A Change of Focus - The history of the slave trade as told in two different museums

Over the last month or so I’ve been fortunate enough to delve into an area of history that I haven’t looked at for quite a while. Once you find your area, the thing that makes you tick, that subject becomes all-consuming, taking all your energy and attention and for me that was the Victorian period and animal studies. But a friend of mine is doing a lot of research into the Slave Trade and I’ve recently joined her on a couple of museum visits, to view exhibitions focused on the topic.

Now the history of slavery and the abolition movement is something I have studied in the past. My first introduction to it being in Year 9, when I first engaged with the transatlantic slave trade and the ‘triangular trade’ and first heard of Olaudah Equiano. But it was some years before I returned to the subject again, when I opted in the second year of undergrad to take the History of the British Empire 1763-1900 module and would later write my essay on the importance of slave narratives to the abolition movement.

Museum of London Docklands
Authors own photo.

However, it’s been a refreshing change to return to the subject and divert my focus from the work I’ve been doing. To be able to engage with a different area of history and to view exhibitions as purely a visitor and not necessarily as a critic has been a rather nice position to be in. But I wouldn’t be me, if I didn’t have a few thoughts to share on what I’ve seen. There are two examples I’d like to discuss. The first being Museum of London Docklands Gallery, London, Sugar and Slavery , and the second, the M-Shed’s exhibition on Bristol’s involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the Bristol People Gallery.

The first observation I have is how influential it can be visiting these sorts of places with someone who is so interested in and passionate about the subject that an exhibition or museum focuses on because when they engage, you naturally do as well. I’m really of the opinion that museums and galleries should be places of exchange and dialogue, not silent halls that epitomise that traditional, oppressive museum atmosphere. And when you visit with someone who is actively engaging with what they are looking at or reading, that’s exactly what you get and that is in so many ways more beneficial to your overall learning experience.

Often that other person will be able to tell you something that’s missing, or a different view point that they’ve read and you begin to see more of the bigger picture, than can be conveyed in that particular space or with the funds available. And I didn’t just notice this on these particular visits, but also when viewing a Monet exhibition with my friend who’s a Monet enthusiast and at the Freud Museum in Vienna, where my friend worked on a project to produce a walking tour. I can still tell you now things I learnt from those three individuals having visited places with them and engaged with their particular specific interests. I don’t proclaim to know anywhere near as much as they do, but I now know more because I was inspired by their enthusiasm to learn about those topics.

Plaque in the dock area
Authors own photo.

So what of the exhibitions we went to view. Well let’s start with London, Sugar and Slavery exhibition. If you’ve read my blog recently you’ll have seen how unimpressed I was with the Museum of London Docklands overall and many of those criticisms also, sadly, extend to this exhibit. At a theoretical level it’s fantastic and I base that assessment on what I understand of its aims – to readdress the narrative focus away from the efforts of the parliamentarians and to prioritise the experience of those enslaved; particularly dissenters and black abolitionists. But to be honest, you could have fooled me, the section on resistance being all too easy to overlook in favour the table where the bill was drafted. If it hadn’t been for my friend telling the aim of the exhibition and having done a little reading online, I’d have missed that completely if I’m honest. I felt it was badly executed, either that or its dated very badly since its unveiling in 2007.

Unfortunately it has adopted the “book on the wall” approach. There is loads of information, but I’d question its layout and also some glaring oversights. For example, in some cases there weren’t captions to pictures so you had no idea where they came from, who created them or who they featured. While in others instances where there were captions of who pictures depicted, there was limited information beyond a name so their relevance could easily be missed by an ‘unknowing’ visitor – thankfully I had an expert to assist!  I noticed this in particular about Mary Prince, a picture featured early on in the exhibition but her ‘role’ if you like, wasn’t explained until much later.

Captions at M-Shed
Authors own Photo

That said, there were some really interesting nuggets of information, but they were all too often buried in huge wads of text – personally I would have picked them out and centred them in some areas of blank space, of which there were quite a few. Drawing on my later example as comparison, Bristol did this particularly well, having quotes running round the top of the exhibition space and across the front of the display cases.

I would commend the use good use of oral testimony by the Museum of London, in the contemporary section of the exhibition and this added a level of engagement that otherwise was quite underwhelming. But again, I also felt there was a missed opportunity to show the modern link to human trafficking in the 21^st century, especially in terms of connecting with a younger audience. So often youngsters question why the past is relevant and I think this exhibition could have provided a strong example of why it is and why it’s important to possess knowledge of history. As I said of the whole museum, it just felt very flat and lacking in anything that might provoke more than superficial engagement.

