As many of you may know, I've been a heritage volunteer at Croxteth Hall for some years now. This involves dressing up as a Victorian/Edwardian era Butler (waistcoat, tails, bowtie, fob watch: the works) and showing people around the former country seat of the Molyneux family, the Earls of Sefton. Also, during the winter, the Hall becomes a timewarp for local schoolchildren, as they come into a Victorian house with a full complement of outside and inside staff, and they get to see, and do, what would have happened in a stately home. We all play roles, rangers and volunteers alike, and try to stay in character as much as possible so as to not spoil the illusion. It's all good fun.
But it isn't just fun; it's educational. The children go away learning more in one two or three hour session than they would probably do sat in a classroom with so many distractions. That is because they are engaged, and their imaginations, and hopefully inspirations, are fired by their personal interaction and participation in the world of immersive education.
Not that I think that 'living history' should replace history as it is taught in schools. Quite the contrary. But it is a worthwhile addition, as you learn so much more by doing something than just hearing or reading about it. Which is why I'm often surprised by some historians' sniffy attitude when it comes to living history and re-enactment in general.
It remind me of the spat that took place between David Starkey and Lucy Worsley a couple of years ago. Starkey made a jibe about Lucy dressing up in period clothes and generally first hand experiencing how life would have been like, what the food was like, and so on, in the various periods she was looking at whilst making her series, If Walls Could Talk. And she's done it ever since. She's never that far away from a frock, a wig or underwear of some description. Does this make her any less a serious historian? Is this dumbing down history?
Some historian would argue yes, but surely the understanding of the practical and everyday would answer some questions that arise whilst researching in the library and archives? And how and why things that are found in the ground during archaeological digs break or are lost in times past?
Living history, re-enactment, experimental archaeology, call it what you will; these have been filling in the gaps of our knowledge for many years now. It is through research and practical experience that we know how the lorica segmentata works on a Roman legionary, thanks to groups like th Ermine Street Guard. It is from groups who specialise in Iron Age metallurgy that we understand the skill of our ancestors in crafting fine weapons and jewellery. And the list of examples could be endless. How to build a round-house. How Stonehenge was built. Why Norse ships were so good. How a Greek trireme worked.
Out understanding of something comes from doing them, or learning from someone who has done it, and passes down their knowledge. History is the passing down of knowledge and how things were and are done. It is not just about people, dates, battles. It is about the little people. The little things. The things done everyday that are taken for granted, and so not written down by anyone writing in contemporary sources. Not everything we can learn from the past is written in book. Or found in the ground. Sure, we can take them as a starting point, but the real catalyst for understanding is doing. Seeing. Touching. Tasting.
In my main line of historical research, that of military history, it is bad practice not to visit the landscape of the battle to gain an understanding of how and why events took place. It is also common to become acquainted with the weapons, armour, and technology, and that often involves handling them. In some cases, even dressing in the period clothing and armour. All of this gives one a better understanding. I believe all fields of historical research would be best served by some physical education. If not doing yourself, conversing with those that do.
Living history and its many fellows should not be seen as lesser field. These people are often piecing together puzzles and putting them to practical use that may have been the way that things were done. Yes, it is sometimes entertainment, but isn't that the best way to learn? To be educated when you are least expecting it? Children and adults alike are drawn to living history events. Be it a medieval encampment in the fields of Tatton Old Hall. Or the Normans and Saxons fighting year-in, year-out on the slopes of Senlac. Or Victorian soldiers wandering around the gardens of Erddig. They are not there simply for the costumes, or the displays. They are often there to learn, ask questions, and, just maybe, interested in getting involved themselves.
If dressing up in period clothing is history for the lowest common denominator, then so be it. History was mainly made and written by the elite, and the lowest common denominator was often ignored. Living history and re-enactment brings the minutiae of life back to the fore. And long may it do so.
So, I hope that historians of the future will venture out of the library once in a while. It can't harm your credibility to wear a silly hat once in a while. Or actually shoot a longbow for the first time even though you've written books on medieval archery. It seems okay for television historians to use re-enactors as background noise and pretty illustrations on their programmes, but then completley diminish the importance of such groups in historical understanding. The same has been done with art in history books for many years, and not using them as a source in themselves. But that's a topic for another time...
No comments:
Post a Comment