Reenactors and historical sites

[SparksBird]

A recent thread concerning a battlefield and demonstrations has brought up some really goods points concerning reenactors and historic sites. Recently at the last Midwest Open Air Museums Coordinating Council Conference in Chicago, we tackled this topic by offering a session on "Working with Reenactors at your site". I thought I would share some of the points brought up in this session. In turn, I would like to get more feedback from everyone on what you expect from a living history site/battlefield/park. I am not looking for this thread to turn into a major gripe session about historical sites, I am looking for constructive suggestions and ideas to help reenactors and administrators work together. I look at this issue from both sides as I am a reenactor and a museum administrator. But, I would like to get more feedback from everyone for future use as a session or article on this sticky subject.

When discussing reenactors and historical sites, we need to look at the pros and cons of working with living historians. Perhaps then, we can address ways to promote better relations between both parties.

Pros:

-Reenactors provide countless hours of volunteer service to any site. Sites with an especially small staff can benefit the most from utilizing reenactors for programs, talks and site maintenance.

-Reenactors provide a site a volunteer who has received some training in public speaking, and presentations.

-Reenactments and living histories can bring increased attendance and can generate revenue/donations for a site. With today's economy, this is becoming more critical to any sites budget.

-Living history, at a site, generates interest in history by presenting it in a tangible way. Talking to a soldier and learning about his life can be a much more effective learning tool than a text book.

However, we do need to look at some of the problems that have come up when working with reenactors.

Cons:

-Reenactors are an outside variable when it comes to authenticity. You can easily control your staff and volunteers clothing and authenticity. However, you have to keep on top of things with any outside group coming in. This is the reason that guidelines must be set. One good point that was brought by a fellow reenactor at this session was "every reenactor views themselves as authentic. But there is obviously different opinions on what is authentic".

-Reenactors need to respect the guidelines for the site and to act accordingly. This can apply to firing, camp fires, litter, language around the public, smoking,etc..

-Living historians need to remember that when you volunteer at any site that you are in a sense representing the site itself. Volunteering needs to be taken seriously and should be treated the same as a job.

-Lack of communication with a site can be the worst problem committed by both parties. Whether it be schedulling a living history, or being there on time for a program, communications are a must.

Those are some of pros and cons of working with reenactors that were brought up. Now, what way can a site, or reenactors for that matter, improve these problems and make for good relations?

Rick Musselman
Buckeye Mess,
Education Supervisor, Carriage Hill Living History Farm

[lhsnj]

Re: Reenactors and historical sites

Rick

Our unit is doing a program for the 2nd year at a museum and the way we help keep the communication open is that we assign a point person from our unit (usually the president) to deal directly with their contact.

In order to handle what is expected of us, we invite the museum contact to come to our planning meeting for the event to offer any feedback that the site has. Also to gather as much information from his as to what the museum is expecting us to provide. This way, we can provide the program that is beneficial to them and fits in with what they are trying to portray.
It worked very well last year and has made planning for this years event a little easier.

In terms of starting up new programs or gaining the parks confidence in a group, it is best to invite them to another program you do or have photos from a previous program. This way they can see what they are getting and also look over your presentation to determine if the authenticity is at the level they want.

These are not things that could be setup in a couple days. These require months of talking and getting everything in writing. For the first event that we did with the museum last year, which we did in April, we began talking to them in October of the previous year. We met with the director of the event in January so he can tell us his expectations.

We also let him know our expectations which was, if they were going to use this as a money raising event, that they would handle the advertising and spreading the word so that they would have people coming to the event. We did a living history at a place and they failed to advertise and then wondered why no one showed up.

Not sure if I answered your question about what could be done.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Reenactors and historical sites

Some additional considerations:

--Reenactors are doing for free what site employees are paid to do. How would the guy building cars on an assembly line feel if someone went to his boss and offered to do the same work for no pay? A little bit of a threat, no?

--The accuracy problem works both ways. If the site and its employees are comfortable with $100 costumes that are good enough for minimum wage workers who have to pay for their clothes and still hope to bring home some spending money, it can be a threat if reenactors arrive in $1,000 reproduction clothes with no expectation of making back the investment through their earnings. If the public or staff starts noticing the difference, the first question in the employees' minds may be: are they gonna start making us dress like that? We're making little enough money as it is? And the site supervisors are going to think: are the reenactors gonna make our staff look bad?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[TeamsterPhil]

Re: Reenactors and historical sites

Rick,

I wish I could have been in Chicago to be part of that discussion - but that's a whole nuther topic.

