Horns
of a Dilemma: Issues and Opportunities in
Presenting the Viking Era Norse Culture in a Museum Context.
Neil Peterson
No Viking captain contemplating his first
destination would feel more
swamped with opportunities and risks then a museum curator today
creating a new
exhibit on the Viking era Norse. To
best
educate the public the exhibit designer must forge connections between
the
material presented and the museum’s patrons.The stronger the
connections created the more likely the
patron is to
retain the information or follow it up at a later date.Yet to forge
those connections the designer
must deal first with the issues common to all presentations: budget,
timeframes, museum philosophies on education, artefact display
techniques, and
audience demographics. Issues associated specifically with the Viking
era such
as modern hate group associations, socially unacceptable cultural
norms, and a
large number of audience preconceptions must also be considered. This
paper reviews each of
these items and
then explores some of them as they appear in a current museum exhibit.
Standard Exhibit considerations
Curators and exhibit designers face certain
standard problems for any exhibit being considered regardless of the
topic
involved. Although
not the focus of this
paper these problems will have an impact on the choices made and thus
should be
understood. Foremost
among these is the
issue of budget. Modern
museum budgets
are relatively small and subject to change as the political environment
shifts. Almost
every element of the
exhibit will be impacted by the budget, renting exhibits, creating
replicas,
reproductions
[1],
text
panels, and backdrops, as well as more abstract issues such as
advertising and educational
activities such as guest lecturers, or additional staff such as
interpreters.[2]
Although
less of a concern at larger museums
the available display space will have an impact on the quantity and
layout of
the exhibit. The addition of the reconstructed boat when Vikings:
The North Atlantic Saga was presented at the American Museum
of Natural History[3]
serves as an example both of the negative budget impact that filling a
larger space
can have and the positive opportunities it presents for producing a
high impact
exhibit.
Time
has multiple impacts on exhibit
creation. The
length of time an exhibit
will run will have budgetary impacts due to equipment, space, and
artefact rental
as well as additional staffing costs.A
longer exhibit run allows fixed costs such as marketing to be amortized
over a
larger number of attendees while providing increased gate revenue.
However there is a second
element of time
that must be considered in designing an exhibit – the time an
average patron
will spend viewing the exhibit. The
more
time a patron spends in the exhibit the more time is available for them
to
learn. A small community museum whose average visitor invests a couple
of hours
in each new exhibit may be able to create more complex exhibits that
use this
available time. Larger
institutions also
need to design for shorter visits.A visit
to the Smithsonian or Canadian Museum of
Civilization is
often a twenty minute stop among a dozen other tourist spots seen in a
single
day visit.[4]
Beyond the basic
exhibit considerations,
there is the ongoing discussion on the purpose of a museum - a location
to
preserve and passively display historical artefacts or act as an
educational
institution. Beginning
with the changing
social norms in the 1960s that pushed for “social
relevance”[5]
Rawlins traces the development of educational trends in museums. With
the prevalence of
educational programs at
museums today and phrases like “Develops,
maintains, and communicates exhibits, programs and activities
to further knowledge, critical understanding, appreciation and respect
for
human cultural achievements and human behaviour”[6]
appearing in museum mandates
this debate may at first glance appear to have been settled.
Unfortunately
museums appear slow to
react to changes in our understanding of educational theory. There is a
tendency
for the museum to carefully preserve and display the artefacts and
educate with
some auxiliary text. Implications
of new
educational theories such as Gardner’s
Theory of Multiple Intelligences are slow to have an impact on
exhibits. An
improved connection with the patrons could be made by making better use
of the
available styles with which people absorb information.
Another
consideration is that of the
organization and presentation of artefacts.A common technique is to
place individual items in cases
with small
identification cards. Other
options
would include placing the items in context with each other, for example
mounting an anvil in a stump as it would have been used, placing an axe
head so
that its blade is on the anvil and suspend a hammer above the blade as
if it
were ready for the next strike.[7]
By placing the items in
this sort of
spatially connected grouping the patron can more easily interpret the
usage.
Similarly by taking an artefact and placing replicas with it in the
case it is
possible to show a visitor the stages of production or what the object
would
have looked like when it was in use, while still retaining the
authority that
comes with displaying an artefact.[8]
Placing the objects into
context by turning
the display from a simple box into a diorama using an appropriate
backdrop can further
aid the patron in forming an attachment to the information provided.
Finally
and perhaps most importantly of all, if
a curator is to help the patron to connect to the information being
presented
they must understand their audience.Our
modern culture is turned towards entertainment.This means that it is
not enough for a visitor to learn at
the exhibit
they are pre-disposed to expect to be entertained.Large budget films
replete with special
effects and documentaries heavy with scientific background are
commonplace. Renaissance
faires and
medieval theme attractions like “Medieval Times”
set a performance standard. The
designer must be ready to balance these expectations, provide a broad
range of
information, and send the patron home happy lest the exhibit receive
word of
mouth advertising of being boring. At the same time she must protect
the
academic credentials of the institution by not staging an inaccurate
spectacle.
