Handkerchiefs as Memorabilia at the Crystal Palace (1851): Addressing Gaps in Museum Object Descriptions

Abstract

Museums continue to face challenges in maintaining collections as digital offerings expand. Embracing object-based analysis prompts museums to reflect on gaps in object descriptions. This article focuses on two commemorative handkerchiefs from the 1851 Great Exhibition in London, England held in the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) online collections. Recommendations include describing the history of textiles manufacturing in England as well as the use of imagery on commemorative handkerchiefs symbolic of control, unity, and loyalty to the British Crown at this event. This research fills a gap in existing literature on memorabilia at the international exhibitions during the mid-nineteenth to early twentieth century. It also highlights how prioritizing research in online collections management and improving transparency regarding institutional challenges can bring renewed focus to online record-keeping and educational opportunities.

Introduction

This article offers a historical and material examination of two commemorative handkerchiefs from the Great Exhibition in London, England in 1851, as seen in the Victoria and Albert Museum’s (V&A) online collections. ¹ According to the “Building the Museum” session produced as part of Queen Victoria & Prince Albert’s Bicentenary (April 2, 2019 to September 1, 2019), the V&A, previously known as the South Kensington Museum, was founded to house articles from the Great Exhibition, such as these handkerchiefs: “The Victoria and Albert Museum was founded with a mission: to educate designers, manufacturers and the public in art and design. Its origins lie in the Great Exhibition of 1851 – the world’s first international display of design and manufacturing.” ² Handkerchiefs were common memorabilia during the international public exhibitions in the Victorian era. The imagery on commemorative handkerchiefs enforced a national narrative about the Great Exhibition being a unifying event for all nations and, at the same time, promoted British loyalism. Organizers, such as Prince Albert, often celebrated industrial achievements in support of British industrialism evident from the display of articles collected from and categorized under the British colonies. Although the V&A comments on the socio-cultural factors of the Great Exhibition elsewhere online, details are sparce in collection records. Additional information regarding provenance increases opportunities for online engagement and educational opportunities. Museums must aim to adopt more inclusive and transparent recordkeeping in efforts to address gaps in online collections management to avoid and address partial and disjointed histories and storytelling. Museums adopting decolonial frameworks have started this journey and must continue reviewing records as part of this ongoing process. In recognition of the challenges museums face, such as limited resources to conduct research on objects in such a large collection, this article offers suggestions regarding historical and cultural context, such as manufacturing techniques, history of use, and symbolism as well as how to enhance educational opportunities and object narratives online.

Methods

This analysis was guided by the following questions: What information is presented and/or missing? How do these gaps enforce colonial narratives in museums? What imagery is used on the handkerchiefs? What is the imagery symbolic of? I approached my analysis of the handkerchiefs using object-centered methodology, including object-based learning and materialism. ³ According to Amanda Maree Burritt, object-based learning “is seen as a way to enhance engagement, empathy, understanding and knowledge for students in primary, secondary, tertiary and adult education settings.” ⁴ As Haidy Geismar notes, “[t]he term ‘object lesson’ means more than simply using artefacts for teaching purposes. Rather, object lessons are arguments about the world made through things. They are educational, performative, and fundamentally material.” ⁵ I recognize that these approaches come with limitations. As Sarah Maza asserts, “Eurocentric tendencies are deeply embedded in historical writing.” ⁶ As noted by Christina Hodge, scholarship by Rodney Harrison, Amy Lonetree, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith suggests that:

[v]isual and material-properties-based approaches tend to privilege the viewer’s standpoint over those of makers, users, and descendant community members, exacerbating museums’ already problematic asymmetries in power. . . . A potential “colonizing” effect on knowledge production—which perpetuates colonial/imperial subjugation by rendering certain populations and their things objects of, rather than agents of, meaning-making—is especially concerning. ⁷

As a result, instead of approaching objects simply as a product, it is important to examine their socio-cultural meanings and the messages memorabilia conveys through construction techniques, choice of imagery, and history of use.

