Notes from HIF Inaugural Meeting - 13th November 1999

Alison Roddham

Notes from the IHI Inaugural Meeting
Blackbird Leys Leisure Centre
Saturday 13th November 1999

A presentation was given by Alison Roddham, on how the Institute might be set up. This was followed by a discussion and suggestions and agreement as to the way forward. There follows copies of the slides used, with notes on items mentioned in the accompanying talk, bullet pointed, in italics underneath.

• Agenda
• Introduction
• Aims
• Core Activities
• Membership Structure
• Posts to be Filled
• Progress so Far
• The Way Forward
• Any Other Business

History

- Seminar last November - Key results: Academic history had quality control, Living History did not Lack of communication avenues

- Discussion at the Museums Exhibition in March Formation of the Institute

· Idea of formation of Institute to link all interested parties.

Aims

o To facilitate co-operation and communication between the heritage industry, educationalists, historians, archaeologists and live interpretation groups.

o To co-ordinate a pertinent educational programme for those involved with live historical interpretation, to aid the acquisition of relevant knowledge and skills.

o To encourage continuous improvement in the presentation, performance and content of public displays.

o To work towards a system of quality control and recognised standards within historical live interpretation.

· Mainly use the Institute as a discussion group and to facilitate access to training.

· Quality control important so the public and sponsors know what they are getting, but cannot use a generic standard for every group.

Core Activities

o Biannual Journal

o Biannual Newsletter
- Both need a network of correspondents

o Seminars
- Need venues and hosts in the North and in the South

o Annual Conference

o Training Weekends and Working Groups

o Dissemination of Information
- On training and conferences
- Information about relevant publications

o Web Pages and Web Discussion Groups

• Expect four publications per year, two newsletters and two Journals
  
• These should keep people abreast of news and events in archaeology, history, heritage and live interpretation
  
• Seminars at Blackbird Leys Traders Fair are biased towards re-enactors
  
• Need venues for seminars in the North
  
• Training weekends should invite all groups covering the same historical period, as well as heritage and history people. That way the attendees would be a mix of people who are interested in moving forward living history.
  
• Suggestion for the first working group - How to bring in Standards
  
• Dissemination of information - the conference, publications, journals
  
• Web pages - been offered for free

Membership Structure

o Annual membership system

o Individual membership
- 12 pounds a year

o Membership for Organisations
- 30 pounds a year

o Goodwill

· Try to keep the costs down so membership is not cost prohibitive

Posts to be filled

o The main committee
- Chairman
- Secretary
- Treasurer
- Membership Secretary

o Co-ordinator of Seminars

o Co-ordinator of Working Groups

o Co-ordinator of Living History Weekends

o The Journal
- Review Board
> Heritage
> History/Archaeology
> Live Interpretation

· The Newsletter
- Correspondents
> Regional
> Heritage and Education
> History and Archaeology
> Live Interpretation

Progress so Far

o Substantial interest shown in replies to mailouts

o First issue of the journal now available

o Web pages set up:

o http://www.LivingHistory.co.uk/hif

o Essex University History Dept agreed to host 1st conference in September 2000

o Bibliography of relevant books and papers being produced

o File of relevant conferences being kept.

· Most contact with interested parties has been undertaken by e-mail to keep costs down. Received a great deal of interest, and many e-mail from people interested, but unable to attend the meeting.

· First issue of the Journal is now available, from Alison Roddham or Dave Ryan at Caliver Books.

· All articles are reviewed by a board made up of heritage professionals, historians and experienced live interpreters

· The History Department at Essex University has given its support, and offered to host a conference in September.

· First edition of the bibliography was available at the back of the room

· The file of relevant conferences, and other notices was available at the back of the room

The Way Forward

o The next Journal and the newsletters

o Set up web discussion group and expand web pages

o Two seminars next year:
- Need suggestions for topics
- One in the North, one in the South

o Create Directory of Training Courses

o Set up Working Group on Quality & Standards
- Produce a discussion paper

o Organise the conference

o Organise Living History Training Weekend

o Support

· The second issue of the Journal is due out in March.

· There was a call for articles for the second Journal.

· Support is needed in order to make anything happen. p>

Discussion

Duke Henry from Call to Arms, (the Re-enactment Directory), took the floor:

Þ There are many re-enactment groups in Call to Arms, if sponsors don't like one, they can always pick another, they can shop around.

Þ There are already many under used discussion groups on the web, do we need one more?

Þ It is unrealistic to try for common levels or standards

Þ Living History is down to the individual participant and their voluntary contribution. They should not have to adhere to standards

Þ He asked about the viability of using the internet as the means of communication, and asked for a show of hands for those who have access. Almost 99% of people in the room had internet access.

Other people's comments were as follows:

· The way forward is communication, and the internet is the key

· It was asked how the Institute differed from Nares as Nares represented the majority of re-enactors.

Þ Alison Roddham answered that it was complementary, and not in competition. There are over 400 re-enactment and live interpretation groups in this country, and Nares represents about 25.IHI is for the individual re-enactor, whereas Nares is aimed at groups. Nares do a good job with lobbying Parliament, the IHI is not proposing to undertake such work, and as such is mainly a discussion forum. The IHI aims to link Heritage professional, historians, archaeologists and live interpreters, whereas Nares is for re-enactors only.