Bristol and the transatlantic slave trade diagram
Authors Own Photo

But I think that’s enough of my whinging about that particular museum. To Bristol. It’s notable in that it’s both a smaller museum and exhibition but as soon as I walked in I was immediately more impressed. The huge diagram of the triangular trade that greets you as you walk into the gallery was both eye-catching and informative. It wasn’t just simple black lines between London, West Africa and the Caribbean, but it featured pictures, statistics, item lists and captions which demonstrated the nature of what was being traded, who funded it and enormity of it. It was off to a good start. It actually told more of what you perhaps didn’t necessarily want to know, the unpalatable truth about the subject. It dealt with that head on and I responded really well to that.

M Shed Exhibition
Authors own photo

In essence it is all shown in a small room, but it used all the tools I wanted to have seen in London.  It made good use of technology (most of which was actually working) and which allowed you to engage with the material beyond what was on display. The interactive screens also offered sound bites, which although limited, catered to a more multi-sensory experience. The only drawback was that you couldn’t take a seat and peruse through the material more comfortably.

Contemporary Link
Authors own photo

The cabinets of objects on display were also not static. They were fuller for starters, but also had clear object lists and as I previously said, quotes were placed on the glass which immediately drew your attention. There was also a map of the area showing buildings that were constructed from the profits made from the trade and the modern thread was also clearly present. In the centre of the room there was a large table with contemporary newspaper articles focusing on the legacy of the slave trade and also to one side, an interactive screen which invites visitors to vote about whether Bristol should commemorate the Slave Trade in some way. The effort to make it relevant and contemporary was much obvious here and also more successful. You were being invited for your opinion and it successfully engaged me.

The only slight odd thing about it was that slightly apart from the main exhibit you had continued display on the slave trade but it was tied into a thematic display on activism in Bristol, so the information on resistance and role of women in abolition movement was a little more difficult to find. It was effective having it encompassed in that thematic display but did feel a little separate from the main exhibition. 

I have to admit it was also helpful to have a guide who knew so much more than the exhibition divulged because it was quite limited. But I didn’t tire of this exhibit like I had done in London, despite its smaller size. I was quite happy reading the information and navigating my own way around, because there was so much to engage with in so many different ways.

We couldn’t really have picked two more contrasting places. I was disappointed by one, while the other exceeded all expectations. It just goes to show that actually the scale of a museum doesn’t necessarily guarantee quality of visitor experience, for in this case I would say the M-Shed outshone the Museum of London and that is something I didn’t expected I’d be saying.

Åland Maritime Museum: An ethos to aspire too!

Is it possible to love a museum that you’ve never actually been too? Well that was how I felt after hearing the director of Åland Maritime Museum, Hanna Hagmark-Cooper, speak at the recent Rhul Public History Alumni Seminar. I found her talk completely fascinating and decided I’d take the time to share a summary of it and its key themes with you.

Maritime industry is a key part of the island’s history and both national and cultural identity are tied to this historic relationship with sailing ships. The Museum began in the 1920s as a private collection, and as a reaction to a decline in the maritime industry. Soon after, a club emerged to support this private collection, the purpose of which was to create a dedicated museum to preserve the maritime industry and its part in the Island’s history. Exhibits were collected through donations, but club members also petitioned for donations – there was, and still is, a strong level of personal investment in the museum. It was run as a private enterprise until the 1980s when it became a charitable trust as it remains today.

Now when the decision was made to rebuild the museum, I was surprised to learn that it faced no opposition – I can’t imagine a similar attitude necessarily being adopted here in the UK, for I don’t think a single museum is seen as that important to our national or cultural identity. But people from the Åland Islands wanted this redevelopment and were happy for investment to be diverted from other sectors towards the museum project.

Hanna began work at the museum in 2004 at which time the focus was very much on the display of sailing ships. However, since it’s re-opening in 2012 and under the instruction of Hanna, the museum has now introduced topics which broaden its scope, including the impact of steam engines, ship building and safety at sea. From what was described, it is no longer just a showcase for old boats, but has more substance and narrative for visitors to experience. 