A
lecture or lecture series associated with an
exhibit can act as a method of getting return visits by patrons during
the life
of an exhibit increasing revenue and visitor count while providing
additional
education. Bringing
in outside scholars
to speak increases the perceived authenticity of the exhibit in
addition to the
benefits described above. A
lecture from
the curator or exhibit designer can add a behind the scenes look which
is
always a welcome addition.
The
inclusion of live people in a presentation
extends the audience’s ability to connect with the exhibit in
another
direction. If done
well this will add
sound – both language and musical; more hands-on activity;
and significantly
enhances the patron’s ability to delve deeper into their own
specific interest
increasing their attachment to the topic further.It provides
information to see replicas in
use that can instantly increase the connection felt by the patron.
Interpreters also add a
direct and readily
available source for follow-up information on the items seen in the
exhibit.
The use of re-enactors, animators, or interpreters can expand the
entertainment
value of the program along with the increased educational content.
Increased risks come along
with the costs of
such an extension. Depending
on the type
of person used, inaccurate information or replicas and reproductions
may be
employed to the detriment of the exhibit.
Concerns Specific to Viking Exhibits
In
addition to the standard concerns facing
exhibit developers, presenting material on the Viking Era has its own
unique
problems. The first
of these is the
association between the White Pride movements and the Norse culture. It
is unfortunate that
these groups have
seized on this period of history to represent themselves but this
association
cannot be ignored. When
preparing an
interpretative exhibit for the Haffenreffer Museum in
2006, we were
contacted by the hate crimes division of the local police department to
warn us
that increased activity indicated that we could expect a visit from
group
members. Two
explicit actions were
taken: additional security was brought on-site for the exhibition to
stop any
incidents early, and the re-enactors were warned to adjust the content
of their
presentations. Care
must be taken to
consider this impact on both budget and training.
The
Viking era Norse culture is also impacted
by a number of norms that are not currently socially acceptable, or
which have
undergone such radical changes that it is difficult for the patron to
understand the Viking era context of particular words. Slavery serves a
good
example of these concerns. The
word
alone stirs up considerable concern in our culture, yet it was
undeniably a part
of the Norse world. Living
history sites
such as Colonial Williamsburg have attempted to address this concept in
the
past and had significant problems, even when due care is taken to
address the
concerns in advance.[9]
The
next problem is that of preconceptions. It is a rare patron today
who has no
connection to the term “Viking”.Ward
discusses several of the notions that are likely to come with the
audience. First
among these is the term ‘Viking’
itself. Although the term denotes a small fraction of the population
from this
cultural group and milieu it is such a standard term that the designers
of many
exhibits are compelled to use it.[10]
The iconic horned Viking
helmet and the
cultural preconceptions of the Viking as an intrepid explorer, or a
dirty barbarian[11]
are also firmly rooted and must be understood as a starting point for
exhibit
visitors. Ward’s
team created a pop-culture
display[12]
to
meet these preconceptions head on.According to her report this display
clearly had an impact
on the
patrons but did have risks associated with its use –
particularly the risk of
re-enforcing the preconception rather than challenging it.
Finally
the paucity of artefacts available from
the Norse culture can lead a visitor to astray in a number of ways. The
commonly presented
items and the easy
familiarity they bring may lead the patron to assume early that she has
seen
everything before and that this exhibit will add nothing to her
knowledge. In an
attempt to provide visitors with a
range of artefacts, curators often draw from a very broad geographical
and
temporal spread of sites. No
matter how
rigid the attempt to tie specific artefacts to particular areas and
times, the
patron may be lead to assume that the entire Viking Era Norse culture
is a
monolithic block that did not change for two hundred years.
This
concern is extended by the impact of
modernist and post-modernist ideas in both the presentation and the
patron’s
reaction to it. An
exhibit designer must
strive for a modernist presentation as authentic and accurate as
possible,
firmly supported by empirical evidence.The
patron’s post-modern expectations can cause them to accept or
attach to the
less authentic items because they feel more correct.This dichotomy can
be seen again in the issue
of the horned Viking helmets discussed by Ward.Plastic horned hats were
sold in the gift shop and were
popular but
generated significant negative comment to the designers[13].
Similarly, in the exhibit
discussed in depth
below included a selection of carved steatite game piece replicas, each
piece
was displayed with the carved side hidden as the curator felt that the
post-modernism of a shield carved into defending pieces would detract
from the
exhibit.[14]
This same post-modern response on the part of a patron will cause a
rapid and unfavourable
reaction
to real or perceived errors in the presentation.
