Rules of engagement

[Robert Braun]

I have just finished reading some writings of Jim Jacobs, who expounded on two theories of historical investigation and inquiry. I was fascinated by the concepts he defined.

He described the symbiotic relationship, and alluded to some interesting paradoxes, between two "rules."

First, the "Rule of Hard Documentation." As I interpret Jim's meaning, historical facts are govered by a variety of evidential facts. These evidential facts may take the form of artifacts, records, accounts, anecdotal recollections, and so forth. Often, there are holes, or missing portions from the record that denies a complete "picture." Or the body of evidence is very small, confounding generalization or the attribution of a piece of mateiral culture or practice to "this" or "that" time frame or episode or individual user. The more evidential facts one gathers, the stronger the foundation for asserting the hisotrical fact.

Second, the "Rule of Historical Plausability." As I interpret Jim's meaning, incomplete or missing historical facts are "interpreted" with the "best solution," as governed by the known body of evidence. Jim used the example of the investigator looking to replicate a common shot pouch say of the Pre-Revolutionary War Period. Six originals specimens are known; none have a shoulder strap attached. The "Rule of Historical Pausability" might allow the investigator to interpret what the strap MAY have looked like, based on knowledge of other original straps (materials, construction, weight, color, diamentions, etc., etc.)

By now, you will have observed that both rules have their limitations. The "Rule of Hard Documentation" may dictate that an item of material culture may not be part of a collection or interpretation unless fully documented (this means that if you are looking to display or interpret the shot pouch, your interpretation will have to wait while you search for a complete speciman.) The "Rule of Historical Plausability" must be used cautiously, lest one infer that a shot pouch reconstructed from the original--but with an interpreted strap-- is "just like the original," or worse, unintentionally wander into the fantasy world of "if they'd had it, they'd of used it."

I am curious as to the opinions of our board readers...so here are some questions to start the discussion:

Which "rule" should govern historical interpretation? Or is it a blend of the two? Or neither? Does one rule carry more weight than the other? Should one rule carry more weight than the other? And what should be the disposition of items of material culture that seem to defy both rules?

Feel free to weigh in...

[pshrake]

Bob, You raise a very important issue here, one that is relevant not only to living history but to the entire field of historical study. I would argue that both rules should apply but that both should be used with great care.

Unfortunately, there are times, when one is conducting historical research where one has to theorize or make educated guesses. The real issue is how do we make those guesses and how do we interpret those conjectural statements to the audience.

Lets use your analogy of the shot pouch. I would create a strap based on the appearance of other period straps using construction techniques consistent with the period. I would, however, make it well known that my strap was not based on an original but was my own conception based on available evidence.

In most cases, I think, there is some evidence already available from which one can make an educated guess. Rarely is there a scenario where there is absolutely no evidence to aid the discussion. In writing history, one can simply add a footnote explaining to the reader the lack of overall evidence concerning a specific interpretation, but then follow with a detailed explanation as to how one arrived at the conclusion one is presenting. Simply put, make your guess but say how you got there and what evidence you use to make such a guess. In writing history a good author automatically does this with proper citation and bibliography. In the case of living history, one can follow this principle by carefully explaining your conclusions to the general public

My overall point is accountability. Holes in research are unavoidable. However, they do not have to stand in the way of good historical interpretation. Make the educated guess, draw REASONABLE conclusions. I emphasize REASONABLE. When you do make such a statement, qualify it, say how you arrived at your conclusion, admit you might be wrong, but that based on example A, B, and C, you conclude that the pouch strap “probably” looked like D. Then continue to dig and research.

Pete Shrake

[Marge Smith]

What portion of living history presentations should be to educate the public and how much to entertain. Will people come to see pure history or do you need to add a little spice and embroider the facts to get people to come.

Marge

[Robert Braun]

Marge.. forgive me, but I regret that I am not following the questions you posed.

Can you give me an example?

Thanks... Bob.

[pshrake]

Marge, I would suggest that one would not have to spice up history in order to entertain a audience.

Whether or not history is dull or exciting is more a result of the presenter than the subject. In general, history is communicated to a broader audience via writing or speaking. As we all know, there are poor writiers and poor speakers out there. History, in reality, is the study of life, of human actions, and behavior. Today, I think, there are few who would say that thier own life is boring. If life in general is not boring than how can history, which is really just the study of past life, be boring?

It is all how it is presented. A poor speaker or writer can take a thrilling and exciting historical moment, like say the story of the wright brothers first flight, and make it a mindless story that puts one to sleep.

I would also argue that history and reenacting is in its very nature educational. Whether one reads a book, watches a documentary, listen to a lecture or attend a reenactment, the audience is learning about their past and in turn about themselves. One of the best attributes of Reenacting is that it stirs the imagination of the general public. I always like to think that, after going to an event, if a vistor picks up a book or visits a museum, we have done our job.


