Theoretical Basis (State: 28.03.2026)

 

Researchers working in historical disciplines (history, archaeology, art history, legal history, theology) can draw on a source base that has grown in varying degrees. Nevertheless, source material esp. for older periods remains incomplete, difficult to access or fragmentary. New insights into performance in a historical context of use are to be gained by supplementing, reconstructing and experimentally testing only fragmentarily preserved material or/and described evidence under historical conditions. Beyond the individual object, such reconstructions have epistemological relevance if they are methodologically controlled and verifiable.

This approach is based on an ever-increasing number of theoretical considerations in experimental archaeology, which, however, are usually oriented towards concrete reconstruction, at best providing a sectoral or national inventory and rarely undertaking historically overarching classifications. This approach goes beyond this, also in technical terms, by conceptually including written sources and opening up the discussion of methods and theory to history and, in principle, to the historical sciences–but not without starting from concrete examples that are no longer purely ‘archaeological’ in nature.

With its new focus on practicability, the approach can be understood as a ‘practicability turn’: the targeted empirical reproduction of artefacts as well as their proven effectiveness and contexts of action allow central and additional questions about pre-modern societies to be answered in addition to textual and material traditions.

B. Tang (2026) categorized by systemizing the terminology in the last issue of EXARC experimental archaeology (in China) broadly into five tiers of research: 1) with focus on the reconstruction of ancient artefacts, 2) with focus on the reconstruction of ancient technologies, 3) with focus on the reconfiguration of archaeological features, 4) with focus on the reconfiguration of ancient human behaviours, and last 5) with focus on the reconfiguration of social systems.

This approach should now be opened up not only to a broader source base from other historically oriented disciplines, but also to the repertoire of theories developed in the historical disciplines, expanding them to include practicable, historically contextualized theory. In doing so, these considerations contribute to a methodologically consistent, verifiable foundation for the experimental reconstruction of craft skills in pre-modern and early modern societies.

A large part of the material and written tradition–varying from region to region, but overall up to 90-95%–has been lost. What has been preserved is of varying quality or significance, as the selection was usually made at random. Furthermore, what has been handed down to us is often fragmentary.

Furthermore, the production circumstances and the necessities of everyday life were not recorded in writing, and the products themselves were partly made of perishable materials, which were only preserved under favourable climatic conditions and then possibly not representative of individual regions. The rare texts were often written by people (who were not dependent on daily earnings) without the relevant specialist knowledge. So, with no information about the essential basics of craftsmanship our knowledge of the reality of life for the general population, around 90%, is considerably limited. The majority of craftsmen do not describe their production processes: because of the time-consuming nature of their work, the lack of their writing abilities and because of tactical considerations not to reveal successful techniques. Analogies (from other regions, other times, other cultures at a similar technical level) are only of further value to our cause if we can incorporate the traditions encountered there into the reconstruction or reconfiguration process.

Subjects that deal with history have divided their areas of responsibility according to the objects they focus on. We pursue an equal, interdisciplinary approach, since in principle the processes of understanding are the same for the respective objects of the past for which they declare their primary responsibility.

Combining textual reconstruction or interpretation with the creation of a handmade product yields significant additional insights: the intellectual interpretation based on sources and artefacts can be supplemented by testing the actual products, while conversely, the end product must constantly be measured against the texts and artefacts. This results in additional and mutual support, which can ultimately raise the level of insight to a significantly higher level.

By testing the product for its performance potential, the criterion of functionality is added to the criterion of plausibility (as in pure conventional interpretation). In order to make this possible, it is usually, if not always, necessary to supplement the textual or material basis when replicating. Other additions on a 1:1 scale, in simulations or models, can show scaled alternatives or offer improvements, thereby recreating or replacing the experience of generations of craftsmanship.

