5 ms·

Look, I love the pictures, and the spirit of the endeavor. I don't so much love this: >Draken Harald Hårfagre is actually not a replica, rather a real-life Vik

Look, I love the pictures, and the spirit of the endeavor. I don't so much love this: >Draken Harald Hårfagre is actually not a replica, rather a real-life Viking ship built based ancient Norwegian boat building techniques dug up from the history books and archaeological findings So... a replica. A very faithful replica, made with care to historical accuracy.

protomyth 10y ago
Replica tends to mean modern thing that looks like original but has quite a few modern parts and built with modern techniques. Kits cars builders have made the word replica problematic.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  I think, "Historically accurate replica, made with exquisite care" would avoid that trap.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Maybe. Every time I hear replica, I see some kit car on a modern chassis, so I might be a bit biased.
dghf 10y ago
That gave me pause, too. I think they mean it's not a replica because there's no original -- or rather, it is the original. That is, it's not a copy of any particular Viking-era ship found buried in mud or whatever; it's an entirely new ship, made using documented (and inferred) methods from the era. It's as if someone made a ship that was quite like, yet also distinctly different from, HMS Victory (or the Santa Maria, or whatever historical vessel floats your, er, boat): not a replica, more a sister-ship.
cromulent 10y ago
It's a new ship, using the same methods, not a copy of an old ship. It's not a duplicate of a previous vessel but a new bespoke vessel.
nkrisc 10y ago
Given that it is neither a copy of an original or unique work (Starry Night or the Statue of Liberty, for example) nor a scale model, I think that it is not a replica. It is a genuine, modern Viking ship. However I suppose you could argue it is not a true Viking ship as there are simply no more Vikings. It is a ship built in the Viking style and manner.
panglott 10y ago
I was puzzled by that as well. It sounds like what they mean is that they tried to replicate the construction methods, not merely the exterior form of a Viking ship, or replicate a specific Viking ship.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
There is a fairly detailed set of rules about restoration vs replica vs original. Things built with the same materials using the same tools and techniques are "originals". I did a bit of research on this when trying to buy an original Scottish Claymore sword. I had a great discussion with a curator at the British Museum (which has an excellent arms and armor exhibit) about my conundrum and he suggested having one forged, in the same way and with the same materials, was in fact getting an original. The difference being that it didn't have a "past" or sets of stories to go with it, but as I was looking for something that would have its own stories that wasn't the important bit. He referred me to a craftsman that I commissioned to make one, it took about 9 months from start to finish. Then there are "restorations" which are original parts with non-original parts. The Hiller Air museum had a docent who was working on restoring a WWII P-40 which had the original number plate, firewall and seat frames, but the rest was fabricated using more modern means. The plane would still be a P40 but as a restoration it would be a mix of older and newer parts some of which had been manufactured using techniques or materials that were unavailable during the war, so not "original".
- dammitcoetzee 10y ago
  That's cool. Do you have any pictures of the sword or process?
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Strange choice of language. What word do they use for things that are "original" in the ordinary sense of the word? Surely there's something less awkward than "original with a past"?
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    There are "historically significant" artifacts which are things that are both original and something about them was also historically important or interesting. And of course artifacts that are historically insignificant but original and so sometimes good examples of items from the time. The Steamboat Arabia museum has a lot of stuff you would find in the 1850's version of WalMart, none of it is historically significant but the items are great examples of what the stuff people were talking about when they wrote letters and books probably looked and felt like. The key is separating the item (which can be an original, a re-creation[1], a restored original, or a replica) and the context (the item's history) [1] I believe, but am not sure, that this was the term for something made with the original materials but using different techniques. Some things like Samurai swords have a gap where it was lost how they were made, and so all you get are recreations of swords of that type rather than new original swords. And yes, I know, its all semantics really, but archivists are nothing if not sticklers about details.

protomyth 10y ago

Replica tends to mean modern thing that looks like original but has quite a few modern parts and built with modern techniques. Kits cars builders have made the word replica problematic.

Aelinsaar 10y ago
I think, "Historically accurate replica, made with exquisite care" would avoid that trap.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Maybe. Every time I hear replica, I see some kit car on a modern chassis, so I might be a bit biased.

dghf 10y ago

That gave me pause, too. I think they mean it's not a replica because there's no original -- or rather, it is the original. That is, it's not a copy of any particular Viking-era ship found buried in mud or whatever; it's an entirely new ship, made using documented (and inferred) methods from the era. It's as if someone made a ship that was quite like, yet also distinctly different from, HMS Victory (or the Santa Maria, or whatever historical vessel floats your, er, boat): not a replica, more a sister-ship.

cromulent 10y ago

It's a new ship, using the same methods, not a copy of an old ship. It's not a duplicate of a previous vessel but a new bespoke vessel.

nkrisc 10y ago

Given that it is neither a copy of an original or unique work (Starry Night or the Statue of Liberty, for example) nor a scale model, I think that it is not a replica. It is a genuine, modern Viking ship. However I suppose you could argue it is not a true Viking ship as there are simply no more Vikings. It is a ship built in the Viking style and manner.

panglott 10y ago

I was puzzled by that as well. It sounds like what they mean is that they tried to replicate the construction methods, not merely the exterior form of a Viking ship, or replicate a specific Viking ship.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

There is a fairly detailed set of rules about restoration vs replica vs original. Things built with the same materials using the same tools and techniques are "originals". I did a bit of research on this when trying to buy an original Scottish Claymore sword. I had a great discussion with a curator at the British Museum (which has an excellent arms and armor exhibit) about my conundrum and he suggested having one forged, in the same way and with the same materials, was in fact getting an original. The difference being that it didn't have a "past" or sets of stories to go with it, but as I was looking for something that would have its own stories that wasn't the important bit. He referred me to a craftsman that I commissioned to make one, it took about 9 months from start to finish. Then there are "restorations" which are original parts with non-original parts. The Hiller Air museum had a docent who was working on restoring a WWII P-40 which had the original number plate, firewall and seat frames, but the rest was fabricated using more modern means. The plane would still be a P40 but as a restoration it would be a mix of older and newer parts some of which had been manufactured using techniques or materials that were unavailable during the war, so not "original".

dammitcoetzee 10y ago
That's cool. Do you have any pictures of the sword or process?
jessriedel 10y ago
Strange choice of language. What word do they use for things that are "original" in the ordinary sense of the word? Surely there's something less awkward than "original with a past"?
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  There are "historically significant" artifacts which are things that are both original and something about them was also historically important or interesting. And of course artifacts that are historically insignificant but original and so sometimes good examples of items from the time. The Steamboat Arabia museum has a lot of stuff you would find in the 1850's version of WalMart, none of it is historically significant but the items are great examples of what the stuff people were talking about when they wrote letters and books probably looked and felt like. The key is separating the item (which can be an original, a re-creation[1], a restored original, or a replica) and the context (the item's history) [1] I believe, but am not sure, that this was the term for something made with the original materials but using different techniques. Some things like Samurai swords have a gap where it was lost how they were made, and so all you get are recreations of swords of that type rather than new original swords. And yes, I know, its all semantics really, but archivists are nothing if not sticklers about details.