Opportunities in Presentations of Norse Culture
Presenting
the Viking era culture also comes
with opportunities that may not exist with presentations of other
cultures. The two
problems discussed
earlier illustrate that audiences often have already formed one or more
links
to this culture. This
means that in
general exhibits and special events on this topic will be well attended
bringing a welcome boost to the profile and budget of most institutions.[15]
The
pre-formed connection with this culture
also makes the audience generally more receptive and allows more
educational
material to be absorbed.[16]
As
information about Viking Era history has
been presented to the public for over 100 years, an opportunity exists
to
examine how this information has been presented and educate the patron
on
cultural biases in the presentations.Presenting an artefact along with
dated interpretations,
and if possible
differing replicas, can show the patron the difference between the
interpretations of Victorian antiquarians, Nazi propagandists, and
early
scientific theories juxtaposed against the current theory. A further
possibility
exists to educate with regards
to the scientific or experimental techniques used to re-interpret the
artefact. Although
the Smithsonian’s Vikings: The
North Atlantic Saga has a
section on “Recapturing the Past”[17]
it falls short of seizing this opportunity.Presented well, such a case
could cause the patron to
question his own
biases and preconceptions as he tours the exhibit.
Examining an example exhibit
The Peterborough Centennial Museum and
Archives’
(PCMA) current presentation of Vikings:
Master Mariners, Traders, Colonists & Artisans
provides an example of
how a previously constructed exhibit can be adapted with a broader
presentation
capable of a greater audience connection and impact.This exhibit is an
expanded version of the
Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature’s Vikings:
Master Mariners exhibit. The original exhibit consists of 12
approximately
four by six foot panels in wooden frames, the majority with small Riker
mounts
attached containing reproductions.By
itself the original exhibit provides text panels which allow the patron
to
explore the topic in two levels of depth.Large font titles on each
panel sets the stage, medium
sized font for
one or two paragraphs covers the main point of the card while smaller
font
information allows more in depth follow-up of specific ideas or
artefacts. The
extremely sparse nature of the objects,
however, reduces the ability of the viewer to connect to the exhibit.
The exhibit was
expanded at the PCMA to
include 7 large floor mount cases with replicas, 4 exposed displays of
replicas,
and six stations that allowed patrons to connect to the items around
them in
different ways. Beside
a case containing
blacksmithing replicas, a bellows was positioned for the public to use
which
would make a tissue paper “fire” move. This would
appeal to a
bodily-kinesthetic learner as would the tablet weaving station nearby.
Beside a text card on the
extent of Viking
raiding and trading, a bearing dial with spotlights was arranged so
patrons can
exercise their spatial intelligence and learn to navigate. A game was
set up
beside a case on pastimes to appeal to logical-mathematically minded
patrons. A fifth
station contained paper
handouts with colouring,
and word game exercises to both reach younger patrons, and provide
activity for
them so that accompanying adults could take time to review the
available text
materials in the exhibit. A
final
station contained a recipe for bread that patrons could try at home
extending
the reach of the exhibit beyond the museum itself.
This
display was then augmented with various
lectures and a family day with additional activities and historical
interpreters available.
I
attended the exhibit on a day when the co-curator was providing a
lecture on the
Oseberg burial - one of the digs underlying the exhibit. I was afforded
the
opportunity to spend an
hour in the exhibit itself before other patrons arrived, then an hour
listening
to the reactions of the various attendees as they observed the
exhibits,
followed by a chance to hear the lecture and the post-lecture question
and
answer period.
The lecture itself was
attended by over 50 people, many of whom I had seen in the exhibit
earlier. This
represents a significantly
larger attendance than the norm for such lectures.[18]
The
average age was in the 50s with the youngest attendee in his mid teens.
The range of post
lecture questions was
interesting as it demonstrated quite solidly the attempts that people
were
making to attach themselves to the topic under discussion. There was a
question
about a specific oarsman’s name – an attempt to tie
the exhibit to a family story
told by the patron’s ancestors. Questions followed attempting
to place the
burial itself into a physical or cultural context.“Were the
objects buried life-sized?”
“How
did she die?” “Were the animals killed or buried
alive?” “What type of horses?”
all of these questions represent patrons looking for additional
connections in
their own world to link with the information.There were also exhibit
follow-up questions asking after
specific terms
or objects. These
are significant in
that they represent information that made enough of an impact that the
patron
was ready to risk exposing ignorance to gather more information.
In observing patrons
viewing the exhibit I focused on three particular pairs of people.