Full functionality, especially of tangible products, is necessary because only then is performance in accordance with the intended purpose possible. If all additions have been substituted on the basis of parallel finds as close as possible in time, and then the performance has been tested in the original context of the intended use, we have gained something in terms of our knowledge. This is all the more true as each step of the reconstructive and supplementary production is carried out according to contemporary manufacturing criteria and is documented accordingly.

Nevertheless, the result of a reconstruction and its testing are not worth much on their own if they are not placed in a higher-level frame of reference, for example in a higher-level historical context (Faber, 1982, pp.24-26; Huinzinga 1942, p.104). That means more than just reconfiguration of human behaviours and social systems. Experimental archaeology already depicts ancient and pre-modern contexts (for example Guédelon (Comité Régional du Tourisme de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 2023) https://www.burgundy-tourism.com/discover-burgundy/heritage-sites-and-museums/top-10-must-see-chateaus/guedelon-medieval-worksite/, last access 12. March 2026; Coates, McGrail, Brown, Gifford, Grainge, Greenhill, Marsden, Rankov, Tipping and Wright, 1995; de Weerd, 2001, compare Petersson and Narmo, 2011). Experience and findings from parallel discoveries and findings are incorporated in order to obtain a 1:1 full picture (Dreyer, Kaiser, Woller and Jelusic, 2022, pp.566-581). Furthermore, by reconstructively comparing the same product category from different periods and by conducting performance tests in a historical context, developments over longer periods can be explored.

The canon of methodological procedures in historical studies has long been expanded by the analytical procedures of the social sciences, which are also empirical and relate to the present. Thus, the cooperating natural sciences can be methodically and carefully integrated under a historical question. This also applies to the question of the personnel employed, which is part of the empirical approach, as performance tests are personnel-intensive. The concept of citizen science is of value here and also recently gained scientific recognition (Dreyer, 2022a).

Cultural theories under the umbrella of praxeology have already included physical actions and their technical instruments in the production of knowledge and truth, thereby expanding the spectrum of knowledge. “Practical theories assume that ‘the social’ is located in the interactions of competent actors themselves and not in an upstream structural, normative or linguistic-communicative realm outside the actors” ... “Action and structure thus form a dialectical unity, in the sense that structural elements as properties of the actors enable and produce their actions, while these actions, as a result, as a consequence of action, stabilize or modify the same structural elements.” The stability of the social order is characterized by a high proportion of routine activities that would be inconceivable without recourse to knowledge bases; changes in this order of human actors are less creative than gradual (Welskopp, 2014, p.110). With regard to our concern, the documented artefact as a ‘result’ is then the starting point for drawing conclusions about the knowledge bases, interactions, and consequences in application (especially through the tests) that are no longer documented but can now be carefully explored with the new theory. The “material turn”, to name one offshoot in this context, aims to explore the increased interest in materials and materiality (Schubert, 2010, p.1). Criticism has not been lacking (Keupp, 2017). However, if the concept of the ‘material’ refers to ‘the inescapable physicality of the actor and his interaction with things, with artefacts’, without artefacts themselves necessarily having to acquire actor qualities as ‘actants’ (Welskopp, 2014, p.111), we can nevertheless conclude for our purposes in the ‘practicability turn’ that the reconstructed ancient ship places the object itself at the centre and gives it an intrinsic value, which, although created by humans, also serves as a point of reference for humans. The materials of the ship have an intrinsic value and also influence human actions and perceptions, which can now be explored through construction and testing.

The reconstructive theory with the new focus in the ‘practicability turn’ now aims to build on this and systematize existing (including pre-scientific) initiatives and integrate them into scientific practice. The methodically structured, scientifically sound reconstruction of everyday production processes and their realistic testing in the context of overarching historical questions is intended to counter the above-mentioned criticism of conceptual armament and microcosmic fragmentation, while at the same time compensating for the paucity of sources, especially for the non-elite strata of pre-modern societies. Thus, the replica as an object of knowledge is simultaneously under pressure to prove itself, which leads the researcher who produced it back to the validity of his hypotheses and additions, and is available to the scientific community for examination in its entirety and at the same time dissected through the description of its creation and testing, and is thus objectified (Assmann, 2006; Daston and Galison, 2007; Fabian, 1983).

