Taape Tillmann, Smith Pamela H, Uchacz Tianna Helena
Columbia University - History, 511 Fayerweather Hall, MC 2509, 1180 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10027, USA.
Ber Wiss. 2020 Sep;43(3):323-340. doi: 10.1002/bewi.202000004.
What are historians doing in the laboratory? Looking back over six years of collaborative work, researchers of the Making and Knowing Project at Columbia University discuss their experience with hands-on reconstruction as a historical method. This work engages practical forms of knowledge-from pigment-making to metal casting-recorded in the BnF Ms. Fr. 640, an anonymous French manuscript compiled in the later sixteenth century. Bodily encounters with materials and processes of the past offer insights into the material and mental worlds of early modern artists and artisans, and train the eye in the interpretation of historical objects. At the same time, reconstruction contributes to the interpretation of the text: it is only by attempting to implement the instructions of practical or recipe literature that these texts can be understood as vehicles of emergent knowledge that only fully manifests itself in the doing. Overall, our approach to reconstruction mirrors that of the anonymous author-practitioner, who explored a wide range of techniques through experimenting and writing.
历史学家在实验室里做什么?回顾六年的合作工作,哥伦比亚大学“制作与认知项目”的研究人员讨论了他们将亲身实践重建作为一种历史研究方法的经验。这项工作涉及各种实践知识形式——从颜料制作到金属铸造——这些知识记录在法国国家图书馆编号为Fr. 640的手稿中,这是一本16世纪后期编纂的匿名法国手稿。亲身接触过去的材料和工艺,能让我们深入了解早期现代艺术家和工匠的物质世界与精神世界,并训练我们解读历史文物的眼力。同时,重建工作有助于对文本的解读:只有尝试按照实践或食谱文献中的说明去做,这些文本才能被理解为新兴知识的载体,而这种知识只有在实践中才能完全展现出来。总体而言,我们的重建方法与那位匿名作者兼从业者的方法相呼应,后者通过实验和写作探索了广泛的技术。