There are various challenges with online collections management practices. Claire Jones affirms that “the Great Exhibition is still positioned as an exceptional event in the museum’s pre-history, rather than as a direct and continuous presence in its collections, administration and outlook.” ⁸ By reviewing current collections management policies and making updated documents readily accessible and directly linked in online collections, museums will show the public their commitment and progress with diversifying stories and improving access to information. Although the V&A states that the online records are a part of a working collection and invites the public to suggest improvements, including next steps directly in the online records will clarify how museum cataloguing and research is being approached. ⁹

Historiography

There has been limited research completed on handkerchiefs as memorabilia at nineteenth-century international public exhibitions. ¹⁰ As a result, the existing studies in this article address the commodification of culture and use of souvenirs more generally. It is important to define souvenirs from a visitor’s perspective; as revealed by Emma Dresler, “souvenir meanings are socially constructed and can be invaluable for helping visitors to contextualize the complexity of lived experiences situated in a specific place, people, and event.” ¹¹ As Christine Ballengee-Morris states, “souvenirs include multiple forms that range from everyday to historical and cultural items.” ¹² Emma Dresler and Amy Ogata note that souvenirs facilitate memories. ¹³ Amy Ogata’s research on peepshow souvenirs at expositions in nineteenth-century Britain demonstrates that nationalism and consumerism are connected to the collective memory of visitors. ¹⁴ This aligns with the narrative of commemorative handkerchiefs. The handkerchiefs were used to facilitate memories of nation-building and status. Cláudia Martins examines access to commodified culture during the Victorian era through “museum culture”:

. . . the Victorian Age was defined by a set of conditions favourable to this phenomenon of ‘museum culture’: first, the underlying intent to brainwash the masses with an imperialist and patriotic spirit, plain in the 1851 Great Exhibition; secondly, Victoria and Albert’s plan to educate the taste of the masses (and democratise the masses); and, finally, the museum representing an ally to ward off the fear of a revolution as bloodthirsty as the French Revolution. ¹⁵

Harnessing the power of imagery on commemorative handkerchiefs may have been one way for Queen Victoria and Prince Albert to gain influence over the masses as well as create a lasting image of British identity, pride, unity, and celebration.

It is critical to examine the relationship between politics, industry, and exhibitions during the nineteenth century. Moritz Gleich highlights fluid crowds moving through exhibits displaying objects representative of industry of all nations, as seen in the handkerchief’s imagery of large crowds navigating the Crystal Palace. ¹⁶ The handkerchiefs show the elaborate structural details of the interior of the Crystal Palace, such as the lower and upper levels, and the use of glass in the building. Another handkerchief shows the grand facade of the building, symbolic of access to funds, resources, and labor. ¹⁷ John Agnew and Jeffrey Auerbach note the role of industry in the nation’s progress. ¹⁸ The building and articles within it carried this sentiment, although, Auerbach believes there was struggle around national identity due to conflicting visions of modernization, industrialization, and internationalism. ¹⁹ Handkerchief imagery reveals socio-cultural factors, such as political views. ²⁰ Studying the manufacturing, purchase, and circulation of such commemorative items will reveal new insights on who supported, attended, and profited from international exhibitions.

Museums often remain(ed) neutral for the purpose of “objectivity,” which enforces colonial practices and excludes marginalized voices. ²¹ I acknowledge the importance of examining “history from below” instead of top-down. ²² Much can be learned from archival research regarding more inclusive descriptions. Jennifer Douglas, Greg Bak, Evelyn McLellan, Seth van Hooland and Raymond Frogner express that archives must move away from singular provenance. ²³ This study is about linked open data. Although this is not discussed in this article, it is a point worth exploring in the future. Heather MacNeil offers a study on authenticity and accountability in relation to archival description; MacNeil notes, “[s]ince the grounds for presuming the records’ authenticity are provided by the archivist who prepares the description, there is an inevitable link between authenticity and archival accountability and, specifically, between archival description and the role of the archivist as trusted custodian and an archival institution as trusted repository.” ²⁴ Stacy Wood, Kathy Carbone, Marika Cifor, Anne Gilliland and Ricardo Punzalan demonstrate how archival descriptions can be mobilized to support important causes, such as human rights. ²⁵