It was this element that originally caused slight resistance, for there was a fear of what modernism might mean for the museum. Museum staff and supporters were aware of the need for a new approach to draw in new visitors, however at the same time they didn’t want to alienate the core visitor group. This led to what I have to admit finding most fascinating – the strong sense of shared authority between museum staff and specialist groups invested in museum. Huge emphasis appears to have been placed on consultation, staff being acutely aware of the ‘strong local commitment’ to seeing the museum be a success, both in terms of its original goals and what would draw in visitors.

With only a core staff of 5, this emphasis on shared authority has also been beneficial in other ways. Museum staff have been able to call on specialist groups, those with expertise in ship building, mechanical engineers and sail makers for example, for help during the redevelopment. Hanna described how a sense of mutual respect has developed between museum staff and specialist groups, because they each have knowledge of their own ‘trade’ and appreciate the limits to their own abilities. By working together, sharing ideas and exchanging information, they’ve created a productive and effective environment in which the redevelopment has been able to prosper. And amazingly this relationship continues, currently three years on, with no sign of that ending soon. The community spirit and shared investment in what is clearly such an important part of their shared heritage, is something I found really inspiration and evocative.

Also particularly interesting, and in fact the intended main focus of the talk, was the museum’s use of social media to create and research new and interesting exhibitions. In this case Hanna referred to a Facebook exhibition, which successfully broadened the museum’s reach by presenting a topic of greater interest to people beyond the core group of visitors.

Hanna recalled how she had first been invited to a closed group on Facebook where people involved with the maritime industry, exchanged photos and stories of their experiences. I’m sure we are all part of a similar group, perhaps a school reunion group, or local history? Anyway, Hanna described her interest in watching this develop over time and the end result was a temporary exhibition. The Museum took just 14 of the thousands of images uploaded to the group, and displayed them, together with accompanying comments, in a temporary exhibition in the museum. The group was consulted throughout this process and was involved in, from what it sounds like, most decisions. It had the community element right at its heart and I just think it’s such a fantastic idea. Again, the museum is enacting the principle of shared authority and I just think a lot could, and should be learnt from this example and it's methods adopted by other museums.

Hanna speaks with a degree of pride about how this exhibition made marginal histories central to the narrative told by the museum, if only temporarily, and drew in a new audience demographic. We were told how usually objects are what survive from ships and therefore are displayed, not the stories of the people who served and sailed upon them; and in fact thinking of examples of ships I’ve visited, at Portsmouth Historic Dockyard and the  S.S Great Britain, this is true. I can remember clearly some of the objects, but nothing particularly about the people. And so as you would expect, by displaying these stories, interest in the museum increased and people’s perceptions of the museum were dramatically altered.

I came away from this talk with two key phrases in my mind – community collaboration and shared authority and I just so impressed to hear how well the Åland Maritime Museum has invoked these principles. Hearing of how this one temporary exhibition has changed the museum’s outlook and opened up further opportunities for collaborative projects, including the collection of items and inclusion of photos and comments from Facebook in the archive, reinforced my belief in the importance of Public History and the emphasis that should be placed on community/visitor involvement.

Having been so UK-centric in my studies, it was really interesting to hear how the Public history philosophy is carried out in a European context and I think it would be really interesting to see some of the UK’s museums adopt some of these approaches and the resulting impact it might have on their appeal and level of visitor engagement.

Trip to the Åland Islands anyone?

Museum of London Docklands: A Trip to Sailor Town

London Docklands

I’ve tried to let some time pass between writing this blog and my visit to the Museum of London Docklands to see if my initial disappointment would subside and I could gain some objectivity. However, on this occasion that logic doesn’t appear to have worked because I still feel quite disappointed by my recent visit and am left feeling that the museum has so much potential, but that has yet to be fully realised.

Traveling out to the Docks is not something I get to do very often and my first impressions were really good. I was excited to be there and excited to visit one of the major London museums that I hadn’t visit before. The sense of atmosphere was striking. The juxtaposition of old against new and the character of the former warehouse building, where the museum is located, was exactly as I’d envisaged. It didn’t matter that the warehouse now houses a museum and various restaurants and bars; you could just imagine it once bustling with industry, as ships were unloaded and produce from around the world was moved into storage. It still has that Victorian age vibe and it felt as if things had happened there.

