Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch.43(2020): 341–366www.bwg.wiley-vch.de DOI: 10.1002/bewi.202000010 Outofthe Ivy and into theArctic: ImitationCoral Reconstruction in Cross-Cultural Contexts** DonnaBilak* Summary: This essay discusses imitation coral reconstruction workshops based on arecipe from asixteenth-century “book of secrets” that took place in three different educational contexts:Columbia University,Nuna- vut Arctic College, and UniversitätHamburg. It reflects on the utility of re- construction and material literacy as present-day history of science meth- odologies in which scholarly textual interpretationmeets physical re- search. It also considers the nature of cultural heritage in shaping material practice through an Inuit cultural context, in which the acquisition and disseminationofknowledge is not rooted in textual traditions, but bodily embedded in oral histories, craft technology,and land stewardship. The essay also presents suggestionsfor new collaborative practices between humanists, artisans, and scientists that can be facilitated by reconstruc- tion methodology. Keywords: imitationcoral, wonder,reconstruction, Arctic,pedagogy, ex- periential learning Introduction Sometime during the1580s, in or around Toulouse,amanset aboutthe task of compilinga“book of secrets.”1 It broughttogetherhis knowledgeofdifferent kindsofartisanal technologiesgainedfromtexts,hearsay,and first-hand experi- ence,and by thetimehefinishedrecording allthis, perhapswithpublication in mind,hehad filled 170 folios with hundreds of entries. Thefirst entryinthis compilationisarecipe formakingimitation coral(Figure 1). Currently, this manuscript is part of themassive “CollectiondeBØthune” held in theManuscripts Department of theBibliothquenationale de France,identi- fied by itsshelfmark Ms.Fr. 640. Severalyears ago,areferencetoitcaughtthe 1 Smith2020. D. Bilak, IndependentScholar andAdjunct Part-TimeFaculty at NewYorkUniversity, Gallatin School of IndividualizedStudy,1WashingtonPlace NewYork, NY 10003, E-Mail: [email protected] ** SincerethankstoPamelaH.Smith (ColumbiaUniversity), BeataHejnowicz (Nunavut Arctic College), andDominik Hünniger (UniversitätHamburg)for providingexperimentalforums. HeartfeltthankstoMarieke Hendriksen forthe opportunity to processmyexperiences andpres- entmyideas in this specialissue. 2020 Wiley-VCH GmbH 341 DonnaBilak Figure 1: “Coral Contrefaict” in Ms.Fr. 640, c.1580, fol. 3r.Manuscriptdetailfromthe Making and KnowingProject,online: https://edition640.makingandknowing.org/#/folios/3r/f/3r/tl (accessed13 June 2020). eyeofanhistorian of early modern science, Pamela Smith, in abook on thesix- teenth-century Huguenot ceramicist,Bernard Palissy, 2 andher curiosityled to its excavation outfromthe archival colossusofthe BØthunecollection. Itssubse- quentinvestigation generatedaresearchenterpriseknown as theMakingand KnowingProject (M&K) underPamela’sdirection at Columbia University,3 dedi- catedtothe material andintellectualexploration of Ms.Fr. 640 throughthe his- torical reconstruction of itsentries.4 “Coral”was amongthe very firstgroup of recipesthatthe M&Kteamrecon- structed in December2014. Ihavebeenfascinatedwiththisrecipefromthe time when Iwas apostdoctoralscholar on M&K, from 2014 to 2017. In addition to participatinginthe M&Kimitation coralreconstruction, Ihaveled twoother 2 Amico1996. 3 Smithetal. 2014. 4 Making andKnowing Projectetal. 2020. 342 Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch. 43 (2020):341 –366 Outofthe Ivyand into theArctic “coral”-makingworkshops,atavocational school in the Canadian Arctic with InuitMetal Arts students in May2015, andatthe UniversitätHamburg with aca- demiccolleaguesinFebruary2020. Each groupworkedfromthe same text,yet all threeworkshops produced distinctly different“coral” results. Why? This essayinvestigatescross-cultural“coral”-makingtoexplore what theitera- tionsofareconstruction canrevealabout communities, practice,and theco-crea- tion of knowledge. It presents my reflectionsonhow reconstruction changes based on settingand people,and theirknowledge sets,togetherwithahistorically inflectedgenealogy of coral. It is designed as aseriesofintersectingcasestudies that narrates my evolvingrelationshipwithreconstructioninhow “coral”-making playsout across differentaudiences,indifferent contexts andenvironments. The transparency afforded by afrank personal account allows me to bringthe rangeof reactionsintofocus that infuse andinfluence theseworkshops:excitement, doubt, confusion, anxiety, surprise,wonder. Ialsodrawattention to thegenerative powerofhuman errorinpedagogical practice,and howits acknowledgement can facilitate agileand constructive responsestouncertainty andfailure that enhance theteachingand learning process. Achronologicalframework does noteffectively convey