Anna Woodham, Rhianedd Smith, and Alison Hess discuss the emotional potential of stored objects, which is important to note as the two handkerchiefs in this study are not on display, as indicated in the object records. ²⁶ Woodham et al. provide strategies for “unloved” collections in storage, including engaging with objects through a sensory encounter to evoke feeling and connection to the object’s history. According to Woodham et al., “Touch directly links audiences and/or artists with the object’s histories and contexts, their original makers or owners, and their material embodiment, not least through a connection of hands revealed by fingertips, patina, or marks of wear and tear.” ²⁷ The reasons for an object to be on display or in storage can vary from the object’s condition (limited exposure often being a direct result of preventative measures for the care of the object), relevance in both permanent and temporary exhibits, and space limitations in museums. Maja Povrzanovic Frykman and Jonas Frykman confirm the power of the senses in relation to the study of material culture. ²⁸ Dina Smith-Glaviana covers the importance of multisensory engagements and the ability to examine a garment’s details in online exhibitions as this is an important part of the learning process for students studying museum practices. ²⁹ Online collections have the possibility to store and disseminate information that, in particular, offers emotional experiences through close-examination of objects, enhanced provenance, and storytelling. It is important to recognize that partial records offer disjointed narratives. Enhancing online records should be prioritized as much as in-person experiences to improve accessibility to museum stories.

Recommendations

In efforts to help address gaps in the online handkerchief records, I have outlined suggestions regarding manufacturing techniques in the textiles industry, history of maker and use of the object, symbolism found in the imagery, and opportunities to add to museum education. This will further enhance the object descriptions and share a more in-depth provenance with online audiences. The V&A acknowledges their backlog and commits to improving collections management practices. ³⁰ This is a reality in many institutions who are responding to the lasting impacts of colonial histories in museums and how museum objects have entered collections, often undocumented or with minimal historical context provided upon entry. This article is meant to act as an aid to help the museum move forward with addressing online record gaps. I encourage scholars to share their own research with the museum sector in efforts to work in partnership during a time when resources remain sparce.

Manufacturing Techniques

William Farrell provides insights on the silk industry in eighteenth-century England, including the impacts of tariffs on imported silks and prohibition laws forbidding foreign textiles; as a result, local manufacturers, such as Spitalfields, produced a variety of items, including handkerchiefs. ³¹ Farrell notes that high quality silks were for those attending court and “[l]ower quality and plainer silks had a market among the middling sort.” ³² This was also during a time when cotton manufacturing became popular, as noted in a Scientific American issue published in 1853:

The “cotton manufacture” is one of the most astonishing developments of modern times; it is but a child in comparison with that of the linen, and yet, so far as quantity—the amount of goods fabricated—is concerned, the latter cannot stand any comparison with the former. We are of the opinion, however, although we have no statistical table for reference—that the linen is the most valuable trade; that is, the total value of the linen goods manufactured is greater than that of the cotton. ³³

Melinda Watt discusses the use of roller printing during the Industrial Revolution. First introduced in the 1780s, roller printing allowed for mass-production, and color was added using block printing, which, by the 1860s, was incorporated as part of the process. ³⁴ As the two handkerchief records feature the same print, one handkerchief (T.78-1918), using color ink, and the other handkerchief (T.91-1961), using black ink this may be an example of roller printing with the addition of color ink through block printing; although, this is difficult to determine due to the event date of 1851. ³⁵ The record for the handkerchief with black ink (T.91-1961) indicates plate-printed, and the record for the handkerchief with color ink (T.78-1918) indicates plate, block printed. One of the records indicates that silk was used instead of cotton or linen, yet the use of block printing aligns with the idea of mass-production and the distribution instead of intricate designs and embroidery.

August Applegath, a producer of silk handkerchiefs, is recorded in volume two of the Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of the Great Exhibition: “KEYMER, JAS., Lawrence Lane—Producer. Silk bandanna handkerchiefs in needlework style, flowers, small or Fichus; and a study, commemorative of the Great Exhibition. Printed at the works of Augustus Applegath, Dartford.” ³⁶ , ³⁷ The patents of Applegath of Crayford, Kent, indicate their desire to obtain “improvements in apparatus for block printing” in 1838. ³⁸ The National Archives contains records on John Applegath’s operations in Dartford, Kent, such as the registration for pocket handkerchiefs, but this record is not yet digitized. ³⁹ The addition of contextual information in the online records, such as these initial findings regarding handkerchief production is recommended as this aligns with the V&A’s Collections Development Policy. As noted under sub-section 4.1.2 Scope and collecting for the Collections: Furniture, Textiles & Fashion Department, there is an effort to “continue the long-established tradition of collecting both historical and contemporary objects, focusing on high-style design, manufacture or craftsmanship and seeking objects that tell intriguing stories not only about design processes, cutting edge technology and designers and makers, but also about who commissioned, owned or used them.” ⁴⁰ Further investigation is needed regarding the production of commemorative handkerchiefs for the Crystal Palace.

