Conclusion A frequently applied criticism of living history is that it is an example of creeping 'Disneyfication', trivialising the past and creating an end of the importance of 'edutainment' to museums. The remedy can be seen to have occurred at those museums where living history is run by the curatorial or interpretive staff rather than the public relations or commercial departments. For this reason sites such as Plimoth Plantation have dedicated time and effort into research supporting their presentations with a strong sense of scholarship. We live in a world in which people are becoming increasingly familiar with high technology, and multimedia presentations are becoming a feature of many museums. Even critics of the concept of living history have been forced to concede that good living history is a popular and effective teaching tool because it communicates a wide impression of the past.
Visitors see situations in which people, nature and objects influence each other.
This view is not limited to material culture and although the interpretation of a house and artefacts remains central to living history it can go beyond these physical limitations. To achieve this requires the right environment. Not all sites are appropriate for the technique. It requires staff who are well trained and able communicators, who are able to sustain their motivation under the pressure of visitors, or lack of them. Underlying this skill must be a sound historical knowledge and the awareness of the educational impact of their interaction with the visitor.