In the ‘practicability turn,’ the focus of investigation is therefore on the material products; but they are produced in order to close the gaps in knowledge under overarching questions with the participation of scientific disciplines in practical performance tests under historically realistic conditions. In the process, the prerequisites and conditions of the product of human endeavour are also explored. The reality check is intended to highlight the goals, successes and failures, as well as the limitations of those who acted in the past. Their performance and the product's proven track record are to be evaluated in comparison with other later/earlier or competing contemporary products in order to lend depth to the assessment.

However, the reproduction of historical handcrafted products has been practiced for a long time (Dreyer, Kaiser, Woller and Jelusic, 2022). However, this is not usually based on a consistently applied, professionally trained set of methodological tools, nor is there a scientifically sound concept that considers verifiability and, at the same time, source and factual criticism, and whose results are suitable for interlinking (McGrail, 1992; Marsden, 1993; Coates, McGrail, Brown, Gifford, Grainge, Greenhill, Marsden, Rankov, Tipping and Wright, 1995; Crumlin-Pedersen, 1995; Crumlin-Pedersen and McGrail, 2006; Weski, 2025, pp.943-944). This means that the quality of the results can be disparate, inconsistent and therefore unreliable.

The approach with the focus on the practicability, however, takes up the often-enthusiastic activities (Haude, 2015) of sustainable living history (re-enactment), integrates them, but strips these activities of their sometimes strongly idealizing and mystifying tendencies. Conversely, the researcher becomes an active participant who methodically transports himself into the world of the past – in the sense of an ‘imaginary dialogue’ with history.

So, the approach combines practical reconstruction with experimental archaeology, thus opening up the traditionally very typographically oriented disciplines of history and social sciences to the practical field, while at the same time ensuring a strict and source-critical evaluation of written statements from the period (Schmädecke and Krekel, 2022; Speck and Schäfer, 2022; Carbon, 2022; Dreyer and Speck, 2021).

The quality and significance of experimental reconstructions are measured by the traceability of their implementation. Only when all steps–from the initial findings to the construction to the test–are documented and verifiable can scientifically valid knowledge be produced.

The following eight guidelines serve to methodically secure the reconstruction process and make it intersubjectively comprehensible. They form the (potentially expandable) basic framework of the ‘practicability turn’ and are a prerequisite for the integration of the results into scientific discourse.

Guidelines

 

1)    Definition of objectives

A reconstruction begins with a precise historical question. Reconstructions should not reproduce isolated actions or objects, but must be placed in a larger historical context. The question should make it possible to a) place the production process of a trade, with all conditions from order to sale, in the context of its proven track record, and b) compare the production effort of different products in the same proven context.

 

2)    Evaluation of the source

The selection of the starting point, the material find, and the literary source is not trivial:

a) Within the discipline, the source material is evaluated according to the usual criteria, namely reliability and condition, including the criteria of supplementation and historical craft methods that lead to the full functionality of the intended replica.

b) Outside the discipline, familiarity with the methods commonly used there is necessary, and cooperation is desirable in any case–in the historical disciplines, cooperation is common and research traditions are comparable. Cooperation with subjects with different subject cultures is also necessary, from construction to testing and then evaluation: from an economic perspective, it is impossible to reconstruct the centuries of empirical knowledge that form the basis of the product in individual steps. In order to avoid methodological criticism, the validity of the basis must be continuously reviewed.

 

3)    Creation of construction plans, models, templates

As in craftsmanship, construction problems must be anticipated as far as possible before a full-scale reconstruction can be conducted with a reliable plan, in order for example to facilitate handover when (construction) teams change, as a continuous construction team under the conditions of citizen science with competent management cannot be assumed.