Although there were many
single people moving
through the exhibit they didn’t speak out loud making it
impossible to
understand what connections they were making without using more
intrusive means
such as an interview. The
first pair of
people was an older couple who slowly moved around the hall with the
man
explaining things to the woman – adding additional context
and linking it to
elements in their life. I
was struck by
the number of sentences that included phrases like “that
would be like us…”.
The second pair of
people was two middle-aged men. Their
method of contact with the information seemed to be to point out errors
(as
they saw them) in the exhibit to each other.They provided good examples
of preconceived ideas with
regards to the
Norse as one or the other indicated that the Norse gods were
“ripped off” the
Greek gods, or that the Norse art styles were clearly the result of
kidnapping
Celtic artisans. Even
this pair,
however, made new attachments in their reading of the information
provided as both
pointed out items of interest such as the draft of a longship to the
other.
The final pair was two
older ladies. Their
conversation
involved attempting to connect to the information on an emotional level
and
included phrases such as “what would it have felt like
to…”, or “I like the way
they…”.
Conclusions
Mounting
an exhibit on the Viking Era Norse has
both unique challenges and opportunities.A bold curator who is willing
to explore a broad range of
approaches to
educating the public will be rewarded with an interested and engaged
audience.
Bibliography
Canadian
Museum of
Civilization Corporation, “Financial Statements of Canadian
Museum of
Civilization Year ended
March 2007”, 2007 available at
http://www.civilization.ca/societe/annrpt06/arpt0607fe.pdf
Fife
W.“Penetrating Types: Conflating Modernist and
Postmodernist Tourism on
the Great Northern
Peninsula
of Newfoundland.”
Journal of American Folklore
117(464) (2004): 147-167
Fife
W. “Semantic
Slippage as a New
Aspect of Authenticity: Viking Tourism on the Northern Peninsula of
Newfoundland.”
Journal of Folklore Research Vol 41
No.
1 (2004): 61-84
Gardner,
H. Frames
of Mind:
The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books, 1993
Halewood
C. and Hannam K.“Viking
Heritage Tourism – Authenticity and
Commodification.” Annals of Tourism
Research 28.3 (2001): 565-580
Markewitz,
D, “The ‘Viking
Encampment’ at L’Anse aux Meadows National
Historic Site of Canada:
Presenting the Past” in Vinland
Revisited: the Norse World at the Turn of the First Millennium,
ed. Shannon
Lewis-Simpson 193-202. St. Johns:
Historic Sites Association, 2003.
Rawlins,
Kipi, “Educational Metamorphosis
of the American
Museum”
Studies in Art Education Vol 20 No. 1 (1978): 4-17
Roth,
Stacey. Past into Present. University
of North Carolina
Press, 1998
Ward,
Elisabeth I.,
“Viking Pop Culture on Display: The Case of the Horned
Helmets” Material
History Review Vol 54 (2001): 6-20
[1] This paper
will use three specific
terms defined by
Darrell Markewitz interpretative program and exhibit designer, in
personal communications
in an attempt to
clarify types of material that may be displayed. An artefact
is the actual object from the
archaeological excavation. A
reproduction is a modern creation
designed to look like the artefact. A replica
is a modern creation designed to look like the artefact would have
looked when it was in
use. Both replicas
and reproductions may have
various levels of accuracy in their creation.Materials may be
substituted at a number of levels.
For example any
reproduction or replica of a
pewter item will be made from a lead-free alloy while the actual
artefact will
have a lead content. Such
a substitution
is invisible at any level below a metallurgical analysis. A re-enactor,
however,
might use a ceramic
replica that has been glazed inside for health reasons which would be
highly
visible.
[2] Three terms defined by Darrell
Markewitz are used to
discuss manned presentations that can be used.An animator is an actor
who performs a set piece usually
completely
scripted. A
re-enactor is a member of a
historical organization who studies history as a hobby and presents
according
to the techniques specified by the group usually in a first or second
person
technique. An
interpreter is an
individual trained to present history to the public in an interactive
fashion
in one or more of a number of methods according to roles as designed
for an
exhibit.
[3]
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/vikings/transcript.html
[4] Darrell Markewitz, personal
communication, 2007
[5] Rawlins, 1978, p. 4
[6]Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation,
2007 note 1
[7]David Cox, co-curator Peterborough
Centennial Museum’s
Vikings: Master Mariners,
Traders, Colonists & Artisans personal communication, 2007
[8]Darrell Markewitz, personal
communication, 2007
[9]Roth, 1998 p. 168-172
[10]Ward, 2001 endnote 20 and Markewitz
2003 p. 201
[11]Ward 2001, p. 8
[12]Ward 2001, p.13
[13]Ward 2001, footnote 17
[14]David Cox, personal
communication, 2007
[15]David Cox, personal communication,
2007
[16]Ward 2001, footnote 28
[17]Ward 2001, p. 12
[18]David Cox, personal communication,
2007