Þ Dave Roberts continued by saying the IHI would wish to work with Nares, and he reaffirmed that the IHI was for the individual mainly. Sponsors don't have a forum in which to inform re-enactors of their requirements. Re-enactors and live interpreters can set personal standards to meet the requirements of sponsors and academics.

· A re-enactor involved since 1972 said he had seen re-enactment grow from what was seen as a joke into what it is today. He did not see the need for a body telling re-enactors what to do, and would oppose that. But if it was to be a forum in which to share ideas and good practise that was different. No group has the right to tell re-enactors what to do.

· Hoard Giles, Head of Special Events, English Heritage felt that if the aim was to promote good practice it was generally a good idea.

· Should be a talking shop.

· The EH Guidelines are used as standards at present do we need more?

· Many groups are doing similar things and could work together and swap ideas.

· There was concern whether groups would fail to get events if they were not members.

· Dave Roberts replied that a forum for live interpreters, academics and sponsors to meet to discuss would not mean that others not involved would not get events. Academics should be able to give re-enactors the benefit of their knowledge, and re-enactors provide academics with practical knowledge. It could bring both parties together.

· There was concern about the status of amateurs and professions in the field of live interpretation. Dave Roberts answered that amateurs often have knowledge, but could also benefit from the knowledge and training of professionals. The IHI may help the amateur groups to access funds for training.

· It was felt that there was a problem with the name, as people expected a building with an Institute, and it sounded elitist.

· The internet was seen as the way forward. It would be extremely useful for one group to publish information on the internet.

· There were substantial concerns about the idea of standards and the type of standards being proposed:

Þ It was explained that standards of presentation and display meant professionalism, eg being on time for displays, not standards on how to dress.

Þ Re-enactment deals with the heritage industry which is a business.

Þ Julian Tilbury pointed out that ISO 9000 concerned professionalism and consistency. Do what you say, and say what you do.

Þ Duke Henry felt that the English Heritage categories of presentation, (Living History, Battle Re-enactment & Historical Entertainment), were all the standards that were needed. They were an excellent guide and all potential sponsors should try to get a copy.

· Mark Vance saw that re-enactment has a purchaser/supplier relationship with the heritage industry, but asked how academics fit in.

Þ Dave Roberts replied that re-enactment provides historical information to the public, and academics need to get their research out into the public domain.

Þ Alison Roddham added that public history is big in the US and is seen as an academic discipline. This is now beginning to happen in this country.

Þ An example was given by an academic who is studying combat. From her point of view it would be useful to be in contact with re-enactors.

Þ Both academics and re-enactors should be more open. Some re-enactors are very experienced and research and have relevant theories and opinions.

· It was noted that Nares have databases and web pages, but Jenny Thompson stated that member groups of Nares have to have over 25 members.

· History departments feel under treat with developments in the national curriculum, and we should not miss this opportunity.

Þ Further education is not pushing students to be more practically involved.

· There were concerns about the structure of the IHI and members rights. Dave Roberts replied that the first years membership would be involved in the setting up process and would enfranchise the membership.

· Concerns were expressed about the IHI being elitist. Alison Roddham replied that a top down approach was not wanted, more a bottom up, which is the idea behind getting ordinary participants involved at the beginning.

· Re-enactment societies are becoming more respected and it should be useful to small groups to share knowledge. A forum like the IHI will aid the sharing of knowledge.

Agreement to Aims, Structure etc.

The meeting continued by starting to go through the aims, structure etc.

1. The name was changed from the Institute of Historical Interpretation to the Historical Interpretation Forum.

2. The first aim was agreed, "To facilitate co-operation and communication between the heritage industry, educationalists, historians, archaeologists and live interpretation groups".

3. The second aim was modified from "To co-ordinate a pertinent educational programme for those involved with live historical interpretation, to aid the acquisition of relevant knowledge and skills" to "To promote and develop educational opportunities for those involved with live interpretation, to aid the acquisition of relevant knowledge and skills".

4. As it was getting late, it was suggested that further discussions an agreements should be conducted via e-mail, and the meaning of the aims was agreed, if not the exact wording.

5. The issue of the Forum officers was addressed.

Þ Dave Roberts, (Regiment de la Reine NFOE, Double Time), offered to become Journal editor.

Þ Ellen Muirhead, (ECWS & SK) offered to become membership secretary.

Þ The rest of the posts were left vacant at present, but a steering committee was put in place to lead the HIF forward. Volunteers for the steering committee were as follows:

Alison Roddham, (University of Essex, Double Time, Regiment de la Reine NFOE),
Dave Roberts, (Regiment de la Reine NFOE, Double Time)
Kim Siddorn, (Regia Anglorum)
Helen Edmunds, (ECWS, Tudor Group)
Keith Piggott, (Freelance interpreter)
Ellen Muirhead, (SK, ECWS)
Davan Winch, (World War Two Display Team)
Julian Tilbury, (ECWS, Tudor Group)
John Naylor, (Ermine Street Guard, Livery & Maintenance, independent trader)
Jenny Thompson, (The Heritage Centre, SK)
Helen Turner, (Institute of Education, Kentwell Hall)
Mark Wallis, (Past Pleasures)

6. Howard Giles, (English Heritage), and Diane Walker, (Royal Armouries, Fort Nelson), both said they would like to support the HIF but were unable to take a formal post due to their work.

7. The rewording of the aims, members of the review board and membership issues will be sorted out by the steering committee along with any other issues that may arise during this setting up phase.

8. The main form of communication between board members will be by e-mail.

END