 

4)    Determination of construction methods

The aim is to use historically documented tools and techniques. If this is not possible throughout for cost reasons, at least the authenticity of the materials used in the product must be guaranteed for testing under historical conditions. This reduces the insights into the construction process itself. The construction process – including deviations from historical conditions – must be documented.

 

5)    Definition of historical test conditions and fields of application

Once the replica has been completed, the following points must be clarified and recorded:

a)    Historically accurate application scenarios in accordance with historical questions.

b)    Repeatability of tests, improved tests based on experience where applicable.

c)    Objective test methods.

d)   Comparability with other reconstructions, as far as these are available in published form and have been developed using comparable criteria/guidelines.

 

6)    Interdisciplinary evaluation 

Professionally assembled teams from the participating departments accompany the tests, for example, with historical and natural science (or of another discipline) expertise and through documentation and interpretation of the results, at various levels: 

a.    Laboratory conditions 

The investigations are conducted in the laboratory with scaled models. The results are compared with those on a 1:1 scale and differences are explained. 

b.    Simulation/calculation examples 

Case studies with alternative additions to the replicas that are not fully documented can be simulated cost-effectively using calculations. This allows the assembly to be conducted on full scale. In this way, the historical development can also be traced in terms of optimized adaptation to the historical constellation.

c.    Full-scale environment

On full scale, the external conditions must be as constant as possible so that results can be repeated and thus compared. Individual conditions prevent the comparability of the performance spectrum. The influence of the environment (climate, seasonal changes by region) must be documented.

d.    Interaction

The results of the model tests and simulations can be used to optimize the replicas on full scale. Conversely, parameters of the scaled model tests and simulations can be adjusted if the assumptions for the initial tests and calculations were inadequate.

 

7) Communication and publication

The results must be documented in a comprehensible manner and incorporated into scientific discussion through the publication of construction, data, methods, test scenarios, comparison with existing research, and methodological criticism and further development.

 

8) Sustainability and preservation

The elaborate replicas, made of perishable materials, should not be allowed to decay in order to optimize them, repeat tests, or refine them. In this way, expanded research, dual vocational training system or apprenticeship, and public outreach with a long-term perspective can be pursued under new questions. This also clarifies the question of the extent to which the product is economical and practical (or not) (Warnking 2015).

 

Case Studies: Gaining Insights Through Reconstruction

The studies illustrate how empirical reconstructions using the guidelines of the approach with focus on practicability can yield new, reliable knowledge – with interdisciplinary potential for all historical disciplines, especially those relating to the pre-modern era, when sources are scarce, particularly through the use of clear methodological approaches.

 

Further links

Roman Patrol Boats and Inland Navigation 50 BC to fourth Century AD

 

Roman Artillery: Torsion Guns, Onager, Bows and Arcuballistae

 

Comparison of Ancient Carts and Roman Transportation on Land and Rivers

 

Ancient Painting Techniques and Intended Effect

Literature:

1. Apel, K.-O., 1990. Diskurs und Verantwortung. Das Problem des Übergangs zur postkonventionellen Moral. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
2. Assmann, A., 2006. Der lange Schatten der Vergangenheit: Erinnerungskultur und Geschichtspolitik. München: C.H. Beck.
3. Carbon, C.-C., 2022. Über die Wahrnehmung und Wirkung von Römerbooten: Zwischen Camouflage, Überraschung und Terror. In: B. Dreyer, ed., 2022. Ein Römerboot auf dem Prüfstand – Bau und Test für Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit. Darmstadt: WBG Academic. pp.333-349.
4. Caysa, V., 2015. Empraktische Vernunft. Bern: Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften.
5. Coates, J., McGrail, S., Brown, D., Gifford, E., Grainge, G., Greenhill, B., Marsden, P., Rankov, B., Tipping, C. and Wright, E., 1995. Experimental Boat and Ship Archaeology: Principles and Methods. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24. pp.293-301.
6. Crumlin-Pedersen, O. and McGrail, S., 2006. Some Principles for the Reconstruction of Ancient Boat Structures. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 35(1). pp.53-57.
7. Crumlin-Pedersen, O., 1995. Experimental archaeology and ships – bridging the arts and the sciences. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24(4). pp.303-306.
8. Daston, L. and Galison, P., 2007. Objectivity. Cambridge: Zone Books 2007.
9. De Weerd, M.D., 2001. Römische Schiffsfunde von Zwammerdam. Lehren aus einer alten Grabung. Skyllis 4. pp.96-110.
10. Diets, H., Nungesser, F., Pettenkofer, A., ed., 2017. Pragmatismus und Theorien sozialer Praktiken. Vom Nutzen einer Theoriedifferenz, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
11. Faber, H.-G., 1982. Theorie der Geschichtswissenschaft, 5th edition. München: Beck.
12. Fabian, J., 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.
13. Gadamer, H.-G., 1965. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. 2nd edition. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
14. Gumbrecht, H.U., 2004. Diesseits der Hermeneutik. Die Produktion der Präsenz. Berlin: Surkamp Verlag.
15. Goodburn, D.M., 1993. Some further thoughts on reconstructions, replicas and simulations of ancient boats and ships. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 22(3). pp.199-203.
16. Grzesik, J., 1996. Textverstehen lernen und lehren - Geistige Operationen im Prozeß des Textverstehens und typische Methoden für die Schulung zum kompetenten Leser. 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Klett-Verl. für Wissen und Bildung.
17. Habermas, J., 1967. Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. Tübingen: Mohr.
18. J. Habermas, 1973. Erkenntnis und Interesse. 2nd edition with a new afterword. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
19. Habermas, J., 1985. Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
20. Haude, B., 2015. Krieg als Hobby? Das Leipziger Völkerschlacht-Reenactment und der Versuch einer Entgegnung. Forum Kritische Archäologie 4. pp.1-12. Available at: <https://www.kritischearchaeologie.de/repositorium/fka/Forum_Kritische_Archaeologie_2015_4.pdf> [Accessed 20 March 2026].
21. Hillebrandt, F., 2014. Soziologische Praxistheorien. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
22. Hölscher, T., ed., 2015. Klassische Archäologie. Grundwissen. 4th ediditon. Darmstadt: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
23. Huinzinga, J., 1942. Über eine Definition des Begriffs Geschichte. In: J. Huinzinga ed., 1942. Im Bann der Geschichte. Betrachtungen und Gestaltungen. Amsterdam: Akademische Verlagsanstalt Pantheon.
24. Keupp, J., 2017. Die Gegenstandslosigkeit des Materiellen: Was den material turn zum Abtörner macht. Mittelalter. Interdisziplinäre Forschung und Rezeptionsgeschichte. Available at:  https://mittelalter.hypotheses.org/10617 [Accessed 12 March 2026].
25. Marsden, P., 1993. Replica versus reconstruction. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 22(3). pp.206-207.
26. McGrail, S., 1992. Replicas, reconstructions and floating hypotheses, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21(4). pp.353-355.