There is also an opportunity to discuss the impacts of the silk trade on laborers. Claire Jones’ research about returning agency to industrial workers by examining their experiences as visitors at international exhibitions takes this approach and although this article focuses on the London International Exhibition of 1862 and the Paris International Exhibition of 1867, similarities can be seen earlier. ⁴¹ Although this study is not solely focused on the 1851 Great Exhibition, it serves as an excellent framework for returning agency to the nineteenth-century industrial worker in exhibit spaces and the great value of their experiences in research. As demonstrated by the Silk Throwers Company (1726), silk-throwers in London advocated for better compensation during a period of decline asking for a bill to stop the importation of foreign silks from Milan, Naples, Sicily, and the Mediterranean. ⁴² Those involved in textiles production in England were active agents before the Great Exhibition in 1851. Nick Fisher confirms, “working-class contributions to the literature of the Great Exhibition are so rare.” ⁴³ Examining visitor records, newspapers, letters, and diaries is a good starting point to bring diverse stories to the surface. ⁴⁴ This can be achieved in today’s climate where museums are greatly impacted by limited internal resources by building long-standing community partnerships and online digital initiatives, such as online transcription projects, to digitize related materials.

History of Use

Connecting an object to its maker and user can evoke an emotional response for the museum visitor. Lainie Schultz reflects on Stephen Greenblatt’s work on the emotional response prompted by objects on display: “[r]esonance makes the museum visitor wonder at the object’s context, to consider the bodies that touched it, the people who valued it, the desire that transferred it from maker to user to curator, or others. Wonder makes the visitor feel the object resonate within, to revel in the experience of not knowing while yearning for the intimacy of knowledge.” ⁴⁵ The crafting of objects, such as handkerchiefs, is also important as it reveals who made and consumed memorabilia. This knowledge of the maker heightens one’s interest and emotional response to an object. Museum staff, volunteers, and visitors should be encouraged to document how they interact with an object, maker, and story, and the emotions they felt during this process. This is an important step in moving away from objectivity deeply engrained in museums as institutions. The way this can be accomplished varies depending on audience. A few suggestions include: administrative notes in the collections management system, staff and community-led research sessions, and the development of educational resources that center the role of emotions in museums.

Museums can also aim to have high resolution images in online records where users can zoom in and out to examine details, such as maker marks and signatures. This is available for both handkerchiefs. A suggestion is for users to have the option to rotate the image and view all sides, so they can review the construction, materials, wear marks, and maker labels. This is currently not an option in the online records. There are some gaps in information when comparing the two record descriptions. Both handkerchiefs are identified as being made in 1851, but the artist/maker remains unknown. The records indicate that these handkerchiefs are plate-printed, and one can only assume both are made of silk as this is indicated in the handkerchief printed using black ink (T.91-1961) but missing from the record for the handkerchief printed using color ink (T.78-1918). ⁴⁶ There are marks and inscriptions in one of the handkerchief records (T.91-1961), “‘J. Turner’ [not clear] (Signature in the lower left of the main scene).” ⁴⁷ This appears to be the same signature in the handkerchief printed using color ink (T.78-1918). ⁴⁸ One possibility is that these are the initials of the artist, but further investigation is required. There is a note that the handkerchief printed in black ink (T.91-1961) was made in England, but this information is missing from the other record under place of origin, although English is used to describe the item in the brief description (T.78-1918). ⁴⁹ The V&A has posted relevant information elsewhere, such as on their blog. According to Dawn Hoskin:

The production of souvenir handkerchiefs can be traced to the 17th century, with designs including depictions of victories in battle, royal events, performers, maps and unusual events. These designs could help to satisfy patriotic sentiments or signify particular allegiances. . . . Supported by the increased market for handkerchiefs resulting from snuff-taking, by the second half of the 18th century handkerchiefs were among the most common commemorative items produced. The lack of construction required to produce the physical structure of a cotton handkerchief, meant that, depending on the intricacy of the design, once the printing blocks were prepared, production could be relatively brisk and economical. This allowed manufacturers to respond quickly to topical events. ⁵⁰

According to sub-section 4.3.2. Future collecting ambitions for Textiles in the Collections Development Policy include, “. . .acquir[ing] pieces of outstanding aesthetic quality, technical construction and/or important provenance, as well as items with complementary documentation that reveals design process or use.” ⁵¹ The inclusion of such information would support the V&A’s efforts to discuss provenance. There is an opportunity for museums and scholars to work together to locate and investigate primary and secondary sources that address interdisciplinary ties in their research in efforts to improve collections gaps.