Pete Shrake

[Chris Gordy]

This a subject books are made of out there. I would agree with Shrake that both Hard Documentation and Plausability are equal in importance. I will take the equality one step further by stating that good, thorough research contains all of the above. I've said before that a hard answer to any question in history is something of a historian's dream. Sure, show me three types of primary documentation in your argument and I'll tend to still question but go along with you. However, when conducting research the historian must combine the hard evidence which sits in front of him/her as well as the experience of past knowledge.

The school of living history must also utilize this way of thinking. In this school, the interpreters must be more than just a historian. Historians take on one school of history or another, whether it is of the social, political, gender, marxist, American, European, etc. school. In living history (idealy) the interpreter must be able to combine all schools of history into one. Only then can a more complete view of history as a whole be conveyed to the public. In this way, the interpreter is taking the hard evidence and plausability of all schools of historical thought and using it to complete the painting.

[Marge Smith]

Where I work they sponsor a Civil War Reenactment each August. It is a two-day event to entice Chicago people to come and spend money and enjoy themselves. There is a huge staff in the background to assist the reenactors from recreation staff, set-up people, chefs, wait-staff, bellmen, maintenance, conference people and on. Is this living history?

The next week this same group of employees might put on an New Orleans event for employees of a large company who are having seminars.

I thought living history followed a theme that had to be historically accurate for a particular site and date. Can you use an event that never happened. Maybe it occurred 200 miles away but never at this site. Can you use something that happened in Alabama? Or are you restricted to just those events that happened at this time and place.

What if you tell your audience --

"pretend it is 1870 and the women in Jo Daviess County are upset about saloons. Daniel Boone's granddaughter Delilah Boone Craig took an axe and chopped down a saloon in Hanover. Delilah's husband James Craig was very prominent in the Black Hawk War and at one time was captain of the militia at this fort. Let's hear Delilah tell about it."

Would this qualify?

I'm not sure what living history is. And please, answers in English.

Marge

[Greg Carter]

I think that there are several pieces to consider in historical interpretation, aka reenacting, aka living history.

First, I do not think that history has to be "spiced up" to make it more interesting. I personally find historical presentations to be fascinating when the speaker (for instance) is doing something besides droning on in a monotonous voice. I don't think that any spice should be added that is incorrect or can lead people to believe things that are incorrect, which is what tends to happen when you spice history up. Attend any small scale Civil War reenactment in a city park and watch the "first person" competitions and you can see that much as evidence.

On the subject of hard documentation vs. plausability, both factors are important to consider, but the hard documentation is the better route. One can speculate all day long about an impression or a kit to build and be totally incorrect.

On the other side of coin, most people who have a reasonably good grasp of historic material culture can speculate rather well, an example being Bob's note on recreating "straps" above. This speculation, however, should have some factual basis.

With hard documentation, an interpretist has a solid foundation to build on. There is so much documentation in some areas that it is a wonder how reenactors overlook the obvious mistakes in their impression (no digs here at Civil War reenactor tenting practices Bob! ;D). On the other hand, some areas are less documented and hence need some speculation. I think this is especially true in our case where some of the fine detail is missing from records that have been found so far.

Concluding my drone here, I think that the rule governing a historical interpretation should be a blend of both of Mr. Jacob's theories, with a strong leaning to hard documentation. Living historians have a duty to recreate the past as faithfully as they are able to. This may be difficult sometimes, but in the end the extra effort goes a long way. Absolute historical accuracy is the key, regardless of the portrayal, time period, etc etc.

And remember- if they had it, they would have used it, but they didn't, so you better not either!

"Omnea Mea Mecum Porto".

GMC

[Robert Braun]

Marge said:

I'm not sure what living history is. And please, answers in English.

Marge

<<Cette discussion est en anglais. Est-ce que c'est bien?>>

(Sorry...I couldn't resist! ;D)

You pose some questions for which there some pretty complex answers. However, let’s cut to the chase, if possible.

Simply put, “living history” is an educational technique, whereby historical information is presented to a visitor, a group, or the general public, normally by a costumed portrayer, or “interpreter.” Information may be present in the “third person” (“In the past, they…”) or “first person” (Recently, I…) Author Stacy Roth defines First-Person Interpretation as “the portrayal of historical characters through interactive dramatization.”

The “devil,” of course, is in the “details.” There are varying levels of academics, quality, and seriousness of portrayal, just like there are various levels of quality in almost any human endeavor. There are those who run on the fringe, and are out there for laughs, and there are others who immerse themselves in the lore and research, trying to approach “becoming” an historic person or person-composite. The goal is education and edification of the public… which admittedly occurs with varying degrees of success.