27. Meucci, C., Pagano, M., Bertocchi, A., Cami, R., Procaccio, A., Indirli, M., Forni, M., Clemente, P., Paciello, A., Ahmadi, H. and Fuller,K., 2001. The Use of an Innovative 3D-Isolation System for Seismic and Ambient Vibration to Protect the Roman Ship Excavated at Ercolano. 7th International Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of Vibrations of Structure. Assisi, Italy, Conference Proceedings 2001. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259890545> [Accessed 21 Mach 2026].
28. Petersson, B., Narmo, L.E., eds., 2011. Experimental Archaeology. Between Enlightment and Experience. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8°, Volume 62. Värnamo: Elanders/Fälth & Hässler.
29. Reckwitz, A., 2003. Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 32(4). pp.282-301.
30. Roberts, G., ed., 2001. The History and Narrative Reader. New York: Routledge.
31. Rothacker, E., 1954. Die dogmatische Denkform in den Geisteswissenschaften und das Problem des Historismus. Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag.
32. Schäfer, H. 2013. Die Instabilität der Praxis. Reproduktion und Transformation des Sozialen in der Praxistheorie. Weilerswirst: Velbrück Wissenschaft.
33. Schäfer, H., ed., 2016. Praxistheorie. Ein soziologisches Forschungsprogramm. Bielefeld: Transcript.
34. Schatzki, Th., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny E., ed., 2001. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. New York: Routledge.
35. Schmädecke, M. and Krekel, Chr., 2022.  Das Bindemittelsystem der Enkaustischen Malerei auf Schiffen: eine kunsttechnologische Quellenanalyse. In: B. Dreyer, ed., 2022. Ein Römerboot auf dem Prüfstand – Bau und Test für Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit. Darmstadt: WBG Academic. pp.311-332.
36. Schubert, M., 2010. Materialität in der Editionswissenschaft. Berlin: de Gruyter.
37. Speck, M. and Schäfer, Chr., 2022. Enkaustik – Farbe für die Fridericiana Alexandrina Navis (F.A.N.), Versuch einer antiken Gestaltung. In: B. Dreyer, ed., 2022. Ein Römerboot auf dem Prüfstand – Bau und Test für Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit. Darmstadt: WBG Academic. pp.295-310.
38. Steffy, J.R., 1994. Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of the Shipwrecks. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
39. Tang, B., 2026. Thoughts on the Concepts and Methods of Experimental Archaeology. EXARC 2026(1). Available at: https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10827 [Accesses 21 March 2026].
40. Thomas, J., 2004. Archaeology and Modernity. London: Routledge.
41. Warnking, P., 2015. Der römische Seehandel in seiner Blütezeit. Rahmenbedingungen, Seerouten, Wirtschaftlichkeit. Pharos. Studien zur griechisch-römischen Antike. Volume 36. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
42. Weischer, Chr., 2022. Stabile UnGleichheiten. Eine praxeologische Sozialstrukturanalyse. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
43. Welskopp, Th., 2014. Unternehmen Praxisgeschichte. Historische Perspektiven auf Kapitalismus, Arbeit und Klassengesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
44. Welskopp, Th., Reichardt, S., Haasis, L. and Rieske, C., 2015. Historische Praxeologie – Dimensionen vergangenen Handelns. Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag.
45. Dreyer, B., 1998. Vom Buchstaben zum Datum. Einige Bemerkungen zur aktuellen ‘Steinschreiberforschung’. Hermes 126. pp.276-296.
46. Kaiser, A. and Dreyer, B., 2021. Danuvina Alacris. In: WMB Weinviertel Museum Betriebs GmbH, eds., 2021. Experimentelle Archäologie. Mistelbach 2021, 82-87.
47. Dreyer, B. and Speck, M., 2021. Farbe und Intention. Rekonstruktion antiker enkaustischer Bemalung auf der F.A.N. und DANUVINA ALACRIS. Skyllis 21. pp.62-71.
48. Stamminger, M., Rückert, D. and Gatternig, B. and Dreyer, B., 2022. Die F.A.N. virtuell besuchen und testen: Graphische Datenverarbeitung, Numerik und das Römerboot. In: B. Dreyer, ed., 2022. Ein Römerboot auf dem Prüfstand – Bau und Test für Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit. Darmstadt: WBG Academic. pp. 499-514.
49. Dreyer, B., Kaiser, A., Woller, R. and Jelusic, M., 2022. Die spätantike Danuvina alacris (navis) im Projekt Living Danube Limes. In: B. Dreyer, ed., 2022. Ein Römerboot auf dem Prüfstand – Bau und Test für Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit. Darmstadt: WBG Academic. pp.556-581.