Imagery

The choice of imagery on the handkerchiefs imposes a sense of authority, hierarchy, and elitism. The portraits of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria sit on either side of the Royal Coat of Arms above the image of the exhibitions and visitors. The motto “Dieu et mon droit” translates to “God and my right” and aligns the monarchy with divinity. There are also several animal motifs, which were popular long before the Victorian era. As noted in the V&A description of the exhibit Medieval Mythologies, which was produced as part of Opus Anglicanum: Masterpieces of English Medieval Embroidery (October 1, 2016 to February 5, 2017), they were a common component in English medieval embroidery: “[t]he lion was one of the most popular animal motifs in English embroidered textiles of this period. Symbolizing courage and vigilance, the lion was introduced into the English royal arms during the late 12th century.” ⁵² Although Jesse D. Chariton’s research focuses on the Hittite Empire, they make an important note: “[t]he double-headed eagle motif has been used as an emblem by countries, nations, and royal houses in Europe since the early medieval period.” ⁵³ A two-headed eagle with a crown appears in the top-right corner of both handkerchiefs.

One can speculate that the symbolism of the country flags around the boarder of the handkerchiefs is two-fold. One possibility is that the flags are symbolic of “British possession,” as places and objects are described in the Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of the Great Exhibition. ⁵⁴ British possession is also evident by the presence of multiple national flags, such as the flag of England and Union Jack. Secondly, multiple flags around the boarder could represent unity and prosperity amongst contributors during the rise of industrialism on a global scale through the lens of British loyalism.

This record does not indicate Prince Albert’s heavy involvement in the Great Exhibition, as noted in related online records, such as the summary provided for a paper peepshow of the Great Exhibition. According to the V&A, “The Great Exhibition in 1851 was the first international exhibition of manufactured products. Organised by Henry Cole [civil servant] and Prince Albert, it was held in the purpose-built Crystal Palace in Hyde Park in London. Many of the objects in the Exhibition were used as the first collection for the South Kensington Museum which opened 1857 and later became the Victoria and Albert Museum.” ⁵⁵ This is problematic as users may not be aware of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert’s support of this event.

Jenny Lister, Curator of Fashion and Textiles 1800–1900 at the V&A, confirmed that information regarding the handkerchiefs is sparce in the museum records. ⁵⁶ Although this is true, the registered description contains a more detailed description of the handkerchiefs imagery than what is found online. According to the V&A’s registered description of the handkerchief printed using color ink (T.78-1918), the handkerchief was received as a gift in 1918 and described as:

Handkerchief of cream-coloured silk, printed in colours with an interior view of the Great Exhibition of 1851. English: middle of 19^th century. Length = 2 ft 7 ins.; width = 2 ft. 9 ins.

The middle is filled with a large interior view in mauve of the nave of the Exhibition. At the top are the Royal Arms of England with the Prince of Wales’ crest, and medallion portraits on each side of Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort. At the bottom are the Civic Arms of Dublin, London, and Edinburgh with two allegorical medallions between. The upper corners have the American eagle and the double-headed eagle of Russia respectfully. The rest of the border is filled with trophies of the flags of many nations and cities (including Great Briton, France, Norway, Sweden, United States, London, Venice, etc.). ⁵⁷

The condition is described as “stained, cut and patched.” This is important as it may speak to its everyday use opposed to being kept for longevity or display by the owner(s). The general remarks reveal that the handkerchief was “[r]eceived made up into an Apron. Unstitched, rejoined and repaired in Art Work Room.” This information reveals how it was repurposed prior to the handkerchief entering the museum’s collections. Additional research is required to determine if the donor(s) was the original owner(s) of the handkerchief, if it was passed down generation-to-generation, or acquired through other means.

