Experimental Archaeology

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
The first video tries to uncover the mystery behind the victory of 7,000 English troop led by King Henry V against 20,000 French troop in the Agincourt’s battlefield. Archaeologist Tim Sutherland and metal detector expert Simon Richardson want to learn about the factors for their win which they figure can be found in the artifact and the Agincourt’s landscape. Thus, they test three theories through experimental archaeology: (1) the longbow theory, (2) Agincourt’s soil, and (3) Agincourt’s landscape. To prove the longbow theory, they try the artifact bodkin arrow to hit a steel, which supposedly makes up the French armor. But the hypothesis is disproved because the arrow bent to steel. Secondly, they extract Agincourt’s soil to prove that when wet, steel armor resists to it. It turns out that the steel dipped in wet Agincourt’s soil sticks. This theory validates how the armor-clad French troop lost the battle. Lastly, they analyze the funnel-shaped topography of Agincourt. This explains the deaths of French troop due to stampede. The Agincourt topography is hostile to numerous French soldiers. This series of tests done is successful to validate their assumptions. This experimental archaeology is convincing.
The second video is a commentary to the first which raises five problems: (1) misunderstanding the history, (2) wrong type of people who used the bow, (3) the bow, (4) the arrow, and (5) the armor. I don’t think the second video understands the point of the first but the commentator makes a good point about the bows and arrows which are minor flaws only.

However, it is not enough to disrepute the first video which is research- and interview-based. Also, I see no problem with the first video. In fact, Simon and Tim’s first assumption was proven wrong making the documentary more reliable. I still believe in the credibility of the first video.