along the way to some problems which result which causes issues and outright failures in their experiments. Indeed these failures can indeed result in failures in the overall research. To begin with will be © Henry Walker 2016

Page 11

highlighted specific ones which will relate to Experimental Archaeology, but they are not the only ones, though they are most definitely applicable. “There are many potential traps when conducting archaeological experiments, but three of the major ones are: 1. Designing an experiment whose outputs don’t relate to your overall research question(s). 2. Generating experimental results which are unclear (this is often caused because there are too many variables in your experiment, making it difficult or impossible to understand any patterning in your results). 3. Generating too much or too little data, respectively resulting in either you being unable to effectively analyse all the data (the dissertation can then appear unfinished) or your results appearing trivial or random due to vary small sample sizes.” (Brown, 2008) Brown (2008) highlights three pitfalls to archaeological experiments. The first is when the output does not relate to the overall research question. The experiment must be ensured to supply data which will help to supply answers to the question which has been asked as a result of it, if it does not, it is a waste of time. The data which it creates must be clear, thus the variables in the experiment need to be kept in check. Too many variables will decrease clarity. The sample size needs to be reasonable; this means it needs to supply enough data but not too much. An estimate needs to be made as to how much data each sample will generate and then choose a number based upon this. Outram (2008) highlights five pitfalls for the experimental archaeologist. A lack of clear aims, the process needs to stay focussed as to what is to be achieved. Insufficient detail on materials and methods, this is about doing the research into the area of history of which the experiment is to investigate, so research first. Compromise over authentic materials, using modern materials where materials from the period are absolutely required for a proper result, the difference between stainless steel and mild steel, for example. Inappropriate parameters, where the boundaries to the research are, in the case of HEMA, what period, or what cultural situation the weapon is found in. Finally, lack of academic context, this is of great concern to the academic community, how does it fit into the academic model? (Outram, 2008). These are the pit-falls that can be found in Experimental Archaeology from the academic point of view. For the most part they also apply to the HEMA practitioner who is serious about looking into serious test-cutting and the effect it would have upon an actual situation. These pitfalls need to be examined as experiments in test-cutting are being performed to ensure that, if it is to be taken seriously, none of these traps have been set off.

Conclusion Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) is based upon the historical treatises of the periods in which its interests lie. Unfortunately due to its relationship with other re-enactment groups and its past history, it is often considered as the realm of amateurs. The research which is done, even though much of it is into such treatise of a high calibre is also denied due to its lack of faith on the part of academia. This is a history which the practitioners of HEMA must fight against. © Henry Walker 2016

Page 12

What has been presented above is a description of Experimental Archaeology with the methods and processes described, with notes about how practitioners of HEMA can become involved in these processes. This is designed to encourage members of this community to branch out their research and examine the possibility of presenting research into fields where credit can be taken by the community, and thus recognition given. The two prime areas where HEMA presents itself are in the presentation of the martial arts in recreation of the treatises and also in the practical art of testcutting. The former is designed to work through treatises to examine techniques as they are presented in these treatises and then work through them in a practical fashion to learn them and then use them in a generally un-antagonistic scenario. The latter, test-cutting, is designed to test the ability of weapons to cut and damage targets, armoured and unarmoured. It is here where Experimental Archaeology and its processes can help. The majority of test-cutting which has been performed by members of the HEMA community to date has not been scientific in any way, shape or form. For the most part it starts as an argument about one weapon not being able to cut in a particular fashion, which is then “proven” wrong by cutting against some medium with a sharp weapon by some other practitioner. No data is collected, nothing is recorded. This is not the way forward. For the HEMA community to be respected by the academic community as being at the fore-front of their area, the community must start heading toward a scientific basis for these experiments. With regard to this Experimental Archaeology shows the way to do this. Experimental Archaeology, as presented, provides the processes and methods through which proper experimentation and data collection can be achieved. To further enhance this it would be even better if there was communication between the two communities so that the HEMA community could improve their methods. The advantages that are present at the moment are that the HEMA has ample evidence for the methods of cutting and thrusting as provided by the treatises which are recognised historical documents. There is also an ample skill-base for delivering the blows from the weapons at the targets as required of the experiments. As HEMA and the interest in swords increases, there are also ample examples of faithfully recreated weapons of the appropriate periods for performing the cuts against the targets. With these advantages in place, it places the HEMA community in a position where there can only be positives from the outcome. A problem which faces the HEMA community already is the need for a proper scientifically based test-cutting medium. There have been many examples tried, and many theories proposed. It is suggested at this point in time that contact with the medical community and professionals in this field for this and also the results of the test-cutting can only be a boon to the cause. To sum up, for the HEMA community to be taken seriously, papers need to be presented of academic quality to the academic community. This is our best avenue for the recognition that is deserved by many of the members of the community at large. However to achieve this level of achievement, the appropriate level of research also needs to be applied to the subject at hand. Test-cutting needs to start with a question and a proposed experiment. Proceed with the experiment, the collection of data, the analysis of data, and finally the presentation of results. Simply posting a video on YouTube of the destruction of some milk bottles filled with water simply is not enough. © Henry Walker 2016

Page 13

Bibliography Brown, Dr. A. et al (2008) Experimental Archaeology Dissertations: Guide to Best Practice For Undergraduate & Postgraduate students, Version 1.0 (August 2008), Oxford University, Oxford Ijäs, A. (2014) A Comment Regarding the Handedness of Anglo-Saxon and Viking Swords, www.combatarchaeology.org Molloy, B. (2007) “What’s the Bloody Point?: Bronze Age swordsmanship in Ireland and Britain” in The Cutting Edge: Studies in Ancient and Medieval Combat, Tempus Publishing Limited, Gloucestershire Molloy, B. (2008) “Martial arts and materiality: a combat archaeology perspective on Aegean swords of the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC” in World Archaeology Vol. 40(1): 116–134, Taylor & Francis Molloy, B. (2010) “Swords and Swordsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age” in American Journal of Archaeology (Vol. 11, No.3, July 2010), Archaeological Institute of America, http://www.atypon-link.com/AIA/doi/abs/10.3764/aja.114.3.403 Molloy, B. (2011) “Use-Wear Analysis and Use-Patterns of Bronze Age Swords” in Uckelmann, M. and Mödlinger, M. (eds), Bronze Age Warfare: Manufacture and Use of Weaponry: BAR International Series 2255 Archaeopress, Oxford Outram, A. (2008) “Introduction to experimental archaeology” in World Archaeology (Vol. 40 (1) 1-6), Routledge, London Plew, M. (2009) "Experimental Archaeology" in The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Brian M. Fagan, ed., Oxford University Press 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Boise State University. Reynolds, P. (1994) Experimental Archaeology: A Perspective for the Future, The Reuvens Lecture 5, Stichting voor de Nederlandse Archeologie

© Henry Walker 2016

Page 14