Regarding the handkerchief printed using black ink (T.91-1961), the handkerchief was “found in a book in the library and sent by the library staff to the Textiles collection. Unfortunately no record of the book it was found in was made in 1961.” ⁵⁸ This speaks to the importance of detailed documentation in collections management. If the ownership of the book becomes known, the museum may have the opportunity to trace the ownership of the handkerchief through ties in their collection and library. Lister suggested exploring the Intellectual property: registered designs 1839–1991 database at the National Archives for more information regarding handkerchiefs. ⁵⁹ Initial research has not led to records related to handkerchiefs from the Great Exhibition; although, there is a description for a registered design (no 292206) for a commemorative handkerchief: “[a] souvenir of the record reign of Queen Victoria 1897 [White handkerchief with main banner placed across the center of the top of the handkerchief, drawings, and five columns of drawings and text]. Drawings of: Present and Prospective Sovereigns: Queen Victoria, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Prince Edward of York” as well as children, grand-children, and great-grandchildren of Her Majesty, Prime Minister 1897, among others. ⁶⁰ This demonstrates that the practice of producing commemorative handkerchiefs to promote British sovereignty continued in the late nineteenth century. There is an opportunity for the V&A museum and library staff to meet and discuss potential ties between records, such as the handkerchiefs, to expand on the objects’ narratives.

Museum Education

Museums play an important role in education, and online collections are powerful learning tools. Museums should aim to grow connections and narratives in collections, which extends to digital objects. ⁶¹ The V&A offers images of related items under “You may also like” below each record with the option to shuffle the results, but the museum is not transparent regarding its algorithm for these results. The learning objectives in these two records are also unclear. As Amanda Maree Burritt alludes, this is problematic: “As with the effective use of digital technologies in learning and teaching, objects should be used when they add something to the process of learning that could not be otherwise achieved. The educator must be clear about the intended learning outcome and the reason for engaging with objects.” ⁶² There is an opportunity to direct visitors and educators to the V&A Learning Resources, including the textile and fashion resources for secondary school and college to demonstrate ties to curriculum and learning objectives. ⁶³ The link for the V&A Academy can be found under Learn on the V&A website. It is recommended that a statement be added to all object record pages directing educators and students to the Learn section.

Although there is a focus on Early Modern fashion in the existing learning resources, this can act as a good starting point for a user’s reflection on the design, manufacturing, and use of textiles. As many of the activities are anchored by self-guided visits, it is recommended that the V&A develop a virtual visit resource or adapt existing educational activities when resources allow to create more opportunities for museum visitors to participate virtually. Each record also offers a “suggest feedback” button, which directs users to a survey. Adding a field for educators to identify their classroom needs regarding curriculum outcomes and learning objectives would give the museum an opportunity to identify and respond to user needs and identifying potential gaps in existing educational materials. This tailored approach will also prove beneficial for staff grappling with limited resources and growing collections. In response to existing scholarship regarding the importance of enhancing educational opportunities and providing visitors with the opportunity to engage with their senses when learning about the history of objects in museums, the V&A could investigate adding an audio/video component to the records to allow for diverse perspectives to be shared regarding the object’s construction, materials, and symbolic imagery. ⁶⁴ Describing factors, such as weight and texture, and demonstrating how the object would have been used or displayed would also add to the visitor’s learning experience.

Conclusion

In order to act as a champion for museums worldwide, the Victoria and Albert Museum should clearly link their policies in their online collection records to improve transparency and revise the descriptions in existing records when resources permit. The V&A acknowledges the importance of addressing gaps and backlogs and draws attention to limited resources. ⁶⁵ As this policy review date is listed as June 2024 and it is unclear if this was the scheduled or completed review date, it would be beneficial to include details regarding the plan and their progress to improve transparency with the public. This will align their collection management approach with their mission, vision, and strategic objectives. ⁶⁶ Museums must move away from using an objective lens in online collections management and create space for diverse stories to emerge from museum records, which will benefit museum personnel, researchers, visitors, educators, and students. This study demonstrates how object-centered analysis can help identify and address gaps in a museum’s online collections, enhance learning resources, and bring focus to socio-cultural factors in object narratives, such as those surrounding the construction, distribution, and use of commemorative handkerchiefs at the 1851 Great Exhibition in London, England.