What do you think of living history?

As a secondary school teacher I see value in living history that is well done—that is, guided by research and adhering to known historical evidence. Plimoth Plantation is perhaps the best in the U.S. in this regard, although there are other good examples. Permanent sites have to balance historicity with tourist appeal, which is hard to do well.

As for reenactments, well, I can see the appeal, and I know that some people really get into this, but I think the historical consistency is pretty hard to maintain. It’s kind of interesting to visit historic sites when there is a re-enactor gathering, however, just to get a sense of what things might have looked like (on sunny days when everyone was clean, anyhow).

Any tool that gets people interested in history is a good thing. I don’t know why some academics wouldn’t see it that way. As for me, I’m a history nut. I pretty much like history in any form, except maybe the way it is taught in schools.

I love Colonial Williamsburg because beyond the history presented by the guides, the minutiaea of everyday life adds to the total picture.

As far as battle re-enacters, they may be nice entertainment but they are really just kids games for grown ups. They are all about playing war and little to do with the realities of war. You would get a better idea of a battle through a well made movie like Glory or documentaries like the History Channel’s series Battlefield Detectives.

Living history is great, for so many reasons. One, I imagine many of us wonder what it would be like to be sent back in time and immersed in period life. Living history does this, it gives you a chance to step into history, to see it, smell it, feel it. That is, if it’s based on research, fact, and staying true to history.

I did living history at a Renaissance faire for several summers. All of us took the history part very seriously and enjoyed working within the boundaries of the time frame, in terms of dress, language, personal histories, etc. The faire was pretty historically accurate and they required participants/actors to take workshops and also to pass costume checks, to make sure everyone met a certain minimum of knowledge and continuity.

My guild (living history guild), we lived in the 1560’s from about 8 am till 8 pm. Our cottage was built in the traditional way, with hand-hewn logs, no nails, and wattle-and-daub plaster. We had an expert cook, who cooked over an open fire and fed us twice a day. One summer, we had blacksmiths in the shed. We gardened, did our handicrafts, sheared sheep, spun wool, churned butter, milked goats.. you name it. :) Of course, I learned tons, but it was always so great to see the looks of awe on people’s faces when they came to visit us. I don’t think that having been physically immersed in the sights, smells, and sounds of such an experience can be replaced by hearing stories or reading things in books.

Here in Michigan, we have Greenfield Village which really tries to be historically accurate. In fact, the woman who taught me how to spin yarn worked there after a long time at Plimoth Plantation.

When I went to my first Renaissance Faire, though, I had high hopes that it would be very similar (except from a different time) and was sadly, sadly mistaken. I find Renfaires to be more like a somewhat more interesting shopping mall, but things like “Queen’s Tea by Lipton!” put me off, as do advice for “period” camping such as “cover your cooler with wood-grained contact paper to make it look more believable.”

In short: living history “yay,” fake living history “boo.”

The Rennie I dated was about as fake as the Faire was, too. I hope they’re not all like that, but I don’t see anything to indicate otherwise.

Sadly, it really depends on the faire you attend. Smaller ones are much lamer and less historically accurate, in my opinion. The one I worked at was like the best you can get.. it was awesome.

We went to Williamburg, and nobody talked to us.
We went to Plimith Plantation, and the people were rude and nasty.
We went to Sturbridge Village in Mass., and it was excellent – friendly people who let the kids participate in what they were doing.
We went to Pillipsburg Manor in NY, and it too was amazing, with lots of interaction and participation.
We go to Ren Fairs, but didn’t really consider it living history, just play.

Above, I meant to say in my experience, not in my opinion.

I’d like to throw in a few quotes to mess things up a bit—these are tidbits I’ve come across during my research.

‘No one today can possibly know what it was actually like [in the past]... even if our historical record was perfect, five hundred years of subsequent acculturation would prevent any of us achieving anything like verisimilitude [or the simple reason that we are different]. It is self-delusion to think otherwise; but the real danger is that… aided by… a suitable setting, it is only to easy…’

‘There is more to the past than authenticity’

’“Living history” is an impossible concept; therefore any attempt to realise it is bound to produce a fraud. So much for the absolute; in practice, like so much else, it all depends on motivation an honesty.’

All of the above are from Peter Fowler, because those are the sheets of my notes I happened to grab, apparently

Does any of this work for you? Any solutions? Note that none of these say you can’t enjoy doing living history. Just thought I’d throw all this out there.

Also, on another note… if you want a funny book on living history—one I just finished was Tim Moore’s ‘I Believe in Yesterday’, which is a great read.