What it is: Living History—or my preferred term “historical portrayal”— ideally allows the modern visitor to sample historical themes, activities and events. The content and quality of the presentation is of course the responsibility of the presenter. In my opinion, such program offerings require the presenter to have done his/her homework thoroughly, anticipated problems and questions, and present or demonstrate the material in as historically accurate a manner as possible… AND in a manner that will be meaningful and understandable to the viewer. This is a tall order… and not easily accomplished.

What it is not: In my view, wearing funny clothes and running around playing “I shot you first!” is nothing more than an adult version of the schoolyard games we played as children. There are plenty of persons wearing their “interpretation” of clothing, presenting their “interpretation” of persona, skills, crafts, themes, or events, and do so in a public venue who have little if any grounding in historical fact. We’ve all seen the fellow in the Civil War reenactor with the plastic-brimmed kepi and the zouave two-band musket. We’ve all seen the fellow with the buckskin trousers, French and Indian War waistcoat, Rev. War tricorn, 1880s Sioux neck choker, and 1840s percussion rifle.

Before readers start flaming me for having either an embarrassing lack of tact or the unmitigated gall to criticize obviously poor impressions—let me add that if the generic persons I just described want to play in their own back yard with their interesting spin on history, that’s fine. BUT (and this is a big BUT) once they stand before the public and hold themselves out as some sort of an authority on a subject, IMHO they had better have their act together… and I mean “down to the drawers.” Why? Because visitors deserve nothing less than our very best efforts.

Of course, placing twenty-first century people into a nineteenth century situation involves much background work, and some form of compromises---since the historical record is rarely complete. Now this brings us to a return to our discussion of the two “rules,” and the degree to which each, both or neither should be emphasized in historic portrayal.

[Marge Smith]

Sorry about the "English" comment.

In a former life I was a computer programmer, and we were always being told to speak English not in bits and bytes.

One more question. Is there a book you would recommend and where can I purchase it.

Thank you for your help.

Marge

[Greg Carter]

I personally don't think there is any one single book to use. When I wanted to improve my recreated Civil War uniform, I had to pick up roots and "head for the stacks" and dig up what I wanted to know. Amazing results but that is besides the point. I think during the process I must have looked at no less than 50 different books, articles, etc.

I have also found that at each home or office of every serious reenactor I know there is an immense standing library of tomes, texts, articles, doodles on napkins, maps, etc. because of the lack of a "catch-all" book. There are any number that help some, some that help quite a bit, and others that offer only small shreds of information, but taken together they help assemble a wholly accurate "impression" based squarely on facts and sculpted using well-founded theory or speculation.

GMC

[Chris Gordy]

If it is a book on living history and interpretive theory/style, there are a few out there. Here are a few which most living history museums use. Enjoy ;D

Alderson, William T., Shirley Payne Low. Interpretation of Historic Sites, Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1976. (you can get this at http://www.aaslh.org)

Anderson, Jay. Time Machines; The World of Living History, Nashville: The American Association for State and Local History, 1984. (this too can be found at http://www.aaslh.org)

Anderson, Jay. A Living History Reader, Nashville: The American Association for State and Local History, 1980. (again at http://www.aaslh.org)

Knudson, Douglas M., Ted T. Cable, Larry Beck. Interpretation of Cultural and Natural Resources, State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc., 1995.

Tilden, Freeman. Interpreting Our Heritage, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1977. (originally published in 1957)

Roth, Stacy F. Past into Present; Effective Techniques for First Person Historical Interpretation, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

Uzzell, David, Ed. Heritage Interpretation, Vol. 1; The Natural & Built Environment, New York: Belhaven Press, 1989.

Uzzell, David, Ed. Heritage Interpretation, Vol. 2; The Visitor Experience, New York: Belhaven Press, 1989.

[Chris Gordy]

This reference I post separately since it examines historic interpretation in a different manner. As the title explains, this work looks at how museums are conducting historical interpretation and how well, or not, it is working.

Leon, Warren, Roy Rosenzweig, Ed. History Museums in the United States; A Critical Assessment, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

[Robert Braun]

Given our two rules... and the definitions of so-called "living history" thus far presented, which rule, or which mix of the two rules, should be applied to resolve following question...posed to me at a "reenactment" more than two decades ago on the eastern shore of Maryland:

"His'try as twas writ; er his'try as we'd wisht?"

[pshrake]

I would still stick by may original answer, that a responsible mix of both rules should apply. A good historian should be willing to be able and frankly should be capable of making reasonable concusions based on evidence that is included in any presentation.

There will always be gaps in the historical record. sometimes, when situations require it, we must make educated guesses in order to make sense of a particular story.

The key thing here is responsibility and rationality. When one draws a conclusion they should be very careful, not make wild gueses based soley on personal whim. A historian must be responsible and back thier conclusions with documentation. This is a general rule in the historical field, as such it should be a general rule for living history.

Pete Shrake