theexperientialcomplex that this studyaimstoarticulate. It begins,there- fore,withthe most recent workshop at theUniversitätHamburg,a“coral” recon- structionthatalmostfoundered.Thisparticularaccount also interweavesrecollec- tionson“coral”-making in theM&K labatColumbia in 2014, whichIdrew upon during theHamburg reconstruction in striving to counteract unexpected material reactions. Thenextsection contextualizes theculturalunderstanding and useofcoral in theMediterranean region from antiquitytothe earlymodern period.Suchorganizationmirrors the“show-then-tell”formatIadoptedfor the Hamburgworkshopwhere ourreconstructionsession wasfollowed by adiscussion aboutcoral andmeaning-making in earlymodernhumanist andartisanal spheres. Thefinal part of this essayrelates theimitation coralworkshopthattookplace in theCanadianArcticwithInuit MetalArtsstudentsin2015, wherebyablunder of mine concerning akey material in fact enabledthe studentstolay cultural claimtoareconstruction exercise around asixteenth-century French recipe in an unexpected way. Iuse thetermreconstructionacrossthese differentcasestudies forits flexibility in conveying thesense of building somethingagain as wellasre-enactmentfrom available evidence.5 This premisealsoinvites us to consider thethree imitation coralworkshops as presenting akindofethnography of experience,6 illuminating theheady emotionalmix of playfulnessand apprehension that reconstruction work stirsup. This constitutesanimportant elementofreconstructionmethodol- ogy.Learninghow to work with—and through—such feelings canbeamazingly intellectually transformative.Reconstructionisnot aboutgivingorfollowing in- structions.Itisabout workingwithmaterials to probe theunknown to learnwhat 5 Amongthe growingbodyofscholarship on thesubject of reconstruction,re-enactment, andperfor- mance, seeHagendijk 2018;Forsetal. 2016;Chang 2011;Staubermann 2011. 6 Forlearningbydoing,see Ingold 2013;alsoBaiocchietal. 2013. Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch. 43 (2020):341 –366 343 DonnaBilak you do notknow.Thisexperienceyieldsunderstanding throughself-awareness, whichprimesustoperceivefailure as an invitation to experiment,toengageinin- tellectualrisk-taking,and to trainintuition in producingnew knowledge. 2. Hamburg, February 2020 Oftentimes,the seed of aproject gets plantedataninformalsocialgathering.As it happened,the Hamburgworkshopwas theoutcome of alivelydinnerconver- sation whereImet DominikHünniger,aresearcheratthe UniversitätHamburg with the Forschungsgruppe “Imaginarien derKraft.”7 Dominikwas keen to intro- duce hiscolleaguestoanM&K-style reconstruction workshop,and given my ex- perience as aformerpostdoc on theproject,Iwasin. Iproposedthe imitation coralrecipefromMs. Fr.640 as suitable foraone-daymeeting,and Dominikas- sembledthe requisitematerials basedonmyitemization.8 However, intellectual contextualizationwas intentionally minimal: Ipre-circulatedacase studyofmate- rialsand meaning-making in earlymodernEuropetoprovide abroad frameof referencefor theexperiment,9 as opposedtoscholarship aboutM&K reconstruc- tion.10 My rationalewas simple.Ididnot want to give awaythe reconstruction experience beforeithappened. Itakeafluidapproachtoreconstructionthatis nottightly focusedonproving/disprovingahypothesis.Rather, Iuse material ex- plorationtoask:Whatdoesour thinking look like,whatmight we produce, when we arenot trying to come up with answers?11 This premiseevinces therole that uncertainty playsinknowledge formation, even as it challenges trainedap- proaches in thehumanitieswhere research emphasizes findings butnot necessarily thefailuresorfeelingsthatleadtothem.12 Ialsotakecertain cues from theM&K definition of reconstruction as away of closereading.M&K essentiallyaimsto getits students to triangulatebetween text,hands-onmaterial engagement,and historical objectresearchinorder to form amentalimage of wherethisinterplay mightlead, in whichreconstructionactsasproof of concept.13 With theHam- burg “coral”workshop, Ihoped forthe act of real-timediscoverytoshowthe par- ticipantsadifferentapproachtohistorical research in whichinformation attained 7 With thanks to SurekhaDaviesfor conveningthisconvivial occasion during theJuly2019History of ScienceSociety conference in Utrecht. 8 Idid notrecommend specific brands andIhewedtothe recipe’s resin reference; M&Kworked with rosin(asubstanceproducedfromthe processing of resin) whichisalluded to in therecipe’s paratext “Colophony [rosin]isnothing otherthanrecookedresin.”The Hamburgworkshopused LienzosLevante vermilionpigment andNabürCaravane resin. M&Kand NunavutArcticCollege reconstructionsusedpigmentsfromKremerPigmentsInc.(NewYorkCityart supplier specializing in making historical pigments from minerals andorganic substances); M&K2014email corre- spondencerecords ourAmazonpurchaseofrosin butnot thebrandname.