Great points have been brought up so far. I'm going to address the two that Hank has brought up. In my experience at a small site that interprets the CW era, the tension brought on by these two points have resulted in increased quality of interpretation for the public.

The presence of reenactors on site assisting with programs has helped expand the scope of programs. A paid interpretive staff of 2 or 3 has a hard time coping with the numbers of visitors we have, especially during "field trip season". These volunteers are treated as an asset - both by management and the front line interpreters. The increased number of visitors (and the revenue they bring) has helped us to expand the paid staff. This has been a win-win proposition at my site.

The introduction of better quality clothing and gear to the site has also helped the staff and other volunteers upgrade their impressions - simply by osmosis and open communication. Using non-confrontational techniques, the "more accurate" mindset is expanding. Sowly but surely, the quality of clothing and reproductions available to staff & volunteers has gone up. Ditching bad dress patterns and replacing them with better ones is upgrading the appearance of the women, and getting rid of the unbiquitous Amish broadfalls, making a couple of better shirt & vest patterns available, and having a sack coat or two in the closet has helped the men's side.

It's been a long process - and far from over - but having the management of the Site committed to upgrading has been the key to our progress.

Phil Campbell
Chicken Neck Mess
Historic Programs Coordinator, Mahaffie Stagecoach Stop, Olathe KS

[Michael Comer]

Re: Reenactors and historical sites

We supply the period clothing for our personnel so that is not an issue although many facilities do not have the ability to do that.

I have found that my staff look very favorably on living historians and good, authentic reenactors. They view it as a learning experience for themselves as well as providing a potential good for the site. I think that having events with living historians is a great way to get the locals to visit again. These are the "been there, done that, don't need to do it again" folks whose support is vital to the success of a historic site. You have to have the enthusiasm of the local community.

I agree with Phil; if management is pro-active in wanting to make progress and better the impressions and events, that enthusiasm will more than likely carry over to the staff and help them to be more secure in their job responsibilities and willing to adjust perceptions and attitudes to further the mission of the site.

Living historians have a responsiblity to be sensitive to the mission of the site and also to understand the limitations that may be in place through no fault of the staff or director. A facility may not be able to provide you with everything you want to put on an event. Too many times have I seen the "we're providing the show" or the "people wouldn't be here if it wasn't for us" attitude which just causes bad blood on all sides. I think that in most cases differences can be worked out with proper planning and lead-time, frank, open discussion about each sides expectations and constant cooperation. Of course, there are always some jerks that will be jerks no matter what you do. In that case it's best to just cut the ties.

Michael Comer
Site Administrator
Hunter-Dawson State Historic Site
New Madrid, Missouri

[SparksBird]

Re: Reenactors and historical sites

I think there has definitely been some good feedback here. This is the kinds of information that both parks/sites and reenactors should know ahead of time. Perhaps getting more information like this out there would help facilitate both parties.

Rick Musselman
Buckeye Mess
GHTI

[dusty27]

Re: Reenactors and historical sites

I think that one important thing that both sides need to make sure happens is that they both decide what the program's goal is. For the reenacting group, it may be seen as a recruiting opportunity. For the museum/site, it may be a draw to attract higher attendance.

I think that even if the goals are not the same for both sides, if they are put forward and understood by both sides, a compromise can be found. Once the goals are understood, each side should be able to trust the other to help accomplish both goals.

[BHoover]

Re: Reenactors and historical sites

Recently at the last Midwest Open Air Museums Coordinating Council Conference in Chicago, we tackled this topic by offering a session on "Working with Reenactors at your site".

For those not familiar with MOMCC, they are a part of ALHFAM, which is an international association for Living History, Farms, And Museums and I highly recommend them for anyone interested in learning about LH from a professional standpoint. Conferences usually have a mixture of topics ranging from issues about site management, volunteers, insurance, govt regulations, etc to topics in material culture, clothing, foodways, and more.

For an example, one of my favourite experiences at an MOMCC conference was one year in late fall at Connor Prairie where they put us in 1830s clothing, and we butchered a hog. We started with a dead hog being hoisted onto a slide to put it into an iron cauldron of water boiling over a wood fire, and when the day was over we had bristles, hams to hang in the smokehouse, and intestines cleaned for casing with sausage packed into them. What a great learning experience.

ALHFAM has an annual conference each year, plus most of the regions have conferences as well. The cost of membership is low, and serious LH amateurs are very welcome.