Whom do the Ulfingers embody? Who are we? What do we do? What ist this “historical display”?

Why do grown ups disguise? Why do we think it is of public interest to have a look at us?  Are we qualified, do we have the task to educate or even teach other ones?

Why do we do the same under foreclosure of the public? Does that make us dubious or simply role players?

uprising dwarfs...

These questions are not far fetched but serious Deadly serious. Distinction towards somewhat questionable presentations is obviously very important in the circles of historic presenters and therefor recurrently disputed with holy fervour. 

In parts this is objectively right: if the broders of tastefulness or even legislation are in danger of being hurt. This may be the case with fighting scenes and battle reenactments, going too much into cruel and bloody details. Or with the use or overuse of symbols that are prohibited in some countries, except for educative purposes, because they are associated with fear, abuse of power and genocide instead of prehistoric ornamentation. Equally it may be better to portray certain fertility rites or Roman Bacchantia including cultic self-emasculation only in written words than to stage them on Sunday afternoon in the public of a Roman Fest.

Especially in the context of museum presentations, seemingly the antithesis of the historical desinformation of the everwhere “Medieval Fairs”, it looks as if the only acceptable way of sincere presentation was the reconstruction of archeological finds and the depiction of their use.

We have to admit that much of what we Ulfingers show, leaves the solid ground of dug out evidence.

Not as far as the demonstrated objects are concerned. Here we honestly try to show exact reconstrutions in form and function. Our weapons displays are explanative, not show fights, our fashion parade shows different clothes, documented by archeology and contemporary depictions. We are always struggling to improve all this and to react to newly published scientific articles.

But other things are also shown by us: in short theatre plays we portray social differences, religious acts or “political” attitudes. We are well conscious of moving in a twilight zone doing so, because things are being presented of which no one knows anything exact. Speculation, guesswork by it self should not be condemned. It is one of the motors of science. Yet actually in relation with Living History the demarcation towards romantic glorification or politically motivated distortion of information is not easy.

Nevertheless we treat these subjects. We don’t do Living Archeology, but Living History. Our interest is not limited to archeology, but reachs as far as history in general.

That is the most fascinating, but also the very impossible aspect of making history apprehendable, ready to grasp: its complexity. The recreation of a certain moment in time means the reconctruction of a complete world. History cannot be reduced to a single item, but is only understandable as a never nding chain of happenings on our planet. Of course it is absurd to claim we were able to create a holistic - complete - image of the past. We don’t even manage that with our recent world. Natürlich wäre es absurd zu behaupten, dass wir ein holistisches - ganzheitliches - und vollständiges Bild der Vergangenheit gewinnen können. Yet basically, by principle, we try to understand the past world as much as we try to understand nowadays’ politics. Impossible, but justified and necessary.

Necessary, because finds and contemporary depictions which serve as models and patterns for reconstructions, need to be allocated in relation to their historical background. Justified because it enables us to complete the gaps of evidence with something that is not wild speculation, but educated guesswork. Neglecting the existence of the unknown makes it impossible, to separate probable from implausible.

This is, what makes enactments so attractive: one can portray, depict, how it may have been. But there’s also danger in it: Living images, staged in front of the background of an open-air museum cannot be put in subjunctive or quotation marks. Different from written words, visual perception leads to a feeling of truth. Or, if something obviously impossible is shown, one should never underestimate the audience, as a proof of failure of the presenting group.

That’s the reason why the Ulfingers don’t do an all day role play, that intends to make believe a life in the past, but put the “soft matters” into a different habitat: art. Theatre. As prologue and epilogue we do moderate and explain the shown scenes. Here is one space for quotation marks and underlining the speculative charakter. Next: theatre is perceived by the audience as something artificial. Opposite to cinema, the art is not the perfection of illusion. It is possible and necessary to use comic and dramatic elements. This is not only entertainment, but also involves the emotions yet keeps an intellectual distance. What is seen in theatre is not perceived as “it was so” but as “they do so.” The audience is not eye-witness of a “to do as if” but of a - more or less - interesting performance, which will be judged by the applause.

By that means one can treat subjects like legislation, religion, social ranks, social systems and contemporary politics, without claiming “it has been like that”. But it is an ivitation to think and debate these subjects, which is oftenly accepted.

And why do we stay disguised without audience, in the evening? Live in shaky tents, prepare our food in contemporary pottery, do even meet at non public gatherings? An honest answer? Here you are:

It is fun. Bonfire romance. Holidays from everyday life, recreation and emotional enrichment. Meeting likeable people with related interests. The use of wear and gear becomes easier by training. To lite a fire with stone and steel may last half an hour without trainig. Showing that as “expertise” would be desinformation. For a trained person it is a few seconds.

But nevertheless everyone of us is a recent human being, with a recent life.