User:John.M.Rudy/Living History

Living History is the term applied to a number of different interpretive methods, based chiefly around the use of historic costuming as a tool of interpretation. The term costumed interpretation is often used interchangably, and the definition of both terms is currently a debate among members of the profession. In general, Living History interpretation falls into one of two catagories, first-person and thrid-person viewpoints. The unifying principle behind either method is use of historic costuming.

First-Person Interpretation
These presentations are often termed colloquially as "living history" programs, although this term may be generally applied to the entire field of costumed interpretation. On the whole, first-person interpretation provides the audience with a subjective viewpoint, offering the opportunity to understand the perspectives, prejudices and opinions of historic characters.

The presenter assumes the personality and mannerisms of this historical character, utilizing statements such as, "I saw..." or "I feel..." to convey that individual's viewpoint. In this case, the costuming becomes a tool chiefly providing the visitor with suspension of disbelief, allowing them to imagine the modern interpreter as an historical character.

In some cases, first-person interpretation requires the most detailed knowledge of resource possible for an interpreter, as they must be able to answer questions as a person of the period might. The major pitfall of a first person interpretive program aside from this depth of knowledge is the inherently unbalanced viewpoint that such a program provides. For example, a program featuring a Federal Soldier speaking of why he is fighting in the American Civil War will inherently be unable to answer the question of why his adversary is fighting, or indeed why other Federal Soldiers might be fighting. First-person interpretation in Living History offers one specific person's view of a site's narrative and significance.

Third-Person Interpretation
Third-person interpretation, when successfully practiced, provides the audience with an objective viewpoint, offering the opportunity to understand the perspectives, prejudices and opinions of many different historicval characters and groups.

The interpreter speaks as in the present day. This is a very powerful and effective technique. The presenter speaks in a detached tone, much as they might while not wearing historical costuming, utilizing statements such as, "They saw..." or "They felt..." to convey the viewpoint of many different groups. In this case, the costuming becomes an artifact to be referenced in the course of interpretation.

In some cases, first-person interpretation requires a broader, more comprehensive knowledge of resource, as the interpreter must be able to offer the visitor multiple viewpoint on the same subject. In general, third-person interpretive programming provides a more balanced viewpoint. A program on why soldiers in the Civil War went to war in this case might include many different reasons provided by the interpreter from the accounts of many different soldiers with varying social, geographical and ethnic backgrounds. Third-person interpretation in Living History offers many people's view of a site's narrative and significance.

Living History versus Reenactment
The term "reenactment," is often heard from visitors when refering to Living History programs, and particularly historic weapons demonstrations. In such cases, it is important to note that the National Park Service does not allow battle reenactments where two sides fire at each other, copying the events of the significant events of historic sites.

This stance, set forth in the NPS Management Policies, was decided upon for two specific reasons. The first is the inherent disrepect that simulated warfare shows to the men who fought, died and in some cases are still buried upon the land we today preserve in National Parks. A reenactment of violence that led to death and injury, "even the best-researched and most well-intentioned... cannot replicate the tragic complexity of real warfare." This respect inherent in the Park Service's guiding principles of preservation is precluded by "inherently artificial battles at these memorial sites."

The second, and equally important reason for disallowing "reenactment" is the requirement to preserve the site resources, as well as the lives of volunteers and visitors. "The safety risks to participants and visitors, and the inevitable damage to the physical resource that occurs," when reenactments are undertaken, coupled with the logistical requirements of such events, are "unacceptably high when seen in light of the NPS mandate to preserve and protect park resources and values."

Documentation

 * Living History and Reenactments, National Park Service, Northeast Region, Interpretation Guidlines


 * HAFE Living History Guidelines, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, Living History Branch

Interpretive Examples

 * The Federal Armory and Arsenal Intern Robert Grandchamp, HAFE, Summer 2007