Museum Location

I think the trouble is I went with an agenda. My fascination with the docks ties in with 19^th century imperialism and… wait for it…. the exotic animal trade. That’s why I’m interested in the docks and surrounding area - for the role they fulfilled in the trade. So I was quite disappointed at how little this topic featured in the narrative told within the museum. There were limited references - the odd twentieth century photograph, whale jaw bones from the late 1700s found in the Thames; a cabinet of curiosities featuring animal products bought in from around the world, ostrich feathers, eggs, shells and ivory; while I also honed in on a reference to the gifting of turtles. It’s there I suppose, but in fleeting references and I just feel so much more could have been made of it – as a hook, to capture people’s interest who might not otherwise find the docks of interest. Perhaps I had hoped for too much.

However, that lack of substance didn’t just apply to the animal trading side of things. I’m fortunate to be aware of how much trade was being done in London across the Victorian period and preceding that, but as a visitor I didn’t really get a sense of that from the museum. I mean it’s there within the narrative, but the impact and sheer scale of it just gets lost. I’m not entirely sure how you would convey it, but it just felt very flat. I can’t really explain it. Even galleries that you would think could have bought in some emotion, like the London, Sugar & Slavery and Docklands at War, didn’t really do so.

Animal Related Items

Don’t get me wrong the topics covered are fascinating; they were just not presented very well. Well that, or, they’ve struggled to stand the test of time. Perhaps my view on this is sort of like the struggle I had with the IWM before its refurbishment? Times have changed and as visitors, we’ve begun to expect something different now. We don’t want a “book on the wall” approach, we want to be engaged, enticed and intrigued. We want to be able to control our “learning journey”, by reading more about the bits we are interested in and leaving the rest and to do that the information needs to be presented in a particular way. Small chunks, with “sign post” headings, images, eye catching quotes, directionality, and a strong narrative.  The museum has the content; the design is just somewhat outdated.

There is part of me that feels I am being overly critical and I probably am because there were people clearly engaging with the exhibits, I just felt disappointed. And perhaps that’s the risk of going with a preconceived idea of what you’ll find, or hope to find.

The nearest we got to anything particularly strong in terms of the animal trade was in Sailortown, which features the ‘Animal Emporium’ of George Bignold. Great, we have a recreation of his shop with accompanying sound effects and objects such as skulls and shells, but there was no information and it just felt like there was a missed opportunity to really entice people’s interest. I mean a group of 40+ schools kids just strolled past it without stopping to engage and yet, I know it’s something people find interesting when they know a little more about.

Advert in Sailor Town

Now hands up, this is my area of expertise and one I want to tell everyone about it, but it need not have been this element that captured peoples interest, it could have been barrel making or knot tying – I don’t know, but there was nothing really to interact with, no single industry that left an overriding impression. You had to read and observe, occasionally watch (if the screen wasn’t being affected by technical issues, as most were on this visit) – it wasn’t a very forceful transmission of knowledge and I think actually it needed it to drive the museum narrative home. It needed a wow factor.

It’s a shame because the history of the docks is so colourful and multicultural, with interesting events and characters, but none of that really came across. Social history is the hook for me, I like to know about people and their stories and how that fits into the historical narrative, but the museum seem to have opted for themes within chronology and I don’t think that particularly works. One of my favourite bits was the small exhibit on East End identity, looking at both historic and modern perceptions, because it took a different approach and linked the two different periods together, making direct cultural references. It also used a range of tools to transmit that, from audio-visual to objects and texts. That had the “wow factor” I was looking for.

I am glad that I went and got to experience the Museum, it was interesting and I did take some nuggets of information away, the overall experience just felt flat. I know that isn’t a useful term to come back too, but I can’t think of how to describe it any other way. It just needs shaking up – making it more interactive with some wow factor, if it wants to keep pace with the other London museums. I mean in the Museum of London itself can achieve that, why not its sister branch?

Final Thoughts:

• I was surprised to learn…. That the Romans built the first timber bridges across the Thames in 110AD and were only replaced by stone c.1176-1209.
• I hadn’t realised that…. There was an African Community in Seven Dials that pre-dates 1778.
• I was left wondering… what on earth a Hogshead was. We narrowed it down to a measurement of some sort but it’s taken some post-visit research to discover that it is in fact a measurement, usually for beer and ale, that in the UK (after 124 adoption of the imperial system) was equal to 54 imperial gallons or approximately 245.49 litres.